S ARUNACHALAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL.R.C.No.168 of 2004 arises out of an order passed by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases (IX Additional Court) Chennai in CRL.M.P.No.429 of 2002 in C.C.No.17 of 2001 which was filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. In the said C.C. No.17 of 2001, the petitioner was arrayed as A2. CRL.R.C.No. 169 of 2004 had arisen against the order passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases (IX Additional Court) Chennai in CRL.M.P.No.443 of 2002 in C.C.No.15 of 2001 wherein the revision petitioner figures as A11. The above said petition was also filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE relief asked for under the above said petitions before the trial Court is that there was no prima facie case made out against the petitioner to force him to face the ordeal of trial but to discharge him from the charges levelled against him. Apart from this petitioner, the co accused have also filed similar petition under Crl.M.P.No.410 of 2001(by A12). Crl.M.P.No.309 of 2002(by A9). Crl.M.P.No.348 of 2002 (by A8) in C.C.No.15 of 2001. THE co accused in C.C.No.17 of 2001 have filed Crl.M.P.No.321 of 2002 (by A1). Crl.M.P.No.22 of 2003 (by A3), Crl.M.P.No.428 of 2002 (by A4). Crl.M.P.No.332 of 2002 (by A5). Crl.M.P.No.526 of 2002 (by A6). Crl.M.P.NO.608 of 2002 (by A7). Crl.M.P.No.322 of 2002 (by A9) and Crl.M.P.No.323 of 2002 (by A10). 2a) In C.C.No.17 of 2001(Crl.R.C.No.168 of 2004), the specific charge against the accused is that the accused have under conspiracy illegally sanctioned the credit facilities to M/s Sathiyam Foods (P) Limited. All the accused have been charged under Section 120-B of IPC and under Section 420 of IPC. THE specific allegation against A2 Thiru S.Arunachalam, the then General Manager of the Indian Bank was that during the relevant point of time, he was in charge of the Management Services and during 1992, when the loan was sanctioned to the accused company, he was one of the Secretaries to the Board and in 1993, he had endorsed the recommendation for sanctioning the additional loan to the above said Sathiyam Foods (P) Limited. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner before the trial Court in the petition filed by him under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge that he was in no way connected with the sanction of the loan and had not taken any decision of his own to recommend the above said additional loan to the said Company and that the sanction was not given after consulting with CVC and that there was no evidence for conspiracy. 2b) In C.C.No.15 of 2001(Crl.R.C.No.169/2004), the petitioner who was arrayed as A11 would contend that at the relevant period i.e., on 24.5.1988, the petitioner was on deputation to Kuwait and not in any way dealt with the account of Indian Bank and that he was not involved in the sanction or release of the said credit facilities to M/s Kiran Overseas Ltd (A1) to the tune of Rs.3.59 lakhs and disciplinary authority in the sanction letter itself has mentioned about the fresh proposal dated 23.8.1994 forwarded on 10.10.1994 to the Managing Committee for confirmation and that the credit Department prepared note on 10.10.1994 in respect of the additional sanction of Rs.3.59 lakhs to M/s Kiran Overseas Limited(A1) and the same was considered by the Managing Committee and an order of sanction was passed on 18.10.1994 and with regard to the diversion of Rs.50 lakhs from M/s Kiran Overseas Export Limited, the proposal was sent by a branch Office to the Regional Office on 8.10.1994 and the note for approval was sent on 17.10.1994 to the head office and the petitioner's department had submitted a note to ED/CMD on 10.11.1994 for information and not for confirmation. It has been contended by the petitioner/A11 Thiru S.Arunachalam that he had no knowledge about the transaction which took place on 5.10.1994.

(3.) HEARD Mr.M.N.Padmanabhan, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases and considered their rival submissions.