AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rank of
the
accused",Conviction under Section,Sentence imposed by the trial Court,
A1 to
A5","Under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 467 r/w 471,
467, 467 r/w 471 IPC, 419 IPC, 467, 467 r/w 471
IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988","Each of them to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to
undergo RI for 6 months",
A4,Under Section 420 IPC,"To undergo RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo RI
for 6 months",
A5,Under Sections 467 and 467 r/w 471 IPC each,"To undergo RI for 4 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/ d to undergo
RI for 6 months",
A3,"Under Section 467, 467 r/w 471 IPC each","To undergo RI for 4 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo
RI for 6 months",
A2,"1.Under Section 419 IPC
2.Under Section 467 IPC, 467 r/w 471 IPC each","1.To undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo RI
for 6 months
2.To undergo RI for 4 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to
undergo 6 months",
A1,"Under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988","To undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo RI
for 6 months. The sentence imposed in C.C.Nos.61 to 64 of 2004 shall run
concurrently along with the sentence imposed in this case.",
A1[J.S.Prabhu]appellant in Crl.A.No.298 of 2009 contends that there was only procedural irregularity in adhering to the regulation while,,,
sanctioning loan. But, there was no dishonest intention on his part to cheat the bank. In Support of this submission, he relies upon the judgment of",,,
the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in C.Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P[1996 Crl.L.J.346(SC)]. It is further contended that the bank has,,,
recovered the entire loan and there is no due from the borrower. This fact has been spoken by DW1 and DW3. While so, taking note of the",,,
judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. J.K.Khanna & Major I.C.Lala [1972 Cri.L.J.849], the trial Court ought to",,,
have acquitted the appellant, contrary to law and facts, the trial Court has erroneously convicted him. Hence, the judgment has to be set aside.",,,
A2 [Palanivel] who is the appellant Crl.A.No. 273 of 2009 contends that through the loan transaction made in favour of M/s Everest garments,",,,
he does not gain to stand any thing. The loan was extended to M/s Everest Garments under beneficial scheme introduced by Union of India. There,,,
is no irregularity or illegality in sanctioning the loan. Further, the loan has been utilised for that purpose it was sanctioned. The facts which have",,,
been elucidated in favour of the defence during the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses had not been properly appreciated by the trial,,,
Court. Admittedly, the appellant had no role in the alleged forgery or fabrication of documents furnished along with the loan application. While so,",,,
the trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant[A2] for want of proof.,,,
D.Gunasekaran[A3] appellant Crl.A.No.286 of 2009 strongly contended that except the evidence of rubber stamp maker [PW.16], there is no",,,
evidence to implicate him in the crime of conspiracy cheating and fabrication of documents. The opinion of the handwriting expert cannot be a,,,
conclusive proof to convict the appellant for forgery, particularly, in the absence of evidence corroborating his opinion. Therefore, the trial Court",,,
judgment based on surmises and conjectures is liable to be set aside.,,,
A4[U.Imaya Varamban] appellant in Crl.A.No.257 of 2009 would contend that he did not sign the loan application form or the application for,,,
opening the bank account and application for non-priority trade advance. While fact being so, the trial court without considering the said plea had",,,
erroneously held him guilty of the charges framed against him.,,,
It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for A4[U.Imaya Varamban] that A4[U.Imaya Varamban] was employee under,,,
A2[Palanivel]. At his direction, he has signed certain documents. He never applied for bank loan. It was A1[J.S.Prabhu] and A2[Palanivel] who",,,
has created the documents pertaining to the loan sanctioned. PW-8 in his deposition has categorically stated that Exs.P-21 and P22 were filled up,,,
by A1[J.S.Prabhu]. This appellant who neither applied for loan nor consented others to use his name for availing loan. In the absence of mens rea,",,,
no criminal liability can be fastened on him. It is further contended by this appellant that the loan has been discharged subsequently by,,,
A2[Palanivel]. Therefore, the bank has not incurred monitory loss. In such circumstances, the charges against him does not survives. Hence, trial",,,
Court judgment is liable to be set aside.,,,
The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI Cases would submit that A1[J.S.Prabhu] Manager of the Corporation bank,",,,
Tamabram Sanatorium Branch had miserably failed to follow the banking regulation and rules while extending the loan to one A4[U.Imaya,,,
Varamban] who claims himself as Proprietor of M/s Everest Garments. He with an intention to cheat the bank had conspired with other accused,,,
namely, Palanivel[A2], Gunasekaran[A3], U.Imaya Varamban[A4] and in pursuant to the said conspiracy, he accepted fake and fabricated",,,
documents produced by A4[U.Imaya Varamban] to show as if he is running the business in the name of M/s Everest Garments, No.33, First",,,
Floor, 5th Street, Ranganathapuram, West Tambaram, Chennai-45 and to make his business working capital of Rs.2.50 lakhs had been",,,
sanctioned by A1[J.S.Prabhu] to A4[Thirumurthy] under CORP VYAPARA Loan Scheme. While the banking regulation mandates that before,,,
sanctioning the loan pre-sanction inspection has to be conducted by the Branch Manager A1[J.S.Prabhu] knowing fully well that there is no firm by,,,
name M/s Everest Garments in the given address and the documents produced for availing loan are fabricated documents without making any pre-,,,
sanction inspection the loan of Rs.2.50 lakhs into account of M/s Everest Garments. Pursuant to the credit of money into the account of M/s,,,
Everest Garments, the entire money has been siphoned out by A2[Palanivel] through cheques in the name of 3rd parties. The documents such as",,,
''A'' register extract, chitta and adangal in respect of the property shown as collateral security were all proved to be fabricated documents with",,,
forged seal of revenue authorities. A3[Gunasekaran] with the help of rubber stamp maker had fabricated chitta, adangal and ''A'' register as if the",,,
property in S.No.165/3 belongs to Kanniappan Reddiar consists of land and building worth about Rs.3,83,500/-. Whereas the prosecution has",,,
proved through competent witness that the valuation report is a false report given by A5[T.N.Ravi deceased] the property does not belong to,,,
Kanniappan and there is no building of S.No.165/3. Therefore, after thorough scrutiny of the evidence let in by the prosecution, the trial Court has",,,
come to right conclusion that the appellants are guilty of the charges. Hence, these appeals are liable to be dismissed.",,,
Heard the learned counsel for the respective appellants and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases. Records perused.,,,
The loan application made by M/s Everest Garments showing No.33, 1st Street, Ranganathapuram, Chennai-45 is dated 03.03.2000 is",,,
marked as Ex.P21. In the said application, thumb impression is fixed in the column ""guarantor"" and identified as left thumb impression of Ponnappa",,,
Reddiar. The land bearing No.165/3, Mangavaram is shown as collateral security. This land belongs to Ponnappa Reddiar. A1[J.S.Prabhu] has",,,
recommended for sanctioning the loan and signed in the application. Along with the loan application, the application for non-priority Trade",,,
Advance other than for vehicle loan is also submitted showing the address of M/s Everest Garments at No.36, 1st Street, Ranganathapuram, West",,,
Tambaram, Chennai. In this application also thumb impression of Ponnappa Reddiar is found along with the signature of Imyaya Varamban[A4].",,,
The letter of proprietorship [Ex.P22] indicates that on 28.03.2000, Imyaya Varamban[A4] carrying on business by name M/s Everest Garments in",,,
No.33, 1st Street, Ranganathapuram, Chennai-45. In Ex.P24[Statement of Assets and Liabilities], address of Imyaya Varamban[A4] is shown as",,,
No. 36, 1st floor, Ranganathapuram, West Tambaram, contrary to the loan application [Ex.P21] and letter of proprietorship [Ex.P22]. Property",,,
Statement of P.Ponnappa Reddiar is also furnished to the bank and the same is marked as Ex.P25. In this document, this Court find the thumb",,,
impression of Ponnappa Reddiar. The prosecution to prove that the property shown as collateral security alleged to be owned by Ponnappa,,,
Reddiar is false and fabricated document, had examined PW-4 [Mr.K.S.Vivekanandan], who is the Village Administrative Officer of Mangavaram",,,
Village. He has given ''A'' Register extract [Ex.P8], chitta [Ex.P9] and adangal [Ex.P10] in respect of S.No.165/3 indicating it belongs to",,,
Kanniyappa reddiar and there is no building in the said property. Whereas, valuation certificate given by T.N.Ravi[A5] (deceased), which is",,,
Rank of
the
accused",Convicted by the trial Court under Section,Sentence imposed by the trial Court,Sentence modified by this Court
,,,
,,,
A1 to
A5","Under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 467 r/w 471, 467,
467 r/w 471 IPC, 419 IPC, 467, 467 r/w 471 IPC and
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988","Each of them to undergo RI for 2 years
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to
undergo RI for 6 months",Remains unaltered
A4,Under Section 420 IPC,"To undergo RI for 4 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo RI for
6 months","To undergo RI for 2 years. No
change in the fine imposed by the
trial Court.
A5,Under Sections 467 and 467 r/w 471 IPC each,"To undergo RI for 4 years each and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/ d to undergo
RI for 6 months","To undergo RI for 2 years each.
No change in the fine imposed by
the trial Court.
A3,"Under Section 467, 467 r/w 471 IPC each","To undergo RI for 4 years each and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo
RI for 6 months","To undergo RI for 2 years each.
No change in the fine imposed by
the trial Court.
A2,"1.Under Section 419 IPC
2.Under Section 467 IPC, 467 r/w 471 IPC each","(1)To undergo RI for 3 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo
RI for 6 months
(2)To undergo RI for 4 years each and
to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to
undergo 6 months","(1) To undergo RI for 2 years.
No change in the fine imposed by
the trial Court.
(2)To undergo RI for 2 years
each. No change in the fine
imposed by the trial Court.
A1,"Under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988","To undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo RI for
6 months.",Remains unaltered