Madras High Court
Mr.T.Sivasubramanian vs State Rep. By on 11 May, 2020
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.6702 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.05.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.6702 of 2020
Mr.T.Sivasubramanian,
S/o. Thinakaran,
Mathulai Sankaran Kovil Street,
Siruthondanallur, Thoothukudi District,
Tamil Nadu-628 802. ... Petitioner
Vs.
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
City Crime Branch,
Coimbatore
Cr. No.3 of 2020 ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge
the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.3 of 2020 on the file
of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ramesh
For Intervenor : Mr.R.John Sathyan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz,
Additional Public Prosecutor
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/14
Crl.O.P.No.6702 of 2020
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 31.01.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 467, 468, 471, 409 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.3 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner conspired along with the independent borrowers, Panel Engineer Expert valuers of the Bank, Building Construction companies whom were the 11 beneficiaries got sanction for Agricultural Small Scale Industries Loan to start Poultry farms and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.33,89,39,480/- to the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Coimbatore Main Branch. Hence the complaint.
3. Mr.N.Ramesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner during his tenure as Assistant General Manager, Coimbatore sanctioned various loans for starting new agricultural sector of small scale industries in and around Coimbatore and the defacto Complainant erred in granting time to the existing borrowers as if any default arises to his knowledge in cautious manner to convert as non performing asset, whereas the defacto complainant being the secured creditor is inclined only to proceed against the debtors under the specific provision of Securitization and http://www.judis.nic.in 2/14 Crl.O.P.No.6702 of 2020 Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 towards the furnished primary and collateral securities provided on security interest created for the said all loans sufficiently.
4. He further submits that without following the provisions, by violating the principles of natural justice on money recovery proceedings, instead of suing against the independent borrowers under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the defacto complainant had preferred to file cases before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore as O.A.No.639/2019 against M/s.Dharani Farms and 0.A.No.675/2019 against M/s Lakshmi Farms under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,1993 by adding the petitioner as respondent whom being the misjoinder of party to the above proceedings with the malafide intention for which said loans were forwarded after due scrutiny by the petitioner and finalized through sanction to disburse the loan amount by Regional Manager alone.
5. He further submits that in respect of the same set of alleged facts the petitioner was served with Departmental Charge Sheet vide No.DFMC.St.Disp.016/C.Farms.Cor 01/2019-20, dated 13.2.2020, whereas http://www.judis.nic.in 3/14 Crl.O.P.No.6702 of 2020 the complaint in Crime No.3 dated 25.1.2020 based on the complaint preferred by defacto complainant contains the selective details of collateral securities furnished by the borrowers and the Departmental Charge Sheet contains more number of collateral securities which clearly reveals the inconsistency showing the laxity of investigation process in registering the FIR and Departmental Charge Sheet about the collateral securities varies with the FIR about the incoherent allegations made by the defcto Complainant, which does not constitute any of the provisions under Sections 120(B),409, 420,467,468,471 of IPC against the petitioner, for which in vindictive manner the collateral securities and money furnished by the entire borrowers were wantonly suppressed in the FIR to falsely project the wrongful loss which does not occur. Hence, he sought for bail to the petitioner.
6. Per contra, Mr.R.John Sathyan, the learned counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant submitted that the first accused took charge as Branch Head in the cadre of Assistant General Manager, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Limited, Coimbatore in May 2019 and based on the audit report given by the Special Team from Head Office, based on Mr.Sundarraj, Panel Engineer and on sight verification made by the intervening petitioner, it was revealed that the first accused using the position of the Branch Head under the http://www.judis.nic.in 4/14 Crl.O.P.No.6702 of 2020 cadre of Assistant General Manager had sanctioned loans to farms belonging to 14th, 16th, 17th, 19th, 21st, 23rd, 24th, 26th and 28th accused and to poultry feed manufacturing firms belonging to 30th and 31st accused and a spinning mill belonging to 12th accused to a tune of Rs.33,89,39,480/- wherein 2nd accused A.N.Mahesh acted as a mediator for majority of transactions and the loan amount that was sanctioned to the above mentioned accused and firms were transferred to construction firms belonging to 5th, 6th, 10th and 11th accused, to Steel Fabrication and Poultry equipment manufacturing firms belonging to 3rd and 4th accused on the basis of the report given by the 7th and the 8th accused and Tirumala Trading Corporation Firm belonging to 9th accused, whereas 13th, 15th, 18th, 20th, 22nd, 25th, 27th, 29th and 32nd accused stood as guarantors for the above mentioned transactions altogether by submitting forged documents, fake reports causing wrongful loss to the bank.
7. He further submitted that in 11 transactions, more than Rs.33,00,00,000/- were disbursed without verifying and valuing the property in the manner known to law and also they have been highly valued, i.e. more than 40 times of the guideline value and loans were disbursed. In fact, now, http://www.judis.nic.in 5/14 Crl.O.P.No.6702 of 2020 the bank has initiated proceedings under SURFAESI Act to recover the loan amounts disbursed in favour of the beneficiaries, and the matters are pending with the Debt Recovery Tribunals. Therefore, the petitioner conspired with other accused persons and cheated not only the bank but also the entire public money, thereby they committed very serious offence. He further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner or the other accused persons and as such he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner /A1 along with the other accused persons conspired together for getting sanctioned the small-scale industries loan to start poultry farms by 11 beneficiaries and thereby caused loss to the tune of more than Rs.33,00,00,000/- to the defacto complainant, namely Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Coimbatore. He further submitted that though the second accused did not maintain any account with the defacto complainant bank, he frequently visited the first accused and followed the process for sanctioning the above said loans, the videos of which have been captured in the CCTV camera fixed inside the bank. He further submitted that the petitioner being the Assistant General Manager of the bank sanctioned loans without any verification. In this http://www.judis.nic.in 6/14 Crl.O.P.No.6702 of 2020 regard, the valuer, who had highly valued the mortgaged properties more than the market value of the property, has also been made as an accused in this case. The second accused had also introduced his relatives and got sanctioned loans, in which the petitioner and the second accused shared the amount. He further submitted that the investigation as against the petitioner has been completed, and still there are six accused absconding. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
9. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the intervenor and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police.
10. The petitioner is arrayed as first accused. Admittedly, the second accused did not have any account with the defacto complainant bank. He introduced 11 borrowers to the first accused, who being the Assistant General Manager of the defacto complainant bank disbursed agricultural small-scale industries loan to the tune of Rs.33,89,39,480/- for the purpose of starting poultry farms. According to the prosecution, the petitioner conspired along with the other accused persons for sanctioning agricultural small-scale industries loans to the 11 beneficiaries to start poultry farms. The defacto http://www.judis.nic.in 7/14 Crl.O.P.No.6702 of 2020 complainant has submitted that the lands which were mortgaged with the bank were valued more than the guideline value and thereby cheated the defacto complainant bank. The petitioner has submitted the details of the properties given as collateral security towards loan amount and its value as hereunder:
S Beneficiary Collateral security Collateral Total loan Actual Land value Land value as Land value as reported by Name as per FIR Security as per amount amount as reported reported by panel value of The bank No departmental stated in FIR disbursed as by panel panel valuers of assessment) charge – sheet (in rupees) per FIR (in expert the bank as per rupees) valuers of guideline value bank as per market rate I. Loan sanctioned by the Regional Manager, TamilNadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Coimbatore Region 1 Gomathi, Sri 1 Selakari sal Salakarisal 28955000 24401000 436.04 lakhs 10.31 lakhs 20 lakhs per acre Ayiamman village, Salur village, Salur Spinning Mill, Taluk, Coimbatore Taluk, (first panel (first panel Coimbatore District S.No.251/3 Coimbatore valuer) valuer) and 252/6 1.71 District acres S.No.251/3 & 444.00 lakhs 10.31 lakhs 252/6 1.71 acres (second (second panel
2.Karadivadi panel valuer) valuer) Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District SF.No.76/B2 18.91 lakhs land measuring 2867 sq.ft. and (first panel building to the valuer) extent of 705 sq.feet 2 Nagarithanam 1, Salur Taluk, 1, Salur Taluk, 42412000 36801000 545.05 lakhs 61.55 lakhs 15 lakhs per acre Varappatti Village, Varappatti Sri Karpaga Coimbatore District Village, (first panel (first panel Vinayagar Coimbatore valuer) valuer) Farms, SF No.122/2H, District 122/2M2, 122/2N, 555.00 lakhs 61.55 lakhs 122/20, 122/2G, SF No.122/2H, 122/2D, 122/2E, 122/2M2, (second (second panel 122/2F, 140/1, 122/2N, 122/2O, panel valuer) valuer) 140/2, 140/3, 122/2G, 122/2D, 140/4, 140/5, 140/6, 140/7 & 122/2E, 122/2F, 140/8, 9.91 acres http://www.judis.nic.in 8/14 Crl.O.P.No.6702 of 2020 140/1, 140/2, 140/3, 140/4, 140/5, 140/6, 140/7 & 140/8, 9.91 acres 3 Sri Venkatesh, Salur Taluk, Salur Taluk, 42635000 39777000 570.00 lakhs 62.88 lakhs 15 lakhs per acre Ayiamman Varappatti Village, Varappatti Farms, Coimbatore District Village, (first panel (first panel 10.185 acres Coimbatore valuer) valuer) District 10.185 acres 560.17 lakhs 62.88 lakhs (second (second panel panel valuer) valuer) 4 Nandagopal, Salur Taluk, 1.Salur Taluk, 26287000 24100000 325.19 lakhs Details not 20 lakhs per acre M/s.Dharani Varappatti Village, Varappatti available Farms and Coimbatore District Village, (first panel Dharani Farms 1.25 acres Coimbatore valuer) (Unit II) District 1.25 acres 85.60 lakhs
2.Anuppatti (first panel Village, Palladam valuer) Taluk, Tiruppur SF.No.285/ 1A, 285/2A, to the extent of 4 acres
3.Salakarisal Village, SF.No.167, 1.53 acres and 3 Nos.
Mangalore tiled poultry shed of 11250 sq.ft II. Loan sanctioned by the Assistant General Manager, TamilNadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Coimbatore Main Branch 5 Sivaganesh, Dharapuram Taluk, Dharapuram 34085000 25210000 90 lakhs 11.46 lakhs 15 lakhs per acre Kokkampalayam, Taluk, Sri Sairam Village, Tiruppur Kokkampalayam, (first panel (first panel Farms, District S.No.188 Village, Tiruppur valuer) valuer) /1, 3.60 acres District S.No.188 /1, 3.60 acres http://www.judis.nic.in 9/14 Crl.O.P.No.6702 of 2020
2.Salakarisal 100 lakhs 6.03 lakhs Village, S.F.No.190/2, (first panel (first panel Patta No.145, valuer) valuer) 1 acre 6 Kalaiarasi Tiruppur District Tiruppur District 34998000 32792000 461.50 lakhs 324.55 lakhs 15 lakhs per acre Udumalapet Taluk, Udumalapet Sri Lakshmi Chinnakumara Taluk, (first panel (first panel Farms Palayam Village Chinnakumara valuer) valuer) S.No.154 /1, 4.62 Palayam Village acres S.No.154 /1, 4.62 (buildings to acres the value of Rs.309.07 available in the land) 7 Vishwanathan, 1, Salur Taluk, 1, Salur Taluk, 30281000 27950000 149.52 lakhs 12.52 lakhs 12.50 lakhs per acre Sri Varappatti Village, Varappatti Angalamman Coimbatore District Village, (first panel (first panel Farms Coimbatore valuer) valuer) SF No.121/2B, District 122/22K, 122/2L, 180 lakhs 18.09 lakhs SF No.121/2B, 122/2M1 122/22K, 122/2L, (second (second panel panel valuer) valuer) 2.67 acres 122/2M1 2.67 acres
2.Selakarisal Village, Saluk Taluk, Coimbatore SF.No.190/2, 190/1, Patta No.145 – 3acres 8 Mohanraj, 1, Salur Taluk, 1, Salur Taluk, 30059000 27750000 53.40 lakhs 12.52 lakhs 12.50 lakhs per acre Arulmurugan Varappatti Village, Varappatti Farms Coimbatore District Village, (first panel (first panel Coimbatore valuer) valuer) 2.67 acres District 180 lakhs 18.09 lakhs 2.67 acres
2.Selakarisal (second (second panel Village, Salur panel valuer) valuer) Taluk, Coimbatore District, http://www.judis.nic.in 10/14 Crl.O.P.No.6702 of 2020 SF.No.190/2, 188/1, Patta No.145 – 3acres 9 Uma Dharapuram Taluk, Dharapuram 31114000 22410000 90 lakhs 11.46 lakhs 15 lakhs per acre mageswari Kokkampalayam, Taluk, Village, Tiruppur Kokkampalayam, (first panel (first panel Aruchamy District S.No.188 Village, Tiruppur valuer) valuer) Sree Akshyam /1, 3.60 acres District S.No.188 Farms /1, 3.60 acres 78.30 lakhs 5.25 lakhs
2.Salakarisal (first panel (first panel Village, Salur valuer) valuer) Taluk, Coimbatore District S.F.No.192/2, 188/1, Patta No.145, 0.87 acre ( not in the charge sheet) 10 Krishnakumar Palladam Taluk, Palladam Taluk, 19221000 17500000 373.75 lakhs 14.42 lakhs 15 lakhs per acre Mallegounden Mallegounden Sri palayam Village, palayam Village, (first panel (first panel Venkachalapat Tiruppur District Tiruppur District valuer) valuer) hy feed mill, 5.75 acres 5.75 acres 11 Balasubramani Palladam Taluk, Palladam Taluk, 19221000 17200000 373.75 lakhs 14.42 lakhs 15 lakhs per acre an, Mallegounden Mellegounden Muthumariam palayam Village, palayam Village, (first panel (first panel man feed mill, Tiruppur District Tiruppur District valuer) valuer) 5.75 acres 5.75 acres
11. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the proceedings initiated by the defacto complainant under the SURFAESI Act in O.A.No.639 of 2019 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the property belongs to the petitioner worth about Rs.50,00,000/- was attached, and it is pending. Further, he submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit title deeds to the credit of crime No. to show his bonafide without http://www.judis.nic.in 11/14 Crl.O.P.No.6702 of 2020 any prejudice to his rights. It is also seen that already the second accused was granted bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7444 of 2020 by an order dated 08.05.2020, wherein the second accused was directed to deposit title deeds of his properties worth Rs.5,00,00,000/-.
12. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the period of incarceration by the petitioner from the date of his arrest, namely from 31.01.2020, this Court is inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner, for a period of eight weeks subject to the following conditions:
[a] the petitioner shall execute his own bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) before the Superintendent of the concerned prison;
[b] the petitioner shall deposit original title deeds of the properties stand in the name of his friend or family members or any other relatives, not less than the value of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) along with the valuation report obtained from the Valuation Authority concerned to the credit of Crime No.3 of 2020 on the file of the respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of his release from the prison, failing which the interim bail granted to the petitioner shall stand automatically cancelled, and the respondent are directed to secure and remand the petitioner in accordance with law.
[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m. from 08.06.2020 onwards until further orders.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12/14 Crl.O.P.No.6702 of 2020 [d] the petitioner shall not leave Tamil Nadu during the interregnum period;
[e] the petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Superintendent of the concerned prison, before release.
13. Post the matter after eight weeks.
11.05.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order lok http://www.judis.nic.in 13/14 Crl.O.P.No.6702 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge Coimbatore
2. The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
Crl.O.P.No.6702 of 2020
11.05.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 14/14