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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2030

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
V. Arul Kumar & Another – Appellants
Versus
State The Inspector of Police, Chennai, & Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 569 & 586 of 2013
Decided On : 10-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:S. Shunmuga Velayutham, Senior Counsel for T. Vijayaraghavan, G. Ravi Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: K. Srinivasan, Senior Counsel, Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I).

To punish under Section 420 of I.P.C. Mens rea is necessary and without proof of mens rea, conviction under Section 420 of I.P.C cannot be sustained.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - CONSPIRACY TO CHEAT - ABUSE OF OFFICIAL POSITION - WRONGFUL LOSS - WRONGFUL GAIN - SECTION 120-B R/W 420 IPC AND SECTION 13(2) R/W 13(1)(D) OF PC ACT, 1988 - SECTION 420 IPC - SECTION 13(2) R/W 13(1)(D) OF PC ACT, 1988 - SECTION 120-B R/W 420 IPC AND SECTION 13(2) R/W 13(1)(D) OF PC ACT, 1988 - SECTION 420 IPC - SECTION 13(2) R/W 13(1)(D) OF PC ACT, 1988.

Fact of the Case:

HUDCO sanctioned a loan of Rs.17.30 crores to M/s.Arihant Foundations & Housing Ltd (AFHL) for the construction of “Arihant Majestic Towers” at Koyambedu, Chennai. AFHL did not comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement and sold the flats without getting NOC from HUDCO. The Regional Chief of HUDCO, V. Arul Kumar, is accused of conspiring with AFHL to cheat HUDCO and abusing his official position to obtain pecuniary advantage. AFHL is accused of cheating HUDCO to a tune of Rs.11,87,44,600/-.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court convicted V. Arul Kumar under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988, and sentenced him to one year of imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The trial court also convicted AFHL under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988, and imposed a fine of Rs.1000/-. The trial court also convicted AFHL under Section 420 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.1000/-.

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in appreciating the evidence requires interference?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court did not err in appreciating the evidence. The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that V. Arul Kumar and AFHL had conspired to cheat HUDCO and that V. Arul Kumar had abused his official position to obtain pecuniary advantage. The court also found that AFHL had cheated HUDCO to a tune of Rs.11,87,44,600/-.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by V. Arul Kumar and AFHL and confirmed the judgment of the trial court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in Crl.A.No.569 of 2013: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 r/w 386 of Cr.P.C., pleased to admit this Criminal Appeal on file, call for the records in C.C.No.15 of 2006 on the file of the Honourable XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, [CBI Cases Relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai – 1], set aside the finding and sentence passed in the said case, acquit this appellant of the charges from the said case.

in Crl.A.No.586 of 2013: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 r/w 386 of Cr.P.C., pleased to set aside the conviction and sentence of fine Rs.2000/- imposed by the Honourable XI Additional City Civil and Session Judge (CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions), Chennai – 1 in C.C.No.15 of 2006, dated 30.07.2013 and acquit the appellant Company of the charges from the above said case.)

Common judgment:

1. Based on the source information received in the office of Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai, the Inspector of Police Mr.S.B.Sankar was instructed by the Superintendent of Police to register the case. Accordingly, on 29.10.2003 Sankar in R.C.No.48(A)/2003/CBI/ACB/ Chennai, under Section 120-B r/w 420 of I.P.C, 420 I.P.C, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988 against Shri.V.Arul Kumar, Regional Chief, HUDCO, Chennai and M/s.Arihant Foundations & Housing Ltd., Chennai. Search of the residential premises of Mr.V.Arul Kumar, Shri.Navarathan Lunavat, Managing Director of M/s.Arihant Foundations & Housing Ltd., Chennai and others were conducted. After completion of investigation final report was filed.

2. The gist of the final report:-

A1-V.Arul Kumar, the then Regional Chief, Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO), Chennai, entered into a criminal conspiracy with A-2 Company M/s.Arihant Foundations & Housing Ltd (AFHL) represented by Navaratan Lunavat (deceased) between 1997 and 2003, to cheat the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO) in the matter of loan sanctioned in favour of A2 Company in a fraudulent manner by abusing and misusing the official position and by corrupt and illegal means by Al and in pursuant to which A2 submitted an application on 13.8.1997 to HUDCO, for a loan assistance of Rs.17 Crores, for the construction of “Arihant Majestic Towers” at Koyambedu, Chennai. The HUDCO had agreed in principal to clear the loan proposal on conditions. One among the condition is that, A2 has to open an escrow account with lien in favour of HUDCO. Thereafter the HUDCO had sanctioned a loan of Rs.17.30 crores and an agreement to this effect was entered into between the HUDCO and A2 represented by Navaratan Lunavat (since deceased on 16.10.1997) and a total of Rs.16.50 crores was disbursed. A2 Company not complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement even after rescheduling, the payment of instalment contrarily it went on selling the flats without getting NOC from HUDCO and instead of depositing the sale proceeds into the escrow account, A2 had deposited it into their accounts maintained with other banks. A-l inspite of the specific instructions from Head Office, HUDCO, to file a suit before DRT, sent a draft resolution package falsely projecting the payment by A2. Further, Al had sent a draft resolution vide letter dated 25.11.2002 for restructuring the loan recommending outstanding loan to be treated as fresh loan with additional repayment period for 3 years. Al misusing his official position wrote letters dated 27.02.2003, 30.05.2003 and 02.8.2003 had sought for restructuring of packages instead of taking legal action as suggested by the Head Office. As a consequence, A2 dishonestly and fraudulently, without obtaining NOC sold the flats and failed to deposit the proceeds into the escrow account at HUDCO. Further, A2 failed to create lien of the escrow account. Out of Rs.40,31,48,250/- realized

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