To establish criminal conspiracy under IPC, an agreement to commit an unlawful act between multiple parties must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

COMMON ORDER

The petitioners, who are A1 and A2 in C.C.No.214 of 2004, were convicted by the trial Court by the judgment dated 07.12.2018 for the offences under Sections 120 (B), 420, 406, 466, 474 and 466 r/w 471 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each of the offences, in default, to undergo nine months simple imprisonment for each of the offences. The sentences directed to be run concurrently. Aggrieved against their conviction, the petitioners/A1 and A2, preferred an appeal in Crl.A.Nos.562 and 563 of 2018, respectively, before the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Sessions Judge, by the judgment dated 31.03.2022, confirmed the conviction of the trial Court, against which, the present revisions are filed.

2.(i) The gist of the case is that during the period between 15.09.1998 and 19.07.1999, one Sethuraman, the absconding accused and A1/Rajeswari claiming to be the partners of Royal Print Packs, approached Central Bank of India, Siddhapudur Branch, Coimbatore and submitted a loan application on 16.02.1999 for purchasing machineries and raw materials. The Branch Manager processed the application, forwarded to regional office with recommending note and loan was sanctioned on 19.07.1999. The sanctioned loan amount was Rs.25,95,000/- (Rs,16,45,000/- for machinery and Rs.9,50,000/- for raw materials). The partners, Sethuraman and Rajeswari executed pro-note as well as loan cum hypothecation deed. A2/Damodarasamy and A3/Venkatraman, the husband of A1/Rajeswari, stood as guarantors and executed separate guarantee agreements. Both Sethuraman and Rajeswari gave an undertaking to pay the principal and interest as per the loan condition. Damodarasamy executed a equitable mortgage and deposited the original title deed in respect of his 1 acre property and sale deed standing in the name of Damodarasamy produced along with Encumbrance Certificate.

(ii) The accused in this case produced receipts indicating that the purchase of machinery has been made and the business functional. Since no repayment to the loan made, the bank manager during January, 2001 inspected the office and factory of the accused and found no production carried out. The bank manager informed the workers present there to inform the accused, namely, Rajeswari and Sethuraman to contact the bank but they have not visited the bank. Again on 30.03.2001 the branch manager had gone to the office of the accused found that the machines dismantled and ready to be moved out. Hence, the bank manager collected all the machineries kept in a room and sealed it. The owner of the building was informed that the room was locked and notice given to the landlord to inform Sethuraman and Rajeswari and bank agreed to pay the rent for the room. Thereafter, notice was issued to Sethuraman and Rajeswari and to the guarantors/A2 and A3. In the meanwhile, an anonymous phone call received informing that the original title deed submitted by Damodarasamy was fake, not genuine. The bank manager took steps to ascertain through the Sub Registrar, whether the documents were genuine or not and obtained copy of the Doc.No.1358/1972 and Doc.No.4126/1991 and the Encumbrance Certificate for the mortgaged property. During the mortgage, a certificate of Village Administrative Officer submitted by the Damodarasamy claiming that the property is worth about Rs.50 lakhs along with the legal opinion and valuation report of the engineer. Since the accused not repaid the loan and obtained the loan using forged and fake document, a complaint was lodged to the respondent.

(iii) The respondent r