Back
G. JAYACHANDRAN
K. B. Sampath – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., against the judgment and conviction dated 26.11.2013 made in C.C.No.14 of 2008 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge for CBI Cases Relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai-1.)
1. On 18.03.2003, during the regular inspection conducted by Mr.K.Lakshmanan, Senior Manager, Indian Bank, Inspection Centre, Chennai, it was found that in Royapuram Branch, Trade advances under MDL, powers were not judiciously used. Head Quarters guidelines are not complied in about 16 loans. Out of 16 such irregular loans, 15 were sanctioned by N.K.Ravindran, Manager who assumed charge on 09.09.2002. For all these 15 irregular loan accounts, a consolidated report for each individual loan and an exclusive report for the respective loan was submitted by Mr.K.Lakshmanan to the Deputy General Manager, Indian Bank, Inspection Centre, Chennai. Crl.A.Nos.811 and 831 of 2013 and Crl.A.No.481 of 2014
2. As per the report, the loan sanctioned to M/s Best Computers on 12/11/2002 is one among the 15 lo
Prior sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act or Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not required for prosecuting a Manager of a Nationalised Bank for offences committed while....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sufficient evidence to prove dishonesty and overestimation of property value in cases of conspiracy to cheat a bank.
The court upheld that specific allegations of fraudulent conduct can sustain criminal charges against a property valuer providing inflated valuations to facilitate loan approvals.
The court has the power to shift and weigh the evidence at the stage of framing of charge to determine whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
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....
The validity of sanction for prosecution is crucial, requiring the sanctioning authority to independently assess allegations and evidence, failing which proceedings are deemed null.
The conduct of the appellants constituted a criminal conspiracy and cheating, supported by substantial evidence of fraudulent loan disbursement and failure to comply with banking regulations.
A lack of prima facie evidence for conspiracy negates the framing of criminal charges against a bank valuer who submitted inflated property valuations.
The case establishes that bank officials can be charged with conspiracy and cheating for failing to adhere to loan granting procedures, leading to significant financial losses to the institution.
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
