V. MURALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are arrayed as accused in C.C. No. 11 of 2006, on the file of XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Chennai, (for CBI Cases, relating to Banks and Financial Institutions)/Trial Court. They are charged for offence punishable under Sections 120(b) read with 420, 468, 467, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act). They filed Discharge Petitions, in Crl.M.P. Nos. 253, 825, 1180 and 1184 of 2010, before the aforesaid Court. As those Petitions were dismissed by the above said learned Judge, by orders, dated 04.02.2011 and 24.01.2012 respectively, present Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the said orders. Mr. A.E. Chelliah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 159 of 2013, submitted that, even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners have not acted with any criminal intention to cheat or commit fraud on the Bank, called Housing and Urban Development Corporation, Chennai, (HUDCO), and they availed the loan by producing forged salary slips. It was also admitted that entire loan amount was repaid by the first petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 159 of 2013 and also by other petitioners, and therefore, there was no loss, whatsoever, caused to the Financial Institution for the loan advanced to the petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, as they have not committed any fraud with any dishonest intention and these aspects were not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that no material evidence was placed by prosecution to prove that the salary slips produced by the petitioners were forged one, and therefore, in the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be stated that the petitioners play fabricated false documents for obtaining loan and thereby, committed forgery. The learned Senior Counsel finally emphasised that entire loan amount was paid by the petitioners, hence, there is no necessity to proceed with prosecution against the petitioners, and by doing so, it would amount to abuse of process of Court, and an exercise in futility, and therefore, the Revisions be allowed. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the judgment A.D. Sudhindhra v. Inspector of Police, CBI, BS & FC, Mumbai and Others, 2009 2 MadLJ(Cri) 699in support of his case. The other counsel appearing for other petitioners argued on the same line and also adopted the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel.

(2.) Mr. N. Chandrasekaran, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-CBI submitted that the respondent has filed counters in all Revisions at the stage of condoning the delay in filing the present Revision Petitions, and that may be read as part of his submissions. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that evidence was let in by the prosecution to the effect that the petitioners forged salary slips to avail loan from the aforesaid Bank, which otherwise, they were not entitled to, and for the purpose of getting loan, they fabricated false documents and by using such false documents, they made the Financial Institution to part with money and therefore, they have committed offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Further, the petitioners were in collusion with accused Nos. 1 to 8, who entered into conspiracy for the purpose of inflating the value of the land to avail enhanced amount of loan and the criminal intention is also made clear by entering into sale deed for the said amount, but, at the same time, produced the agreement of sale for enhanced amount for the purpose of availing loan, and the loan availed, was utilized for other purposes. Therefore, the plea of forgery has been made out, and considering all these aspects, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the Discharge Petitions filed by the petitioners.

(3.) The learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-CBI further submitted that subsequent payment of the loan amount by the petitioners cannot be taken into consideration to quash the prosecution against the petitioners, and the Court should not, at this stage, take into consideration any documents to that effect that loan have been paid by the petitioners. The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgments reported in i) State of Maharashtra v. Somanath Thapa, 1996 AIR(SC) 1744ii) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagjit Singh, 2013 10 SCC 686nd iii) Ashok Sadarangani and Another v. Union of India and Others, 2012 11 SCC 321in support of aforesaid contention.