M KAMATCHI SUNDARAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the above Criminal Revision is the seventh accused in C.C. No.221 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore, wherein he is facing trial along with the other accused for the charges under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 472 r/w 120-B and 109, I.P.C. THE petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No.2759 of 2007, seeking his discharge. But the same was contested by the respondent herein and the learned Magistrate dismissed the said Discharge Petition and being aggrieved by that, the above Criminal Revision has been filed.

(2.) THE brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the above Criminal Revision is set out below:(i) On 12.01.2004, the Assistant Vice President of ING Vysya Bank, Saibaba Colony, Near Sivasakthi THEatre, Coimbatore, lodged a Complaint against the petitioner herein and others alleging that A1 to A3 created a false partnership deed on 14.09.2001 as if A2 (R. Nageswari) and A3 (Sakthi Ganesh) were partners of the firm M/s. Golden Fibre and prepared a fabricated lease deed as if the mother of the first accused leased out the factory land and building to M/s. Golden Fibre firm to carry on coir fibre manufacturing work. It is alleged that the said fabricated documents were produced by accused 1 to 3 before the complainant Bank and secured a term loan as well as cash credit facility totaling to Rs.43,58,175/- in favour of M/s. Golden Fibre firm for installation of machineries and to avail cash credit facilities. It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused 4 to 7 being brothers stood as guarantors and offered joint family property as guarantee for the loan sanctioned to A1 to A

(3.) COUNTERING the said submission, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate do not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality and as such the same cannot be interfered with. The learned counsel submitted that the statement of L.W.1 contains specific allegations against this petitioner which prima facie establishes the charges leveled against the petitioner herein. According to the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner was a joint owner along with A4 to A6 of the property wherein a nursing home was situated and the same was offered as security/guarantee for the sanctioning of the huge amount of loan by the complainant-Bank to A1 to A