Partly allowed

Sudarshan Venkataraman v. State by

Madras HC5 Jul 2019CRL OP/4428/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered petitions for bail/leave to absent herself appearing before the Trial Court owing to a daughter's illness. Relying on reports and an undertaking to appear on 06.08.019, the High Court directed appearance and left the matter for fresh consideration by the Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before Trial Court on 06.08.2019; application to set aside order dismissed; matter remitted to Trial Court for fresh application.

Sudarshan Venkataraman Vs State by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated 05.07.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.OP.Nos.4428 & 4471/2019 & Crl.MP.Nos.2638, 2639, 2651 &

¶6

2652/2019

¶7

Sudarshan Venkataraman .. Petitioner in both petitions

¶8

Vs The State by The Deputy Superintendent CBI/BS&FC/ Bangalore. .. Respondent in both petitions

¶9

Prayer in Crl.OP.No.4428/2019:- Petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order of the Trial Court in Crl.MP.No.5042/2018 dated 05.01.2019 in CC.No.41/2015 on the file of the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.

¶10

Prayer in Crl.OP.No.4471/2019:- Petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order of the Trial Court in Crl.MP.No.5043/2018 dated 05.01.2019 in CC.No.2/2018 on the file of the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.

¶11

For Petitioner in both petitions : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.R.Sakthivel

¶12

For Respondents in both petitions : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Spl.PP [CBI]

¶13

COMMON ORDER

¶14

The above petitions have been filed to set aside the orders dated 05.01.2019 passed in Crl.MP.Nos.5042 and 5043/2018 in CC.Nos.41/2015 and 2/2018 by the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.

¶15

Crl.OP.No.4428/2019

¶16

2 The petitioner is arrayed as A-1 out of 16 accused and the case of the respondent/CBI is that the petitioner along with

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

the other accused had entered into criminal conspiracy during the year 2012 and cheated Dena Bank, T.Nagar Branch, by availing credit facility to the tune of Rs.97.42 Crores for investing the same in three projects, viz., [1] RTO, Karnataka ; [2] RTO, Gujarat ; and [3] Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana [RSBY], by suppressing the fact of the credit facility availed from the other Banks for the very same projects during the years 2009 and 2011 and when the funds were sanctioned, the same were siphoned off and was diverted to Shell Companies.. Thereby, the petitioner had committed the offences punishable under sections 120-B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and under sections 13 [2] read with 13[1][d] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶19

Crl.OP.No.4471/2019:-

¶20

3 The petitioner is arrayed as A-1 out of 16 accused and the case of the respondent/CBI is that the petitioner along with the other accused had entered into criminal conspiracy during the year 2009 and cheated Union Bank of India, by availing credit facility to the tune of Rs.64.50 Crores for a Wifi Technology Project to provide Broad Band and related services to the customers and when the funds were sanctioned, the same were siphoned off and was diverted to Shell Companies. Thereby, the petitioner had committed the offences punishable under sections 120-B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and under sections 13 [2] read with 13[1][d] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶21

4 Pending trial in CC.Nos.41/2015 & 2/2018, the petitioner had filed petitions in Crl.MP.Nos.5042 & 5043/2018 under section 205 Cr.P.C., seeking to dispense with his appearance before the Court below in connection with the above cases, on the ground of the illness of his daughter, who is aged about 14 years and that she had been suffering from serious health issues and was hospitalised for a rare and life threatening auto-immune condition called TTP [Thrombotic Thrombocytopinic Purpura] and was in ICU for a month and for further treated in the hospital for two months during March and April, 2016 and thereby, wanting to be with his daughter and to take care of her health.

¶22

5 The respondent had filed counter in the respective cases stating that the petitioner/A-1 had left the Country without obtaining permission of the Court and without informing the Court and that the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court was necessary for the progress of the trial. It had been further stated by the respondent in the counter that the petitioner had cheated the Banks to several Crores of Rupees and the Trial Court, after hearing both parties and being not convinced with the reasons stated by the petitioner, had dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioner should appear before the Trial Court and further observed that if the

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

petitioner fails to appear before the Court below, the Court will pass appropriate orders based on the prevailing circumstances at that point of time.

¶25

6 Against the order of dismissal of the petitions, the petitioner had approached this Court with the present Original Petitions seeking to set aside the order of the Court below made in Crl.MP.Nos.5042 & 5043/2018 in CC.Nos.41/2015 & 2/2018 dated 05.01.2019.

¶26

7 This Court, vide order dated 20.02.2019, had called for individual reports from the Trial Court pertaining to CC.Nos.41/2015 and 2/2018 with regard to the need for the appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court. Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge had sent individual detailed reports pertaining to CC.Nos.41/2015 and 2/2018 in respect of the petitioner herein, stating that the presence of the petitioner is necessary before the Trial Court. The said reports are taken note of.

¶27

8 Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior counsel appearing for Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the daughter of the petitioner is suffering from serious health issues and that, biopsy performed on the petitioner's daughter on 29.11.2017 revealed that the petitioner's daughter is suffering from auto-immune disorder, nephrotic lupus and due to the chronic disease suffered by his daughter, she needs constant medical attention and the presence of the petitioner at USA is very much essential. He would further submit that the entire case of the prosecution is borne out by records and that the presence of the petitioner may not be required for progress of trial and the petitioner will ensure that he will be duly represented by a counsel on all dates of hearing.

¶28

9 Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor [CBI Cases] appearing for the respondent would vehemently oppose stating that the petitioner had neither obtained the permission from the Court nor informed the Court about his leaving from India and that due to his absence, the Trial Court is unable to question the accused and proceed further in the above cases and that the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court is very much essential for the progress of the trial. He would further submit that the medical condition pertaining to the petitioner's daughter relates to the year 2017 and that the petitioner cannot be inordinately allowed to evade appearance before the Court below which has resulted in the trial being delayed.

¶29

10 At this juncture, the learned Senior counsel for the

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

petitioner would submit that, the petitioner, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, is prepared to appear before the Trial Court and he has also filed necessary Affidavits of Undertaking dated 27.06.2019, to that effect. He would further submit that though no specific date has been mentioned in the affidavits, the petitioner undertakes to appear on 06.08.2019.

¶32

11 In response to the same, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI would submit that, in the event of the petitioner appearing before the Trial Court, the Trial Court may be allowed to decide the issue afresh with regard to the requirement of the appearance of the petitioner by taking into consideration, the prevailing situation at the relevant point of time.

¶33

12 This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the Reports of the Trial Judge and the materials placed including the Affidavits of Undertaking dated 27.06.2019 filed by the petitioner.

¶34

13 Taking into consideration, the submissions made by the respective learned Counsel and the Affidavits of Undertaking filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 06.08.2019 and on fresh application/s being filed by the petitioner, seeking to dispense with the appearance, the Trial Court shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances prevailing at that time.

¶35

14 The Criminal Original Petitions stand closed with the above direction. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar (Insp Cell) //True Copy//

¶38

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶39

AP To

¶40

1.The XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases Chennai.

¶41

2,The Deputy Superintendent CBI/BS&FC/ Bangalore.

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai.

¶44

+4cc to Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, Advocate, S.R.No. 56320, 56319

¶45

Crl.OP.Nos.4428 & 4471/2019

¶46

JP(CO) GN(17/07/2019)

¶47

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sudarshan Venkataraman v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarshan Venkataraman v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guna @ Gunasekaran Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Elango Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Krishnan Vs State Rep. by

Ramanujam Sesharathnam Vs State by Deputy Superintendent

Zahir Hussan @ Raja Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Sekar Vs State Rep. by