Dismissed

Dharmalingam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC28 Sept 2021CRL RC/708/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Revision, the High Court upheld the conviction of two accused who pledging spurious jewels as gold to avail bank loans. The Court found no perversity in the lower courts' conclusion that the jewels were fake based on the committee's report and verification, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are confirmed.

Dharmalingam Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

BAIL SLIP

¶2

The Petitioner/Accused viz., Dharamalingam, aged 63 years, S/o Elayaperumal and Arumugam, aged 61 years, S/o Natarajan, was directed to be released on bail vide order in M.P.No.1/2015 in Crl.R.C.No.708 of 2015 dated.22.07.2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

ORDERS RESERVED ON ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON 12.07.2021 28.09.2021

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶7

Crl.R.C.No.708 of 2015

¶8

1.Dharmalingam 2.Arumugam .. Petitioners/A2 & A3 Vs.

¶9

State Rep.by Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station, Salem District. .. Respondent/Complainant

¶10

PRAYER : Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment dated 15.10.2014 passed in C.A.No.34 of 2014 on the file of the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem by modifying the judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed in C.C.No.331 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja Government Advocate

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The convicted accused 2&3 are the revision petitioners herein.

¶14

2. This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment dated 15.10.2014 passed in C.A.No.34 of 2014 on the file of the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem by modifying the judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed in C.C.No.331 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem.

¶15

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

¶16

3. The respondent police filed a charge sheet against 3 persons A1 Padmanathan A2 and A3 alleging that A1 is the Branch Manager of the Bank at the relevant point of time and A2 and A3 who has availed jewel loan in conveyance with A1 who is the jewel appraiser of the bank have pledged spurious jewels as if it is a gold and availed loan.

¶17

4. The complainant is the Nationalized Bank having the branch at chevvaipettai, Salem and the first accused was engaged as a jewel appraiser for the appraiser of jewel loans pledged with the complainant bank. With the instructions of the Controlling Authorities they formed Committee consisting of the Branch Manager, Assistant Manager, Senior Manager (legal) and one of the customer of the bank and Advocate and Notary Public Mr.S.Prasad and Arunkumar Penal Advocate and one P.Arthanari, Bank Panel jewel appraiser to verify the genuineness of the staff of the jewels pledged with the bank till date of the circular/notification of Bank of India that are appraised and certified as a gold jewels by the first accused.

¶18

5. One such incident has been surfaced from the Bank of India cautioning about the act of fraud namely Wrong Valuation Certificate issued by the jewel appraiser Padmanabhan the first accused herein, based upon the such circular from the another nationalized bank said to have been raised, since the said jewel appraiser Padmanabhan happened to be jewel appraiser of the complainant to the bank also.

¶19

6. The verification report submitted by Mr.P.Arthanari - jewel appraiser cum Committee member reveal and certified that the pledged jewels pertaining to the following jewel loan accounts were found to be spurious, fake and "possess no gold value".

¶20

Sl. No.	A/c. No.	Date	Name	Descritp tion	Remar ks	Amt of Advance
1.	9932	18.07.2000	Dharmalingam	Bangles - 6 Nos.	Fake	Rs.13,000/-
2.	9952	23.10.2000	---do---	Chain 1 No.	Fake	Rs. 7,000/-
3.	210005	11.01.2001	---do---	Bangles - 6 Nos.	Fake	Rs.13,000/-
4.	210036	16.03.2001	---do---	Bangles - 8 Nos.	Fake	Rs.17,000/-
5.	9951	17.10.2000	SN Arumugam	Bangles - 6 Nos.	Fake	Rs.13,000/-

¶21

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

¶22

Sl.	A/c.	Date	Name	Descritp	Remar	Amt of
No.	No.			tion	ks	Advance
6.	9957	07.11.2000	---do---	Bangles	Fake	Rs.29,000/-
				- 6 Nos.
					Total	Rs.92,000/-

¶23

7. The aforesaid 2nd and 3rd accused were introduced to the complainant by the 1st accused. Apart from the acts aforesaid it is evident that the 1st accused joined hands in conspiracy with 2nd and 3rd accused with dishonest and fraudulant intention had cheated the complainant bank and had caused a wrongful loss to the complainant and thereby made a unlawful gains for themselves.

¶24

8. The acts of the 1st and 3rd accused clearly depict the commission of offences punishable under Section 120-(b), 403, 406, 420, 423 of I.P.C.

¶25

9. P.W.1 is the Manager of the Bank and based upon the communication received from the Bank of India - Ex.P9 that the first accused herein has cheated the Bank by pledging spurious gold jewels in connivance with the petitioners herein, accordingly the Bank has formulated a committee consisting of seven persons viz., K.Shivaprasad Hedge - Branch Manager, Samikutty - Assistant Manager, Dinesan - Senior Manager, V.G.Sachtchidanandan - Customer of the Bank, Mr.Prasad - Notary Public, Arun Kumar - Bank Advocate, P.Arthanari - Jewel Appraiser, to verify the genuineness of the jewels pledged with the bank, till that date, which were already appraised and certified by the first accused viz., M.Padmanabhan as "genuine gold jewels".

¶26

10. Based upon the said communication, they have opened the lockers containing the jewels pledged towards loan and 39 jewels loan accounts were subjected to scrutiny. In respect of the present case, the Bank Manager, jewel appraiser, has found that all the jewels deposited by A2 and A3 were spurious in nature, fake and no gold value and hence, they gave a complaint to the Commissioner and the crime was registered.

¶27

11. On the side of the prosecution, they have examined the Senior Manager as P.W.1; Bank Manager as P.W.2; the customer as P.W.3; Investigation Officer as P.W.4 and the complaint before the Commissioner was marked as Ex.P1; jewel loan applications of the second accused were marked as Exs.P2 to P5; jewels loan applications of the third accused were marked as Exs.P6&P7; the

¶28

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

¶29

letter intimation of the maturity of the loan sent to the second accused was marked as Ex.P8; letter of intimation sent by Bank of India is marked as Ex.P9; Panchanama was marked as Ex.P10; Certificate of the gold appraiser viz., Arthanari was marked as Ex.P11; Advocate Certificate was marked as Ex.P12; legal notice and service 2nd and 3rd were marked as Exs.P13 to P16; FIR was marked as Ex.P17; Seizure Mahazar was marked as Ex.P18; admissible portion of the confession statement of the first accused was marked as Ex.P19.

¶30

12. The trial Court has convicted the accused and the same was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. During the pendency of the case, first accused died and hence, the accused Nos.2 and 3 have preferred this Criminal Revision case before this Court.

¶31

13. After hearing the rival submissions and on perusal of the records reveals that the accused Nos.2 and 3 have availed loan under Exs.P2 to P7 and even after expiry of the loan period of two years, both the accused have not come forward to discharge the loan and hence, legal notices were issued to A2 and A3 under Exs.P13 to P16. Meanwhile, Ex.P9/letter sent by the Bank of India, wherein, it was informed that the first accused has indulged in giving wrong report in support of jewel loan and he is accused in some of the cases in the other nationalized bank. Thereafter, a committee was formed to verify the genuineness of the jewels pledged with the bank. In the said committee, notary public is one of the member, who has given inspection report under Ex.P12, indicating that the gold jewels pledged by A2 and A3 are spurious in nature and has no gold value.

¶32

14. Furthermore, he would draw my attention to the fact that after the formation of the committee, a locker was opened for the committee as stated supra and the committee by following due process of law has confirmed that the jewels pledged by A2 and A3 are spurious in nature and has no gold value as certified by Arthanari, gold appraiser, who could not be traced out and could not be examined before the trial Court.

¶33

15. Based upon the documentary evidence of loan requisition letter and sanction letter of the accused A2 to A5 and legal notice is Exs.P13 to P17 and report of Ex.P12, both the trial court as well as the lower Appellate Court have rightly come to the conclusion that the jewels that are pledged by the appellant herein, A2 and A3 are not real gold jewels but they are spurious

¶34

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

¶35

jewels which does not has any 'gold value'. As per Ex.P10 Panchanama dated 4.4.2002, 4.2.2002 and 2.2.2002 Exs.P10 to P12 the jewels that are pledged by the accused herein are found to be spurious.

¶36

16. The accused A2 and A3 has used the spurious jewels as if it is a gold jewels and pledged the same and availed the loan and thereafter left the loan unpaid resulted in issuance of the legal notice. In the meanwhile, in view of the letter/notification issued from the Bank of India an exercise has been carried on by the complainant bank/Vijaya Bank and verify the entire jewel loan that are certified by the first accused (now deceased) and thereby the entire criminal conspiracy hatched by A2 and A3 along with A1 came to light and prosecution has been launched.

¶37

17. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that pledge jewels were kept in jewels locker and the locker can be operated by two keys. Hence, the Bank officials right have tampered the jewels. But in the cross examination the bank manager(P.W.1) has categorically stated that unless both the keys have been open at the same time a locker could not be opened and in view of the specific evidence of P.W.1, the contention raised by the revision petitioner stands negatived.

¶38

18. On verification of the records reveals that the seizure of spurious gold has been made in view of the finding given by the committee and the panjanama dated 4.2.2002 resulting in registration of the giving of the complaint on 1.4.2002 before the respondent police and the same was registered on 4.4.2002. Thereafter, necessary proceedings have been taken and property has been seized under Ex.P8. the seizure witnesses have deposed regarding the act of seizure by the police in their presence and hence in view of the overwhelming evidence regarding the nature of jewel loan applied and obtained by A2 and A3 in conveyance with A1 and the Panchaname Ex.P10 and Certificate of Appraiser Ex.P11, I find that both the Courts below have correctly come to the conclusion that what was pledged by A2 and A3 are not real gold and only spurious jewels look like gold. By their own conduct of non payment of loan, though not a factor on independent footing, however on a cumulative reading, adds weightage to the case of the prosecution and hence the concurrent finding rendered by both the Courts below does not suffer from any perversity in finding or illegality in procedure and hence in the absence of any illegality or irregularity in the finding rendered by both the Courts below, this Court has

¶39

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

¶40

not inclined to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in the revision jurisdiction.

¶41

19. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed and conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are hereby confirmed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶44

//True Copy//

¶45

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶46

nvi

¶47

¶48

The 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem

¶49

The Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem.

¶50

Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station,

¶51

Salem District.

¶52

-do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.

¶53

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶54

The Superintendent,

¶55

Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶56

Order in

¶57

Crl.R.C.No.708 of 2015

¶58

KV (CO)

¶59

K.RK. (12.10.2021)

¶60

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

Dharmalingam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmalingam v. the Inspector of Police

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

R.Selvam Vs Thangapoorani

M.v.Samy Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

Thimmarayappa Vs Deputy Commissioner of Civil

R. Duraimurugan Vs State Rep. by the

R.Saravanakumar, 35/M, Vs K.Prabhakaran

Jeysankar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police