IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
L. Thiruvengada Murthy - Petitioner
Versus
CBI, Special Crimes Branch, Chennai - Respondent
Crl. OP. Nos. 5107 & 5084 of 2019
Decided On : 23-04-2019
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 12 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 476 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 197 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) and 19(2) - Criminal conspiracy - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Forgery of valuable security, forgery for purpose of cheating - Using as genuine forged document - Counterfeiting device or mark used for authenticating documents and abuse of official position - Quash proceedings - Petitioner and his colleagues and other accused persons are that they entered into a criminal conspiracy and other places and that in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, they to cheat Dena Bank, George Town branch and Aminjikarai Branch, (1) availed a housing loan of Rs.23.93 lakhs, during for purported purchase of a house at Velachery, by furnishing forged and fabricated documents from George Town Branch of Dena Bank - Submitting forged and fabricated documents from Branch of Dena Bank and (5) got one more housing loan and by submitting forged fabricated documents from Branch of Dena Bank during 2005 and got loan amount credited into the accounts opened in name by impersonating as purported vendors of properties – Held, date of taking cognizance of the offence and office which the accused held, are relevant for determining necessity of sanction - It was further held that if on that date of taking cognizance, accused ceased to hold Office, which he had held as Public Servant at the time of commission of offence, sanction is not required to be obtained for his prosecution even if he thereafter continued to be a Public Servant in a different capacity/ office - Petitioner was dismissed from service and as on date of taking cognizance of offence, he was no longer a Public Servant, entitled to requirement of previous sanction necessary for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and thereby, the grounds raised by learned counsel for Petitioner, for quashing impugned proceedings, cannot be sustained. Since it has been stated that the trial is at the stage of fag end, Trial Court is directed to accord priority to case - It is needless to say that since this petition has been disposed of only with regard to question of requirement and necessity of sanction, it is open to Petitioner to challenge the Prosecution on other defences available during trial - Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.
1. These Criminal Original Petition have been filed, under Section 482 of Cr.PC, to quash the proceedings in CC.Nos.4 and 5 of 2011, dated 13.01.2011, filed against the Petitioner, arraying him as A3 and A4, respectively, for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 476 of IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the file of the Principal Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai, respectively.
2. The Petitioner in Crl.OP.No.5107 of 2019, who is arrayed as A3 in CC.No.4 of 2019 and the Petitioner in Crl.OP.No.5084 of 2019, who is arrayed as A4 in CC.No.5 of 2019, are one and the same person.
3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that based on the written complaint, dated 27.11.2009, received from the Assistant General Manager, by name, B. Rathana Kumar, Dena Bank, Regional Office, No.32, Venaktesan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17, the Petitioner and other accused persons were charge sheeted in CC.Nos.4 and 5 of 2011, dated 13.01.2011, for the offences under Sections 120B of IPC read with 420, 467, 468, 471 and 476 of IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. The allegations against the Petitioner and his colleagues and other accused persons are that they entered into a criminal conspiracy at Chennai and other places and that in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, they, to cheat the Dena Bank, George Town branch and Aminjikarai Branch, Chennai, (1) availed a housing loan of Rs.23.93 lakhs, during 2004 for purported purchase of a house at Velachery, Chennai, by furnishing forged and fabricated documents from George Town Branch of Dena Bank, (2) got sanctioned a working loan to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs by way of cash credit and LC for Rs.5 lakhs in the name of M/s.Royal Imports (Proprietor Goutham Jain) during 2004, by making to appear that his uncle Mutha Bhawarlal (who had died on 12.8.1999) as one of the Applicant and guarantor, (3) availed a mortgage loan for Rs.9 lakhs in the name of Bhawari Devi and Goutham Jain during 2005, by submitting forged and fabricated documents from Aminjikkarai Branch of Dena Bank, (4) got one more mortgage loan for Rs.7 lakhs, during 2005 in the name of Mutha Bhawarial (who had expired on 12.8.1999) and Goutham Jain, by submitting forged and fabricated documents from Aminjikarai Branch of Dena Bank and (5) got one more housing loan in the name of Goutham Jain, Seema Jain, Shantilal Jain and Bhawari Devi, by submitting forged fabricated documents from Aminjikarai Branch of Dena Bank during 2005 and got the loan amount credited into the accounts opened in the name of Goutham Jain, by impersonating as purported vendors of properties. The aforesaid facts disclose that the Petitioner and the other accused persons have committed the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine forged document, counterfeiting device or mark used for authenticating documents and abuse of official position by Public Servants.
5. As stated above, the Petitioner and other accused persons, pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, to cheat the Dena Bank, George Town Branch and Aminjikarai Branch, Chennai, had availed five loans. Since the first two loans were availed from the George Town Branch during 2004, whereas the remaining three loans were availed from Aminjikarai Branch, during 2005 and as the both the Branches are different and five loans were availed during the period of more than 12 months of time, two separate charge sheets have been filed against the Petitioner, arraying him as A3 in CC.No.4 of 2019 and arraying him as A4 in CC.No.5 of 2019, for the offences under Sections 120B of IPC read with 420, 467, 468, 471 and 476 of IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is against these charge sheets that these Crimi
Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka
R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
Raghunath Anant Govilkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Anjani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Vs. State of Gujarat
Amal Kumar Jha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Bhushan Chander and another
Parkash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab
L. Narayana Swamy Vs. State of Karnataka
Mohd. Hadi Raja Vs. State of Bihar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.