HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
K. Neelakandan @ Neelu & Others - Appellants
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Chennai & Others - Respondents
Crl. A. Nos. 656, 678, 684, 685 of 2013 & 1 of 2014
Decided On : 30-03-2023
Forgery - Financial Fraud - IPC 120(b), 420, 468, 471 - The court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence in the case. The accused had repaid the dues to the bank, and the prosecution failed to prove the forgery and cheating charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court considered the expressed intention of the complainant to withdraw the complaint and the repayment of the dues by the accused. The judgment of conviction and sentence were set aside, and any fine amount was ordered to be refunded. Bail bond was cancelled.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a criminal complaint registered against several individuals for offences under Sections 120(b) r/w 420, 468, 471 of IPC relating to financial fraud in availing credit facilities from a bank. The accused had repaid the entire loan amount, and the bank had expressed its intention to withdraw the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had repaid the dues to the bank and that the prosecution failed to prove the forgery and cheating charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered the expressed intention of the complainant to withdraw the complaint.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the repayment of the loan amount by the accused, the intention of the complainant to withdraw the complaint, and the failure of the prosecution to prove the forgery and cheating charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the repayment of the dues by the accused and the expressed intention of the complainant to withdraw the complaint. It also noted that the prosecution failed to prove the forgery and cheating charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, ordered the refund of any fine amount, and cancelled the bail bond.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the sentence and conviction order dated 30.08.2013 passed in CC.No.225 of 1997 by the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the sentence and conviction imposed upon the appellant by judgment dated 30.08.2013 of the learned XI Additional Special Judge (CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions), Chennai in CC.No.225 of 1997 on his file and acquit him of all the offences with which he stood charged.
Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 374, 380 and 401of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records pertaining to CC.No.225 of 1997 on the file of the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases relating to banks and financial institutions, Chennai- 600001 and allow this appeal preferred by the appellants and set aside the order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI cases relating to banks and financial institutions, Chennai 600 001 in CC.No.225 of 1997 and direct refund of the find amount of Rs.8,000/- paid by the appellants and discharge the sureties executed for suspension of sentence.
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records pertaining to CC.No.35 of 2013 on the file of the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases relating to banks and financial institutions, Chennai-600001 and allow this appeal preferred by the appellant and set aside the order dated 03.09.2013 passed by the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI cases relating to banks and financial institutions, Chennai 600 001 in CC.No.35 of 2013 and direct refund of the find amount of Rs.4,000/- paid by the appellant and discharge the sureties executed for suspension of sentence.
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in CC.No.33 of 2013 (which was split from CC.No.225 of 1997) on the file of the learned XI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and to set aside the sentence and conviction imposed on the appellant dated 28.11.2013.)
Common Judgment:
1. These criminal appeals filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. are directed against the judgment passed by the XI Assistant City Civil and Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in CC.No.225 of 1997 which is a case split up as against D.K.Mukerjee who is one of the absconding accused and later secured and tried along with the main case and CC.No.33 of 2013 which is also a split up case against V.P.Ragavendra Rao, who was secured after abscondence.
2. Based on a written complaint dated 04.01.1994 given by Mr.P.Gopalakrishnan, the Chief Vigilance Officer of Indian Bank, a criminal complaint was registered by Deputy Superintendent of Police in RC.Nos.1(S) and 2(S), CBI/SCB/Chennai for offences under Sections 120(b) r/w 420, 468, 471 of IPC against M/s.Austral Plastics Private Limited, A.V.Krushnun and V.Subramaniam and taken up for investigation.
3. According to the complaint given by Gopalakrishnan, fraudulent transaction in the account of M/s.Plastimar Products by V.Subramaniam, A.V.Krushnan and others been found and brought to the notice of the Superintendent of Police (CBI) for investigation. In the complaint, it is stated that M/s.Plastimar Product Private Limited, a company incorporated on 27.05.1982 under the Companies Act changed the name of the entity as ''M/s.Austral Plastics Private Limited'' on 27.08.1983. As per the memorandum of association of M/s.Austral Plastics Private Limited, one Sri.A.V.Krushnun and Sri.V.Subramaniam and Sri.K.Ramasubramaniam are subscribers to the concern. On and after 27.08.1983, “M/s.Plastimar Products Private Limited” ceased to exist. While so, on 18.05.1991, V.Subramaniam opened curr
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the offences of conspiracy and forgery against the appellants, with mere suspicion not serving as a substitute for valid evidence.
Point of law: Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations....
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of forgery and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt due to irregularities in evidence collection.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases predominantly civil in nature, where the accused have settled the dues with the bank, and there is no evidence of forgery or cheating....
The court affirmed that individuals involved in facilitating loans under fraudulent circumstances can be held accountable, reflecting the principle of personal culpability in conspiracy and fraud off....
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.