N. S. GNANAESWARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal appeals are directed against the judgment dated 19.05.2017 made in C.C No.9 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai. By the impugned judgment, the court below convicted the appellants as follows : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_430_LAWS(MAD)3_2021_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The case of the prosecution is as under : Based on Ex.P86 complaint, Ex.P121 FIR was registered by the Inspector of Police, SPE : CBI : ACB : Chennai, on 27.04.2005 in RC MAI No.22A of 2005 for the offences under Ss. 120 B r/w.420 IPC, Sec. 13(2) r/w.l3(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Senior Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Kailasapuram, Trichy gave the said complaint alleging that their branch office at West Masi Street,Madurai had sanctioned cash credit facilities in favour of Sri Durga Textiles and Mangalam Textiles against hypothecation of textile goods in June, 2003. Subsequently, the accounts turned into non-performing assets. Physical verification of the borrowers' premises indicated that the loans have been taken in the name of fictitious entities and that the collateral securities were overvalued and that the bank was finding it difficult to recover the outstanding amounts. There was collusion between the borrowers and the bank officials. It was also alleged that one Gnanaeswaran/A2 had played a major role in the transactions and that he was the beneficiary.

(3.) After registering the criminal case, investigation was undertaken. Witnesses were examined. Disputed signatures were sent for expert opinion. Finally, two final reports were filed. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case against the Mangalam Textiles in C.C No.8 of 2006 and the case against Durga Textiles was taken on file in C.C No.9 of 2006. Summons were issued to the accused. On their appearance, copies were served. They were questioned as regards their guilt. The accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 36 witnesses and marked Exs.Pl to P121. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no exhibits were marked. In C.C No.9 of 2006, there were as many as five accused. The fifth accused N.S.Sarangan died and the charge against him abated.