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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2556

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
V. Rajkumar & Others – Appellants
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police, BS & FC, CBI, Bangalore & Another – Respondents
Crl.A. Nos. 743, 762 & 764 of 2013 & Crl.A. No. 34 of 2014
Decided On : 10-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:R. Rajarathinam, Senior Counsel for G. Saravanan, N. Ramakrishnan for M/s. Waraon & Sai Rams, S. Kingston Jerold, Advocates. For the Respondents: B. Alexander Lenin Raja, Spl. Public Prosecutor.

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 offenses.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2), 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 120-B, 420, 109 - Criminal conspiracy and fraud by public servants - Five accused including a former Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Indian Bank, sentenced for defrauding the bank of over Rs.6.5 crores through inflated loans to shell companies, with charges sustaining against two appellants on appeal; convictions partly affirmed and one set aside. (Paras 1-50)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374 - Appeals against conviction - Arguments on misjoinder of cases and failure to hold companies accountable were addressed, with the court emphasizing individual culpability in fraudulent transactions. (Paras 23-40)

Table of Content
1. introduction of the case and charges framed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of conspiracy and financial misconduct. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. allegations against directors of various companies. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. evidence indicating fraudulent activity. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. processing and result of loan claims. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
6. arguments concerning trial procedure. (Para 23 , 24)
7. defendants’ defense arguments. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
8. defense regarding settlements and charges. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
9. prosecution's stand on conspiracy and complicity. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
10. court's ruling on specific appeals and evidence. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
11. final conclusion on appeals. (Para 47 , 48 , 49)
12. final orders regarding appeals. (Para 50)

JUDGMENT

(Prayers: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and made in C.C.No.55 of 2000 by judgment dated 23.10.2013.

Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment dated 23.10.2013 passed in C.C.No.55 of 2000 by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 120 -B r/w 420, 109 r/w 420 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 under Section 420 IPC (2 counts) and sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each offence.

Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment passed against the appellant on 23.10.2013 in C.C.No.55 of 2000 by the Hon''ble Principal Special Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and acquit him from all the charges.

Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment dated 23.10.2013 passed in C.C.No.55 of 2000 by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and sentencing the appellant to undergo a Rigorous Imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each offence.)

Common Order:

1. Based on the source information, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell (BS & FC), Bangalore Branch, on 30.01.1996, registered a case in R.C.11(E)/96-CBI/BSFC/BLR, against five suspects for conspiracy to cheat, cheating and misconduct by public servants namely, M.Gopalakrishnan, (Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Indian Bank) along with private individuals causing pecuniary loss to the Indian Bank, Muthialpet Branch to a tune of Rs.6,58,54,709/-.

2. On completion of investigation, Final Report filed against the following persons:-

(1) M.Gopalakrishnan

(2) V.Rajkumar

(3) K.Sai Jaganathan

(4) N.Ramakrishnan

(5) M.Varadharajulu

3. The trial Court based on the materials collected during investigation and relied by the prosecution, framed the following 15 charges:-

Charge No.1:

Between July, 1988 and March 1994, you, A1 M.Gopalakrishnan Executive Director, and later Chairman and Managing Director Indian Bank, you A2 V.Rajkaumar, Director, M/s Arrun Builders Pvt.Ltd. you. A3 K-sai Jagannathan, Director M/S Income Builders Pvt. Ltd., you. A4 Ramakrishnan Approved Valuer in Pondicherry along with the absconding accused M.Varadarajulu alias M.V.Raja and M/s Fashion Builders Pvt. Ltd., represented by A.V.Anand, son of M.Varadarajulu alias M.V.Raja as its Director, were parties to a criminal conspiracy to do illegal acts or legal acts through illegal means to wit, to chest the Muthialpet branch, Saidapet; Chetput and East Abhiramapuram branches respectively by dishonestly and Fraudulently inducing the said branches to deliver huge funds (1) by applying for credit facilities on false representation by (a) M/s Arrun Builders Pvt. Ltd., represented by its you Director, A2, V.Rajkumar & (b) M/s Income Builder''s Pvt. Ltd.,represented by its Director A3 K.sai Jaganathan for Rs. 2 Crores each from the Muthialpet and Saidapet br

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top