K N SUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973('Cr.P.C.' in short) praying to call for records pertaining to Calendar Case No.11 of 2008 pending on the file of the XI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge for CBI cases relating to Banks and financial institutions, Chennai and quash the same.

(2.) It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has served in various branches of Canara Bank in different levels and now he is working as Divisional Manager, Madurai Circle Office, Canara Bank from May 2007. He served as Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Kellys Branch, Chennai during the period from 04-08-2002 to 31-08-2003. During that period Account No.3778 has been opened by N.S. Krishna Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Sri Ram Trading Company, T. Nagar, Chennai. The said N.S. Krishna Kumar has approached Canara Bank, Kellys Branch for financial assistance and introduced by one N.S. Madanlal, partner of M/s. Bharathy Traders. The Current Account No.3778 has been opened on 23-10-2002 by one John Nelson. As per bank procedure, emergency discretionary power register is to be maintained and the said register has to be signed only by Credit Manager. The petitioner has never issued any order reducing the margin to 10%. From the record it is evident that without showing the discretionary register, and without getting the petitioner's concurrence, Manager-credit on his own discounted and reduced the margin intentionally. After two months from the date of opening of current account, the parties have applied for bill purchasing facility and sent covering letter dated 17-12-2002 and the same has been discounted on 18-12-2002. Likewise, the letter dated 19-12-2002 has been discounted on 20-12-2002 and the letter dated 20-12-2002 has been discounted on 21-12-2002 and further the letter dated 24-12-2002 has been discounted on 26-12-2002. The petitioner has put his writing only on covering letter dated 17-12-2002, stating, "Pls. discount by maintaining margin of 25%". If the Credit Manager discounted the bills by maintaining a margin of 25% as per order of the petitioner, the amount for four bills would be upto Rs.18.45 lakhs only. But, without maintaining the stipulated margin, the amount for four bills increased upto Rs.20.52 lakhs. The petitioner has not exercised any power beyond the permitted limit. It is the duty of the Credit-Manager to verify the Valuation Report given by the party. One Mr.Ramasamy has verified all lorry receipts and all the bills are pending with the Senior Manager Sulochana Nagarajan and she sanctioned secured demand bill purchase limit for Rs.30 lakhs on 14-01-2003. The respondent without conducting proper investigation has filed a final report against the petitioner and the same has been taken on file in C.C.No.11 of 2008. The petitioner has also filed Crl.M.P.No.1135 of 2013 to discharge him from the offences mentioned in the charge sheet and the same has been dismissed on 16-09-2014. The petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences and under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein.

(3.) In the counter filed on the side of the respondents it is aware that the petitioner and others have committed the offences mentioned in the final report. As per the delegation of powers for loans and advances (H.O. Circular No.126/2002), the Chief Manager (A1), the petitioner can exercise his power only upto 25% of Rs.75 lakhs to discount the bills i.e., Rs.18.75 lakhs under secured demand bill per party. But during 18-12-2002 to 20-12-2012, bills have been discounted to the tune of Rs.20.52 lakhs, under discretionary powers. Thus the limit of Rs.18.75 lakhs has been exceeded by the petitioner. It is false to aver that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.