R. BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is A.6 in C.C.No.34 of 2005 on the file of the XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Cehnnai. The revision petitioner filed Criminal M.P.No.2191 of 2012 in C.C.No.34 of 2005 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the array of the accused and that petition was dismissed by the learned Additional Special Judge by order dated 2.5.2013 and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

(2.) The gravaman of the charge is that the petitioner during the period 1997 1999 was the Director of M/s.Southern Powertech Equipments (P) Ltd., M/s. TTG Consolidates (P) Ltd., and M/s. Abhijaya Investments Pvt.Ltd., and was holding 10,125 shares with M/s. TTG Industries Ltd., which is arrayed as A.1. Though the petitioner has nothing to do with M/s. TTG Industries Ltd., in connivance with the other accused issued false purchase orders of M/s. TTG Industries Ltd., and by issuing such false purchase orders, loan was issued to A.1 and wrongful loss was caused to the Central Bank of India, Chennai Main Branch. It is further stated that, in the purchase orders, the petitioner A.6 signed on behalf of TTG Industries Ltd., and he was not an authorised signatory of M/s.TTG Industries Ltd., and therefore, he has committed various offences, namely, punishable under sections 120-B r/w 409, 420, 465 of the IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988.

(3.) The petitioner filed a petition in Criminal M.P.No.2191 of 2012 before the learned XI Additional Special Judge, Chennai, to discharge him stating that even according to the prosecution, he is nothing to do with M/s.TTG Industries Ltd., and no evidence was produced by the prosecution that he was the incharge or responsible for the day-to-day administration and management of M/s.TTG Industries Ltd., and he cannot be vicariously liable. It was also contended that the account with the Central Bank of India was settled by M/s.TTG Industries Ltd., and therefore, there cannot be any prosecution as against the petitioner. That was not considered by the trial Court and the petition was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.