Back
K. SURENDER
V. Sunil Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P, rep. by Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.Surender, J.
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by A2 to A4. A3 died during the pendency of criminal revision. A1 died prior to framing charges. The name of A6 was deleted from the charge sheet since the police did not find any evidence. A5, A7 and A8 were tried and acquitted as co-conspirators. The present revision is argued on behalf of A2 and A4.
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant, which is the Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Limited is that A2/1st petitioner herein was the Managing Director in M/s.Kurnool Petro Products Limited, A1 is the Executive Director, A3 is the Chairman and A4 is the Guarantor. A2 as the Managing Director gave Ex.P1 which is the application for sanctioning of working capital loan for their company. It was agreed that they would furnish 100% collateral security of immovable property. A Board resolution Ex.P2 was passed by the Bank in the month of March, 1996 sanctioning working capital of Rs.76.00 lakhs. The sanction letter Ex.P3 was addressed to the accused. Having accepted the conditions laid down under Ex.P3, A1 and A4 gave collateral security of their agricultural lands in Dinnedevarapadu village, Kurnool. Ex.P20 is the regi
The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the prosecution's material at the stage of considering an application for discharge and highlighted that the trial court is not expected to conduct a....
The court affirmed that the efficacy of framing charges relies on the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence, without requiring deep merits assessment at the initial stage.
Using forged documents to secure bank loan by creating false mortgage constitutes cheating under Sections 420, 471 r/w 468 IPC.
Public servants convicted of misappropriation and forgery through forged loan applications must be proven to have made false documents and abused their positions, affirming the importance of direct e....
The ingredients of the offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120(B) of the IPC are satisfied when a person fraudulently induces another person to invest money in a scheme, promising high re....
The court upheld the necessity for prima facie evidence when framing charges, emphasizing that mere allegations are insufficient without supporting documentation.
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.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the offences of conspiracy and forgery against the appellants, with mere suspicion not serving as a substitute for valid evidence.
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
