A.P. VELUSAMY DIRECTOR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 23.09.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No. 1289 of 2011 in C.C.No. 12 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, (CBI Cases), Coimbatore.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

(3.) It is the further case of the defacto complainant that the total loss pursuant to the OTS compromise shown as sacrifice under two heads viz., (i)actual sacrifice = 369.38 lakhs and (ii) notional sacrifice = 140.87 lakhs and accordingly, total sacrifice is Rs. 510.25 lakhs which was waived by the bank, while considering OTS compromise entered between UCO bank and A4 represented by A1 dated 28.02009. OTS time was further extended upto 30.12.2009 by the letter of UCO bank dated 12.05.2009. A4 complied with OTS compromise and paid the entire amount of Rs.17 crores as demanded by UCO bank in its approval letter dated 28.02009 and redeemed the respective pro-rata collateral securities and thereby nothing remained to be paid by A4 in any account to UCO bank, Tiruppur pursuant to the agreed terms of one time settlement. Thus, it is clear even the assessment of the alleged sacrifice amount of Rs. 510.25 lakhs has been done only after receipt of Rs. 17 crores as per the OTS compromise. There was no compulsion of any nature for UCO bank to consider the OTS proposal forwarded by the branch and approved by the committee was not a figure or number suggested by A1 or anybody authorised by A4. It was purely the discretion of UCO bank authorities including the officials in the zonal office at Chennai who later on initiated the mala fide complaint with the view to separate cognizable offences from civil recovery in order to specifically file criminal complaint particularly when there was no such discussions in any of the records related to OTS proposal which culminated in the approval order dated 28.02009. UCO bank cannot raise any grievance regarding subsequent loss after approving OTS compromise. The allegation against A1 and A4 is that without carrying the exports regarding the 29 export bills for which facilities were availed and formed part of the entire liabilities of A4 company and therefore all the accused are liable to be punished for the offences punishable under Sec. 120(B) read with 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. read with 13(2)(read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.