K. PANDI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner filed this petition under section 482 of Crimial P.C. 1973 to quash C.C. No. 113 of 2010, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District, for the offences under Sections 120(b), 406, 420 r/w. 109 of I.P.C.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was working as cashier in Paramakudi Town Co-operative Bank and entrusted with the work of processing the loan application. After processing the loan application, he forward the same to A-6. Except processing the loan application, the petitioner has no independent power to grant loan and it is only the A-6, who was working as General Manager of the Bank, has power to supervise the day-to-day affairs of the Bank, process the loan applications and sanction the loan. The duty cast upon the petitioner is only to process the loan application and forward the same to A-6. While so, one R.Kamalam, who is arrayed as Accused No. 1 in the aforesaid crime and also 'A' class member in the Society, borrowed for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000.00 (Rupees Five Lakhs only) towards housing loan, on various dates, without disclosing the fact that a portion of property was already gifted in favour of her daughter, by executing a gift deed. Further, she had mentioned wrong Survey number in the Encumbrance Certificate application form and obtained the loan by pledging the property. The allegation against A5 and A6 is that they helped A1 to get loan for construction of house, however, A1 constructed the house in some other property, which was not pledged with the society. Thereafter, A-1 did not repay the loan amount. Hence, an enquiry under Sec. 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, was initiated against the accused and enquiry report has also been submitted. The enquiry report revealed serious irregularities and violations of office procedures in granting housing loans and the said report was forwarded to the Law Enforcing Agency. After completing investigation, the Law Enforcing Agency found that the petitioner and the General Manager were involved in the aforesaid crime. The petitioner without verifying the Encumbrance Certificate, has processed the loan application. After completion of investigation by the Law Enforcing Agency, a departmental enquiry was also initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Special Officer has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 20.03.2010 and thereafter, the petitioner has given an explanation on 15.04.2010. On receipt of the petitioner's explanation, the departmental enquiry was also conducted on 23.09.2010 and 10.11.2010. After conducting departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 27.11.2010. The Society also accepted the Enquiry Officer's report and passed a resolution in favour of the petitioner, discharging him from the departmental enquiry on 30.01.2011. Since the departmental enquiry ended in favour of the petitioner, the respondent cannot proceed with the criminal case for the very same set of allegation.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the establishment of the guilt in the criminal case is required to be proved by the Prosecuting Agency beyond reasonable doubt. The departmental enquiry against the petitioner has ended in his favour and on the same set of allegations, the respondent police cannot prosecute the criminal case against the petitioner. He further contended that for non-payment of loan by A-1, the Bank has taken action by way of public auction and the entire property was secured in the name of the Bank and the loan amount was also collected by the Bank. Hence, there was no loss caused to the Bank and consequently proceeding the petitioner with criminal enquiry is unwarranted.