Madras High Court
Vijayakumar vs State Rep By on 10 October, 2023
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.23052 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 22.08.2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 29.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.23052 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.No.15779 of 2025
Vijayakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep by
Inspector of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
ACB Chennai. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to
call for the records relating to C.C.No.47 of 2011 pending on file of XI
Additional Special Judge CBI, Chennai and quash the charge sheet.
For Petitioner : Ms.S.K.Pushppasri
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases
Page No.1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:04:12 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.23052 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records relating to C.C.No.47 of 2011 pending on file of XI Additional Special Judge CBI, Chennai and quash the Charge Sheet.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Salem, lodged a complaint to the respondent seeking to initiate legal action against one G.Kasinathan, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Thiruvannamalai Branch, who connived with the dealers and agents and borrowers in the sanction and disbursement of various agricultural loans. The said Kasinathan was posted to the Union Bank of India, Thiruvannamalai Branch on 15.12.2008 and he along with one V.Kannan were holding the post of Branch Manager till 21.12.2008. Thereafter V.Kannan got transferred and the said Kasinathan acted as Branch Manager till 29.06.2009. The said Kasinathan in connivance with M/s.Annamalayar Motors, M/s. Aruneshwara Hi-Tech, M/s.Om Motors, M/s.Sakthivel Engineering Works, M/s.Shri Shivamalai Motors, M/s.Vijay Page No.2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:04:12 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23052 of 2025 Agro Agencies and other dealers of Tractors and Power Tillers, sanctioned and disbursed 66 agricultural loans including crop loans on different dates to the borrowers without proper documents and with forged documents and the amount not utilized for the purpose for which it was granted. This was found out during internal inspection. The said Kasinathan, Branch Manager without properly processing the records submitted by the borrowers without proper credit appraisal, without enquiry with the borrowers, without pre- sanction inspection as per the Bank norms and guidelines, sanctioned 66 agricultural loans. The loans sanctioned were disbursed through Pay orders to the dealers concerned but the dealers not delivered the Tractors/Power Tillers and its accessories to the borrowers. The bills submitted found without serial numbers, invoice and delivery challan without engine and chassis number which are the evidence for the supply of said items to the loanees. No post-sanction inspection conducted. The Tractors/Tillers not physically verified. The Pay orders received by the dealers were credited to the respective accounts, the amounts withdrawn by the dealers and a portion of the loan amount handed over to the borrowers, without actual supply of tractors and power tillers and thereby siphoned off the loan amount. Hence, Page No.3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:04:12 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23052 of 2025 a complaint lodged. On receipt of the complaint, a case in RCMA12010A0023 was registered which lead to filing of five charge sheets. As regards C.C.No.47 of 2011, the petitioner is arrayed as A4 and along with him, six others are being prosecuted.
3.The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India on the same day lodged a complaint to the respondent for a similar offence against V.Kannan, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Thiruvannamalai Branch for identical misdeeds and a case in RCMA12010A0022 registered and investigated which lead to filing of six charge sheets in C.C.Nos.4, 5, 6 , 7, 9 and 10 of 2012. The petitioner/A4 is only a Salesman at M/s.Ramajayam Tractors, Tiruvannamalai. It is projected that petitioner associated with M/s.Om Motors, he opened a Savings Bank account in Union Bank of India, Tiruvannamalai Branch in the name of A7/K.Sivakumar/borrower and submitted a loan application without intention to purchase Power Tiller. A3/E.Palani, who is the proprietor of M/s.Om Motors not supplied any Power Tiller but issued quotation in the name of A7/K.Sivakumar . Thus Page No.4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:04:12 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23052 of 2025 the petitioner in connivance with A3 and A7 actively taken part in creating forged document and facilitated siphoning off the loan amount. The petitioner earlier convicted in C.C.Nos.4, 5, 9 and 11 of 2012. The petitioner preferred appeals before this Court in Crl.A.No.680 of 2018, Crl.A.No.682 of 2018, Cr.A.Nos.683 of 2018 and Crl.A.No.684 of 2018. This Court by judgment dated 10.10.2023 modified the conviction and sentence and partly allowed the appeals in Crl.A.No.680 of 2018, Crl.A.No.682 of 2018 and Cr.A.Nos.683 of 2018. Further, this Court by judgment dated 10.10.2023 allowed the appeal in Crl.A.No.684 of 2018 by setting aside the conviction and sentence. Challenging the judgment passed by this Court by modifying the sentence, the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court in SLP(Crl.).Nos.4530, 15951 and 2426 of 2024. She would submit petitioner already convicted for similar cause of action, now for the same offence and for the same transaction, the petitioner is being tried again in C.C.No.47 of 2011 and the witnesses are almost the same and facts are identical. She would further submit that since the petitioner already tried and convicted in a previous trial for same set of facts forming part of a single transaction. The petitioner cannot be again Page No.5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:04:12 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23052 of 2025 prosecuted as per Section 300 Cr.P.C. and Article 20(2) of Constitution of India. The Trial Court ought to have clubbed and tried together all the cases finding all arises out of the same transaction as per Sections 219 and 220 of Cr.P.C. Further, the charge under Prevention of Corruption Act simplicitor is legally untenable. The petitioner is not a public servant and he is a private individual and does not come within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Trial Court failed to consider that the above proceedings arise of same series of acts and continuing conspiracy, there cannot be separate conspiracy for each case since the same modus operandi is projected against the petitioner and the witnesses are all common. Since the petitioner already tried and convicted in C.C.Nos.4, 5, 9 and 11 of 2012 and conviction is in subsistence for the same offence, second prosecution not permitted in view of Section 300 Cr.P.C. She further submitted that Section 300 Cr.P.C. is based on the maxim nemo debet bis vexari, si constat curiae quod sit pro una et eadem cause. Thus Section 300 Cr.P.C. bars the trial of a person not only for the same offence but also for any other offence on the same set of facts. Hence the above case is barred, Double Jeopardy.
Page No.6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:04:12 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23052 of 2025
4.In support of her submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of High Court of Bombay in Mohit Bharatiya v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3666 and the decision o High Court of Allahabad in Kameshwar and Another v. State reported in 1958 Cri LJ 583(2) for the point that where there are number of offences alleged to have been committed in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, the link which unites the various offences is the link of conspiracy so that whatever be the offence committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, there would be atleast one single crime which the accused is said to have been committed in respect of all of them. Further, relied on the decision of this Court in Vishwalingasamy and others v. The Inspector of Police, Uthukuli Police Station, Tirupur reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 14746 for the point that once the Court finds that the person has been already charged, convicted then inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked and charge sheet can be quashed.
5.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases appearing for Page No.7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:04:12 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23052 of 2025 the respondent strongly opposed the petitioner's submissions and submitted that offences charged against the petitioner might appear to be similar or same, but the facts of each case are not one and the same. In RCMA12010A0023, the offence was committed during the tenure of G.Kasinathan/A1 the Branch Manager from 15.12.2008 to 29.06.2009 of Tiruvannamalai Branch. As regards RCMA12010A0022, it was during the tenure of V.Kannan, Branch Manager during the period from February 2008 to December 2008. Hence, the Principal conspirator are different. Further, modus operandi might appear to be same but the dealers and beneficiaries are different. The petitioner encashed the cheque issued to the fake loanee. In this case, A1 sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.2,12,500/- on 13.01.2009 to A7 without processing the application properly as per the prescribed norms and procedures of the Bank. A3 who is the proprietor of M/s.Om Motors without supplying the Power Tiller created and issued false invoice without number and date favouring A7 and Union Bank of India issued Pay Order for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of M/s.Om Motors against the loan of A7/Sivakumar. Thus, the accused actively participated in pursuant to the conspiracy, thereby cheated the bank.
Page No.8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:04:12 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23052 of 2025
6.He further submitted that as per Section 300 Cr.P.C, it is clear that a person who is once tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not to be tried again for the same offence on the same facts. In this case, the facts are totally different, without supply of Tractor and Tillers, invoices and sale receipts created with false particulars. The agricultural land documents, revenue records, bills, invoices, all forged in different names. The beneficiaries are different. The petitioner participated in Trial in C.C.Nos.4, 5, 9 and 11 of 2012., during trial the petitioner not raised any objections of similarity of case, filed any petition to try all cases in single trial or simultaneously, now after conviction, dismissal of appeal filed the above petition to protract the trial In this case, the facts are totally different. In this case, now almost all the witnesses examined including Investigating Officer on 18.10.2023, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. completed and now case is at the stage of arguments. At this stage, the present petition has been filed. Hence, prayed for dismissal. Page No.9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:04:12 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23052 of 2025
7.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that modus adopted by the petitioner might appear to be similar but the facts of each case are different. The conspirators and conspiracy might look identical but are in variance. During the relevant period when G.Kasinathan and V.Kannan were working as Branch Managers, Union Bank of India, they abused their official position and resorted to the modus operandi of sanctioning and disbursing the agricultural loans under the false pretext for purchase of Tractors/Power Tillers to the farmers who are either not eligible or genuine borrowers, by flouting the norms of the Bank, siphoned off the loan amount. The petitioner/A4 in connivance with the bank officials and A3/Proprietor of M/s.Om Motors created forged documents in the name of A7/K.Shivakumar, thereby siphoned off the money and cheated the bank. It is also seen that in this case, all the witnesses examined including Investigating Officer on 18.10.2023 and now the case is at the stage of arguments. In view of the above, the contention of the petitioner is not sustainable.
Page No.10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:04:12 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23052 of 2025
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.08.2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order cse/vv2 To
1.The XI Additional Special Judge CBI, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:04:12 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.23052 of 2025 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse/vv2 Pre-delivery order made in Crl.O.P.No.23052 of 2025 29.08.2025 Page No.12 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:04:12 pm )