S. RAMADOSS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case has been directed against the order dated 20.03.2012 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 3295 of 2010 in Calendar Case No. 34/2005 by the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court [CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions].

(2.) The Revision Petitioner as Petitioner has filed Crl.M.P. No. 3295 of 2010 in Calendar Case No. 34 of 2005 under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to discharge him from the proceedings of Calendar Case No. 34 of 2005, pending on the file of the trial court.

(3.) It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has been arrayed as 7th accused in Calendar Case No. 34 of 2005. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused is a company by name M/s.TTG Industries Ltd.,; the second accused by name V.Ravi Srinivasan is its Managing Director; the third accused by name K.Manoharan is an Authorised Signatory of the 1st accused; the 4th accused by name V.Kannan is the younger brother of the 2nd accused; the 5th accused by name R.Ramesh is the Director of M/s. Southern Powertech Equipments (P) Ltd., M/s. Stirling Dynamics Pvt. Ltd., M/s.TTG Consolidates (P) Ltd., M/s. Abhijaya Finance Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Abhijaya Investments Pvt. Ltd.,; the 6th accused by name R.Balasubramaniam is the Director of M/s. Southern Powertech Equipments (P) Ltd., M/s.TTG Consolidates (P) Ltd., and M/s. Abhijaya Investments Pvt., Ltd.,; the 7th accused is the present petitioner acted as Senior Manager In -charge of the Advances& Foreign Exchange Department at Central Bank of India, Chennai Main Branch from 08.09.1997 to 10.09.2000; the 8th accused, deceased G.V.G. Rao has functioned as Chef Manager, In -charge of the Central Bank of India, Chennai Main Branch. During the relevant period, all the accused hatched conspiracy and in pursuance of the same, they have done misconduct for obtaining undue pecuniary advantage from the Bank in favour of M/s.TTG Industries Limited and others. The further case of the prosecution is that without obtaining approval of the competent authority, Inland Letters of Credit facilities have been created and thereby supplied invoices and Hundi bills. The further averments made in the petition are that the petitioner has acted well within his limit after obtaining necessary legal opinion. The petitioner has had no connection with outstanding amounts and he has been falsely implicated. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.