JUDGMENT

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/A1 in C.C.No.30 of 2005, challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.01.2012 rendered by XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions), Chennai.

2. Three accused are involved in this case. Nirmala Sundararaman who is arrayed as A1 before the trial Court is the appellant herein and A2, B.Natarajan and A3-Sundaramal were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 120(b) read with 420 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and were acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. A1 was acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 120(b) read with 420 IPC and found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the sentence imposed upon the appellant/A1 is as under:-

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case:-

3.1. The appellant viz.,Nirmala Sundaraman(A1), was working as the Branch Manager in Triplicane Branch, Chennai, during 1988-1989 and B.Natarajan(A2) was working as Regional Manager, Indian Bank during the relevant period are the public servants under Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3.2. A3, Sundarambal was the Proprietrix of M/s. Sudha International Film and had approached the Branch Manager (A1), Triplicane Branch, Chennai, and had submitted an application on 05.12.1988 for sanctioning overdraft of Rs.4 lakhs by mortgaging the title deeds for the purpose of producing Tamil Feature Film. As A3 viz.,Sundarambal was not having any account with the Indian Bank, Triplicane Branch, Chennai, an account was opened on 12.12.1988 without any proper introduction. A1 recommended for sanction of loan and forwarded the proposal to the Regional Manager with an endorsement that “party is in the film industry for the past 20 years”. A1 did not conduct any pre-sanction verification before recommending the loan. When the papers were under process by the Regional Office/Zonal Office, A1, by abusing her personal official position as public servant, had allowed A3 to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/- on

15.12.1988. The said proposal was rejected by the Regional Office and on the persuasive efforts by A1, this was mooted out for consideration and the Regional Office had recommended the loan and forwarded the proposal to the Zonal Office, but failed to inform about the earlier rejection and finally, the Zonal Office declined the proposal on 26.02.1989. The total outstanding on the account of A3-Sundarambal on 11.03.1989 was Rs.4 lakhs and in the meanwhile on 08.03.1989, A1 had informed the Regional Office that she had allowed A3 to withdraw a sum of Rs.1 lakh in anticipation of the sanction and again requested for sanction of proposal deliberately omitting an amount of Rs.3 lakhs, which she had allowed.

3.3 Again, the Regional Office had recommended the Zonal Office to sanction the loan since the party had brought the sale deed of immovable property worth Rs.8 lakhs, but the Zonal Office had declined to interfere since the sanctioning of advances to Cinema Industry is a speculative one. The overdraft granted to A3 went bad and bank had initiated steps to file a suit and A2 initially agreed for civil suit but later made a false endorsement as if recommendation was sent to the Zonal Office and it was subsequently declined and unduly delayed in the Zonal Office. Meanwhile, they have authorised the branch to release the limit in view of deposit collection. The endorsements available were done with dishonest and mischievous intention in order to mislead the Zonal Office and further A2 had directed A1 to obtain a revival letter from the guarantor before the