CHINNANNAN Vs. PARANIMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Deputy superintendent of Police, Crime Branch against the acquittal of the respondents/a. 1 to A. 3 who were charged with the offences under Sections 120. B r/w. 420 IPC and acquittal of A. 2 who was charged for an offence under Section 468 IPC and acquittal of A. 3 who was charged for an offence under Section 420 ipc, and acquittal of A. 1 and A. 3 who were charged for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- (a) A. 1 and A. 3 are brothers. A. 1 is the Proprietor of m/s. Guru Metals, Neerpair, Madurantakam Taluk, Chengalpattu District. A. 2 is the Proprietor of M/s. South India Machinery Company at Nandanam, Madras-35. A. 1 to A. 3 conspired together to cheat the Indian Bank, Triplicane Branch, Chennai to an extent of Rs. 6,28,616/=. According to the prosecution A. 1 as Proprietor of M/s. Guru Metals, applied for a loan of Rs. 6 lakhs for the purchase of machineries to be used for crushing the blue metals. In pursuance of the said conspiracy A. 2 has floated a fictitious company in the name of M/s. South India machineries Ltd. , and has given proforma invoices for the cost of the machineries to A. 1 whichis alleged to be bogus and fabricated. A. 2 supplied the said proforma invoices to A. 1 who in turn submitted to the Bank. Based on the application and invoice given by A. 2, the Bank sanctioned the first term loan of Rs. 4,53,400/=. A. 2 submitted a supply bill and A. 1 had had submitted the delivery challan claiming that tactually the machineries were supplied. THE proforma invoice adduced by A. 2's company were false and the first mid term loan of Rs. 4,53,400/= was given by Indian Bank, Triplicane Branch by way of Pay order favouring A. 2's Company and the same was deposited in the account of A. 2 in the City Union Bank of Triplicane Branch and the said amount was later on withdrawn by A. 2 by way of two self cheques and the entire amount was handed over to A. 1 by A. 2 and accordingly A. 2 had received his commission and in the same way the second term loan amount was also received by A. 1 and A. 3 in connivance with A. 2. According to the prosecution, the machineries said to have been supplied by M/s. South India Machineries Company Ltd. , who is A. 2 were not according to the specification submitted by A. 1 and A. 2. On the other hand A. 1 to A. 3 had installed old and locally fabricated machineries in their Unit and thereby A. 1 to A. 3 have caused wrongful loss to the Bank and has wrongfully gained personally and committed offences mentioned as above. THEre is a specific allegation against A. 2 that there is no existence of a company in the name of M/s. South India Machineries Company Ltd. , and the said company as such had no permanent place or address and by way of preparing and furnishing bogus and fraudulent proforma invoices in the name of M/s. South India Machineries company Ltd. , knowing pretty well that the same was false and not genuine to get an unjust enrichment by way of receiving commissions. THE Central Bureau investigation investigated the case, examined the witnesses and laid a charge sheet for the offences mentioned supra, which was taken on file in C. C. No:6156 of 1995. (b) Before the Metropolitan Magistrate, on behalf of the prosecution, P. Ws 1 to 23 were examined and Exs. P. 1 to P. 66 were marked. On behalf of the accused Exs. D. 1 to D. 3 were marked. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as against them, they denied the same as false. (c) THE learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, chennai who tried the case came to the conclusion that the offences alleged against the accused are not proved and hence acquitted all the three accused. aggrieved over the said acquittal, this Criminal Appeal has been filed by the central Bureau of Investigation.

(3.) THUS from the evidence on record, it is clear that the loan given to A. 1 to A. 3 was indeed utilised within one month of the disbursal in purchasing the machineries and installing the same in the Unit, that the loan was granted not on the strength of the proforma invoice, but on the basis of security offered by A. 1, valued by the bank at Rs. 10,50,000/= and other factors as seen from the Satisfaction Note Ex. P. 45, that the loan has been indeed repaid and also that P. W. 23, Investigation Officer himself has admitted that the Bank had not made any complaint against any of the accused and the bank is not in any way aggrieved because of the loan transaction and also that there is no wrongful gain by A. 1 and A. 3 and thus there is no basis for the offence of cheating and also that the invoice was addressed to A. 1 Guru Metals, not to the Bank and there is no material that A. 2 was even aware that the said invoice was used for the purpose of getting loan from the Bank. The mentioning of TNGST and CST numbers in the invoice is innocuous details and unnecessary and admittedly the Bank was not misguided by the said information in any manner. Curiously, the prosecution, for the best reasons known to them has not obtained any expert opinion regarding the value of the machineries installed in guru Metals Unit.