Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
K. Rajaraman – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The accused No.1 to 3 in C.C.NO.2 of 2011, on the file of the II Additional District Court(CBI Cases) Madurai, have preferred these appeals challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed against them, vide the impugned judgment dated 12.03.2020:-
| Crl.A. (MD). No. | Rank of the Accused and Name | C.C. No. | Charges proved under sections | Punishment (Imprisonment and Fine) |
| 154 of 2020 | A-1 K.Rajaraman | 2 of 2011 | U/s.120-B r/w 420 IPC | Sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for fours years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,25,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for Six months. |
| U/s.420 of IPC | Sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for Six months. | |||
| 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | Sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for Six months. | |||
| 163 of 2020 | A-3 R.Rajasekar | U/s.120-B r/w 420 IPC | Sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,25,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for Six months. | |
| U/s.420 of IPC | Sentenced to undergo Rigorous I | |||
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.
Convictions confirmed despite appeals; conspiracies in financial fraud established through corroborated evidence, with sentences mitigated based on health conditions.
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 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.
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 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.
Intention to cheat must exist from the outset for a conviction under IPC Section 420; absence of deceitful intent and no pecuniary advantage mandated an acquittal.
The court reaffirmed that misappropriation of loan funds constitutes a criminal offense regardless of subsequent recovery through civil actions.
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
