Dismissed¶652

M.Murugappan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Sept 2025CRL A/420/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal dismissed; CBI bank-fraud conviction confirmed; SBI clerk-cum-typist telex message and FCNR fabrication; NRE accounts of Ramasamy Chettiar, Kannappan and Punitha Ramanathan; extra-judicial confession Exs.P14 and P15 before bank officials; handwriting expert report Ex.P368 and Hardless comparison standards; maker of false document doctrine (Sheila Sebastian; Mohd. Ibrahim); conspiracy with unknown persons; Section 65B Indian Evidence Act computer printouts; Prevention of Corruption Act 13(1)(d) abuse of official position; sentence confirmed, concurrent, set off; 2025:MHC:2130.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; conviction and sentence confirmed; twelve weeks granted to surrender to the Trial Court to serve the remainder of the sentence; sentences to run concurrently with set off; fines noted as already paid.

M.Murugappan Vs the Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶652

Issue for consideration

Whether the extra-judicial confessions Exs.P14 and P15, recorded before bank officials, are voluntary, admissible and usable as corroborative evidence despite the officials having faced departmental action. +4 more

¶296

Court's answer

The extra-judicial confessions (Exs.P14 and P15) cannot be the sole basis for convicting the appellant but can certainly be used as corroborative material along with other evidence in relation to the individual charges.

¶296

Ratio / Principle

Exs.P14 and P15 were made voluntarily before officials who cannot be said to be inimically disposed toward the accused; the submission that they should not be considered is rejected.

¶301

Key takeaways

The absence of enlargement photos cannot, due to the volume involved, serve as a reason to reject the handwriting expert's report Ex.P368.ratio¶303
There is no flaw in the comparison process of handwritings and signatures, which broadly aligns with Chapter VI of H.R. Hardless; the argument that the entire evidence of the handwriting expert should not be considered is rejected.ratio¶316
Computer-generated printouts marked without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act can be discarded, but the share brokers' and sub-brokers' oral evidence coupled with their ledgers corroborates the version in Exs.P14 and P15 as to how the accused utilised the money.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.; neutral citation 2025:MHC:2130; pronounced 01.09.2025) dismisses Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2014 filed by M. Murugappan, former Clerk-cum-Typist, State Bank of India, Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch, confirming the judgment dated 30.07.2014 in C.C.No.63 of 2001 convicting him on all 33 charges — conspiracy and offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468 r/w 471, 467 r/w 471, 477-A, 381, 201 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988 — with one year's rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1,000 fine per charge, running concurrently. Prosecution case: the accused opened NRE/current accounts in the names of Ramasamy Chettiar, his brother Kannappan and his wife Punitha Ramanathan without their knowledge, fabricated FCNR receipts and inward telex messages, credited fictitious foreign remittances and withdrew the funds, being the sole beneficiary; four FIRs (RC 1-4(A)/98 of 13.01.1998) were consolidated into a single charge sheet. Held: (i) extra-judicial confessions Exs.P14/P15 were voluntary, made before officials not inimically disposed, and admissible as corroborative material though not the sole basis of conviction; (ii) the handwriting expert's report Ex.P368 is not discredited for want of enlargement photos or alleged deficit of admitted writings, the comparison broadly aligning with Chapter VI of H.R. Hardless; (iii) applying Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581 (quoting Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751), the accused is the maker of the false documents even though the questioned signatures were not conclusively attributed to him; (iv) co-officials' lapses warranted only departmental action, with no criminal complicity or conspiracy with them shown, and conspiracy with unknown persons is sustainable; (v) computer printouts without a Section 65B certificate are discardable but the share-broker evidence corroborates the confession; (vi) Section 13(1)(d) PC Act is satisfied by abuse of position plus pecuniary benefit, not illegal gratification alone. Sentences confirmed; fines recorded as paid; twelve weeks to surrender.

¶1

2025:MHC:2130

¶2

Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 04.08.2025

¶5

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:01.09.2025

¶6

CORAM :

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶8

Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2014 M.Murugappan ... AppellantAccused Vs. State by The Inspector of Police SPE/CBI/ACB Chennai. .. Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the judgment dated 30.07.2014 in C.C.No.63 of 2001 rendered by the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai, against the appellant and acquit the appellant.

¶10

For the Appellant : Mr.R.Rajarathinam Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Sundaresan For the Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)

¶11

Page 1 of 97

S. No.	Offence	Punishment
1	U/s 120-B r/w 420, 468 r/w 471, 467 r/w 471, 477-A, 406, 381, 201 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
2	U/s 406 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
3	U/s 468 r/w 471 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
4	U/s 381 IPC (two counts)	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
5	U/s 467 r/w 471 IPC (two counts)	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR

S. No.	Offence	Punishment
		EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
6	U/s 467 r/w 471 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
7	U/s 420 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
8	U/s 420 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
9	U/s 468 r/w 471 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
10	U/s 420 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
11	U/s 467 IPC (three counts)	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
12	U/s 467 r/w 471 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
13	U/s 420 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one

S. No.	Offence	Punishment
		thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
14	U/s 477-A IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
15	U/s467 IPC (two counts)	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
16	U/s 467 r/w 471 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
17	U/s 420 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
18	U/s 477-A IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
19	U/s 468 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
20	U/s 468 r/w 471 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
21	U/s 467 IPC (two counts)	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE

S. No.	Offence	Punishment
		IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
22	U/s 467 r/w 471 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
23	U/s 420 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
24	U/s 477-A IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
25	U/s 467 IPC (two counts)	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
26	U/s 420 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
27	U/s 420 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
28	U/s 477-A IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
29	U/s 467 r/w 471 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS

S. No.	Offence	Punishment
30	U/s 467 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
31	U/s 467 r/w 471 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
32	U/s 201 IPC	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS
33	U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC, Act 1988	RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR (1) ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR (3) THREE MONTHS

*Sl.* *No.*	*In Exhibits*	*Matching Handwriting*	*Questioned* *Signatures* *Not matching*
1	Ex.P.62 (A/c Opening Form)	Q1,Q2,Q3	5,6,7,8,11,12
2	Ex.P.94 (A/c Opening Form)	Q13, Q14	15,16
3	Ex.P.98 (A/c Opening Form)	Q18,Q19	20,21
4	Ex.P.63 (Term Deposit Receipt)	Q22	24
5	Ex.P.74 (Term Deposit Receipt)	Q29	33
6	Ex.P.77 (Term Deposit Receipt)	Q25	27
		CHEQUES
7	Ex.P.96	Q89,90,91,92,93	229
8	Ex.P.127	Q32	155,156
9	Ex.P.128	Q45,46,47,48,299,300,30 1	174,175,301(Backside Murugappan)
10	Ex.P.130	Q34,35,36,37,38	162
11	Ex.P.131	Q39	163
12	Ex.P.132	Q40	164
13	Ex.P.133	Q41	165
14	Ex.P.134	Q42	166, 167
15	Ex.P.135	Q44	169, 170
16	Ex.P.136	Q43	168, 229, 333
17	Ex.P.144	Q28	284
18	Ex.P.294	Q78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86	221
19	Ex.P.295	Q87	222
20	Ex.P.296	Q88	223

*Sl.* *No.*	*In Exhibits*	*Matching Handwriting*	*Questioned* *Signatures* *Not matching*
21	Ex.P.298	Q49 to 76, Q77	210
22	Ex.P.299	Q33	157
23	Ex.P.301	Q31, 298	153, 154
24	Ex.P.309	Q.30, 92 to 154, 297 (Murugappan)	151,152,297 (Backside – Murugappan)

The Contentions: i) ExP.69, ExP.70, ExP.76, ExP.84, ExP.85, ExP.172, ExP.189 ad ExP.192 are the telex messages.
ii) No evidence that they are all fabricated telex messages. iii) With regard to telex message procedures spoken to by PW.2, PW3, PW.5, PW.6, PW.10, PW.11 and PW.12.
iv) Accounts Manager Devadoss was not examined. v)Telex message operator Srinivasan was not examined. vi) PW.52 (I.O.) admitted that no statement was recorded from him (page 394). vii) There is no evidence against the accused with regard to telex messages. viii)No evidence to show that the available telex messages are forged one. The procedure will not allow to create forged telex messages.
The Findings: On the perusal of statement of accounts in NRE 173 it is evident that Rs.677600 is deposited vide PEx. 24 with a further telex transfer of 19,565 usd vide Ex. P84 . Rs.278006/- is paid usd 8062 on june 6 vide Ex. P27. Rs. 313985 is deposited in 173 account vide Ex P-18. The new york branch had categorically denied of issued certain telex messages. All the amounts were deposited in the accounts relatable only to the accused PW6 Deposed that a sum of Rs. 677600 is deposited vide credit

The Contentions: i) ExP.69, ExP.70, ExP.76, ExP.84, ExP.85, ExP.172, ExP.189 ad ExP.192 are the telex messages.
ii) No evidence that they are all fabricated telex messages. iii) With regard to telex message procedures spoken to by PW.2, PW3, PW.5, PW.6, PW.10, PW.11 and PW.12. iv) Accounts Manager Devadoss was not examined. v)Telex message operator Srinivasan was not examined. vi) PW.52 (I.O.) admitted that no statement was recorded from him (page 394). vii) There is no evidence against the accused with regard to telex messages. viii)No evidence to show that the available telex messages are forged one. The procedure will not allow to create forged telex messages.
The Findings: Kannappan, the brother of the accused, was not examined. There is no handwriting expert opinion to suggest that the accused created the vouchers.
However, the Statement of Account of Kannappan NRE Account 195 is Ex. P100. PW2 states that a sum of Rs. 5,27,758, relating to USD 4,900 under UTTP 33, was debited to this account. The debit voucher in question, Ex.P30, was prepared by the accused. The accused prepared a credit voucher on the same day, which was marked as Ex.P31. A sum of Rs. 5,26,440/- was debited to Kanappan's account vide

Charge No.28 - 477A IPC
That you in the course of same transaction as detail mentioned in the first charge being a clerk to State Bank of India stealthily and with intent to defraud the bank and made a false particulars in the books of accounts of the bank namely the TT purchase transaction of that bank as if the telex message dated 24.1.97 and 4.3.97 for a sum of Rs.2.99.290/- & 2,13,480 as if the said amount was received for purchase of USD purchase and export bill process, which belong to the said bank and send the same to SBI, Foreign Department, Calcutta in order to screen the fraud committed by you and thereby you committed the offence punishable under section 477-A IPC and within my cognizance
The Contentions: Unless the charges relating to the telex messages are proved, their charge of 477-A as a corollary also does not stand proved.
The Findings: The charges relating to the transaction and creation of false telex messages have been proven. Hence, consequently, this charge stands proved.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

S.I. of Police Vs Chithuraji and 3 others

S.I. of Police Vs Senthilkumar and 5 others

Si of Police, Valapady Vs Ashokkumar and 3 others

Thirunavalur Ps Vs Rajangam

Si of Police Vs Rajendhiran

The State by Sub Inspector of Police, Vikkiramangalam P.S Vs Vasantha