SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Mad) 355

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Malaichamy & Others - Appellant
Versus
State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch Chennai & Another - Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 30512 of 2019 & Crl.M.P. Nos. 15722 & 15723 & Crl.R.C. No. 1184 of 2019
Decided On : 05-06-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel, V. Krishnakumar, E. Raj Thilak, Advocates. For the Respondents: K. Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor.

The main legal point established is the importance of proper scrutiny of loan documents, monitoring loan utilization, and verification of security in cases involving criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery.

Headnote:

Criminal Conspiracy - Quashing of Proceedings - IPC 120-B, 420, 468, 471, Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - The court discussed the offences under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the elements of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery. The court highlighted the importance of scrutinizing loan documents, monitoring loan utilization, and the need for proper verification of security. The court found prima facie evidence to proceed with the trial, dismissing the petitions and permitting the accused to raise their contentions during trial.

Fact of the Case:

The accused were facing trial for criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused, including bank officials and private individuals, were alleged to have conspired to obtain and misuse loans, causing wrongful loss to the bank.

Finding of the Court:

The court found prima facie evidence to proceed with the trial, emphasizing the importance of proper scrutiny of loan documents, monitoring loan utilization, and verification of security. The court dismissed the petitions and permitted the accused to raise their contentions during trial.

Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery, emphasizing the scrutiny of loan documents, loan utilization, and verification of security.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proper scrutiny of loan documents, monitoring loan utilization, and verification of security. The court found prima facie evidence to proceed with the trial, dismissing the petitions and permitting the accused to raise their contentions during trial.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, permitting the accused to raise their contentions during trial and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.30512 of 2019: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records pertaining to C.C.No.15 of 2016 pending before the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, quash the same as against the petitioners.

Crl.R.C.No.1184 of 2019: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in CC.No.15 of 2016 on the file of the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases and set aside the order dated 03.10.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.2994 of 2018.)

Common Order

1. Criminal Original Petition is filed by the Petitioners/A2 to A5, praying to quash entire proceedings in C.C.No.15 of 2016. The Criminal Revision is filed by the Petitioner/A1 praying to call for records in C.C.No.15 of 2016, on the file of the XI Additional Special Court for CBI Cases and set aside the order dated 03.10.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.2994 of 2018. The petitioners are facing trial for the offence under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. For the sake of clarity, the petitioners are referred as, according to their ranks, as mentioned in the charge.

3. The petitioners are A2 to A5 and A1 respectively in Criminal Original Petition and Criminal Revision Case. Since the grounds raised by them are similar, both the petitions are taken up together for final disposal and disposed by way of a Common Order.

4. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

(i) On the basis of a written complaint given by one R.Kumaresan, Chief Vigilance Officer, Repco Bank, Head Office, Chennai, alleging that A1/M.Palani, while working as Head of Branch at Pallavaram and T.Nagar Branches of REPCO Bank, during the period 2008 to 2013, entered into a criminal conspiracy with A2/A.Malaisamy and unknown others, in pursuance of conspiracy A1/M.Palani, by abusing his official position knowingly obtained forged documents from A2/A.Malaisamy, appraised and recommended the loan proposals of A2 and forwarded them to Head office of Repco bank for sanction. Based on the favourable recommendations made by A1/M.Palani, Repco Bank Head office sanctioned many secured Loans to A2/A.Malaisamy. A2/M.Malaisamy did not repay the loans within the stipulated time and thus cheated the Bank and caused wrongful loss to Repco Bank to the extent of Rs.4.53 Crores and made corresponding wrongful gain. A1 to A5 entered into a criminal conspiracy, cheated the Repco Bank by availing credit facilities like Secured Loans and Cash Credit limit by dishonestly making false representations about their business, financial status, individual net worth etc., A1 by abusing official position caused wrongful loss to the Repco Bank.

5. Mr.V.Krishna Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners/A2 to A5 in Crl.O.P.No.30512 of 2019 submitted that the petitioners/A2 to A5 are private individuals. A1 is the Branch Manager of REPCO Bank. A2 is doing business real estate business and whole sale business of electronic goods; A3 is the wife of A2; A4 is the sister of A2 and A5 is the brother of A2. Further, there is no loss to the Bank as stated in the charge sheet and it is vindictive approach being followed by the Bank officials to settle scores with A1 and A2 for different issues, in the cross fire A3, A4 and A5 were put to hardship for no fault of theirs.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the charge sheet, the loans availed by A2 from the Pallavaram Branch of the Bank is Rs.265 Lakhs. For the said loan, three properties were given as security, which are (i) For SDL No.644, as seen in LD4, where a land measuring 9 grounds actual possession of 7 grounds as per the documents in S.No.1088/2A3, Madhavaram. This property is jointly owned by A2 and A3 and is worth Rs.5,21,15,000/- (ii) The sec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top