IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
K.B. Sampath & Others – Appellants
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Chennai – Respondent
Crl.A. No. 814, 832 & 838 of 2013
Decided On : 31-07-2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTION 13(2) R/W 13(1)(D) - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTIONS 120-B R/W 420, 467, 468, 471 R/W 467 & 468 - BANK LOAN FRAUD - CONSPIRACY - CHEATING - FABRICATION OF DOCUMENTS - USE OF FALSE DOCUMENTS AS GENUINE - VALUATION REPORT - PRIOR SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - PUBLIC SERVANT - MANAGER OF NATIONALISED BANK - WHETHER PRIOR SANCTION REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 19 OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 OR SECTION 197 CR.P.C. - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a bank loan fraud where the accused, including a bank manager, a valuer, and a guarantor, conspired to cheat the bank by submitting false and fabricated documents to obtain a loan. The accused manager sanctioned the loan without conducting proper verification and allowed the borrower to withdraw the loan amount for purchase of bank pay orders favouring third parties for almost equal to the loan amount. The loan account subsequently became inoperative, causing a loss to the bank.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had conspired to cheat the bank by submitting false and fabricated documents, including invalid TNGST and CST certificates, forged encumbrance certificates, forged death certificates, and a forged valuation report. The court also found that the bank manager had abused his official position by sanctioning the loan without conducting proper verification and without adhering to the instructions given by the panel advocate. The court further held that the accused valuer had dishonestly prepared a false valuation report without visiting the property and that the guarantor had stood guarantee for the loan with the intention to cheat the bank.
Issues: 1. Whether prior sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required for prosecuting the bank manager, who was a public servant. 2. Whether the accused had conspired to cheat the bank by submitting false and fabricated documents. 3. Whether the bank manager had abused his official position by sanctioning the loan without conducting proper verification and without adhering to the instructions given by the panel advocate. 4. Whether the accused valuer had dishonestly prepared a false valuation report without visiting the property. 5. Whether the guarantor had stood guarantee for the loan with the intention to cheat the bank.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that prior sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not required for prosecuting the bank manager, who was a public servant, as he was not employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or State and did not fall under the definition of 'public servant' under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The court found that the accused had conspired to cheat the bank by submitting false and fabricated documents, including invalid TNGST and CST certificates, forged encumbrance certificates, forged death certificates, and a forged valuation report. 3. The court held that the bank manager had abused his official position by sanctioning the loan without conducting proper verification and without adhering to the instructions given by the panel advocate. 4. The court found that the accused valuer had dishonestly prepared a false valuation report without visiting the property. 5. The court held that the guarantor had stood guarantee for the loan with the intention to cheat the bank.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal of the accused valuer and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The court dismissed the appeals of the bank manager and the guarantor and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
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.12 of 2008 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge – 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 loans irregular loan accounts, a consolidated report for each individual loan exclusive report submitted by Mr.K.Lakshmanan to the Deputy General Manager, Indian Bank, Inspection Centre, Chennai. His report in short outlined that to M/s Steelex Impex (India) is a fictitious firm. Trade Loan sanctioned based on fake documents. Stocks were not available in the premises. Loan sanctioned by accepting third party security. The account become irregular and declared NPA.
2. About 30 months later, the Inspector of Police attached to SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai on 28.10.2005 registered the case based on source information for offences under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC suspecting the following persons:-
(1)N.K.Ravindran(Manager Scale II), the then Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Royapuram Branch, Chennai.
(2)Shri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, No.13/6, Doulatkhan Street, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002, Proprietor of M/s Steelex Impex India, chennai.
(3)Shri Andrews Thamba, No.1/90, Kannadasan Nagar, Chennai 600 118, Proprietor of M/s Imperial Corporation, Chennai.
(4)Shri.S.Thiagarajan, No.10-41, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040, Proprietor of M/s Best Computers, Chennai.
(5)Shri.V.Gopala Krishnan, No.48, 6th Main Road, Nanganallur, Chennai 600 061, Proprietor of M/s VEE GEE KAY Enterprises, Chennai.
(6)Shri.V.G.Krishnan, No.47, Selva Vinayagar Koil Street, Razack Garden, Chennai 600 106, Proprietor of M/s RSV Chemical Corporation, Chennai and others.
3. Five specific instances of conspiracy, cheating, fabrication of documents and use of false documents as genuine were narrated in the FIR. One such instance is in respect of M/s Steelex Impex (India), which is the subject matter of these appeals.
4. According to the FIR, on 04.10.2022, Current Account was opened in the name of fictitious firm, M/s Steelex Impex India by Dinesh Kumar Mishra(A2). An open Cash Credit of Rs.15 lakhs was sanctioned by A1 on 19.12.2002 exceeding the discretionary powers. As collateral security for the loan, A-2 [Shri Dinesh Kumar Mishra],the proprietor of M/s Steelex Impex India, had offered a property in the name of Jawahar and created EM. Whereas, the real owner of the property given as collateral security was one Kannan. This property was purchased by Kannan in an auction sale and he had availed home loan from Indian Bank North Usman Road Branch. However, title deeds were fabricated as if the property belongs to Jawahar. In the fake EC submitted by the accused persons to the Indian Bank, the registration of mortgage deed No.837/1996 dated 14.02.1996 executed by one Mrs.K.Lakshiammal in favour of M/s Chennai Park Town Benefit Fund Ltd., not reflected. For the loan sanctioned to M/s Steelex Impex India, the death certificate of Smt.Lakshmiammal and legal heir certificate declaring Jawahar as the legal heir of Smt.Lakshmiammal produced. EM created in the name of Jawahar. In fact, Smt.Lakshmiammal alive and the death certificate of Lakshmiammal proved as false. The Branch Manager Ravindran(A-1) had sanctioned the loan without conducting proper verification. He had sanctioned the loan dishones
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.