Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
Johan Fernando and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
The State, Rep by Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/EOW/Chennai - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD)Nos.565 of 2006, 580 of 2006 and 160 of 2017
Decided on : 23-03-2018
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13 – Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120-B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468 r/w 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 207, 313 – Acquittal – On the complaint dated 09.04.2002, [EX-P1], given by J.S.Vasan [PW-1], the Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Madurai, the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case in Crime for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468 r/w 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 r/w 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against seven accused and after completing the investigation, S.Syed Bazulla, Inspector of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai, [PW-63], filed a final report on 02.07.2003, before the Special Court for CBI Cases, Madurai, against Niyas Khan @ Abdul Razzaq, [A-1 - absconding], Raaj Kafur @ Mohammed Asmath [A-2 - absconding], John Fernando [A-3], J.Sharmila, [A-4], W/o.John Fernando [A-3], S.Arumugam [A-5], A.Sundar Singh [A-6] and T.Mohan [A-7] for the aforesaid offences – Held, Mere acquaintance of Arumugam [A-4], who is, admittedly, a Loan Officer in the bank, with John Fernando [A-2], who had borrowed money from the bank and had not repaid the amount, cannot lead to the conclusion about the complicity of Arumugam [A-4] in the offence – Hence, this Court is of the view that the evidence against Arumugam [A-4] is insufficient to fasten criminal liability. – Counsel appearing for the second accused, at this juncture, submitted that John Fernando [A-2] had undergone 11/2 years of imprisonment earlier and therefore, leniency may be shown to him – In the opinion of this Court, no leniency can be shown to him, as the evidence on record clearly shows that he had actively participated in the offence with Mohammed Asmath [A-1] and had irresponsibly put his pregnant wife - Sharmila [A-3] in peril. – Order Accordingly
1. On the complaint dated 09.04.2002, [EX-P1], given by J.S.Vasan [PW-1], the Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Madurai, the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case in Crime No.RC.1/E/2002, CBI/EOW, on 19.04.2002, vide printed FIR [EX-P243], for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468 r/w 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 r/w 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against seven accused and after completing the investigation, S.Syed Bazulla, Inspector of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai, [PW-63], filed a final report on 02.07.2003, before the Special Court for CBI Cases, Madurai, against Niyas Khan @ Abdul Razzaq, [A-1 - absconding], Raaj Kafur @ Mohammed Asmath [A-2 - absconding], John Fernando [A-3], J.Sharmila, [A-4], W/o.John Fernando [A-3], S.Arumugam [A-5], A.Sundar Singh [A-6] and T.Mohan [A-7] for the aforesaid offences.
2. After the final report was filed, Raaj Kafur @ Mohammed Asmath [A-2 - absconding] was arrested by the CBI and apart from this case, there is yet another case of similar nature against him. The case against Niyas Khan @ Abdul Razzaq, [absconding accused - A-1] was split up, on account of which, there is a change in the array of the accused, namely, Mohammed Asmath [A-1], John Fernando [A-2], J.Sharmila [A-3], S.Arumugam [A-4], S.Sundar Singh [A-5] and T.Mohan [A-6] and charges for the aforesaid offences were framed by the Special Court for CBI Cases, Madurai and the case was taken up as C.C.No.9 of 2003.
3. On the appearance of the accused, they were furnished with the copies of the relied upon documents under Section 207 Cr.PC., and the trial Court framed eight charges against them for the aforesaid offences and when questioned, they pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 63 witnesses and marked 259 exhibits. When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them under Section 313 Cr.PC., they denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no witness was examined, but, EX-D1 to EX-D15 were marked.
4. After analyzing the evidences on record, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused Nos.5 and 6 of all charges, however, convicted the accused Nos.1 to 4 and sentenced them as detailed below:-
| Rank of Accused | Section of Law | Sentence of imprisonment | Fine amount |
| 1. | 120-B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 511 IPC and Section 13[2] r/w 13[1][d] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 420 IPC 420 r/w 511 IPC 467 IPC 468 IPC 471 r/w 465 IPC 419 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. | Rs.5,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rs.5,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rs.5,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rs.5,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rs.5,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rs.5,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rs.5,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months |
| 2. | 120-B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 511 IPC and Section 13[2] r/w 13[1][d] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 420 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. | Rs.5,00,000/- in default to |
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
