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

2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 86463

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.K.Ramakrishnan, J
C.Sankaranarayanan – Appellant
Versus
The State rep., by The Inspector of Police, SPE:CBI:ACB:Chennai RC61(A)/2004 – Respondent
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.381, 382, 383, 384, 386, 389 & 407 of 2016 | Crl.M.P.(MD).No.10453 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Ashok Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.Palanivelayutham, Ms.AL.Gandhimathi, Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Mahadevan, Mr.R.Aravindhan for A1, Mr.A.K.Jeyaraj for A2, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajaml Associates
For the Respondent: Mr.C.Muthu Saravanan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases

The court affirmed that criminal liability persists despite repayment and emphasized the integrity of banking operations to prevent fraud.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 420, 477(A) - Criminal appeal against conviction for fraudulent withdrawals and credits from bank accounts. All accused conspired to cheat Indian Bank, causing loss of Rs.1,10,66,100/-. Appellant, manager of the bank, allowed unauthorized withdrawals, failed to follow banking procedures - Conviction based on evidence of unauthorized transactions and fraudulent credits was upheld. (Paras 1-23, 14-18)

(B) Criminal liability and impact of the offence - Crime does not extinguish with repayment. Registration of case by CBI valid despite delay post-settlement. (Paras 15-16)

Table of Content
1. summary of the appellate case. (Para 1 , 2)
2. findings of the trial court across multiple cases. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments presented by appellants. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. prosecution submissions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. judicial analysis and findings. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. legal interpretation and implications of withdrawals. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
7. considerations on sentencing. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
8. final judgment and order. (Para 22 , 23)

COMMON JUDGMENT

These Criminal Appeals have been filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the judgement dated 07.10.2016 in C.C.Nos.4, 5, 6, 7 of 2008, on the file of the II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai.

All the cases emanated from the common FIR in RC MA1 2004 A 0061 registered by CBI for the offence under Sections 120-B r/w420, 477(A) and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988.

2. In the FIR, following persons are arrayed as accused:

1.A-1 Shri C.Sankaranarayanan, was functioning as Br.Manager, Indian Bank Srirangam Branch, Trichy.

2.A-2 Shri K.Mathialagan was functioning as Assistant Manager, Indian Bank, Srirangam Branch, Trichy.

3.A-3 Shri R.Rajendran was functioning as Assistant Manager, Indian Bank, Srirangam Branch, Trichy.

4. A-4 Shri.S.P.Varadarajan was functioning as Assistant Manager, Indian Bank, Srirnagam Branch, Trichy.

5. A-5 Smt.R.Geetha, W/o Shri.G.Radhakrishnan is the Proprietor of M/s/Chivas Enterprises.

6. A-6 Shri.G.Radhakrishnan, Partner of M/s,Chivas Trading Corporation.

7. A-7 Shri.B.Kanagaraj, Partner, M/s.Sri Ganesh Godown.

8. A-8 Smt.B.Chandra, Partner, M/s.Sri Ganesh Godown.

9. A-9 Shri.T.R.Vijayaraman, Proprietor, M/s.Kumaran Silks.

10.A-10Shri.A.Venkatasamy Naidu, Proprietor, M/s.A.Vennkatasamy Naidu.

11.A-11 Smt.Sulochana Gopinath, Proprietrix, M/s.G.R.Agency.

12.A-12 Shri.M.Gopinath, Proprietor, M/s.Ge Aar Electrics.

13.A-13 Shri.K.Senthilvel, Proprietor, M/s.Nandha Gas Agencies.

14.A-14 Shri.N.Krishnamoorthy, Proprietor, M/s.Sri Ganesh Traders.

2.1. A1 to A4 are the Public Servant and A5 to A14 are the private persons. Between January 2001 and August 2004, A1 to A14 conspired together to cheat the Indian Bank, opened the current account and obtained overdraft credit facilities and fraudulently and dishonestly tendered the cheques of Canara Bank, City Union Bank, Karur Vysysa Bank and Indian overseas Bank etc., with the knowledge that there was no sufficient funds in their account. The cheques were honoured and further they dishonestly made number of the withdrawals of amount over the temporary over draft limit and thereby caused loss of Rs.1,10,66,100/-(Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand and Hundred only).

2.2. In connection of the same, A1 in order to conceal the said fraudulent transaction, did not send the AUF and AUD as per the procedure. Further the said fraudulent act was found out by the inspection team of the bank on 09.01.2004 and they instructed SankaranarayananA1 to pay the amount. Consequently, A1 made the payment on 10.01.2004, by obtaining the blank cheques from 5 different persons holding the accounts in the bank who were no way connected with the above said private persons business. and thereby, settled the amount in the respective account, so as to escape from the legitimate prosecution, under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act . i.e., under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 477(A) of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of 1988.

2.3. The CBI conducted an investigation and filed four different final reports with array of Sankaranarayanan (A1) in all the cases, who was the manager of Indian Bank, Srirangam Branch and the corresponding private individuals namely the account holder as co-accused on the file of the II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai.

2.4. The learned Special Judge, took the said 4 final reports in C.C.No.4, 5, 6 and 7 of 2008 with array of the following parties:

Sl.Nos.C.C.No.Ac

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