Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs The State Rep. By

Madras High Court|07 August, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order in Crl.MP.No.3350 of 2009 in C.C.No.3 of 2009 dated 22.07.2013, on the file of XI Additional Special Judge, CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai.
2. The Petitioner, who is arrayed as A-6 is alleged to have committed a substantive offence u/s.420 IPC. The petitioner was a financial Advisor for Pearl Distillery Limited and did liaison work with the bank towards obtaining loan. The two Companies viz., Kyvalya Agro Farms Private Limited and Smruthi Agro Farms Private Limited have taken loans to the extent of Rs.14 Crores and Rs.6 Crores respectively. The petitioner deposited the money into fixed deposit and subsequently extended the same as security for the loans of two companies. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, the petitioner accused along with other accused persons entered into an understanding and got sanctioned amount of Rs.20 Crores in favour of M/s.Pearl Distillery Limited for clearing the over due liabilities in the accounts of Balaji Group.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no allegation of misrepresentation by the petitioner at any point of time. When a huge amount of money of 12 Crores out of 20 Crores is paid, the same establishes the proper and genuine intention to repay from the companies and no fraudulent intention to cheat by this petitioner. The petitioner has not been alleged to have gained personally the whole transaction. There is lack of intention at the inception and fact that no wrongful loss having been caused by any act of the petitioner.
4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that due to non-payment of the loan, the Bank was compelled to write off the over dues in the demand loan causing it a total loss of Rs.30.39 Crore + interest. Even the amount was invested in the Non-convertible Debentures was not paid back to the bank and the bank was compelled to convert the same as a term loan which is still overdue causing a loss of Rs.20 Crore + interest. The documents submitted along with the charge sheet would clearly establish that petitioner in his capacity as the Financial Advisor of the group of companies have active role in the fraud. The offence committed was a premeditated conspiracy of the promoters/directors of the companies and the officials of the bank to create fixed deposits after NCD subscription, avail loan against it, withdraw the deposit and finally write off the loan at the cost of the public money. The materials both oral and documentary produced before this Court by the prosecution along with charge sheet shall clearly establish prima facie role of the petitioner in the fraud.
5. After filing the charge sheet, The XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.3 of 2009. During the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner/A6 filed a discharge petition before the Special Court in Crl.MP.No.3350/2009 and after considering the entire facts, the trial court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner.
6. Aggrieved against the said order passed by the trial court in Crl.MP.No.3350/2009, this petitioner has preferred the present revision.
7. When the matter is taken up for consideration today, there is no representation for the petitioner.
8. On perusal of the records, it is seen that there are ample evidence to prove the criminal conspiracy and the cheating of GTB by the petitioner. The materials both oral and documentary produced before this Court by the prosecution along with the charge-sheet shall clearly establish prima facie role of the petitioner/A6. The Supreme Court has held in catena of decisions that at the stage of framing charge, the trial court has only to see whether there is prima facie case made out against the accused to proceed further from the charge sheet and documents sent with it and if prima facie case is made out, the court should frame charge and proceed with the trial.
9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that after the dismissal of the Crl.MP.No.3350 of 2009, the trial court framed charge against the petitioner and other accused and trial also commenced. Since charge has already been framed and trial also commenced and the petitioner also participated in the trial, nothing survives for adjudication in the revision case and therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.08.2017 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order gv To
1.Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation Bank Securities & Fraud Cell, Bangalore.
2. The XI Additional Special Judge, CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Chennai.
P.VELMURUGAN.,J.
gv CRL.RC.No.1095 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 08.08.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs The State Rep. By

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
07 August, 2017