Partly allowed

S.Jayaseelan v. Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC2 Nov 2021CRL A/323/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bank-loan fraud involved impersonation and forged property documents. The court acquitted the branch manager and bus seller of all charges, upheld the convictions and sentences of the impersonator and a participant in preparing forged documents, and recorded abatement of the deceased appellant’s appeal.

What did the court decide?

Branch manager and bus seller acquitted of all charges; their convictions and sentences set aside, fines paid ordered refunded, and bail bonds cancelled.

S.Jayaseelan Vs Deputy Superintendent of — Corruption | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON: 01.10.2021

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON: 02.11.2021

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶7

Crl.A.Nos. 289, 296 & 323 of 2010
Crl.A.No. 289 of 2010:
T.S.Sundaram ... Appellant/4 th Accused
Vs.
State By:
Deputy Superintendent of Police
Organised Crime Unit (Chennai City)
CBCID
Chennai – 600 002.
Crime No. 6/AC/2002 ... Respondent/Complainant

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 26.04.2010 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in C.C.No. 21 of 2004 convicting the appellant for offences under Section 120-B, 419 read with 120-B, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the

¶9

¶10

offence under Section 120-B IPC, to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 419 read with 120-B IPC, to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. No sentence was imposed on the appellant for the offences under Section 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B of the IPC. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The appellant has not paid the fine.

¶11

***
Crl.A.No. 296 of 2010:
K.Kannan ... Appellant/9 th Accused
Vs.
State By:
The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Organised Crime Unit (Chennai City)
CBCID
Chennai – 600 002.
Crime No. 6/AC/2002 ... Respondent/Complainant

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 26.04.2010 made in C.C.No. 21 of 2004 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. The Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused to undergo 6 months R.I., and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default 3 months simple imprisonment for the offences under

¶13

¶14

Section 120-B of IPC, to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default 3 months simple imprisonment for the offences under Section 419 read with 120-B of IPC and he sentence to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default 3 months simple imprisonment for the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with 120-B of IPC and the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

¶15

***

¶16

Crl.A.No. 323 of 2010:

¶17

S.Jayaseelan
2. Govindarajaulu
3. R.Lakshmipathi
... Appellants/Accused Nos. 3, 7 and 8
Vs.

¶18

State represented by: The Deputy Superintendent of Police Organised Crime Unit (Chennai City) CBCID Chennai – 2.

¶19

Crime No. 6/AC/2002/CC ... Respondent/Complainant

¶20

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 26.04.2010 passed in C.C.No. 21 of 2004 by the Court of Sessions at Chennai, IV Additional Sessions Judge.

¶21

¶22

4
For appellant in
Crl.A.No.289 of 2010 : Mr. V.Karthick
Assisted by
Mr. S.Haroon for
T.S. Gopalan & Co.,
For appellant in
Crl.A.No.296 of 2010 : Mr. S.Ashok Kumar
for
Mr. A.Amarnath &
Mr. G.Hariharan
For appellants in
Crl.A.No.323 of 2010 : Mr. C.D. Sugumar
For Respondent in
all Crl.As : Mr. E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON JUDGEMENT
All the above Criminal Appeals arise out of the Judgment dated
26.04.2010 in C.C.No. 21 of 2004 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge,
Chennai.

¶23

2. The Inspector of Police, CBCID Metro Wing, Chennai, had registered a First Information Report in Crime No. 6/AC/2002/CC under Sections 120-B read with 419, 420, 464, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against (i) Viswambaran; (ii) Shanthi Vishwambaran @ Shanthi & (iii) S.P.Dayanidhi

¶24

¶25

on a complaint given by T.S.Sundaram, Manager, REPCO Bank, T.Nagar, Chennai, on 10.10.2002. The First Information Report had been marked during the course of trial as Ex. P-149.

¶26

3. In the complaint, it had been stated by the complainant T.S.Sundaram that when he was working as Branch Manager at Pallavaram Branch, S.Viswambaram, Properitor of Viswahanthi Travels and his wife Shanthi Viswambaram, had applied for loan of Rs.25/- lakhs for purchase of second hand buses. S.P.Dayanidhi stood as guarantor. He claimed that they were introduced to him by P.V.Krishna Prasad, internal auditor of the Branch. S.P.Dayanidhi offered his property at Plot No. 2860, Door No.6, Y.Block, III Street, 4^th Main Road, Annanagar Chennai, as security to create mortgage. They signed the loan application on 26.04.2000. They

¶27

also gave the Xerox copies of the title deeds of the document. The bank obtained legal opinion on the title deed. S.P.Dayanidhi also gave affidavits dated 03.04.2000 and 25.04.2000. The original sale deed of the property bearing Document No. 1750 of 1993 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar, on 15.11.1993 by Tamil Nadu Housing Board in favour of S.P.Dayanidhi was also produced. The loan was sanctioned by the

¶28

¶29

Head Office by letter of sanction dated 18.05.2000. S.P.Dayanidhi also created mortgage by deposit of title deeds. He also filed an affidavit declaring that the property had been offered as mortgage security for the loan availed by M/s.Viswahanthi Travels, represented by its Properitor S.Viswambharan and his wife Shanthi Viswambharan. He also declared that

¶30

Viswambaran is his brother-in-law, who had married his sister Shanthi.

¶31

4. Thereafter, it had been stated in the complaint that when the property was inspected, it was found to be occupied by another person, who also called himself S.P.Dayanidhi and claimed to be the actual owner of the property. The bank officials contacted the borrowers S.Viswambharan and his wife Shanthi Viswambharan but they did not give any convincing replies.

¶32

5. In the complaint, it had therefore been stated that the borrowers S.Viswambharan and his wife Shanthi Viswambharan along with one S.P.Dayanidhi had produced false and forged document with respect to the

¶33

property which was mortgaged with the bank and had availed loan of Rs.25/- lakhs by letter of sanction dated 18.05.2000. It had been stated that

¶34

¶35

they had cheated the bank. It was under these circumstances that the complaint was lodged.

¶36

6. On the basis of the complaint, as stated, First Information Report in Crime No. 6 of 2002 was registered by the CBCID (Metro Police). Thereafter, the criminal law was set in motion. The investigation was then handed over to CBCID Organised Crime Unit in Chennai. Investigation was done with respect to the allegations in the complaint and on conclusion, a final report was presented before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

¶37

7. In the final report, the defacto complainant T.S.Sundaram was shown as A-4. A-1 was S.Viswambaran @ Vishwambaram, A-2 was his wife Shanthi Vishwambaran and A-3 was S.Jayaseelan, who was alleged to have impersonated as S.P.Dayanidhi and had produced forged document in the name of S.P.Dayanidhi and had deposited the said title deeds to enable A-1 and A-2 to obtain loan. A-4 as stated was the defacto complainant T.S.Sundaram. A-5 P.V.Krishna Prasad was the internal auditor of the branch. A-6 W.V. Rajendra Prasad is a private individual. A-7

¶38

¶39

R.Govindarajulu and A-8 R.Lasmipathi both brothers, were said to have provided the stamp papers and seals for preparing the forged document A-9 K.Kannan had sold four second hand buses to A-1 and A-2 on the basis of the loan availed by them.

¶40

8. In the final report, it had been further stated that the accused

¶41

had entered into criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the same, A-3 had impersonated himself as S.P.Dayanidhi and had produced title deeds of a property owned by the actual S.P.Dayanidhi and had deposited the same with the REPCO Bank at Pallavaram, where A-4 was the Branch Manager

¶42

and had enabled A-1 and A-2, to avail loan of Rs.25/- lakhs for the purpose

¶43

of purchasing buses from A-9.

¶44

9. It has also been stated that A-5, the internal auditor, had

¶45

introduced A-1, A-2 and A-3 to A-4. It was also stated that A-6, A-7 and A- 8 had arranged preparation and production of the forged documents. A-9 had sold the buses to A-1 and A-2. The final report was taken cognizance

¶46

as C.C.No. 21 of 2004. Summons were issued to the accused and on their appearance, documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to them.

¶47

¶48

Thereafter, charges had also been framed under Section 120-B (A-1 to A- 9), 420 (A-1 to A-3), 419 (A-3), 419 read with 120-B (A-1, A-2, A-4 to A- 9), 467, 468 & 471 (A-1, A-2, A-3), 467, 468 and 471 read with 120-B (A-4 to A-9), 13(1)(d)(ii) of PC Act, 1988 (A-4) and 13(1)(d)(ii) of PC Act read with 120-B IPC (A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-9). The charges were read over and explained to the accused. They abjured the charges.

¶49

To substantiate the charges, prosecution was invited to
examine witnesses and produce documents.
11. Prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-31 and marked Exs. P-1 to
P-159.

¶50

12. On the side of the accused, Govindarajulu (A-7) was examined

¶51

DW-1. The accused also marked Exs. D-1 to D-3.

¶52

13. On conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused

¶53

were questioned with respect to the incriminating evidence and their statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶54

¶55

14. Finally, by Judgment dated 26.04.2010, the learned IV

¶56

Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, acquitted A-2, A-5 and A-6 under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., of all charges.

¶57

15. A-1, A-3, A-4, A-7, A-8 and A-9 however were convicted for

¶58

offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC.

¶59

A-1 and A-3 were convicted for offence punishable under
Section 420 IPC.
17. A-3 was convicted for offence punishable under Section 419
IPC.
18. A-1, A-4, A-7, A-8 and A-9 were convicted for offence

¶60

punishable under Section 419 read with 120-B IPC.

¶61

19. A-1 and A-3 were convicted for offence punishable under

¶62

Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

¶63

¶64

20. A-4, A-7, A-8 and A-9 were convicted for offence punishable

¶65

under Section 467, 468 and 471 read with 120-B IPC.

¶66

21. A-4 was convicted for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of PC Act 1988.

¶67

punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of PC Act 1988 read with 120-B IPC.

¶68

23. The learned Trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C with respect to the sentences to be imposed. Finally, A-1, A- 3, A-4, A-7, A-8 and A-9 were convicted and sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default 3 months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 120-B IPC.

¶69

24. A-1 and A-3 were sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous

¶70

imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 3 months for offence under Section 420 IPC.

¶71

¶72

25. A-3 was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and to

¶73

pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 3 months for offence under Section 419 IPC.

¶74

26 . A-1, A-4, A-7, A-8 and A-9 were sentenced to undergo two

¶75

years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default 3

¶76

months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 120-B IPC.

¶77

and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 3 months for

¶78

offence under Section 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B IPC.

¶79

28. A-4 was sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment

¶80

and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 3 months for offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of PC Act.

¶81

29. A-1, A-3, A-7, A-8 and A-9 were sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 3 months for offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of PC Act 1988 read with 120-B IPC.

¶82

¶83

30. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶84

The period already undergone by the accused was directed to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

¶85

31. Questioning the conviction and sentences, A-1 filed Crl.A.No. 311 of 2010, A-4 filed Crl.A.No. 289 of 2010, A-9 filed Crl.A.No. 296 of

¶86

2010 and A-3, A-7 and A-8 filed Crl.A.No. 323 of 2010.

¶87

32. Pending the appeals, A-1 died and therefore, Crl.A.No. 311 of 2010 was dismissed as abated. Similarly, A-8 also died and therefore,

¶88

Crl.A.No. 323 of 2010 was dismissed in so far as A-8 was concerned as abated.

¶89

33. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for A-9 in Crl.A.No. 296 of 2010, Mr.V.Karthick, learned Senior Counsel for A-4 in Crl.A.No. 289 of 2010 and Mr.C.D.Sugumar, learned counsel for A-3 & A-7 in Crl.A.No. 323 of 2010. Heard Mr.E.Raj Thilak learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent in all the appeals.

¶90

¶91

34. Mr. S.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for A-9 pointed

¶92

out that the only charge as against A-9 was that he had sold buses to M/s.Viswashanthi Travels which was run by A-1 and A-2. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that there was no evidence produced by the prosecution to show that A-9 participated in the alleged conspiracy along with other accused and stated that as a broker in buses, he had been approached by A-1 and A-2 to sell buses and accordingly, he sold four buses to A-1 and A-2. The learned Senior Counsel very specifically pointed out that none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution had imputed that A-9 was part of the conspiracy which primarily revolved around A-3 impersonating as another individual S.P.Dayanidhi. PW-31 the Investigating Officer during cross examination by A-9 had also admitted

¶93

that none of the witnesses had stated that the higher officials had sanctioned the loan on the application of A-9. PW31 also stated that the registration certificates of the buses sold by A-9 were genuine documents. He also stated that he had not inspected the buses because there was no irregularity in the sales of the said buses. He also stated that A-9 had necessary license to act as a broker to purchase and sell vehicles. He also stated that no

¶94

¶95

witnesses had spoken that A-9 had any connection with the application for loan or with respect to the documents submitted for the loan to be sanctioned.

¶96

35. Pointing out the above statements of Investigating Officer, the learned Senior Counsel insisted that in the absence of any evidence as against A-9, this Court should interfere with the conviction and sentence

¶97

imposed against A-9 and should acquit him of all charges.

¶98

36. Mr. V.Karthick, learned Senior Counsel, who appeared on behalf of A-4/Branch Manager stated that A-1, A-2 and A-3 had been introduced by the internal auditor A-5 to A-4. A-1 and A-2 were actually carrying on business as travel agents. The learned Senior Counsel stated that it is improbable to presume that A-4 would have known that A-3 was impersonating another person S.P.Dayanidhi. A3 was introduced as the brother-in-law of A-1 and brother of A-2. Learned Senior Counsel stated that as Branch Manager, A-4 had the authority to sanction loans upto Rs.1/lakh alone and for higher value, it was the Head Office which has to sanction the loan.

¶99

¶100

37. In the instant case, it was the Head Office which had

¶101

sanctioned the loan. The title deeds of the property produced had also been forwarded for obtaining legal opinion which was also obtained in Ex.P-32.

¶102

The loan application was Ex.P-34 and the appraiser report was Ex.P-35.

¶103

38. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that during the period when the loan application was made, there was no compulsion to verify with the Sub Registrar Office either the documents or the property. It was only later in the year 2005, that the Government issued a circular that whenever title deeds are produced seeking loan, it was necessary for the bankers to refer them to the Sub Registrar Office to determine their genuinity. The learned Senior Counsel specifically pointed out charge No. 7

¶104

and stated that there was no evidence to show that A-4 had obtained any bribe. It was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the Head Office sanctioned the loan and the loan amount was paid by cheque directly to A-9. He stated that A-4 had only received the loan application and had forwarded the same to the Head Office where the loan was sanctioned. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that A-4 had committed procedural irregularity in

¶105

¶106

enrolling A-1, A-2 as members. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out the evidence of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7. He also pointed out that the last opportunity to prevent the fraud was not with A-4, but rather with the officials in the Head Office. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that even PW-31 the investigating officer, during his cross examination had stated that it was only the officials in the Head Office who had sanctioned the loan. The witness also admitted that he did not get any explanation from A-4 prior to filing of the final report. In view of the above reasons, the learned Senior Counsel insisted that this Court should interfere with the sentence and conviction passed against A-4 and should acquit him all charges.

¶107

39 . Mr. C.D.Sugumar, learned counsel for A-3 and A-7 stated that

¶108

with respect to A-7, the only allegation was that he had supplied fake stamp papers and rubber stamps. In this connection, the evidence of PW-10 and PW-11 were referred to by the learned counsel. He also pointed out that PW-19, who was the witness for the arrest of A-7 had turned hostile. The learned counsel further stated that the specimen signatures of A-3, A-7 and A-8 had been obtained without prior permission from the Magistrate Court.

¶109

¶110

The learned counsel stated that the conviction against A-3 and A-7 should

¶111

be set aside and urged that the Criminal Appeal may be allowed.

¶112

40. Mr. E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶113

however very strongly disputed the arguments put forth on behalf of the appellants. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and more importantly PW-3, who was the actual owner of the property and who had been impersonated by A-3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out PW-10 had very categorically stated that A-7 was instrumental in producing the seals used in the forged document. Those seals were marked as Ex.P-45 and Ex.P-50. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also pointed out the evidence of PW-8, Sub Registrar and also PW-11, who marked Ex.P-13. The evidence

¶114

of PW-9, the Road Transport Officer was also pointed out. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that the accused could not shake the case of the prosecution that A-3 impersonated PW-2 S.P.Dayanidhi and had produced fake documents relating to the property of S.P.Dayanidhi/PW-2

¶115

and had obtained loan of Rs.25/- lakhs thereby causing direct loss to REPCO Bank. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore stated

¶116

¶117

that the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and urged that this Court should uphold the conviction and sentence against A-3, A-4, A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-9.

¶118

41. I have carefully considered the arguments and perused the materials available on record.

¶119

Vishwambaran are spouses. A-1 was the properitor of a Travels company Viswashanthi Travels. They wanted to purchase four second hand buses. They had no money to purchase the buses. They did not have property to provide as security for loan to be obtained from any bank. They however approached REPCO Bank, Pallavaram Branch along with A-3 S.Jayaseelan,

¶120

who is the brother of A-2 Shanthi Vishwambaran @ Shanthi.

¶121

43. The case of the prosecution is that A-5, P.V. Krishna Prasad, the internal auditor of the Branch had introduced A-1, A-2 and A-3 to A-4 T.S.Sundaram, the Branch Manager. However A-3 did not introduce himself as Jayaseelan. On the other hand, he introduced himself as

¶122

¶123

S.P.Dayanidhi. This was in the presence of A-1 and A-2. Naturally, this discloses a criminal conspiracy among A-1, A-2 and A-3 since A-3 is the own brother of A-2 but had introduced himself as a stranger S.P.Dayanidhi. However, I am precluded from entering into further discussion with respect to conspiracy among A-1, A-2 and A-3 because A-1 had since died and Crl.A.No. 311 of 2010 filed by him has since been dismissed as abated. Naturally the charges against him also abate.

¶124

44. The trial Court had thought it fit to acquit A-2 of all charges. The prosecution has not filed any appeal against such acquittal. This leave out only A-3 and A-4 and A-5. It must also be pointed out that A-5 the internal auditor of the branch was also acquitted by the trial Court and there is no appeal against such acquittal. This naturally now leaves out only A-3

¶125

and A-4.

¶126

45. The point to be now considered is whether A-4 had prior knowledge that A-3 S.Jayaseelan was falsely masquerading as another

¶127

individual, S.P.Dayanidhi. There is no evidence in this regard. The prosecution only presumes that A-4 would have had that knowledge. While

¶128

¶129

seeking loan for purchase of the four old buses, A-3, quite apart from introducing himself as S.P.Dayanidhi also produced title documents in the name of S.P.Dayanidhi of a property sold by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in Plot No. 2860, Y-Block, 3^rd Street, 4^th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. He also signed an affidavit that the property belonged to him and that he was S.P.Dayanidhi. He also placed the said title deed as security for loan to be advanced to A-1 and A-2. On the basis of these documents and other related documents executed by the parties, A-4 sent a proposal for sanction of the loan to the Head Office. The Officials in Head Office sanctioned loan of Rs.25/- lakhs. The amount was directly paid to A-9 who was a bus seller/ broker. On receipt of Cheque for Rs.25/- lakhs, A-9 actually sold four old buses to A-1 and A-2.

¶130

46. Later, A-1 and A-2 failed to repay the loan. Enquires were

¶131

made. The Officials of REPCO Bank, Pallavaram Branch, actually went over to the house, namely, Plot No. 2860, Y-Block, 3^rd Street, 4^th Main

¶132

Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. They found S.P.Dayanidhi in that place. But he was not A-3, who came to the Bank. He was a stranger. He however

¶133

¶134

disclosed his identity and claimed ownership of the property and disclaimed knowledge of the property having been mortgaged to the Bank. He had also mortgaged the documents with another bank.

¶135

47. It now came to the knowledge of A-4 that A-1, A-2 and A-3 had committed serious fraud. The conduct of A-4 must be examined. He did not try to cover up the fraud. On the other hand, he opened up prosecution by giving a complaint before the CBCID (Metro Police) at Chennai. On the basis of his complaint, First Information Report in Crime No. 6 of 2002 was registered under Sections 120-B read with 419, 420, 464, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The named accused were S.Viswambaran @ Vishwambaram, Shanthi Vishwambaram and S.P.Dayanidhi. This fact is also very significant as A-4, who gave the complaint did not know the actual name of A-3. He was still named S.P.Dayanidhi. These small minor facts are crucial which when cumulatively examined would aid in coming to a conclusion that A-4 did not actually know about the fact that S.P.Dayanidhi, who came to him in the branch along with A-1 and A-2 was not actually S.P.Dayanidhi but a stranger impersonating himself as S.P.Dayanidhi. The complaint lodged by A-4 is quite revealing.

¶136

¶137

48. The investigation was then handed over to CBCID Organised

¶138

Crime Unit in Chennai. They took up further investigation and filed final

¶139

report before the jurisdictional Court. In the final report, the complainant had been arrayed as an Accused /A-4. A-5 was the internal auditor and A-6 was the financial Advisor. During the course of investigation , it had transpired that the documents which had been presented to create a mortgage had been fabricated and the stamps and the seals has been prepared and supplied by A-7 and A-8. In the final report, A-9 had also been arrayed as an accused only because he had sold the buses to A-1 and

¶140

A-2.

¶141

49. Even before examining the evidence of the prosecution

¶142

witnesses in detail, the cross examination of PW-31, the Investigating

¶143

Officer on behalf of A-9 is extracted and he had stated as follows:-

¶144

“ 9tJ vjphp nfhhpjhd; ,e;j flid th';fp cah; mjpfhhpfs; FG m';fPffhpj;jjhf ve;j rhl;rpa[k; Twtpy;iy/ 9tJ vjphp 5tJ Mol;liu ghh;j;jjhf t';fp nkyhsiu ghh;j;jjhfnth rpghhpR bra;jjhfnth vd; g[yd; tprhuizapy; ,y;iy vd;why;

¶145

¶146

rhpjhd;/ ve;j rhl;rpa[k; 1tJ vjphpf;F 9tJ vjphp g!; fk;bgdp tpyhrnkh g!; fk;bgdp bfhl;nlc&d; th';fpdhh; vd;nwh th';f cjtpdhh; vd;nwh vd; g[yd; Ma;tpy; ,y;iybad;why; rhpjhd;/ ,e;j tHf;fpy; th';fg;gl;l ngUe;Jfspd; nghf;Ftuj;jJ Jiwapd; gjpt[ Mtz';fs; midj;Jk; cz;ikahditfs;jhd; ehd; ,e;j thfd';fs; vjida[k; ghh;f;ftpy;iy Vbddpy; me;j thfd';fs; th';fg;gl;ljpy; VJk; KiwnfLfs; ,yiy/ vdnt ehd; ,e;j thfd';fis ghh;f;ftpyiy vd;why; rhpjhd;/

¶147

9tJ vjphpf;F Kiwahf thfd tpw;gid bra;j juR bgw chpika[z;L mth; th';f bfhLj;jjhf Twg;gLk; thfd';fspd; Mtz';fs; midj;Jk; cz;ikjhd; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mth; nghypahd thfd';fisnah nghypyahd thfd rhd;wpjH;fisnah ,e;j gzpapy; mth; bgwtpy;iy my;yJ jahhpf;ftpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/

¶148

¶149

,e;j tHf;fpy; ,e;j fld; bgWtjw;F jhf;fy; bra;a;gl;lLs;s brhj;jJf;fSf;fhd Mtz tptu';fSf;Fk; ,e;j 9tJ vjphpf;Fk; ve;j bjhlh;g[k; ,Ug;gjhf ve;j rhl;rpa[k; Twtpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mth; rl;lg;goahd bjhHpy; bra;J rl;lg;goahd mtUf;Fs;s fl;lzj;ij bgw;Ws;shh;/

¶150

50. Of-course, the witness had denied that A-9 had been

¶151

deliberately arrayed as an Accused only to complete the case of the prosecution. He had denied that he was wrongfully arrayed as accused. Those denials to the suggestions can be straight away rejected. The admissions by PW-31 extracted above very clearly establishes that during the course of the entire trial not even one witness had spoken that A-9 was directly involved in any criminal conspiracy with respect to obtaining bank loan on the basis of false and fabricated document. PW-31 has also stated that A-9 had a license to plough trade as a broker dealing with buses or generally in vehicles. At any rate, he was doing a lawful trade.

¶152

¶153

51. On the basis of this particular evidence alone, I would interfere

¶154

with the conviction and sentence of A-9 and straight away acquit A-9 of all charges. This would imply that Crl.A.No. 296 of 2010 is allowed and the conviction and sentence against A-9 is set aside.

¶155

52. Now going back to the role of A-4, as stated, he had initiated criminal prosecution by giving a complaint on the basis of which the First Information Report came to be registered. Ex.P-1 is the promissory note executed by A-1 and A-2 on 25.05.2000 undertaking to pay a sum of Rs.25/- lakhs together with interest at 18% p.a., on quarterly rests to REPCO Bank. In this promissory note, A-3 has signed as S.P.Dayanidhi, Ex.P-2 is the bond executed on the very same day by A-1 and A-2 for the loan amount of Rs.25/- lakhs. This has also been signed by A-3 as S.P.Dayanidhi. Both Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 had been executed in the presence of A-4, who had also appended his signature. Ex.P-3 is a letter of guarantee, again dated 25.05.2020 signed by S.P.Dayanidhi, whose signature had been verified by A-4. The residential address of A-3 was given as Plot No. 2860,

¶156

Door No. 6, Y-Block, III Street, 4^th Main Road, Annanagar Chennai 600 040. Ex.P-4 is again dated 25.05.2000 executed by A-1 and A-2 and also by

¶157

¶158

A-3, who was termed as surety. Ex.P-6 dated 26.07.2007 is a memorandum

¶159

of title deeds executed by A-3, who signed as S.P.Dayanidhi. The witnesses were A-1 and A-2. Ex.P-7 is the mortgage deed executed by A-3, who signed as S.P.Dayanidhi. It was executed on 19.05.2007.

¶160

53. After the loan had been sanctioned, the Cheque dated

¶161

26.07.2007, Ex.P-9 was issued in favour of A-9.

¶162

54. Since there was default in repayment of the loan enquiries were made. It was then identified that the documents produced were false and fabricated documents. The original document of the Anna Nagar House Property of S.P.Dayanidhi, who was examined as PW-2 was marked as Ex.P-12 and the duplicate or fraudulent document was marked as Ex.P-13.

¶163

PW-2 the actual S.P.Dayanidhi categorically asserted that Ex.P-12 was the

¶164

original document. The tenant of his property was examined as PW-3. PW8, who was Sub Registrar at Anna Nagar, Sub Registrar Office, also very

¶165

categorically stated that Ex.P-9 encumbrance certificate produced by A-1, A-2 and A-3 did not contain the signature of any of the officials of the said

¶166

Sub Registrar Office. Further, he had also given the sample of an

¶167

¶168

encumbrance certificate of the Sub Registrar Office which was marked as Ex.P-43. A finding had been given by the learned trial Judge that on a mere comparison between Ex.P-8 and P-43, it was evident that Ex.P-8 was a forged document.

¶169

55. The evidence of PW-10 is also relevant. He had stated that A-7 and A-8 had approached him to prepare six seals of various sizes in the names of various Government organisations. He had identified those seals which were affixed in Ex.P-13 the duplicate document. The seals were marked as Ex.P-45 and Ex.P-50. Further PW-11 stamp vendor had also been examined to speak about Ex.P-13 and he stated that the stamp paper in which Ex.P-13 had been prepared was not sold by him and though a signature was found, in Ex.P-13, in the name, G.Manogaran, it was not his signature.

¶170

56. It is thus seen that Ex.P-13 is a forged document affixed with false seals and prepared on a fraudulently purchased stamp paper.

¶171

¶172

57. PW-12 was Sub Registrar in Anna Nagar Sub Registrar Office,

¶173

He also stated that the signature of the Sub Registrar in Ex.P-13 was different, the name was different and the round seal was also different. The big seal used by the Sub Registrar Office was not found in Ex.P-13.

¶174

58. All these evidences clearly show that A-1, A-2 and A-3 were

¶175

directly involved in criminal conspiracy in preparing a fraudulent document

¶176

to obtain loan from REPCO Bank, Pallavaram Branch. The evidence points

¶177

out to the participation of A-3 and A-7. But there is no evidence regarding the participation of A-4.

¶178

59. The evidence of PW-14 is also very relevant. He stated that A-

¶179

7 and A-8 requested him to type a sale deed in the name of Dayanidhi and

¶180

he identified Ex.P-13 as the document which he typed. He also identified the particular letters of his type writer machine.

¶181

60. The learned Judge in the course of his Judgment had however made a very significant error when he observed that the loan had been sanctioned by A-4. The loan was not sanctioned by A-4 but rather by the Officials in the Head Office.

¶182

¶183

61. As Branch Manager, A-4 had authority to sanction loan only upto Rs.1/- lakh. In cases where higher loan was sought, he had to forward the papers to the Head Office. They had the discretion to either approve or to refuse to approve sanction of loan. In this connection, before forwarding the papers A-4 had actually also obtained legal opinion. The legal opinion had been marked as Ex.P-32.

¶184

62. An Advocate Dr.G.Headweige had issued a legal opinion on 24.03.2000. He had actually given the opinion on the basis of a false and fabricated document in the name of S.P.Dayanidhi marked as Ex.P-13. However, he had given an opinion that the false S.P.Dayanidhi had “ good, valid, bonafide and marketable title in respect of the schedule property to create a registered mortgage deed”.

¶185

63. On the basis of such opinion, A-4 had forwarded the loan application documents for approval of loan as sought by A-1 and A-2. The approval letter was sent by the Head Office to the Branch Office on 13.05.2000. This was Ex.P-34. This was marked by PW-7 who was Executive Director of REPCO Bank at the time of his evidence. He

¶186

¶187

identified Exs.P-34 and Ex.P-35, the loan assessment report and Ex.P-36, the loan sanction letter. The loan sanction letter was signed by the Divisional Manager and by the Managing Director of REPCO Bank.

¶188

64. He also identified Ex.P-37 and P-38 which were letters executed by A-1 that they had actually given fraudulent documents to

¶189

obtain loan and undertook to repay the loan.

¶190

65. Mr. V. Karthick, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of A-4

¶191

placed reliance on Ex.P-41 which was the order passed in a departmental action initiated apart A-4. The order is extracted below:-

¶192

“ ORDER

¶193

All the charges framed against Sri. T.S. Sundaram Viz., Gross Negligence in discharge of duties, deliberate violation of L.S.O conditions, Deviation from stipulated procedures and total callousness while reporting to Head Office are proved beyond doubt. The Charges are very serious in Nature with financial implications to the Bank warranting major punishment.

¶194

¶195

Considering his long years of service, a lenient view is taken though the charges are proved. He is deemed to one scale lower from present scale.

¶196

This is, however, without prejudice to holding him responsible personally for any financial loss to the Bank due to his commissions/omissions and recovery of such losses from him in future. His pay will be fixed in Scale-II in the stage where he would have been had he continued as Scale – II Officer.

¶197

This order takes immediate effect. Sd/Managing Director” General Manager (Admin)”

¶198

66. It was dated 22.11.2001 and had been signed by Managing

¶199

Director and also by the General Manager (Admin.). It was stated that the charge framed against A-4 was gross negligence in discharge of duties, deliberate violation of L.S.O conditions, deviation from stipulated procedures and total callousness while reporting to Head Office. There was no charge that he had criminally associated himself with A-1, A-2 and A-3

¶200

¶201

and was instrumental in furnishing false and fabricated documents to obtain loan for A-1 and A-2. There was also no charge of receiving illegal gratification.

¶202

67. It is thus seen that the prosecution has produced substantive evidence only against A-1, A-2 and A-3 and against A-7 and A-8. But there is no evidence directly holding that A-4 was a member of criminal conspiracy along with A-1, A-2, A-3, A-7 and A-8 to prepare and present forged and fraudulent documents.

¶203

68. As stated above, the conduct of A-4 in lodging a complaint is very significant. He had not tried to cover up the issue, rather he had invited police investigation on the issue.

¶204

69. The learned Judge had thought that it would be appropriate to acquit A-5 and A-6 of all charges. The prosecution has not filed any appeal against such acquittal. The learned Trial Judge had held that A-4 had forwarded the recommendation of the loan process which was scrutinized by A-5 to the Central Office. A-4 had signed the recommendation. A-4 had

¶205

¶206

also issued the cheque of Rs.24/- lakhs after deducting Rs.1/- lakh as per rules of the Bank. The cheque had been marked as Ex.P-9. The trial Judge had therefore convicted A-4 on the ground that he had processed the loan papers.

¶207

70. But the issue actually is whether at that particular point of time, A-4 knew that A-3, who projected himself as Dayanidhi was not actually Dayanidhi. That is the issue which should have been addressed by the trial Judge. There is no evidence produced by the prosecution to show that A-4, at the time when A-1, A-2 and A-3 were introduced to him by A-5, knew that A-3 was not S.P.Dayanidhi. In view of absence of evidence on this particular point, the processing of the papers given by A-1, A-2 and A-3 was done as is normally done by any Branch Manager. It is similar to the

¶208

legal opinion given, which was also based on a forged document.

¶209

71. It is not the case of the prosecution that A-4 had knowledge that the papers were fraudulently prepared for the loan to be sanctioned. He

¶210

had recommended the loan to be sanctioned in the normal course of business on the belief and trust that A-3 was actually Dayanidhi and not

¶211

¶212

Jayaseelan. The fact that A3 was actually Jayaseelan and not Dayanidhi was known directly to A-2 but the trial Judge had acquitted A-2 and the prosecution has not filed any Appeal against such acquittal. When A-2 had direct knowledge that her brother S.Jayaseelan was impersonating in front of her as S.P.Dayanidhi and was signing documents as S.P.Dayanidhi in her presence then she must have been part of the conspiracy. But she has been acquitted by the trial Judge. I would find fault with the trial Judge for having acquitted A-2 but since there is no appeal filed by the prosecution, the matter has to rest there. However, the role of A-4 was only to process the papers. There is no evidence produced to show that he was aware of the conspiracy or that he was a one of the conspirators.

¶213

72. I hold that the finding by the learned Judge that A-4 was the

¶214

centre and other accused's roles were performed only with his consent and participation is based on surmises and presumption and certainly based on prejudice with a predetermined decision to convict A-4.

¶215

73. PW-30 was also examined by the prosecution. He was the Investigating Officer till 30.06.2003. During his cross examination, he

¶216

¶217

admitted that he had not examined the advocate who had given the legal opinion which was the actual base document for sanction of loan since it was that legal opinion which cleared the title of the property and which legal opinion was actually based on a fraudulently prepared document.

¶218

74. During his cross examination, PW-31, the Investigating Officer admitted that he did not make any preliminary enquiry with A-4, who was a public servant. PW-31 was cross examined with the role of PW-7 R.Varadharajan and he very specifically stated as follows: “tujuhrd; bghpa mjpfhhp mtUf;F fld; ghpe;Jiufs; bra;ag;gl;lhy; mjpy; vd;bdd;d Mtz';fs; mtrpakhdJ bjhpa[k; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ MdhYk; vd;dplk; V 4 kPJ Fiwahf Twpa Mtzk; VJk; tpsf;fk; nfl;L bgwtpy;iybad;why; rhpjhd;/ tHf;F V4 kPJ bjhLf;f fl;lhaj;jpd;nghpy; mDkjp tH';fg;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpay;y/ tujuhrd; me;j Fiwfis nfl;L V4 f;F jpUg;gpaDg;gpapUe;jhy; ,e;j CHy; jLf;fg;gl;oUf;Fk; ,e;j jtW ele;jpUf;fhJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ,e;j

¶219

¶220

KiwnfLfs; tujuhrd; cah; mjpfhhp mthpd; tha;bkhHp cj;jutpd;nghpy; fPH; mjpfhhpfs; ele;Jbfhs;thh;fs;/ Mfnt jiyik mYtyfk; Twpagojhd; V4 ghpe;Jiu bra;jhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ V4 ve;j jtWk; bra;atpy;iy cah; mjpfhhp tha;bkhHp cj;juit mth; Twpago mDg;gpitj;jhh; vd;why; vdf;F bjhpahJ/”

¶221

75. The above evidence very clearly establishes that A-4 cannot be held to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. He had only forwarded the papers given by A-1, A-2, and A-3 and the loan was sanctioned by PW7 R.Varadharajan, who as stated earlier, was at the time of tendering evidence, was working as Executive Director of REPCO Bank. At the time of the incident, he was the General Manager in the Head Office of REPCO Bank. He had sanctioned the loan. He had deposed evidence on behalf of

¶222

the prosecution. The evidence of PW-31 however shows that there is no direct proof, even according to the Investigating Officer with respect to the role of A-4 in preparing the forged document or that he had knowledge that A-3 was actually Jayaseelan and not Dayanithi.

¶223

¶224

76. In Bhagwan Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ,

¶225

(2002) 4 SCC 85 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

¶226

" the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. "

¶227

77. In view of the above dictum, I would set aside the conviction

¶228

and sentence passed against A-4 and allow Crl.A.No. 289 of 2010.

¶229

78. With respect to A-3 and A-7 as discussed above, there is direct

¶230

evidence of A-3 impersonating as PW-2 S.P.Dayanidhi. The documentary evidence and the oral evidence states in the face of A-3. He has been rightly convicted by the trial Judge. I am not prepared to reverse such conviction.

¶231

79. Against A-7 as discussed earlier, he had been instrumental in

¶232

preparing the fake stamp papers and fake seals in which the fraudulent

¶233

¶234

document Ex.P-13 was prepared. Therefore, he had also been rightfully convicted by the trial Judge. The charges against A-8 has abated since he had died.

¶235

80. The contention of the learned counsel for A-3 and A-7 that specimen signatures were not obtained in the presence of the Magistrate are rejected since Section 311A of Cr.P.C., was introduced only subsequently and not at the time when specimen signatures of A-7 were obtained. PW-10 and PW-8 have very clearly spoken that the document Ex.A-13 is a false document. PW-11 and PW-31 also spoke about the direct role of A-7. In view of these facts, the conviction and sentence against A-3 and A-7 are confirmed. Therefore, Crl.A.No. 323 of 2010 is dismissed against A-3 and A-7. It stands abated against A-8, who had since died and naturally the

¶236

charges against A-8 also stands abated.

¶237

81 . In the result,

¶238

(a) A-4 is acquitted of all charges;

¶239

(b) A-9 is acquitted of all charges;

¶240

¶241

(c) the fine amount if any paid by A-4 and A-9 are directed to be

¶242

refunded. The bail bonds executed shall stand cancelled.

¶243

82. (a) The conviction against A-3 and A-7 are confirmed.

¶244

A-3 and A-7 and found guilty for offence under Section 120-B IPC.
A-3 is found guilty for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. A-
3 is found guilty for offence punishable under Section 419 IPC.
A-7 is found guilty for offence punishable under Section 419 read
with 120-B IPC.
A-3 is found guilty for offence punishable under Section 467, 468
and 471 IPC.

¶245

A-7 is found guilty for offence punishable under Section 467, 468 and 471 read with 120-B IPC.

¶246

¶247

The conviction against A- 3 and A-7 are maintained.

¶248

A-3 and A-7 are convicted and sentenced to undergo 6 months

¶249

rigorous imprisonment and both imposed with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default

¶250

3 months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 120-B IPC.

¶251

A-3 is convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 5 years

¶252

rigorous imprisonment and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for offence punishable under

¶253

Section 420 IPC.

¶254

A-3 is convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period

¶255

of two years rigorous imprisonment and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-,

¶256

in default simple imprisonment for 3 months for offence punishable under Section 419 IPC.

¶257

A-7 is convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period

¶258

of 2 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed with fine of Rs.5,000/- in

¶259

default 3 months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 120-B IPC.

¶260

¶261

A-3 and A-7 are convicted and sentenced to undergo period of 5

¶262

years rigorous imprisonment and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B IPC.

¶263

The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. The period already undergone by A-3 and A-7 are directed to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

¶264

The trial Court IV Assistant Sessions Court, Chennai is directed to secure A-3 and A-7 forthwith to undergo remaining period of sentence if any.

¶265

83. In the result,

¶266

(1) Crl.A.No. 289 of 2010 is allowed and the sentence and conviction

¶267

of A-4 is set aside;

¶268

¶269

(2) Crl.A.No. 296 of 2010 is allowed and the sentence and conviction

¶270

of A-9 is set aside;

¶271

(3) Crl.A.No. 323 of 2010 is dismissed with respect to A-3 and A-7

¶272

and the sentence and conviction against A-3 and A-7 are upheld. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed against A-8 as abated.

¶273

84. A3 and A7 are found guilty for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 419, 419 read with 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 471 read with 120-B IPC. Sentences already imposed by the Trial Court are confirmed. The Trial Court is directed to take A3 and A7 into custody forthwith to serve the remaining portion of sentence, if any. As stated by the Trial Court, all the sentences have to run concurrently.

¶274

02.11.2021

¶275

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vsg

¶276

¶277

¶278