Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. Karthikeyan, J.
T.S. Sundaram & Others – Petitioner
Versus
State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Organised Crime Unit (Chennai City), CBCID, Chennai
Crl.A. Nos. 289, 296 & 323 of 2010
Decided On : 02-11-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374 (2) and 207 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-B 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B (A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-9) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(d)(ii), 120-B (A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-9), 467, 468 & 471 (A-1, A-2, A-3), 467, 468 and 471 and 120-B (A-1 to A-9), 420 (A-1 to A-3), 419 (A-3), 419 - Property - Mortgage Security for Loan - False and Forged Document - Cheated Bank - Whether A-4 had prior knowledge that A-3 S.Jayaseelan was falsely masquerading as another individual, S.P.Dayanidhi - Whether at that particular point of time, A-4 knew that A-3, who projected himself as Dayanidhi was not actually Dayanidhi – Held, While seeking loan for purchase of four old buses, A-3, quite apart from introducing himself as S.P.Dayanidhi also produced title documents in name of S.P.Dayanidhi - He also placed said title deed as security for loan to be advanced to A-1 and A-2 - On basis of these documents and other related documents executed by parties, A-4 sent a proposal for sanction of loan to Head Office - There is no evidence produced by prosecution to show that A-4, at time when A-1, A-2 and A-3 were introduced to him by A-5, knew that A-3 was not S.P.Dayanidhi - In view of absence of evidence on this particular point, processing of papers given by A-1, A-2 and A-3 was done as is normally done by any Branch Manager - It is similar to legal opinion given, which was also based on a forged document - PW-31, Investigating Officer admitted that he did not make any preliminary enquiry with A-4, who was a public servant - Above evidence very clearly establishes that A-4 cannot be held to be guilty of charges levelled against him - He had only forwarded papers given by A-1, A-2, and A-3 and loan was sanctioned by PW-7 - At time of incident, he was General Manager in Head Office of Bank - He had sanctioned loan - He had deposed evidence on behalf of prosecution - Evidence of PW-31 however shows that there is no direct proof, even according to Investigating Officer with respect to role of A-4 in preparing forged document or that he had knowledge that A-3 was actually Jayaseelan and not Dayanithi - A3 and A7 are found guilty for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 419, 419 read with 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 471 read with 120-B IPC - Sentences already imposed by Trial Court are confirmed - Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 26.04.2010 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in C.C.No. 21 of 2004 convicting the appellant for offences under Section 120-B, 419 read with 120-B, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 120-B IPC, to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 419 read with 120-B IPC, to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. No sentence was imposed on the appellant for the offences under Section 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B of the IPC. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The appellant has not paid the fine.
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 26.04.2010 made in C.C.No. 21 of 2004 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. The Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused to undergo 6 months R.I., and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default 3 months simple imprisonment for the offences under Section 120-B of IPC, to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default 3 months simple imprisonment for the offences under Section 419 read with 120-B of IPC and he sentence to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default 3 months simple imprisonment for the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with 120-B of IPC and the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 26.04.2010 passed in C.C.No. 21 of 2004 by the Court of Sessions at Chennai, IV Additional Sessions Judge.)
1. All the above Criminal Appeals arise out of the Judgment dated 26.04.2010 in C.C.No. 21 of 2004 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police, CBCID Metro Wing, Chennai, had registered a First Information Report in Crime No. 6/AC/2002/CC under Sections 120-B read with 419, 420, 464, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against (i) Viswambaran; (ii) Shanthi Vishwambaran @ Shanthi & (iii) S.P.Dayanidhi on a complaint given by T.S.Sundaram, Manager, REPCO Bank, T.Nagar, Chennai, on 10.10.2002. The First Information Report had been marked during the course of trial as Ex. P-149.
3. In the complaint, it had been stated by the complainant T.S.Sundaram that when he was working as Branch Manager at Pallavaram Branch, S.Viswambaram, Properitor of Viswahanthi Travels and his wife Shanthi Viswambaram, had applied for loan of Rs.25/- lakhs for purchase of second hand buses. S.P.Dayanidhi stood as guarantor. He claimed that they were introduced to him by P.V.Krishna Prasad, internal auditor of the Branch. S.P.Dayanidhi offered his property at Plot No. 2860, Door No.6, Y.Block, III Street, 4th Main Road, Annanagar Chennai, as security to create mortgage. They signed the loan application on 26.04.2000. They also gave the Xerox copies of the title deeds of the document. The bank obtained legal opinion on the title deed. S.P.Dayanidhi also gave affidavits dated 03.04.2000 and 25.04.2000. The original sale deed of the property bearing Document No. 1750 of 1993 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar, on 15.11.1993 by Tamil Nadu Housing Board in favour of S.P.Dayanidhi was also produced. The loan was sanctioned by the Head Office by letter of sanction dated 18.05.2000. S.P.Dayanidhi also created mortgage by deposit of title deeds. He also filed an affidavit declaring that the property had been offered as mo
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
