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

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2756

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.K.Ramakrishnan, J.
A.Abdul Aziz - Appellant
Versus
The State through The Inspector of Police, CBI:SCB - Respondent
CRL.A.(MD).No.95 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD).No.7251 of 2024
Decided On : 07-04-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel for Mr.I.Robert Chandra Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, Special Public Prosecutor

Evidence from prior proceedings can be utilized against an absconded accused, despite the absence of key witnesses, particularly in complex economic crimes.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 420, 511 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud through forgery - The appellant was convicted and sentenced for various offenses related to a bank fraud scheme involving forged demand drafts. (Para 1)

(B) Evidence - Witnesses - The prosecution relied on the evidence of approvers, whose statements were recorded in a prior case - The court addressed challenges regarding the absence of the approvers during the current trial, affirming that the evidence in their absence could still be utilized. (Paras 9-10)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was involved in a conspiracy with several others to steal blank demand drafts from a bank, forge them, and subsequently attempt to defraud banking institutions, resulting in a financial loss of Rs.94,95,000. (Paras 2-3, 11)

Findings of Court:
The court held that sufficient evidence established the appellant's involvement in the conspiracy to defraud the banks and confirmed his conviction, while reducing his sentence due to factors such as age and health. (Paras 19-21)

Issues: The main issues addressed included whether the conviction was sustainable despite the absence of certain key witnesses and if the evidence recorded during the prior trial could be admitted. (Paras 6-7)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that evidence from prior proceedings involving approvers could be used against an absconded accused when circumstances warranted, even in their absence. The judgment emphasized the importance of addressing economic offenses decisively, as they undermine public trust. (Paras 10.1-10.5)

Result: The conviction was upheld, but the sentence was reduced from seven years in prison to five years for multiple counts with fines confirmed. (Paras 20-21)

Table of Content
1. overview of case background and accusations. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding the absence of key witnesses. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's analysis on the trial process and admissibility of evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. court considerations regarding the evidence. (Para 8)
5. final judgment and sentencing outcomes. (Para 18 , 19 , 21)
6. legal rationale for sentencing and considerations of economic crime. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT :

K.K.Ramakrishnan, J.

Absconding accused No.4 in mother case in C.C.No.6 of 1998 and accused in split up case in C.C.No.10 of 2010, on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai, has filed this appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed against him, vide impugned Judgment dated 29.01.2019.

Sl. No.Offences under SectionPunishment (Imprisonment and Fine)
1120-B r/w 468 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year
2468 of IPCRigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year
3120-B r/w 468 r/w471 of IPCRigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year
4468 r/w 471 of IPCRigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year
5120-B r/w 420 r/w 511 of IPCRigorous Imprisonment for 3-½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months
6420 r/w 511 of IPCRigorous Imprisonment for 3-½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months
Total Fine Rs.1,20,000/-

2.Brief facts of the case:

The appellant was originally arrayed as A4 in C.C.No.6 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai. He and other accused are said to have committed offence under sections 120 (B) r/w. 467, 468, 471 and 420 of I.P.C. and section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 r/w Section 511 of IPC. The CBI registered the case in R.C.No.7/S/94/CBI/SCB/MAS on 11.03.1994 on the strength of source information alleging that the appellant and other persons had entered into conspiracy and stealthily removed blank DD book containing 100 leaves from bank of India, DN Road Branch Bombay in the year 1992 and 1993 and forged ten DDs for the value of Rs.94,95,000/- and fraudulently attempted to encash through various banks, situated at Madurai with the motive to cause loss to the Bank of India, Bombay. During the investigation, Abdul Aziz absconded. The CBI filed the final report under Sections 120-B r/w 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC, Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 511 of IPC showing the appellant as absconding accused. . In the said final report, the accused G.Thangaswamy, A.Sathyaseelan, Atma Ram Gopal Satam, have been shown as approvers. The said final report was taken on file in C.C.No.6 of 1998, on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai and the array of the accused is as follows:

A1.N.R.Raveendran
A2.M.Balasubramanian
A3.Nana Mahadev Jadav
A4.Abdul Aziz
A5.Salim Siraj Gilani
A6.A.R.Muthukrishnan

2.1.Abdul Aziz was declared as proclaimed offender and hence, the case was split up in C.C.No.1 of 1999. Thereafter, The trial was continued in C.C.No.6 of 1998 against the remaining accused, namely, A1, A2, A3, and A6 and all were convicted by judgment dated 27.12.2002. They had also filed appeal before this Court in Crl.A.Nos.34 of 2003, 315 of 2003, 384 of 2003 and the same also was dismissed. That being the situation, the appellant was arrested on the basis of the non-bailable warrant and trial was conducted in split up C.C.No.10 of 2010. the Learned Trial Judge served upon the appellant copies under section 207 of Cr.P.C., and framed the charges and

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