Allowed

M.Aziz v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Madras HC10 Oct 2022CRL MP/15377/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a petition under Section 389 Cr.P.C. to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on a 75-year-old petitioner convicted in a banking fraud case. Bail was enlarged pending the disposal of his criminal appeal on the execution of a bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

The substantive sentence of imprisonment suspended and the petitioner enlarged on bail on execution of Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties.

M.Aziz Vs Central Bureau of Investigation — Corruption | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.MP.No.15377 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.1107 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.10.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.MP.No.15377 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.1107 of 2022

¶7

M.Aziz (M/75) S/o.Late. Mohd. Mohideen, No.15/7, New Colony, Alwarthiru Nagar, Chennai 600 087.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Central Bureau of Investigation, Represented by the Investigating Officer, Economics Offences Wing, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090. RC.No.4(E)/98/CBI/EOW/CNI

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: This Petition is filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C., to suspend the sentence imposed in C.C.No.15 of 2001 dated 16.09.2022 by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and enlarge the Petitioner/Appellant on Bail, pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Somasundaram For Respondents : Mr.K.Srinivasan Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/8

¶16

Crl.MP.No.15377 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.1107 of 2022

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.7, seeking suspension of sentence imposed in C.C.No.15 of 2001 dated 16.09.2022 by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and enlarge the Petitioner/Appellant on Bail, pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal.

¶19

2.The Petitioner/Appellant is the accused No.7 in C.C.No.15 of 2001

¶20

before the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases (VIII Additional City

¶21

Civil Court), Chennai. He was convicted and sentenced as under:

¶22

S.No	Charges	A11/S.Arunachalam
1	Charge No.1 120b r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 r/w 468 IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 & 132, 135 of Customs Act	3 years RI and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 9 months SI
2	Charge No.8 409 IPC	3 years RI and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 9 months SI
3	Charge No.9 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act	3 years RI and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 9 months SI
4	Charge No.10 409 IPC	3 years RI and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 9 months SI
5	Charge No.11 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act	3 years RI and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 9 months SI
6	Charge No.13 409 IPC	3 years RI and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 9 months SI

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2/8

¶25

Crl.MP.No.15377 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.1107 of 2022

¶26

S.No	Charges	A11/S.Arunachalam
7	Charge No.14 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act	3 years RI and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 9 months SI
8	Charge No.15 409 IPC	3 years RI and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 9 months SI
9	Charge No.16 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act	3 years RI and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 9 months SI
10	Charge No.18 409 IPC	3 years RI and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 9 months SI
11	Charge No.19 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act	3 years RI and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 9 months SI
12	Charge No.25 409 IPC	3 years RI and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 9 months SI
13	Charge No.26 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act	3 years RI and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 9 months SI

¶27

3.Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the Petitioner/ Accused No.7 filed the Appeal along with the instant Miscellaneous Petition, seeking suspension of sentence and enlarge him on bail.

¶28

4.The case against the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is the then Assistant General Manger of Indian Bank, Thousand Lights Branch, Chenani. The Directors of A1 & A2 company had obtained credit facilities from Indian bank, Thousand Light Branch to the tune of Rs.39.18 crores. The other Accused viz., then Chief Managers, then Senior Managers, then Zonal

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

3/8

¶31

Crl.MP.No.15377 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.1107 of 2022

¶32

Manager, then Chairman & Managing Director of Indian Bank along with A7 were conspired with them and extended credit facilities to A1 to A4. The said loan amount has been misappropriated and cheated. Further, for availing credit facilities, A3 & A4 produced false documents showing their credit worthiness, turn over, export bills and other documents. The primary allegation against the Petitioner is that he is being the then General Manager of Indian Bank granted loan to A1 to A4 for the purpose of settling another loan availed by them with Bharath Overseas Bank.

¶33

5.Before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution 61 witnesses examined as P.W.1 to P.W.61 and 785 documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.785 and on the side of the accused no one examined and 28 documents marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D28.

¶34

6.On perusal of evidences and available materials on record, the trial Court convicted the Petitioner as stated above.

¶35

7.The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the trial Court erred in not appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence. The CBI failed to collect evidence to confirm the competent authority to grant sanction order to

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

4/8

¶38

Crl.MP.No.15377 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.1107 of 2022

¶39

prosecute against the Petitioner. Name of the Petitioner does not find place in the FIR registered by the CBI. The Petitioner was not having any powers to sanction, recommend and to reject any proposal. The Petitioner brought it to the notice of the higher officials in writings and by sending various letters mentioning the conduct of the borrowers and hence, he is not responsible for the offence.

¶40

8.The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the

¶41

Petitioner is 75 years old man and is suffering from age related health issues and he is taking treatment for cancer.

¶42

9.Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases appearing for the Respondent submitted that Petitioner, who is the then Assistant General Manager of Indian bank, Chennai was convicted for offences under section 120b r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 r/w 468 IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 & 135 of Customs Act and was sentenced to undergo 3 years Rigorous imprisonment each, for each of the offences. There are thirteen counts/charges on which the sentence of 3 years Rigorous imprisonment has been imposed on the Petitioner. But for the specific mention

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

5/8

¶45

Crl.MP.No.15377 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.1107 of 2022

¶46

in the judgement that the sentences would run concurrently, the total sentences is to the tune of 3 years.

¶47

10.He further submitted that the fine imposed on the Petitioner by the

¶48

Trial Court in judgement dated 16.09.2022 has been paid by the Petitioner.

¶49

11.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that there are arguable points involved in the appeal and it would take some time for the appeal to be taken up for final hearing, this Court is inclined to suspend the Substantive Sentence of Imprisonment alone till the disposal of the Appeal.

¶50

12.Accordingly, the Substantive Sentence of Imprisonment imposed on

¶51

the Petitioner is suspended till the disposal of the Appeal and the Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, on condition that he shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Special Judge, VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶52

13.Further, the Petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court once

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

6/8

¶55

Crl.MP.No.15377 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.1107 of 2022

¶56

in six months, on the first working day of English Calendar month at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶57

10.10.2022 (2/2)

¶58

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order

¶59

sai To 1.The learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

7/8

¶62

Crl.MP.No.15377 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.1107 of 2022

¶63

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶64

sai

¶65

Crl.MP.No.15377 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.1107 of 2022

¶66

10.10.2022 (2/2)

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

8/8

M.Aziz v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Aziz v. Central Bureau of Investigation

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

N.S. Vaithiyalinga Udaiyar, Vs the Joint Commissioner

Ponseelan.S.D Vs the Executive Officer

K.R.Ramachandran Raja Vs the Principal Chief

D.Revathi Vs the Director

R.Ravichandran Vs Inspector of Police

S.Arunachalam Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police