The court upheld the dismissal of a discharge petition, confirming sufficient prima facie evidence for charges of conspiracy, misappropriation, and cheating in a bank fraud case.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner/A7 in C.C. No. 6 of 2023 filed a discharge petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C in Crl. M.P. No. 3645 of 2024 in C.C. No. 6 of 2023 before the learned XI Additional Special Court for CBI Cases (CBI Cases Relating to Banks and Financial Institutions), Chennai (Trial Court). The Trial Court, by order, dated 19.11.2024 dismissed the above said petition, against which, the present criminal revision case is filed.

2. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is as follows:

(i) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent filed final report for offence under Sections 120B r/w 409, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (In short “PC Act”) against the petitioner and eleven others without any legal evidence. To prove the charges under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, the basic requirement is that there should be false document as defined under Section 464 IPC. In the present case, four documents projected against the petitioner LD157 to LD160 but the prosecution not produced the original documents or certified copies of LD157 to LD160, hence the question of framing of charges under Sections 468 and 471 is not sustainable. Likewise, the offence under Section 409 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act can proceed only against a “public servant” or “a Banker” or “a Merchant” or “an Agent”. In this case, the prosecution not brought any material to prove there was any entrustment to the petitioner. With regard to the charge under Section 420 IPC, it is projected that the petitioner availed loan from UCO Bank, Shastri Nagar Branch, Chennai in the capacity of Proprietrix of M/s.Sneha Systems signed and submitted the documents to the Bank, based on which, the loan and financial facilities granted by A1/Senior Manager and A2/Assistant Manager of UCO Bank, Shastri Nagar Branch, Chennai and thereafter, the amount misappropriated and cheating committed. The petitioner is not a signatory to any of the documents including LD157 to LD160.

(ii) He further submitted that the offence under Sections 409 and 420 IPC cannot proceed together for the reason that for offence under Section 409 IPC, the dishonest intention should arise at the later stage but for offence under Section 420 IPC, deception to be at the inception. In this case, originally, on the complaint of Mr.Palaniappan, Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Chennai on 25.07.2016, FIR in RC MA1 2016 A 0021 registered, in the FIR, twenty persons named as accused including 2 officers (A1 & A2) of the UCO Bank, Shastri Nagar Branch, Chennai. During the course of investigation, the respondent collected documents and submitted the same for handwriting expert opinion, thereafter, the statements of witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, some of the accused who named in the FIR turned approver, on completion of investigation, charge sheet filed on 01.11.2023. The case is that 34 fraudulent accounts opened by A1 and A2 in connivance with the private individuals, thereafter loan and financial facilities granted by A1 and A2 to the account holders misusing their official position and thereby, cheated and misappropriated to the tune of Rs.3.93 Crores. Admitted position of the prosecution case is that the loan documents, appraisal notes, sanction ticket, pre-sanction and post-sanction inspection, obtaining security or other mandatory documents for the loans all created by A1 and A2, the Senior Manager and Deputy Manager of UCO Bank, Shastri Nagar Branch, Chennai. Since 34 accounts declared NPA, the complaint lodged. The petitioner's father arrayed as A4 as Proprietor of M/s.Bharathamani. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that on 10.05.2014, the petitioner opened current account in UCO Bank, Shastri Nagar Branch, Chennai in the name of M/s.Sneha Systems. On 05.06.2014, the petitioner colluded with A1 and A2 created loan account under SSI Scheme and Rs.8 l