Madras High Court
Ar. Arunachalam vs /
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 01.09.2023 Pronounced on: 26.09.2023
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 525, 523, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016
Crl.A.No.502 of 2016
AR. Arunachalam, Male/64 Years,
S/o.V.AR.Arunachalam,
Flat O2, Park Enclave Apartments,
BB Kulam,
Madurai – 625 002. ... Appellant/Accused No.5
/versus/
The State,
Rep. By Inspector of Police,
SPE: CBI: ACB,
Chennai.
RC.No.32(A)/1997. ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:- Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, pleased to set aside the conviction and sentence as against
the appellant in the judgment dated 02.07.2016 in C.C.No.01 of 2000 (RC MA1
1997 A0032) of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, VIII
Additional City Civil Court, Chennai – 104 and acquit the appellant of all the
charges and allow the Criminal Appeal as prayed for.
For Appellant : Ms.AL.Ganthimathi, Senior Counsel,
for A.Ram Kumar,
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel,
Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/52
Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016
Crl.A.No.503 of 2016
M.Gopalakrishnan M/A, 81 years, (Pending appeal Died)
S/o.Mayor Radhakrishnan,
No.11 (Old No.5), 3rd Street,
Nehru Nagar, Adyar,
Chennai – 600 020. ... Appellant/Accused No.1
/versus/
State by
Inspector of Police,
SPE: CBI: ACB,
Chennai.
RC MA 1 1997 A 0032 ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:- Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, pleased to set aside the conviction and sentence as against
the appellant in the judgment dated 02.07.2016 in C.C.No.01 of 2000 (RC MA1
1997 A0032) of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, VIII
Additional City Civil Court, Chennai – 104 and acquit the appellant of all the
charges and allow the Criminal Appeal as prayed for.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Dhamodharan,
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel,
Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I).
Crl.A.No.521 of 2016
V.Krishnakumar,
S/o.(late) E N V Murthy, Aged 74 years,
No.651, KG Layout, 3rd Cross,
Banasankari, 3rd Stage,
Bangalore 560 085. ... Appellant/Accused No.13
/versus/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/52
Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016
State by
Inspector of Police,
SPE: CBI: ACB,
Chennai. ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:- Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, pleased to call for the records in C.C.No.1 of 2000 (RC
MA 1 1997 0032) by the Learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, VIII
Additional City Civil Court, Chennai – 600 104, hear the appellant and allow
the appeal, acquitting the appellant and pass such further order.
For Appellant : Mr.S.A.Rajan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel,
Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I).
Crl.A.No.523 of 2016
V.N.Balakrishnan, (M/65),
S/o.Late.V.N.Natarajan,
D5, Mahalakshmi Appartments,
No.1, Sundararajan Street,
Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 018. ... Appellant/Accused No.3
/versus/
State Rep. by
Inspector of Police,
SPE/CBI/ACB,
Chennai.
R.C.No.32(A)/1997 ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:- Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3/52
Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016
1988, pleased to admit the appeal, call for the records from the trial Court in
C.C.No.1 of 2000 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Special Judge for CBI
Cases, Chennai – 600 104, hear the Counsel for the appellant/accused No.3, set
aside the order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.1 of 2000, dated
02.07.2016, by the Hon'ble Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai
-104.
For Appellant : Mr.A.V.Somasundaram, Senior Counsel
for Mrs.G.Ramadhevi.
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel,
Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I).
Crl.A.No.525 of 2016
R.Srinivasaraghavan, (M/80),
S/o.Late.S.Rajagopalan,
Sri Sarathy Nillayam,
No.14, Bharathi Nagar 1st Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ... Appellant/Accused No.4
/versus/
State,
Rep. By Inspector of Police,
CBI/SPE/ ACB,
Chennai.
RC.No.32(A)/1997. ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:- Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988., pleased to admit the appeal and to call for the records from the Trial
Court in C.C.No.1 of 2000 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Special Judge for
CBI Cases, Chennai – 104, hear the Counsel for the appellant/accused No.4, set
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/52
Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016
aside the order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.1 of 2000, dated
02.07.2016 by the Hon'ble Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai –
104.
For Appellant : Mr.A.V.Somasundaram, Senior Counsel,
for Mrs.G.Ramadhevi
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel,
Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I).
Crl.A.No.527 of 2016
N.Kumaraswamy, M/65,
S/o.T.M.Natesan,
No.F1, Sri Kumara Kottam,
No.19/8, Mannar Second Street,
Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. ... Appellant/Accused No.2
/versus/
State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
CBI/SPE/ ACB,
Chennai.
RC.No.32(A)/1997. ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:- Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988., pleased to admit the appeal and to call for the records from the Trial
Court in C.C.No.01 of 2000 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Special Judge
for CBI Cases, Chennai – 104, hear the Counsel for the appellant/accused No.2,
set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.1 of 2000,
dated 02.07.2016 by the Hon'ble Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Chennai – 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/52
Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016
For Appellant : Mr.A.V.Somasundaram, Senior Counsel,
for Mrs.G.Ramadhevi
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel,
Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I).
Crl.A.No.576 of 2016
M.Varadharajulu, M/76 years,
S/o.Muthukrishna Naidu,
No.21-D, C.V.Raman Road,
Alwarpet,
Chennai – 600 018. ... Appellant/Accused No.12
/versus/
The State,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
CBI/SPE/ACB/Chennai,
Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai. ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:- Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, pleased to set aside the judgment dated 02.07.2016
passed in C.C.No.1 of 2000 by the Learned VIII Additional Principal Special
Judge for CBI cases, Chennai convicting the appellant herein for the offences
under Sections 120-B and Section 420 (4 counts) of I.P.C and sentencing him
to undergo R.I for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- for
each of the offence and pass such further or other order.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Siva Kumar,
for M/s.Waraon and Sai Rams
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel,
Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.6/52
Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016
Crl.A.No.577 of 2016
K.Sai Jagannathan, (M/65 years),
S/o.Shri Krishnaswamy Naidu,
No.26, East Street,
West CIT Nagar,
Chennai – 600 035. ... Appellant/Accused No.9
/versus/
The State,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
CBI/SPE/ACB/Chennai,
Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai. ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:- Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 pleased to set aside the judgment dated 02.07.2016
passed in C.C.No.1 of 2000 by the Learned VIII Additional Principal Special
Judge for CBI cases, Chennai convicting the appellant herein for the offences
under Sections 120-B and Section 420 of I.P.C and sentencing him to undergo
R.I for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- for each of the
offence (total fine of Rs.30,000) and pass such further or other order.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Krishnakumar
for M/s.Waraon and Sai Rams
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel,
Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.7/52
Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016
Crl.A.No.586 of 2016
G.Sambasivam, Aged 50 years,
S/o.Ganesan,
Flat No.2, Ashirvad Apartments,
Alamelumangapuram 1st Main Road,
Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091. ... Appellant/Accused No.8
/versus/
State,
Rep. By Inspector of Police,
CBI/SPE/ACB,
Chennai. ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:- Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973., pleased to admit the appeal and call for the records
in C.C.No.1 of 2000 (RC MA/1997 A 0032) from the Learned Principal Special
Judge for CBI Cases, VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai 104, set aside
the same hear the appellant and allow the appeal, acquitting the appellant and
pass such further orders.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Jayakumar
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel,
Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.8/52
Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT
On 02/05/1997, the Superintendent of Police, CBI/EOW/Chennai received two complaints from the Chief Manager (VG), Indian Bank, Central Office, Chennai one against M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd and its Directors and other against M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd and its Directors. According to these complaints, import LC limit of Rs.250 lakhs each sanctioned to M/s.Sathyam Chemicals (P) Ltd by Indian Bank, Saidapet Branch and M/s.Anderson Industries International Limited, by Indian Bank, Nandanam Branch requires detailed investigation since, the Bank Officials in collusion with certain private individuals have advanced these loans without any collateral security. For these LC’s only hypothecation of the goods and personal guarantee of the Directors were obtained. The imported cargo was sold to M/s.MVR Industries Ltd, as high sea sales without the knowledge of the LC opening Branch/RBI. Before opening of LC’s, many import bills for collection to a tune of USD 170,00,000 received in 1993 and 1994 remained unpaid. While so, immediately after opening the LC’s without the Bill of Lading, indemnity bonds were issued for release of goods and there were lot of discrepancies in the import bills drawn under the LCs. No evidence from the parties about their plan to meet the import Bills on the due dates. Diversion of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 the funds to clear the existing liabilities of M/s.MVR Group has been traced. As on the date of complaint about Rs.251.98 lakhs is outstanding from M/s.Sathyam Chemicals to Saidapet Branch and Rs.280,19,417/- is outstanding from M/s.Anderson Industries International Limited to Nandanam Branch.
2. These two complaints registered in RC 17(E)/97/CBI/EOW/Chennai, by Mr.P.Muralidharan, Inspector of Police, CBI/EOW/Chennai and in RC32(A)/1997 by Mr.Kathiresan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai were taken up for investigation by the respective Investigating Officers. Two accused by name Solaiappan (AGM, Zonal Office Indian Bank) and Venkyraman (Director of M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd) turned approvers and taken as witnesses for prosecution. On completion of the investigation, both the cases were clubbed and single final report against M.Gopalakrishnan (CMD of Indian Bank) and 10 others filed before the Special Court for CBI Cases. Out of 11 accused, A-1 to A-7 were Officials of Indian Bank. A-8 G.Sambasivam the Director of M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd (A-10) and A-9 Sai Jagannathan, Director of M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt Ltd. (A-11). The trial Court took the case on file in C.C.No.01/2000. Three more persons were shown as absconding accused. Later, Mr.Varadarajulu initially absconding and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.10/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 case against him split up as C.C.No.62/2000 was secured and added as A-12. Mr.Krishnakumar, another accused in split up case No.7/2006 was secured and added as A-13 subsequently. The case against one Usha Devi shown as absconding accused got split up as C.C.No.41/2010 and Non-Bailable warrant issued against her is still pending.
3. The trial Court, on the basis of the documents framed the following charges against the accused as below:-
M.Gopalakrishnan A-1:-
Sections 120 B r/w 420 IPC and section 13(2) r/w13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
Section 420 I.P.C ( 2 counts) Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988. ( 2 counts) N.Kumaraswamy A-2 :-
Section 120B r/w 420 IPC and U/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988.
Section 420 IPC (2 counts) Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention Corruption Act, 1988. (2 counts) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.11/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 V.N.Balakrishnan A-3:-
Section 120B r/w 420 IPC and U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 420 IPC (2counts) Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention Corruption Act, 1988. (2 counts) R.Srinivasa Raghavan A-4 :-
Section 120B r/w 420 IPC and U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 420 IPC (2 counts) Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention Corruption Act, 1988. (2 counts) AR. Arunachalam A-5 :-
Section 120B r/w 420 IPC and U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 420 IPC.
Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
P.Vasantharajan A-6:-
Section 120B r/w 420 IPC and U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 420 IPC.
Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.12/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 S.Jayaraman A-7 :-
Section 120B r/w 420 IPC and U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 420 IPC.
Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
G.Sambasivan A-8 :-
Section 120B r/w 420 IPC and U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 420 IPC.
Sai Jagannathan A-9:-
Section 120B r/w 420 IPC and U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 420 IPC.
M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd A-10:
Section 120B r/w 420 IPC and U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 420 IPC.
M/s.Sathyam Chemcials Pvt Ltd A-11:
Section 120B r/w 420 IPC and U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 420 IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.13/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 M.Varadarajulu A-12:- (Framed in C.C.No.62/2000) Section 120B r/w 420 IPC and U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 420 IPC. (4 counts) V.Krishnakumar A-13:- (Framed in C.C.No.7/2006) Section 120B r/w 420 IPC and U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 420 IPC.
4. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 75 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.75), marked 307 documents as prosecution exhibits (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.307). On the side of accused, 8 documents were marked as Exhibits (Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.8).
5. Pending trial, A-7 S.Jayaraman died. The charges against him got abated. Rest of the accused were found guilty and the trial Court sentenced them vide judgement dated 02/07/2016 as below:-
Accused Offences under Conviction and Sentence passed by the Trial Court Section A-1 120-B of I.P.C To undergo three years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 9 months S.I. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.14/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 Accused Offences under Conviction and Sentence passed by the Trial Court Section A-8 120-B of I.P.C To undergo two years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 6 months S.I. A-9 120-B of I.P.C To undergo three years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 9 months S.I. A-10 120-B of I.P.C To pay fine of Rs.10,000/- payable by A-8 and Rs.5,000/-
payable by A-13, in default of payment of fine, three months S.I to be undergone by A-8 and A-13 respectively. A-11 120-B of I.P.C To pay fine of Rs.15,000/- payable by A-9, in default of payment of fine, three months S.I to be undergone by A-9 A-12 120-B of I.P.C To undergo two years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, six months S.I. A-13 120-B of I.P.C To undergo two years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, six months S.I. Accused Offences under Conviction and Sentence passed by the Trial Court Section A-1 420 of I.P.C To undergo three years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, (2 counts) each, in default of payment of fine, 9 months S.I. A-8 420 of I.P.C To undergo two years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, six months S.I. A-9 420 of I.P.C To undergo three years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 9 months S.I. A-10 420 of I.P.C To pay fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.10,000/- payable by A-8 and Rs.5,000/- payable by A-13, in default of payment of fine, three months S.I to be undergone by A-8 and A-13 respectively.
A-11 420 of I.P.C To pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, payable by A-9, in default of payment of fine, three months S.I to be undergone by A-9. A-12 420 of I.P.C To undergo two years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, (4 counts) each, in default of payment of fine, six months S.I. A-13 420 of I.P.C To undergo two years imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to payment of fine, six months S.I. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.15/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 Accused Offences under Conviction and Sentence passed by the Trial Court Section A-1 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of To undergo three years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, P.C. Act. each, in default of payment of fine, nine months S.I. (2 counts) A-2 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of To undergo two years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, P.C. Act. each, in default of payment of fine, six months S.I. (2 counts) A-3 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of To undergo one year R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, P.C. Act. each, in default of payment of fine, three months S.I. (2 counts) A-4 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of To undergo one year R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, P.C. Act. each, in default of payment of fine, three months S.I. (2 counts) A-5 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of To undergo two years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in P.C. Act. default of payment of fine, six months S.I. A-6 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of To undergo one year R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in P.C. Act. default of payment of fine, three months S.I. Against A-2 to A-6, the charge under Sections 120-B of I.P.C and Section 420 of I.P.C held not proved.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the following Criminal Appeals preferred by the convicted accused:-
**Crl.A.No.503 of 2016 by A1 – M.Gopalakrishnan, CMD of Indian Bank Crl.A.No.527 of 2016 by A2 – N.Kumarasamy, Credit Monitoring Officer.
Crl.A.No.523 of 2016 by A3 – V.N.Balakrishnan, Chief Manager, Indian Bank.
Crl.A.No.525 of 2016 by A4 – R.Srinivasa Raghavan Senior Manager (Credit), Indian Bank.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.16/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 Crl.A.No.502 of 2016 by A5 – AR. Arunachalam, Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Nandanam Branch.
** Crl.A.No.524 of 2016 by A6 – P.Vasantharajan, Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Saidapet Branch.
A7 – S.Jayaraman (Died pending trial) Crl.A.No.586 of 2016 by A8 – G.Sambasivan, General Manager of MVR Industries Ltd.
Crl.A.No.577 of 2016 by A9 – K.Sai Jagannathan, Director of M/s.Sathyam Chemcials.
A10 – M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd (Rep. by A-9) A11 – M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd (Rep. by A-9) ** Crl.A.No.576 of 2016 by A12 – M.Varadarajulu, Principal Advisor of M/s.MVR Group.
Crl.A.No.521 of 2016 by A13 – V.Krishnakumar, Chief Executive Officer, MVR Industries.
** Pending disposal of the appeal, the [A1] M.Gopalakishnan died and his appeal Crl.A.No.503 of 2016 is dismissed as abated and the [A-6] P.Vasantharajan died and his appeal got abated vide order of this Court in Crl.A.No.524 of 2016 dated 09.01.2019. Yet another appellant, M.Varadarajulu [A-12] withdrew his appeal in Crl.A.No.576 of 2016 and same is dismissed as withdrawn.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.17/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016
7. Crl.A.No.527 of 2016, Crl.A.No.523 of 2016, Crl.A.No.525 of 2016, Crl.A.No.502 of 2016, are Criminal Appeals preferred by the Public Servants, who were serving in Indian Bank in different capacity during the said transaction.
8. The case of the prosecution and the respective role of these accused and other private parties is explained in the impugned judgment as below:-
“M/s.Maxwell Exim Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.MVR Industries Ltd., belong to A-12 M.Varadarajulu @ M.V.Raja doing raw cashew nuts importing business from Vietnam and Nigeria in their names during May, June, July 1995. The imported cargo of 10 shipments reached Tuticorin Port during June, July, August 1995. Since, Letter of Credit (LC) could not be opened in the name of M/s.Maxwell Exim Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.MVR Industries Ltd., because of over-dues and defaulted payments to Indian Bank, A12 approached A-1 M.Gopalakrishnan to open Letter of Credit in order to meet out the financial crisis of A12. During 1995 A-12 M. Varadarajulu @ M.V.Raja in order to cheat Indian Bank at Chennai and other places got sanction of Letter of Credit facility to the tune of Rs.2.50 Crores each in favour of M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd., and M/s.Sathyam Chemicals https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.18/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 Pvt. Ltd., sister concerns of MVR Group of Companies by taking delivery of cashew nuts which was already been imported in the name of M/s. Maxwell Exim Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.MVR Industries Ltd.
8.2. On 30.09.1995 morning by about 9.30 hrs., A-1 M.Gopalakrishnan, CMD, phoned up to the in-charge Zonal Manager S.Solayappan (Approver), and instructed him to permit opening of LC for Rs.250 Lakhs for A-10 M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd., by Bandana branch and another LC for Rs.250 Lakhs for A-11 M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., by Saidapet Branch.
Immediately, C.Solaiyappan along with Senior Manager A-2 M.Kumarasamy, met Al Gopalakrishnan, in the CMD office at Oliver Road and got clear instructions from him. Then, he requested A-2 N.Kumarasamy to trace, if any papers were pending in this regard and to put up a letter to CMD for getting his authorization in writing to open LCs for Rs.250 Lakhs each in the name of A-10 M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd., and A-11 M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., respectively with 5% margin and 180 days DA terms as instructed by A-1 Gopalakrishnan.
8.3. Accordingly, A2 produced two requisition letters of the said company received at Zonal Office for opening of LCs for Rs.250 lakhs each in which neither the date and the seal of the Zonal Office nor initials of the Zonal Manager was found. A-5 AR. Arunachalam https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.19/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 received the undated request letter for LC facility for Rs.250 Lakhs from M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd., Without proper pre-sanction assessment, A-5 AR.Arunachalam recommended the opening of LC for Rs.250 Lakhs vide proposal dated 28.09.1995 to the Regional Office with 5% margin which is against the banking norms. The Assets and Liabilities statements filed in the names of Venky Raman (Approver), A-13 V.Krishnakumar, A-8 G. Sambasivan, and Usha Devi for the LC facility found to contain false information. The credit worthiness of the Directors, past experience of the company, source of payment, etc., were not critically analyzed by the Branch Manager.
8.4. Likewise, A-6 P. Vasantharajan received the undated request letter for LC facility for Rs.250 Lakhs filed by A-9 Sai Jagannathan on behalf of A-11 M/s. Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., The Assets & Liabilities statement filed by A-9 Sai Jagannathan for this LC facility found to contain false information. The credit worthiness of the Directors, credit requirement of the borrower, the security cover available etc., were not examined by A-6 P.Vasantharajan and were not pointed out by A-4 Srinivasa Raghavan. The above said appraisal notes were placed before the Chief Manager A-3 V.N.Balakrishnan, incharge Regional Manager for his consideration. He also without going deep into the proposals and appraisal notes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.20/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 recommended the proposals to the Zonal Office with the date 29.09.1995.
8.5. Then, A-2 N.Kumarasamy prepared two letters dated 30.9.1995 addressed to the CMD without pre- sanction assessment, Zonal Manager's proposal format and appraisal note which is meant for know about the credit worthiness of the party, security aspects, source of repayment etc. and affixed his initials and the same was signed by Zonal Manager, Solayappan,approver. Thereafter, S. Solayappan, Zonal Manager took both these letters to the Oliver Road Office of CMD to A-1 Gopalakrishnan for sanction. A1 Gopalakrishnan has sanctioned the opening of LCs by writing “Yes please" on both these letters. The ante-dating of the proposal was done by every officer with a view to show that the A-1 CMD had sanctioned the proposal on 30.09.1995 on which date his financial sanctioning power expired. The original proposals sent by the Zonal Office was received at the Head Office, credit Division on 20.10.1995. Normally, if a credit proposal is initiated by the the Branch Manager, it is routed through the Regional Office, Zonal Office and Head Office Credit Division before it reaches the CMD for sanction. As far as these two proposals are concerned, the proposals were not sent through Head Office Credit Division. Thus, CMD A1 Gopalakrishnan made deliberate commissions and procedural omissions to entertain these proposals. Since, the financial sanctioning power of CMD, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.21/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 A-1 was to end on 30.09.1995, sanctions were accorded on 30.09.1995 itself without proper analysis and verification. Then, A-2 N.Kumarasamy prepared sanction tickets and the same was signed by Solaiappan (Approver) on 30.9.1995.
8.6. In this case, the commissions and omissions committed by the respective Branch Managers were actually endorsed at the Regional office, instead of questioning and returning their proposals. In toto, all banking officials were failed to evaluate the proposals in accordance with the rules and regulations stipulated by the bank. Though the proposal was received at Regional Office on 11.10.1995 in respect of M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd., the appraisal note was prepared with the date 29.09.1995. The appraisal note in respect of M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., was also ante-dated Application and agreement for irrecovable LCs (13 Nos) dated 9.10.95 signed by Venky Raman (approver) on behalf of M/S.Anderson Industries International Ltd., (A-13). Agreement of Guarantee dated 12.10.95 from C.S.Usha Devi (A-1) dated 13.10.95 from V.Krishnakumar (A-9) dated 16.10.95 from Venky Raman-approver and 1st one dated 28.10.95 from G.Sambasivam (A10) were obtained by the Chief Manager AR. Arunachalam (A-5). Three LCs were opened on 13.10.95 and telex messages were given to Indian Bank, Singapore Branch. All these three LC's were in favour of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.22/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 M/s.Mountamount (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Application & Agreement for irrevocable LCs (3 Nos.) signed by Shri K. Sai Jagannathan (A-12) on behalf of M/s. Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (A-14) were received by Saidapet Branch and on their instructions three LCs were opened by Overseas Branch on 12.10.1995 and telex messages were given to Indian Bank, Singapore. All the three LCs were in favour of M/s.Mountamount (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. LC conditions mentioned in these LCs are totally against banking norms.
8.7. On 18.10.95, two telex messages were received from M/s. Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore in respect of LC No.845530/95 and 845531/95 for further instructions, as there were some discrepancies in the presented documents. On 20.10.95 another telex message was received from M/s.Meespierson N.V., Rotterdam, Netherlands in respect of LC No.845532/95 for further instructions as there were some discrepancies in the presented documents. The following are the discrepancies mentioned in those telex messages amongst others. (i) Late presentation (ii) Partial shipment effected (iii) Stale bill of Lading (iv) Shipper's address differs and Consignee address differs.
8.8. The above mentioned discrepancies are very serious in nature. The Branch Manager, AR. Arunachalam (A-5) should have referred this matter to the higher-ups for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.23/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 clarification and for cancelling the L.C. Instead he addressed M/s. Anderson Industries International Ltd.(A-
13) for clarification. The Company informed Nandanam Branch that the discrepancies were acceptable to them and they would make the payment of all the bills on the due date. He took the decision by himself and informed the foreign bank to negotiate the documents since the applicant of the L.C.s accepted the discrepancies.
8.9. Four sets of negotiated documents were received from M/s. Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore. One set of negotiated documents was received from the Bank, M/s.Meespierson NV Rotterdam. All these documents show that import was made in the name of M/s. Maxwell Exim Pvt. Ltd. As there were discrepancies in the presented documents. Import Trust Receipt was obtained from C.S.Usha Devi for A-11 Company on 16.11.1995 and the documents were released for taking delivery of the imported goods. According to the Import Trust Receipt, the goods should be sold only for cash and the proceeds should be paid to the bank. In violation of this conditions, the goods were sold to M/s.MVR Industries Ltd. on credit by was of High Sea Sales.
8.10. As the party M/s. Anderson Industries International Ltd. (A-13) had not provided funds to honour the LCs on the due date, that is on 11.4.1996, advance bills account was debited on 11.4.1996 after adjusting the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.24/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 margin amount, thus a wrongful loss of Rs.2,39,42,511- was caused to the Bank.
8.11. In respect of 3 LCs opened for M/s. Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (A-14), 5 Shipments were made much prior to the opening of LCs. All the 5 shipments were not made in the name of M/s. Mountamount Singapore Pte. Ltd. In whose favour the LC was opened. Out of the five shipments, one was imported in the name of M/s. MVR Industries Ltd., Chennai and the other four in the name of M/s.Maxwell Exim Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. No shipment was in the name of M/s. Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (A-14) in whose name the LCs were opened. All the 5 consignments reached Tuticorin port during June, July, August, 1995. The imported goods were sold to M/s. MVR Industries Ltd. By way of High Sea Sales without the knowledge of the LC opening bank. On the request of M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (A-14) indemnity bonds were issued by S.Jayaraman for taking delivery of the goods, 8.12. M/s. Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (A-14) had not provided funds on the due dates on 20.11.95, 8.12.95, 5.1.96, 30.4.96 and 7.5.96 as agreed to honour the LC commitment of Rs.28,44,071/-, Rs.66,93,750/-, Rs.41,80,650/-, Rs.88,75,379.29 and Rs.32,56,042/- respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.25/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 8.13. Raw cashew nuts had arrived at Tuticorin port much prior to the opening of LCs. Actually 5 shipments each were made from Vietnam and Nigeris between 3.5.95 and 9.7.95 and the cargo arrived at Tuticorin Port between 29.6.95 and 26.8.95. It proves that these six LCs were opened not for importing cashew nuts, but for taking delivery of the imported cashew nuts lying at Tuticorin port with mounting arrears of demurrage.
8.14. M/s. Mountamount Singapore Pte Ltd is a sister concern of MVR Group of Companies and the business transactions had taken place between the two sister companies of the same group of hence there was no necessity to open L.C. The LCs had been opened with a view to cheat Indian Bank and was made to lose money in dollars.
8.15. Thus, M.Gopalakrishnan(A-1), S.Sollaiappan (Approver), N.Kumarasamy (A-2), V.N.Balakrishnan (A-
3), R.Srinivasa Ragavan (A-4), AR.Arunachalam (A-5), P.Vasantharajan (A-6), SJayaraman (A-7) and M. Varadarajulu @ M.V. Raja (A-8), Venky Raman (Approver), V.Krishnakumar (A-9), and C.S.Usha Devi (A-11), G.Sambasivan (A-10) and K.Sai Jagannathan (A-
12) have committed the offence punishable under Sec entered into a criminal conspiracy during 1995 at Chennai and other place to cheat Indian Bank in the matter of sanction of Letter of Credit facility to the tune of Rs.2.50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.26/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 Crores each in favour of M/s.Anderson Industries International Limited (A-13) and M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (A-14), Sister concerns of M.V.R.Group of Companies of M. Varadarajulu @ M.V.Raja (A-8) for taking delivery of the cashew nuts already imported in the name of M/s.Maxwell Exim Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.M.V.R Industries Ltd., and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy Solaiappan (Approver) and Kumarasamy (A-2) at the instance and on the instruction of M.Gopalakrishnan (A-1) prepared two letters dated 30.9.95 for sanction of LC facility of Rs.2.50 Crore each in favour of the above said two companies without the receipt of regular proposals of Indian Bank, Nandanam Branch and Saidapet Branch, M.Gopalakrishnan (A-1) on 30.9.1995 sanctioned LC limit of Rs.2.50 Crores each on the basis of the letters dt. 30.9.95 in favour of the said two companies knowing fully well that no pre-sanction verification was made about the LC facility. Shri.Venky Raman (approver), one of the Directors of M/s.Anderson Industries International Limited (A-10) submitted an undated application to Nandanam Branch of Indian Bank requesting for sanction of LC facility of Rs.2.50 crores to K.Sai Jaganathan (A-9) one of the Directors of M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (A-14) submitted an undated application to Saidapet Branch of Indian Bank requesting for sanction of LC facility of Rs.2.50 Crore for the purpose of importing Raw Cashew Nuts; Shri A.R.Arunachalam (A-5), Chief Manager of Nandanam Branch of Indian Bank on receipt of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.27/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 application from M/s.Anderson Industries International Limited (A-13) prepared and sent a proposal recommending sanction of Rs.2.50 Crore of LC facility to the said company without conducting any pre-sanction verification or verifying the assets and liabilities of the Directors of the said Company; Vasantharajan (A-6), Chief Manager, Saidapet Branch of Indian Bank on receipt of the application from M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., prepared and sent a proposal recommending sanction of Rs.2.50 Crores of LC facility to the said company without conducting any pre-sanction verification or verifying the assets and liabilities of the Directors of the said firm; V.N.Balakrishnan (A-3) and R.Srinivasa Raghavan (A-4) working in Regional Office, Chennai forwarded the proposals received from the said two Branches of Indian Bank recommending sanction of LC facility of Rs.2.50 Crore in favour of the said two companies without scrutinizing and verifying the applications and proposals and knowing fully well that M.Gopalakrishnan (A-1) had already sanctioned LC facility of Rs.2.50 Crores each in favour of the said two companies S.Solaiappan (Approver) Assistant General Manager forwarded the said two proposals on 18.10.95 to the Head Office recommending sanction of Letter of Credit facilities without making any verification and knowing fully well that on the basis of the letters dated 30.9.95, M.Gopalakrishnan (A-1) had already sanctioned LC facility of Rs.2.50 Crore each to the said two companies; AR.Arunachalam (A-5) opened LC of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.28/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 Rs.2.50 Crore in favour of M/s.Mountamount, Singapore another sister concern of Sheri M.Varadarajulu @ Maharaja without obtaining proper security; on the request of P. Vasantha Rajan (A-6), Chief Manager, Sandpaper branch of Indian Bank in favor of M/s. Mount amount, Singapore; Usha Devi, one of the Directors of M/s.Anderson Industries International Limited (A-10) got the shipping documents released from Bandana Branch of Indian Bank and took delivery of Raw Cashew Nuts which reached Tuticorin Port long before the opening of Letters of Credit;
8.16. S.Jayaraman (A-7) of Nandanam Branch of Indian Bank issued Indemnity Bonds in favor of Shipping agent, though he did not have power to do so, which enabled M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (A11) to take delivery of raw Cashew nuts from Tuticorin Port; as M/s. Anderson Industries International Ltd. (A10) had not provided funds on the due date that was on 11.4.1996 as agreed to honor the LC commitment, Nandanam Branch of Indian Bank released an amount of Rs.2,39,42,511/- on 11.4.96 and M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (A-11) had not provided funds on the due dates that were on 20.11.95, 8.12.95, 5.1.96, 30.4.96 and 7.5.96 as agreed to honor the LC commitment, Nandanam Branch of Indian Bank released Rs.28,44,071/-, Rs.66,93,750/-, Rs.41,80,650/-, Rs.88,75,367.29 and Rs.32,56,042/- respectively; thereafter M/s.Anderson Industries Internationals Limited https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.29/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 (A-10) did not pay the said amount of Rs.2,39,42,511/- outstanding as on 11.4.96 M/s Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (A-14) did not pay the amount of Rs.2,65,00,142.29 outstanding as on 26.11.96 which resulted in the Indian Bank sustaining a wrongful loss and causing corresponding undue pecuniary advantage to the said two Companies of Shri.M. Varadarajulu @ Maharaja (A-8).
8.17. The above said acts of accused M.Gopalakrishnan (A-1), N.Kumarasamy (A-2), V.N.Balakrishnan (A-3), R.Srinivasa Ragavan (A-4), AR Arunachalam (A-5), P.Vasantharajan (A-6). S.Jayaraman (A-7) and M.Varadarajulu @ M.V. Raja (A-8), V.Krishnakumar (A-9), G.Sambasivan (A-10), Usha Devi (A-11), K.Sai Jagannathan (A-12) M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd. (A-10) and M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (A-11) constituted offences punishable U/s. 120-B IPC r/w 120-B IPC r/w 420 IPC, 13(2) r/w.13(1) (d) of PC Act. 1988 and substantive offences u/s.420 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act. 1988.
9. P.W.2 Mr.Solaiappan, the Approver is the key witness to the prosecution. His evidence narrates the role and responsibility of each Officers in the loan transaction pertaining to M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt Ltd and M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd. This witness was the Assistant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.30/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 General Manager at Zonal Office during the relevant point of time. Mr.AV.Shanmugasundaram was the Zonal Manager in control of Credit Department. Since AV.Shanmugasundaram went on leave, in his place, P.W.2 was officiating from 30.09.1995. In his Chief examination, P.W.2 had deposed that, on 30.09.1995, the first accused called him over phone and instructed to permit Nandanam Branch to open a Letter of Credit for Rs.250 lakhs to M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd (A-10). He and A-2 went to Alwarpet and met A-1. On his oral instruction, LC for Rs.250 lakhs with 5% margin and 180 days limit was opened on behalf of M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd. An undated letter Ex.P.2 which was addressed to the Chief Manager, Nandanam Branch by M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd was shown to him by A-2. To get written approval of A-1, a letter dated 30.09.1995 was prepared by him and taken to A1 office. In that letter, A-1 written as “Yes Please”. The letter dated 30.09.1995 with A-1 endorsement is marked as Ex.P.3. P.W.2 then gave this to A-2 to prepare the sanction ticket. The sanction communication Ex.P.4 from Zonal Office to the Regional Office (South) was prepared and signed by him (P.W.2) and initialled by A-2. Without pre-sanction assessment, LCs for Rs.250 lakhs to M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd was sanctioned on the oral instruction of A-1. The sanction of LC under Ex.P.4 was approved by Head Office and communicated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.31/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 through fax Ex.P.5. Thereafter, through Regional Office, regular proposal from the Branch was obtained. On receiving the regular proposal from the Nandanam Branch, he (P.W.2) forwarded the recommendation and appraisal note along with a covering letter dated 18.10.1995 signed by Shri.Sekar, Chief Manager of Credit Department. P.W.2 had ascertained that the proposal from the Nandanam Branch was not received on 30.09.1995. This necessitated him to write Ex.P.3 letter to A-1. Instead of protecting the interest of the Bank, he acted on the orders of A-1, to avoid displeasure from A-1. Similar oral instructions from A-1 to open LCs for Rs.250 lakhs on behalf of M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt Ltd (A-11) through Saidapet Branch received by P.W.2 and after getting clear instruction, he (P.W.2) and A-2 prepared 3 letters for the sanction of one time LC for DA (180 days limit of Rs.250 lakhs). These letters dated 30.09.1995 (Ex.P.8) signed by P.W.2. In this letter also A-1 M.Gopalakrishnan has signed and endorsed as “Yes Please”. In the sanction communication Ex.P.9 signed by P.W.2 without pre-sanction assessment, he recommended and approved to open LC. This witness (P.W.2) turned as approver and deposed incriminating materials against A-1 and A-2. His evidence his inculpatory and been tendered pardon following the due process. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.32/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016
10. P.W.4 is the Manager in the Vigilance Department of Indian Bank, who investigated the affairs of M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd (A-
10) and submitted his report Ex.P.42 dated 05.11.1996. His report speaks about the violation of loan conditions by the borrower firm namely M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd (A-10). The address and details of its Directors differs from what the application to the Bank says. Venkyraman (P.W.3), shown as Director never been the director of M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd (A-10). His name does not find place in the Memorandum of Association of the Company. The discrepancies in Bills drawn expose the violation of Exchange Control Manual. In all cases, shipment effected even before LC opening date (13.10.1995). The due dates fixed for payment was much beyond the permissible period of 180 days from the date of shipment. On the due dates there was no funds built up in the account. The cargo imported has been sold to M/s.MVR Industries as High Sea sales without intimation to the Bank. No stock verification was done by Nandanam Branch. Under a separate heading, “Staff Accountability”, P.W.4 in his report Ex.P.42 had stated as below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.33/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 STAFF ACCOUNTABILITY “At the branch level, the following officers are accountable:
Mr.V.S.Narayanan, Chief Manager (now Chief Manager, Tilak Nagar) has authorised to open the Current Account on 19.4.95 without obtaining the specimen signatures from one of the authorised persons.
Mr.AR. Arunachalam, Officiating Chief Manager (now CM, Abiramapuram) bas processed, forwarded and recommended the proposal of the party.
Mr.Elangovan, Asst. Manager who was the officer- in-charge of FX has handled the bills with numerous irregularities.
Mr.A.Ramachandran, Chief Manager (now CM. Coimbatore Hain) has authorised the FX officer to release the documents after obtaining Import Trust Receipt. During his tenure as Chief Manager the LCs devolved and he has authorised to debit Advance Bills a/c on the due date of the bills.
At the Regional Office level Mr.V N Balakrishnan, Chief Manager (now in Zonal Office. Emakulam) has signed in the note recommending the facility.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.34/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 At the Zonal Office level Mr.S.Solaiappan, AGM (since retired) has signed in the note recommending the facility.
At Central Office level Mr.A K Narayanan, AGM (DC) and Mr.S Arunachalam GM (C) have handled the file, followed by the approval of the then CMD.”
11. A.V.Shanmugasundaram, Zonal Manager and V.Sekar, Chief Manager, whom P.W.2 had referred in his deposition were examined as P.W.32 and P.W.12 respectively. The testimony of P.W.32, the Zonal Manager reveals that, at the relevant point of time A-1 used to meet the customers at the Oliver Road Office and after discussion with them he used to authorise opening of LC within his authorised limit. The LC limit for these two firms (A-10 and A-11), was within the powers of M.Gopalakrishnan, CMD (A-1) and their application was processed based on the endorsement made by A-1 as “Yes Please” in Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.8. P.W.13, T.Padmanaban, Stenographer of A-1 identified the writing, “Yes Please” in Ex.P.3 as writing of A-1. The loan files of M/s.Anderson Industries Ltd and M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Ltd were marked as Ex.P.172 and Ex.P.176 respectively and the letter of M/s.Anderson Industries Ltd is marked as Ex.P.175. On the reverse of this letter certain queries were https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.35/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 raised and P.W.14, who was an Officer at Nandanam Branch had deposed that, he is not aware whether the records collected was based on those queries. AR. Arunachalam (A-5), the Chief Manager had forwarded the proposal and he had not ensured to collect all the documents required before release of the LC's. Ex.P.170 which is the Bank proposal for M/s.Anderson Industries International Pvt Ltd A-5 has signed and recommended for import LC limit of Rs.250 lakhs and signed. At the top of this proposal, the date of proposal is mentioned as 27.09.1995, reply received on 28.09.1995 and submitted to Zonal Office on 28.09.1995.
12. M/s.Anderson Industries International Pvt Ltd got incorporated on 27.04.1995 with Venkyraman Approver, Krishnakumar (A-13), G.Sambasivan (A-8) and Ushadevi (absconding accused) as its Directors. A-5 had recommended the loan proposal to A-10 firm without conducting pre-sanction verification. Ex.P.174 is the letter dated 30.09.1995 by AGM, Zonal Office to CMD (A-1) seeking permission of the Branch to open one time import LC/DA 180 days limit of Rs.250 lakhs with 5% margin to M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt Ltd. In this letter, A-1 has endorsed as “Yes Please”. The Zonal Manager's proposal is marked as Ex.P.177 recommending sanction of LC to M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt Ltd. In Ex.P.177, it is mentioned that the Bank received https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.36/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 proposal on 28.09.1995 and same was submitted to the Head Office on 29.09.1995. Ex.P.177 is the proposal for sanctioning LC limit upto Rs.250 lakhs to M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt Ltd. A-3 Balakrishnan has signed this recommendation on 29.09.1995. The proposal from M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt Ltd was received only on the previous day i.e., 28.09.1995. Without any pre-sanction verification, A-3 has forwarded his recommendation Knowing well that, Mr.Sai Jagannathan one of the Director of M/s.Sathyam Chemicals and another Director Mr.Rajivi of M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt Ltd is a Director of M/s.Sanjeevi Packing Pvt. Ltd. To these two Company, he had a weak before i.e., 23.09.1995 recommended Rs.500 lakhs OD facility. Thus, from the loan files of these two firms which shows that after availing LC facility, diverted the Cargo and have not repaid the LC sanctioned. It is obviously clear that, the release of money had not been done after securing the necessary documents. Records were created only after taking decision to sanction LC. From the Head Office to the Branch Office, all the Officers dealing the proposal had knowingly involved in disbursing the money in spite of defect in the documents. The discrepancies in the date and blank in the loan documents including the proposals in the light of the evidence given by P.W.15 S.Arunchalam and others prove that, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.8 with endorsement of A1 as “Yes Please” though dated 30.09.1995 reached the head office, only on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.37/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 04.10.1995, after sanctioning the import LC credit to these two firms. Same was reported to the Board on 06.12.1995 for confirmation under regular note, placed by the Credit Division on 16.12.1995 for approval. Regarding the High Sea Sales of the goods for which LC permitted P.W.15 had deposed that, though it is permissible, it should be done with intimation to the Bank. In this case, the High Sea Sales done in favour of M/s.MVR Industries Pvt Ltd. On verification of the document, it is clearly established that, the cargo shipment were completed prior to opening of LC's were accepted for extending LC and those cargos were diverted to M/s.MVR Industries Pvt Ltd through High Sea sales.
13. P.W.11 had deposed that, since the notifying party differs from A10 Company, a note was put up by Chief Manager A.Ramachandran for orders to obtain import trust letters from the party and to release the documents. However, this was not brought to the notice of the Senior Officials by A-7 Jayaraman, Manager of Saidapet Branch. The goods were taken delivery by giving indemnity bond without Bill of Lading. The proposal given by A-11 Company was not clear about certain details and therefore, 13 clarifications was raised under Ex.P.91 letter, but those clarifications were not put forth by the borrower however, LC's were recommended by the Branch Manager and same https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.38/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 was accepted by the Regional Office and Zonal Office. These violation of Rules were all due to the interest shown by A-1 Gopalakrishnan, CMD at Head Office. A defence is taken by the Learned Counsels that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against A-3, A-4 and A-4 ended in exoneration and therefore, the benefit of doubt to be extended to the criminal prosecution which is on the same set of facts.
14. Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.6 relied by the Learned Counsels for the appellants to emphasis that, they never misused the official position to obtain any pecuniary benefit to themselves or other and they are not part of any conspiracy. The department has exonerated them for the delinquency, while so prosecuting them for serious offence of misconduct is not legally sustainable.
15. The Learned Counsels appearing for the appellants A2 to A6 submitted that, the trial Court had acquitted them for the charge of conspiracy and cheating. They were convicted for misconduct under Prevention of Corruption Act. The dishonesty to obtain pecuniary advantage is necessary ingredient to hold them guilty under Section 13(1)(d) of P.C Act. These appellants were below A-1 Chariman-cum Managing Director and P.W.2 Solaiappan, the acting Zonal Manager who was granted pardon by the Court at https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.39/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 the instance of the prosecuting agency.
16. The evidence before the Court show that the entire instruction emanated from A-1 which was carried and convened by P.W.2 to these officials. The recommendation and the role of A-2 as Credit Monitoring Office at Zonal Office, A-3 as Lower Level Officer working under the Regional Manager, Zonal Manager, AGM, GM Head Office, CMD at Head Office. A-4 Deputy Chief Officer at Regional Office, who only acted forwarding the proposal to the higher authorities and not party to any decision or discussion regarding sanction of loan facility. A-5 do not have any power either to sanction loan or recommend the loan and had only processed the loan documents and forwarded to the Senior Officer in the hierarchy. A-6 had done only clerical part of processing the loan application, cannot be criminally held liable for offence under Section 13(1)(d) of P.C Act. Much trust on the acquittal for offence under conspiracy and cheating which has direct bearing on the charge under Section 13(1)(d) of P.C Act made by the Learned Counsels in the light of exoneration in the departmental proceedings.
17. The evidence clearly establish the fact that, the LC limit sanctioned at the instance of A-1, who had discretionary limit of sanctioning https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.40/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 LC upto Rs.250 lakhs. It is invariably contended by the A-2 to A-6, who are the appellants herein that they acted under the direction of the Superior Officer and within the conduct regulation, they processed the proposals. The Sanctioning Authority P.W.1 admits that, as per the Banking Regulation, the instruction of the Superior Officer CMD cannot be disobeyed by the Subordinates. A-1 the Senior Most Officer rank of CMD had made written endorsement in the proposals marked as Ex.P.3 & Ex.P.8 as “Yes Please”. This has been received by P.W.2 Solaiappan, the Zonal Manager and passed to the other Officers under him including A-2 to A-6.
18. P.W.4, Balakrishnan, Vigilance Manager admits in his cross examination that, under Regulation 3(3) of Indian Bank Officer's Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, Officers cannot use their discretion when they are under the instructions of higher authorities if they violate any lawful orders of the Higher Authorities departmental action will be initiated against them. Fearing such departmental action, P.W.2 Solaiappan had confess that, he acted on the dictate of A-1. He was granted pardon by the Court and taken as witness. The fear of incurring the wrath of A-1 equally applies to A2 to A7 also.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.41/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016
19. Crl.A.No.527 of 2016, Crl.A.No.523 of 2016, Crl.A.No.525 of 2016 and Crl.A.No.502 of 2016, who are the appellants/accused, cannot be deprived of the benefit extended to P.W.2. More so, when they are exonerated in the departmental proceedings for the very same set of charge. The trial Court having acquitted them for offence of conspiracy and cheating, should also taken note of the outcome of the departmental proceedings while considering the allege misconduct as a public servant. For the said reason, the benefit of doubt to be extended to these appellants and their appeals are liable to be allowed.
20. Crl.A.No.586 of 2016, Crl.A.No.577 of 2016, Crl.A.No.576 of 2016 and Crl.A.No.521 of 2016:-
As far as the above appeals are filed by the appellants A8 to A13 are concerned, Venkyraman (P.W.3) yet another Approver in this case had incriminated these private accused with whom he was closely associated while serving as General Manager of M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd. This witness is one of the Director of M/s.Anderson Industries International Ltd.
His testimony explains the scheme devised by A-13, who run M/s.MVR Industries Pvt Ltd. These two firms A-10 and A-11 are sister concerns of M/s.MVR Industries Pvt Ltd and how in connivance of A-1, they were able to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.42/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 manipulate records and successfully cheated the Indian Bank. The relevant portion of his evidence is extracted below:-
“M.V.Raja formed a company called by name M/s.Anderson Industries International Limited. This Company belongs to M/s.M.V.Raja & Group Companies. I was appointed as Managing Director of M/s.Anderson Industries International Limited by M.V.Raja. Directors of the Company were also appointed by him. I do not remember all the Director's names but I know few of them namely Sambasivam & Kumar. I was involved in information technology and Viravan & Sai Jagannathan were looking after the day to day administration of the Company.
Then one day M.V.Raja said that there was some problem with regard to cashew nuts lying with godown in Tuticorin Harbour, and because the other companies have defaulted he cannot get L.C. for clearing the goods and he wanted my help for an L.C under AIIL. He said that because of the financial problems of the other companies those companies have defaulted. I said as this is a new company there is no financial track records and I told my inability to apply for L.C. He told me that he will manage and I need not worry about it and asked me to sign the bank documents. He said that he will talk to Indian Bank https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.43/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 Chairman Gopalakrishnan. Then I saw the document it showed some properties in my name which I don't have. He said I need not worry and he will manage that also. One Srinivasan presented that day bank documents to me. They are L.C. Bill of trading etc and financial statement assets and liabilities statement and all the supporting documents. Just I have signed as he had told that he will manage. M.V.Raja told that once L.Cs clear and money is realised he will pay of the debts. So on that assurance I have signed. As per the instructions of M.V.Raja I have signed the documents. Ex.P.2 is the letter addressed to the Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Nandanam Branch and it is signed by me.
Application and agreement letter of credit given to Indian bank signed by me for Anderson Industries International Ltd is Ex.P.15 (1 sheet). In connection with the request for L.C. I have also submitted memorandum and articles of association of Andersen Industries International Ltd, and the name is Ex.P.16. (Entire book), Though I have stated that I don't have properties in Udumalpet I have submitted details of Assets and Liabilities relating to me and the same is Ex.P.17. (In duplicate) The LC amount was Rs.250 lakhs. I have also signed in the sales contract for 3 L.Cs and the sales contract dated 25.9.95 bearing L.C.No.845530/95, 845531 and 845532 are Ex.P.18, Ex.P.19 & Ex.P.20 respectively. I have signed on behalf of A.I.I.L. as Directer. All these https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.44/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 documents were presented by Srinivasan to me. I am not aware of the contents of the sales contract but simply signed under instructions from M.V.Raja. The respective application and agreement for irrevocable letter at credit bearing Nos.845532, 845531, 345530/95 are Ex.P.21, Ex.P.22 & Ex.P.23 respectively containing 3 sheets each, xerox copies, marked subject to objection. I have also signed clarification letters for these 3 L.Cs, as instructed by M.V.Raja and they are Ex.P.24, Ex.P.25 & Ex.P.26 respectively, they are dated 28.9.95. As instructed by M.V.Raja I have also signed agreement of guarantee for Import L.C. for Rs.250 lakhs. The xerox copy of agreement dated 16.10.95 is Ex.P.27 (2 sheets) marked subject to objection under instructions from M.V.Raja I have also signed letter regarding acceptance of discrepancies letter dated 20.10.1995 signed by me with regard to L.C.No.845530/95 dated 18.10.95 is Ex.P.28. Letter regarding acceptance discrepancy with regard to L.C.No.845531/95 dated 18.10.95 signed by me is Ex.P.29. Likewise letter regarding acceptance of discrepancies regarding L.C.No.845532/95 dt.18.10.95 signed by me is Ex.P.30. Likewise I have also signed requisition for issuing indemnity bond for L.C.No.845530 dt.13.10.95 and the same is Ex.P.31. Likewise the requisition for issuance of indemnity bond for L.C.No.845532/dt.13.10.95 signed by me is Ex.P.32. Letter for issuing of indemnity bond for L.C.845531 dt.13.10.95 is Ex.P.33. It is signed by me. Likewise I have https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.45/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 also signed letter dated 12.10.95 undertaking to submit the original sale contract bearing Nos.MMT/SC/0963/0964 and 0965 entered by us with Mount amount Singapore Pvt. Ltd is Ex.P.34. Likewise I have also signed a letter dated 11.10.95 stating that LC. when open could or honoured on the due dates and the same is Ex.P.375. I have also signed letter furnishing the list of Directors assets and liabilities of the directors office of the contracts for import of raw nuts and the import is covered under O.G.L. and the said letter dated 20.9.95 signed by me is Ex.P.36. Likewise I have also signed dated 28.9.95 regarding the import of 605.661 MTS of cashew nuts with shell and stated that this import of goods are under chapter 5 para 22/23 of import policy 1992-97 and the same is Ex.P.37. I have also signed a letter dated Nil requesting to consider and sanction non fund based limit of Rs.250 lakhs and the same is Ex.P.38 (2 sheets). I have also singed a letter dated 11.3.96 addressed to the Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Nandanam branch highlighting the business plan of Anderson Industries International Ltd and the same in Ex.P.39 (2 sheets with 2 sheets of Annexure). All the above documents were prepared by the finance department of M.V.R.groups and brought to me by one Srinivasan and signed by me as instructed by M.V.Raja. I never met bank people but the above papers were followed in the bank by either Viravan or Sai Jagannathan as instructed by M.V.Raja. I never dealt with any cashew nuts business nor even L.Cs but I am only Information Technology https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.46/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 Specialist. I confess that I have made a mistake or Criminal Act by signing the bank documents on instructions from M.V.Raja and his promised that he will manage and he will settle everything. I was not at all benefited in these transactions but I have gone through a lot of trauma. During 1999, I came to know that there was a case pending and therefore I volunteered to confess. I appeared before the learned Magistrate at Saidapet Court and answered his question he told that I am not under any pressure to confess then I have narrated whatever I have done and he recorded the same and I have signed the same.
The confession statement given by me before the 18th M.M.Saidapet, Chennai is Ex.P.40 (8 sheets) It contains my signatures. Thereafter I went to a Magistrate Court at Egmore he put questions to me and I said that I have committed the offence and sought for pardon. I have also under taken that I will speak the same in the Court whenever required by the Court. The learned Magistrate said that I had been given tender of pardon. I have signed in those proceedings. The proceedings dated 22.7.99 and the file of 10th M.M.Egmore, Chennai is Ex.P.41.”
21. Though P.W.3 was cross examined intensively, his testimony stands unassail and unimpeached.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.47/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016
22. As far as the overt act of the accused A-8 to A-13, it was argued by the Learned Counsels appearing for these appellants that, prosecution evidence is not sufficient to prove the charges particularly there was no meeting of mind to create these two firms A-10 to A-11, to deceive or induce the Indian Bank. Taking delivery of cashew nuts which was already been imported in the name of M/s.Maxwell Exim Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.MVR Industries Ltd through High Sea Sales is not a prohibited transaction.
23. The trial Court has rightly rejected the said submission holding that, the High Sea Sales is within the Company and not to third party. It is a sham transaction without intimating the Bank. The false statement about these two firms A-10 and A-11, to induce Indian Bank to sanction loan been explained by the Approver P.W.3 the poor financially status of M/s.MVR Industries Pvt Ltd been spoken by P.W.17 and their failure to pay the loan after availing loan in Muthialpet Branch clearly throw light that, to clear the debt of other sister concerns, A-10 and A-11 firms were floated by A-13 through A-7, A-8, A-9 and A-13 and the absconding accused Usha Devi. For the M/s.Anderson Industries International Pvt Ltd, Sai Jaganathan (A-9) who is the Director of M/s.Sathyam Chemicals Pvt Ltd had addressed Indian Bank promising to clear the debt and rectify the defects in the loan document. This is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.48/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 one strong piece of evidence to show that, all these private accused are hand in glove forming part of one group working on the guidance and instruction of A-
13. Therefore, this Court finds the conviction of these accused A-8 to A-13 is proper based on the record and same to be confirmed.
24. The conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.01 of 2000 against A-8 to A-13 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Case, VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai dated 02.07.2016 is hereby confirmed. The Criminal Appeals by these accused are dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed against A8 to A13 stands confirmed as under:-
Accused Offences under Conviction and Sentence passed by the Trial Court as Section confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court A-8 120-B of I.P.C To undergo two years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 6 months S.I. 420 of I.P.C To undergo two years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, six months S.I. A-9 120-B of I.P.C To undergo three years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 9 months S.I. 420 of I.P.C To undergo three years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 9 months S.I. A-10 120-B of I.P.C To pay fine of Rs.10,000/- payable by A-8 and Rs.5,000/-
payable by A-13, in default of payment of fine, three months S.I to be undergone by A-8 and A-13 respectively. 420 of I.P.C To pay fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.10,000/- payable by A-8 and Rs.5,000/- payable by A-13, in default of payment of fine, three months S.I to be undergone by A-8 and A-13 respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.49/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 Accused Offences under Conviction and Sentence passed by the Trial Court as Section confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court A-11 120-B of I.P.C To pay fine of Rs.15,000/- payable by A-9, in default of payment of fine, three months S.I to be undergone by A-9 420 of I.P.C To pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, payable by A-9, in default of payment of fine, three months S.I to be undergone by A-9. A-12 120-B of I.P.C To undergo two years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, six months S.I. 420 of I.P.C To undergo two years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, (4 counts) each, in default of payment of fine, six months S.I. A-13 120-B of I.P.C To undergo two years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, six months S.I. 420 of I.P.C To undergo two years imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to payment of fine, six months S.I.
25. In fine
(i). The Criminal Appeal Nos.527 of 2016, 523 of 2016, 525 of 2016 and 502 of 2016 are allowed. The judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court in C.C. No.01 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Case, VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai dated 02.07.2016 is hereby set aside. The fine amount paid if any shall be refunded to the appellants/A-2 to A-5. Bail bond stands cancelled.
(ii). The Criminal Appeal Nos.586 of 2016, 577 of 2016, 521 of 2016 are dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.01 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Case, VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai dated 02.07.2016 is hereby confirmed. The trial Court is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.50/52 Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 directed to secure the appellants/accused A8 to A13 and commit them to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The period of substantive sentence shall run concurrently.
(iii). The Criminal Appeal No.503 of 2016 filed by M.Gopalakrishnan is dismissed as abated.
(iv). The Criminal Appeal No.524 of 2016 is filed by A-6 P.Vasantharajan is dismissed as abated vide order of this Court dated 09.01.2019.
(v). The Criminal Appeal No.576 of 2016 filed by M.Varadarajulu [A-12] is dismissed as withdrawn.
26.09.2023
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
bsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.51/52
Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 & 586 of 2016 Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
bsm Copy to:-
1. The Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai – 104.
2. The Inspector of Police, SPE: CBI: ACB, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Pre-delivery common judgment made in Crl.A.Nos.502, 503, 521, 523, 525, 527, 576, 577 and 586 of 2016 26.09.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.52/52