K.SANKARA KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Appeals have been filed as against the judgment passed in CC.No.6 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Coimbatore dtd. 28/11/2019 thereby convicting the accused 1 to 6 and 9 for the offence punishable under Ss. 120-B r/w 419, 420, 467, 467 r/w 468, 468 r/w 471 of IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and for the substantive offences punishable under Ss. 467 r/w 471 (2 counts), 420 (2 counts) of IPC and under Ss. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy during the period from 2002 to 2005 to commit certain illegal acts to cheat the de facto complainant-bank in the matter of sanctioning and availing various credit facilities, including Open Cash Credit (hereinafter referred to as "OCC "), Term loans, Foreign bill purchase, Packing credit, etc., in favour of Thanaji Garments, a business concern owned by the second accused and his wife. It is alleged that, for obtaining the aforesaid credit facilities, the accused submitted invalid and forged documents relating to the properties offered as collateral securities. It is further alleged that the first accused, by abusing his official position as a public servant, without verifying the actual ownership of the properties offered as collateral securities and without conducting the requisite inspection of the said properties, recommended and facilitated the sanction of substantial credit facilities to the tune of Rs.3.5 crores in favour of the second and third accused.

(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid conspiracy, it is alleged that the second accused, in connivance with A5 and A6, arranged non-existent and invalid property documents as collateral securities in the names of T.Viswanathan, T.Gunasekaran and T.Subramani. It is further alleged that securities were arranged in their names and that certain persons impersonated themselves as the real owners of the properties. A7, A8 and A9 are alleged to have signed the loan documents as guarantors, knowing or having reason to believe that they were not the actual owners of the properties offered as collateral securities. It is further alleged that the second accused, along with A5 and A6, arranged non-existent and invalid property documents as collateral securities in the names of Perumal Naidu and Kanniammal, through A10 and A11, who allegedly impersonated themselves as the real owners of the said properties. A10 and A11 are alleged to have knowingly signed the loan documents, despite being aware that they were not the actual owners of the properties offered as collateral securities, and submitted the same to the Bank. It is also the case of the prosecution that A4, who is the brother of the first accused, without physically inspecting the properties offered as collateral securities and without verifying the identity of their actual owners, submitted false valuation reports in respect of the said properties, thereby facilitating enhancement of the credit facilities sanctioned in favour of A2 and A3. The said valuation reports were allegedly accepted by A1, who, by abusing his official position as a public servant, recommended and facilitated the sanction of the credit facilities, which ultimately resulted in a total wrongful loss of approximately Rs.3.00 crores to the Bank, excluding interest, and a corresponding wrongful gain to the other accused persons.