Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 438
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
M. Ramasamy & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, SPE, CBI, ACB, Chennai - Respondent
Crl.A.Nos. 137, 33 & 68 of 2013 & Crl.A.No. 895 of 2012
Decided on : 01-03-2019
For the Appellants :K. Shanmugakani, V. Kannadasan, V.S. Venkatesh, AR.L.. Sundaresan, A.L. Gandhimathi, Advocates.
For the Respondent: K. Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Sections 120(B) r/w 420, 477(A) - P.C. Act 1988 - Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) - Undergo simple imprisonment - Conviction and sentence - Inspector of Police, SPE, CBI, ACB laid charge sheet against the A1, A2, A3 @ A4, A5, alleging as follows: A1 was a public servant, working as Senior Manager, Indian Overseas Bank TS Branch for the period - A2 was the proprietor of RSV constructions, having cash credit account with Indian Overseas bank, TS Branch and was sanctioned with CC limit of Rs.4 lakhs. A2 died during the course of trial and the charge against him stands abated - A3 was holding savings bank accounts bearing numbers 5638 and 11325 with IOB TS branch - He had deposits 11 to 15/97 branch which were taken as lien for his letter of guarantee facility extended at Indian Overseas Bank TS Branch - He also has deposits at IOB, JSC Extension counter – Held, findings recorded by the trial Court is not in accordance with law and the materials placed on record and illegality has been committed by the trial Court and there is perverse or capricious view taken by the trial Court in coming to such conclusion. Under the circumstances, Court opinion prosecution has failed to prove all charges leveled against appellants beyond all reasonable doubts - Respondent CBI filed various exhibits which are no way connected with the alleged check period mentioned in the final report. Hence findings of guilt against the appellants/accused cannot be sustained - Criminal appeals are allowed
1. These criminal appeals were preferred by the appellants/accused A1 and A3 to A5 against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, CBI cases, Chennai in C.C.No.12 of 2004, wherein the learned trial judge sentenced the appellants/accused to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offences under sections 120(B) r/w 420, 477(A) of IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act 1988 and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
2. A1, A3, A4 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
3. A5 is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.26,00,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
4. A1 is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 477-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
5. A1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of P.C Act 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months
6. The appellant/accused A3 filed separate criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.895 of 2012 against the conviction and sentence.
7. The appellant/accused A4 filed separate criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.137 of 2013 against the conviction and sentence.
8. The appellant/accused A1 filed separate criminal appeal in Crl.A.No. 68 of 2013 against the conviction and sentence imposed against him.
9. The appellant/accused A5 filed separate criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.33 of 2013 against the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.12 of 2004.
10. Brief case of the appellants/accused is that:
The Inspector of Police, SPE, CBI, ACB, Chennai laid the charge sheet against the A1 E.Kalayansdunaram, A2 R.Vadivel, A3 AM.Manickam @ Mu.Manickam, A4 M.Ramasamy and A5 Smt.V.Suganya Devi, alleging as follows:
A1 was a public servant, working as Senior Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Neyveli TS Branch for the period from 14.11.996 to 7.1.2002.
A2 was the proprietor of RSV constructions, having cash credit account No.50658 with Indian Overseas bank, Neyveli TS Branch and was sanctioned with CC limit of Rs.4 lakhs. A2 died during the course of trial and the charge against him stands abated.
A3 was holding savings bank accounts bearing numbers 5638 and 11325 with IOB Neyveli TS branch. He had deposits 11 to 15/97 at Aladi branch which were taken as lien for his letter of guarantee facility extended at Indian Overseas Bank, Neyveli TS Branch. He also has deposits 26/99 to 28/99 at IOB, JSC Extension counter, Neyveli.
A4 had a CC account No.50697 with IOB Neyveli TS Branch and had CC limit of Rs.1.8 Lakhs. A5 is the wife of A2 (now dead) and she had withdrawn cash from the CC account of RSV constructions.
11. While so, A1 during the period from 1996 to 2002 entered into criminal conspiracy with A2 to A5 to do an illegal act, viz, to cheat Indian Overseas bank, Neyveli Township Branch and in pursuance of the said conspiracy. A1 by abusing and misusing his official position as Senior Manager had illegally allowed excess withdrawal from the CC account of RSV constructions without obtaining necessary permission from the IOB ,Regional office, Pondicherry and continued to allow excess inspite of repeated letters and reminders from the regional officer advising him to stop the practice of allowing excess in the CC account of RSV constructions without proper approval. Due to such excess withdrawal, the CC account of RSV constructions had become a Non Performing Asset and the outstanding amount of December 2000 went upto Rs.29,00,000/-.
12. The above acts of A1
