Madras High Court
T.Peter Dhas vs The State Represented By
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 15.07.2024
Pronounced on : .03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CRL.A(MD).No.69 of 2018
T.Peter Dhas ... Appellant
Vs.
The State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
SPE:CBI:ACB:Chennai,
RC 40(A) /2009 ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. to
call for the entire records pertaining to the judgment and conviction
delivered by the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai in
C.C.No.3 of 2011 vide his judgment dated 31.01.2018 and set aside the
same and consequently acquit the appellant honourably from all the
charges framed against him in the said case.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondent : Mr.C.Muthusaravanan,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
1/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the 2nd accused in C.C.No. 3 of 2011 on the file of
the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai and he has filed
this appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed
against him by virtue of the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2018.
Crl.A. Rank of the Accused Charges proved Punishment
(MD).No. and Name under sections (imprisonment and fine)
u/s. 120 – B Rigorous imprisonment
r/w. 420 of for 7 years and to pay a
I.P.C. fine of Rs.50,000/- in
A-2 default to undergo
T.Peter Dhas simple imprisonment
for six months
u/s. 120 – B Rigorous imprisonment
r/w. 409 of for 10 years and to pay
69/2018 I.P.C. a fine of Rs.50,000/- in
default to undergo
simple imprisonment
C.C.No. 3/2011 for six months
u/s. 420 of I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment
for 7 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.50,000/- in
default to undergo
simple imprisonment
for six months
u/s. 409 of I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment
for 10 years and to pay
a fine of Rs.50,000/- in
default to undergo
simple imprisonment
for six months
The sentence of imprisonment shall run
concurrently
2/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
2.Brief facts of the case:
2.1. The appellant herein and other three accused conspired together
to cheat Pandyan Grama Bank and defrauded the bank fund of Rs.
6,19,93,533/-, therefore the CBI registered the case in RC 40(A)/2009
under section 120 (b), 468, r/w. 471, 420, 409, 477 (A), 201 of I.P.C r/w.
13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. After the
completion of the investigation, the CBI filed the final report against the
four accused under the above said sections before the Special Court for
CBI, II Additional District Court, Madurai. A1 was the branch manager of
the Pandyan Grama Bank of both Sri Venkteswarapuram Branch and
Marthandam Branch. A2/ appellant was the president of the N.G.O., A3
and A4 were working in the said bank as officers. The Special Court took
the said final report on file in C.C.No. 3 of 2011. After taking on file,
summons were issued to the accused and copies under section 207 of
Cr.P.C. were served upon them and charges were framed and questioned.
They pleaded not guilty and they stood for trial.
2.2. The Crux of the allegation in the final report is that the accused
defrauded the amount allotted to various self help groups without
3/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
following the various norms and failed to remit the loan amount collected
from the various self help groups in their respective accounts and swindled
the amount in the guise of taking insurance policy on the said loan and
thereby loss of Rs.6,19,93,533/- had been caused. During the pendency of
trial A1 died. The prosecution in order to prove the case examined PW1 to
PW16 and marked Ex.P1 to P693. The court below questioned the accused
under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating material available
against them. The accused denied them as false and they stated that false
case was foisted against them. On the side of the defence no oral evidence
led in rather only one document was marked as Ex.D1. The learned trial
judge considering the evidence on record and the arguments advanced on
both sides convicted the appellant under the above said offence by the
impugned judgment dated 31.01.2018. The learned trial judge acquitted the
appellant under section 120 (b), r/w. 468, 468 r/w. 471 and 477 (A) and 13
(2) r/w. 13 (2) of the prevention of the corruption Act and 468, 468 r/w.
471, 477 (A), 201 of I.P.C. The learned trial judge also acquitted A3 and
A4 from the entire charges. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant filed
this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him.
4/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
3. Thiru. V.Kathirvelu the learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellant made the following submission :-
3.1. The appellant was the president of NGO and he only facilitated
the deserving women belonging to fisherman community to get the benefit
under the special scheme and most of the self help groups had repaid the
amount. Some of the groups have not repaid the amount and for the said
purpose the bank has got independent procedure to recover the said
amount against the appellant on the basis of the undertaking given by
them. Without initiating the recovery proceedings for the due amount,
registration of the FIR and continuation of the trial and conviction passed
vide the impugned judgment amounts to abuse of process of law. More
particularly, the learned trial judge has acquitted the appellant of the charge
under Sections 120 (b), r/w. 468, 468 r/w. 471 and 477 (A) and 13 (2) r/w.
13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and 468, 468 r/w. 471, 477
(A), 201 of I.P.C. finding that there was no manipulation of the record,
falsification of the documents. Therefore, the conviction under Section 120
(b) r/w. 420 of I.P.C, 120 (b) r/w. 409 of I.P.C., 420 of I.P.C., 409 of I.P.C is
not legally maintainable.
3.2. The learned trial judge has committed error in convicting the
appellant under Section 120 (b) r/w. 420 of I.P.C, 120 (b) r/w. 409 of I.P.C.,
5/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
after the death of the A1 during the pendency of the trial.
3.3. The learned trial judge failed to consider that every beneficiary
has accepted the receipt of the loan amount and hence the question of the
cheating would not arise, for which he relied on the judgment of this court
reported in AIR 1940 Madras 329 and Crl.A.No. 463 of 2022 Vijay
Kumar Ghai and others Vs The State of West Bengal and others.
According to the learned senior counsel, there was no evidence available
an record to convict the appellant under section 420 of I.P.C. i.e., according
to the senior counsel no material is available to presume intention of
deception to cheat or defraud the complainant bank right from the
inception. Therefore, he seeks acquittal.
3.4. There was no complaint either by the self help group or public.
Hence, the complaint by the bank officials, without resorting to recovery
proceedings on the basis of the undertaking given by him and the
responsible group member of the corresponding default self help group, is
not legally maintainable.
3.5. The learned senior counsel reading through the voluminous
records (around 38 volumes of typed set of papers) made a submission that
no incriminating material is available to constitute the criminal offence.
6/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
None of the witness have deposed about the conversion of the loan amount
for the benefit of the appellant and that he wrongfully retained the amount
of the self help group, and therefore conviction either under section 409 of
I.P.C or 420 of I.P.C. is not made out.
3.6. A1 Bank Manager had violated the procedure and sanctioned
the loan to the self help group through the account of A2 and A2
retransferred the said amount to the individual group. There is some
violation of procedure on the part of A1. The said violation of procedure
does not create offence either under section 420 or 409 of I.P.C. Therefore,
the conviction under section 120 (b) r/w. 420 of I.P.C., 120 (b) r/w. 409 of
I.P.C. is not legally correct.
3.7. The learned trial judge failed to consider that the evidence of
PW1 would not show any abnormalities or irregularities at the time of the
grant of loan to 805 self help groups and the learned Judge erroneously
convicted the appellant.
3.8. According to the prosecution PW3 has conducted inspection and
submitted the report. The said report does not contain the pre-inspection
7/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
report. Further, number of transfer vouchers clearly proved that loan
amounts credited in his account were transferred to the individual self help
groups account and there is no dispute in this aspect. Therefore, no
offence either under section 420 or 409 of I.P.C., is made out.
3.9. The prosecution examined some of the beneficiaries namely
PW13, PW14 and PW15. Their specific evidence is that they received the
amount and repaid the same in the office of A2 and to prove such claim
they have not produced any document. Therefore their case of repayment
in the office of A2 has not been supported by any document and hence he
seeks for the acquittal.
3.10. The learned senior Counsel further reiterated his submission
that the appellant was the facilitator of the NGO and he intended to serve
the needy people by giving undertaking letter to the bank for the amount
received by the individual self help groups. Except the said fact no
evidence is available to prove that the appellant either misappropriated the
amount or diverted the fund. Therefore the learned trial judge is not correct
in convicting the appellant. Hence he seeks to acquit the appellant.
8/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
4. Thiru.Muthusaravanan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
for CBI made the following submissions:-
4.1. As per the scheme, A1 Bank manager is duty bound to disburse
the loan to each individual self help group under the direct linkage scheme,
after verifying the functioning of self help groups, upon verification of the
resolution copy for the formation of the self help groups by interviewing
each group. In the said process the bankers can find out whether the NGO
is genuine or not. A1 is also duty bound to ensure regular repayment by the
members of loan account. In this case, there was no such follow up action.
Hence prosecution clearly proved the conspiracy between A1 and A2.
4.2. From the documents collected by the CBI i.e., more than 693
documents, there is no material to show that A1 and A2 assessed the saving
mobilization capacity of each individual groups before granting loan. As
per the terms, the quantum of loan advanced to the SHGs by the branch of
the bank should be proportionate to the savings mobilised by the group.
Without following this practice, huge amount was credited in the account
of A2. Before allowing A2 to act as facilitator, article of agreements should
be verified and obtained. In this case, A2 had not complied the said
requirement and therefore the conspiracy is clearly proved.
9/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
4.3. A1 had not followed both pre-sanction and post sanction
procedure and credited the loan amount to the tune of more than Rs.6
Crores in the account of A2 which is a strong circumstance to presume
their intention to cheat and defraud the bank amount.
4.4. As per the scheme, once loan was sanctioned in the name of the
individual self help group and if they committed default, further loan can
not be sanctioned for the said group. But in this case A1 granted loan to
more than 40 self help groups in Sri Venkteswarapuram Branch and
without repayment of said amount, further loan was granted to the said 40
groups through the branch at Marthandam after the transfer of A1 to the
Marthandam Branch from the Sri Venkteswarapuram Branch. The said
amount was also credited in A2's account and the same was utilized
towards the repayment of the loan of the self help groups accounts in the
Sri Venkteswarapuram Branch. Therefore, there was a illegal conversion of
the amount and hence offence under section 420, 409 are clearly made out.
4.5. The learned special public prosecutor also submitted that A2 has
admitted the receipt of the loan amount in his account and all the
transaction made in the account. Therefore, it is not necessary for the
10/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
prosecution to examine all members of the self help groups. Prosecution
examined four witnesses and all the four witnesses in a universal voice
chorus deposed that they had repaid the entire amount in the office of A2
and the same was correctly believed and relied by the learned trial judge.
He had also read the copious records and evidence and showed the
incriminating materials available against A2 to sustain the conviction and
sentence of imprisonment imposed against him. Therefore he seeks to
confirm the conviction and sentence imposed against A2.
4.6. This court considered the rival submission and perused the
records and the precedents relied upon by them.
5. Discussion:
Only question that arises in the appeal is whether the conviction and
sentence imposed against the appellant as stated above is in accordance
with law or not?
6. The government to enhance the economic condition of people
announced the scheme. As per the scheme, a group of poor people not
exceeding 20 members would join together and form a self help group
11/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
(herein after referred as “SHG”) and mobilize own savings and rotate the
amount to meet the credit needs of the members. They open the savings
bank account in the name of the “SHG” and deposit the mobilized savings
and grant loan to the members from the own savings and collect the due
amount. In that process, they are free to use the service of the NGO who
would offer helps in conducting meetings and maintenance of accounts.
Each group opens the bank account jointly operated by president, secretary
and treasurer or by the secretary and treasurer as decided by the group
members. Each group shall maintain cash register, pass book for deposits/
loans, cash receipts and vouchers. For that purpose, a resolution copy for
the permission of the group, authorization letter from the group members
to operate the bank account by the above said persons have been made by
the “SHG”. With the said resolution copy they shall open the account in
the unique name of “SHG”. The bank as a promoter and financier shall
create linkage with each “SHG”. The banker could attend the meeting and
interact with members and also the NGO. The NGO helps in group
formation and conducting the meeting of the “SHG” in order to make easy
access of “SHG” with the bank. The banker should have good relationship
with a genuine NGO. The government in order to enhance the economic
condition of the poor people, had introduced a scheme to disburse loan to
12/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
each member of the “SHG” through allotment of the fund under
“NABARD”. The “NABARD” shall choose the bank and deposit the
amount for disbursing the loan to the eligible “SHG”. The bank
considering the savings of the “SHG” and progress report of the “SHG”
shall disburse the loan by acting as a promoter and financier. It is open to
the bank to finance the “SHG” either through direct linkage or indirect
linkage. In the case of the direct linkage the bankers could directly grant
loan to the “SHG”. In the case of the indirect linkage, the bank could
finance through the sponsoring NGO by following the procedure stated in
annexure 5 and 6.
7. As per the above “NABARD” scheme, the Pandyan Grama Bank,
Virudhunagar Circle was authorized to disburse the loan to the eligible
“SHG” through their branch situated in various places of Tamil Nadu. The
circle head office at Virudhunagar also issued circular dated 23.01.2002 to
all the branches to comply the requirement stated in the scheme to provide
the loan to “SHG” through the NGO. In the said circular also, head office
reiterated the requirement of the compliance of the procedure stated in the
above said annexure and reiterated number of mandatory requirements in
the case of the indirect linkage. They also prescribed specific form and
fulfilment of the required mandatory conditions.
13/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
8. A1 was the manager of the Srivenkatesapuram Branch Pandya
Grama Bank during the period of 2004 to 2008. A3 and A4 were the
Subordinate officers of the said branch. A2/ appellant herein is the
managing director of the NGO Kanyakumari District Women’s collective.
They conspired together to cheat the Pandyan Grama bank,
Srivenkatespuram Branch and defraud the said scheme amount by
obtaining loan in the name of various “SHG” and failed to disburse the
entire loan amount to each individual of “SHG”, collected the repayment
amount from the various “SHG” and failed to remit the same in the name
of corresponding “SHG” in the Srivenkatespuram Branch and as a squeal,
there was total non payment of loan amount of Rs. 6,19,93,533/-( Six crore
nineteen lakhs nighty three thousand five hundred and thirty three) in the
account of 754 Self Help Groups. A1 was transferred to “Marthandam
Branch”. A2 had obtained 51 loans in the said “Marthandam Branch” with
the active connivance of A1 and credited the said amount in his savings
bank account and diverted part of the said loan amount to make the
repayment of the loan amount of the various Self Help Groups in
Srivenkatespuram Branch. Srivenkatespuram Branch is situated at 150 kms
away from Marthandam Branch. Among the 51 loans granted in the name
of the 51 SHG's. 42 SHG's had already committed default in repayment of
14/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
loan. A1 and A2 obtained fresh loan in the name of the said 42 defaulted
SHGs’ which was not permissible as per the scheme. Therefore, there was
astronomical non recovery of loan amount both in the Srivenkatespuram
Branch and Marthandam Branch. Hence, PW3, Senior Manager of the
Marthandam Branch was appointed as an enquiry officer to find out the
cause for the non payment of the said loan amount. He collected numerous
documents and found that there was material violations during the grant of
the loan. He submitted the report under Ex.P.8 along with the particulars of
violations in granting loan under Ex.P.9. The said report disclosed
cognizable offence and hence complaint was made to the CBI. CBI
registered the case and collected volumes of records and completed the
investigation and filed the final report under section 120 (b), 468, r/w. 471,
420, 409, 477 (A), 201 of I.P.C r/w. 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988 against A1 to A4. The learned special judge, II
Additional District Judge for CBI cases, Madurai has taken final report on
file in C.C.No. 3 of 2011 and conducted the trial and acquitted A3 and A4
and convicted A2 for the above stated offence. A1 died during the
pendency of the trial after framing of the charges and prior to
commencement of examination of witnesses.
15/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
9. A2 as observed above was running NGOs’ in the name of
“Kanyakumari Women’s Collective” and also “Neithal foundation”. He
had not maintained any records to run the said organizations. He obtained
various loans in Srivenkataspuram Branch for the welfare of the fishermen
in Kanyakumari District by forming SHG with many members and
obtained loan on various dates without proper documents and loan
documentation. A1 granted the loan in violation of the procedure under the
said scheme. A2 disbursed the loan to the individual SHG’s after deducting
the portion of the amount under the guise of the loan processing charges
and payment for the LIC premium. As per the scheme there was no such
requirement to pay the loan process charges. But he deducted the said
amount. Even though he received the amount under the caption of
insurence premium, he never paid any amount. The various Self Help
Groups had repaid the entire loan amount to A2. A2 did not make payment
of the said loan amount in the corresponding SHG account and made them
as defaulters in Srivenkatespuram Branch. The default account comes to
around 754. In the meantime A1 was transferred to Marthandam Branch
from Srivenkatespuram Branch. A2 had obtained the loan in the name of
the 51 Self Help Groups in the Marthandam Branch. Among the 51 Self
Help Groups, 42 SHGs are defaulters in the Srivenkatespuram Branch. As
16/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
per the scheme, A1 had no authority to grant loan to the said 42 defaulters.
But, both conspired and swindled Rs. 74,04,370/-.(Seventy four lakhs four
thousand three hundred seventy only). According to the prosecution, only a
portion of the loan amount sanctioned to the said 51 SHGs’ is said to have
been credited in various SHG’s loan account. Therefore, the learned trial
judge has correctly looked into the material documents and evidence and
arrived at a finding that A2 has committed offence under section 120 (b)
r/w. 420 of I.P.C, 120 (b) r/w. 409 of I.P.C., 420 of I.P.C., 409 of I.P.C. This
court finds no infirmity in the said finding. The prosecution has clearly
proved the above said charges through exhibits P1 to P692.
10.1.It is sufficient to cull out the substance of the voluminous
documents to arrive at a finding about the guilt of A2. A2 was the
managing director of the NGO namely the “Kanyakumari Women’s
Collective” and “Neithal foundation”. He had not produced any document
to show that it is either registered under the co-operative societies Act, or
under society registration Act or under any trust act. He has not produced
any document to show that the said NGO is a genuine one. He had not
submitted loan documents with proper documentation, sponsorship letter
of the NGO, resolution of SHG’s financial particulars. A1 granted loan
17/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
with the said material defects and credited the amount in his savings
account (A/c.No. 7080 Srivenkatespuram Branch) of A2 on various dates.
Out of the said amount Rs.18,40,000/- was credited for the payment of the
insurance premium of each loan. A2 neither made the payments towards
LIC premium nor transferred the said amount to the credit of each SHG.
P.W.3 in his detailed deposition on 18.09.2017 while marking Ex.P.201 to
Ex.P.692 narrated the sequence of events which clearly proved the grant of
loan by A1 in favour of A2 in utter disregard to the procedures and
conditions. P.W.3 further deposed about the credit of the loan amount in
the account of A2 and the said evidence was put under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., A2 also admitted the said transaction. There was no material, cross
examination on the side of A2 to disbelieve his version. He further
specifically deposed that there was a transfer of the amount of
Rs.18,40,000/- for making the payment of LIC premium and no record was
found to show that A2 had indeed paid the premium. Further, P.W.13,P.W.
14 and P.W.15 deposed that more than Rs.10,000/- was collected
from each group, apart from the amount towards insurance premium. The
following evidence would prove this fact: -
P.W.13:-
'xU FOtpw;F &.15>0000 fld;jhuh;fs; mjpy;
18/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
xU cWg;gpdUf;F &.10>000 tPjk; tz;br; nryT
Nghf kPjj;ij ghf;fp gzk; KOtijAk; fldhf
ngw;Nwd;.
mjw;F ehq;fs; Peterdhas (A2) ,lk; flid
nfhLj;Jtpl;Nlhk; vd;Wk; vq;fSf;Fk; tq;fpf;Fk;
rk;ke;jkpy;iy vd;Wk; Mjyhy; ehq;fs; fl;l
Ntz;ba mtrpak; ,y;iy vd;Wk; $wpNdhk;.
P.W.14:-
Peter Dhas A2 nrhd;d eghplk; jhd; ehq;fs;
fld; njhifia fl;bNdhk; mrYk; tl;bAk; Nru;e;J
ehq;fs; fld;fis;f fl;btpl;Nlhk;.
mjd;gpwF Peter Dhas A2 I njhlh;G nfhz;Nlhk;
mjw;F Peter Dhas A2 flid ePq;fs; fl;baJ
cz;ik jhd; vd;Wk; xU rpy FOf;fs; fld;
fl;lhjjhy; ehq;fs; me;j njhifia gphpj;J
fl;btpl;Nlhk; vd;W vq;fsplk; $wpdhh; NkYk; Peter
Dhas A2 MW khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; gpur;rid epth;j;jp
nra;ag;gLk; vd;Wk; vq;fSf;F ve;j gpur;ridAk;
tuhJ vd;W $wpdhh;.
fld; njhif Ra cjtp FOf;fSf;F
toq;fg;gl;l rkaj;jpNyNa mj;njhiff;F cz;lhd
Insurance Policy njhif kw;Wk; Processions Fee
Mfpait vLj;Jf;nfhs;sg;gl;lJ.
19/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
10.1. There was no cross examination in this aspect. This would
show that the prosecution clearly proved the receipt of more than Rs.
10,000 in the loan account of each SHG by A2 without authority and the
failure to remit the insurance premium amount.
10.2. In the absence of cross examination on a particular fact either
by denial or suggestion, it would amount to admission of the said fact and
the same is fortified by the three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Arvind Singh Vs State of Maharashtr reported in 2021 11 SCC 1
following portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :
“The system of adminsitration of justice allows of
cross-examination of opposite party's witnesses for the
purpose of testing their evidence, and it must be assumed
that when the witnesses were not tested in that way, their
evidence is to be ordinarily accepted.”
10.3. The unchallenged evidence of the above said P.W.13, P.W14
and P.W.15 would clearly prove the failure to repay the collected amount
from the SHG into their account.
20/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
11. PW3 also specifically deposed about the various material defects
in granting the loan in the name of A2 without proper documentation and
the non-compliance of the procedure stated in annexure 5 and 6 of the
scheme and there was no cross examination in this aspect also. His report
under Ex.P8 and defects mentioned in the Ex.P9, had never been
controverted by the appellant either through the cross examination or by
adducing evidence.
12.The conduct of A2 in approaching A1 in his transferred place
Marthandam situated far away from Srivenkatespuram Branch and
obtaining loan in the name of 42 defaulted Self Help Groups and remitting
portion of the said loan amount towards the repayment of the some other
SHG’s loan account, clearly prove the conspiracy between A1 and A2 to
defraud the bank amount and also clear conversion of the loan amount.
PW13, 14 and 15 cogently deposed about the deduction of Rs.15,000/- in
their individual SHG’s account and the repayment of the entire loan
amount in the office of A2 and his failure to repay the said amount in the
loan account. The said evidence are cogent and also trustworthy. Even
though they were subjected to incisive cross examination, nothing was
elicited to disbelieve the version.
21/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
13. One other circumstance is also seen to have emanated from the
different answers given by A2 during his examination under section 313 of
Cr.P.C. He has specifically admitted that various loan amount of SHG was
transferred in the account number 7080 in Srivenkatespuram Branch,
Account No. 1 of Marthandam Branch and the fictitious account No. 1111
of Marthandam Branch. His case is that the SHGS had not repaid the
amount. He gave the undertaking letter to repay the said amount along with
loan application. Therefore, he is not liable to be prosecuted. This court
declines to accept the same. Here the case is not one of mere non payment.
He swindled the huge loan amount under the guise of the NGO. He and A1
from the inception with intention to cheat the bank, made the application
with material defects and obtained the loan amount and transferred the
amount with deduction of more than 10,000/- in each SHG’s account for
the loan amount of Rs.1,50,0000/- and received the repayment from each
SHG and failed to credit it in the corresponding SHG’s account. Therefore,
the circumstances and oral evidence and documentary evidence clearly
proved the offence under section both 120 (b) r/w. 420 and 420 of I.P.C.
A2 collected LIC premium amount and never paid the said amount. A1 is
duty bound to verify the end user of the loan amount i.e., he is duty bound
to verify the transfer of the entire loan amount in the individual SHG’s
22/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
account.
13.1. Apart from that A1 granted loan in the Marthandam Branch in
the name of 41 SHG’s groups and amount was credited into the account of
A2 and a portion of the amount was also transferred towards the payment
of loan account of some other SHGS, without crediting in the
corresponding account of the correct SHGs. Therefore there is a clear case
of conversion of the loan amount and hence this court finds that the
prosecution clearly proved the charge under section 120 (b) r/w. 409 of
I.P.C. and 409 of I.P.C. Hence, this court holds that the learned trial judge
correctly convicted the appellant under section 120 (b) r/w. 420 of I.P.C,
120 (b) r/w. 409 of I.P.C., 420 of I.P.C., 409 of I.P.C.
14. PW3 conducted a detailed enquiry and found that a number of
material irregularities were committed by A1 Manager in connivance with
A2 in sanctioning the loan to various SHG’s and thereby caused loss to the
bank to the tune of Rs.6,19,93,533 and in his report he has clearly stated
that 18.40 lakhs collected from the SHGS as insurance premium was
neither remitted to the insurance company nor in the account of the
individual SHG’s. In this report the following material irregularities have
been observed:-
23/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
24/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
25/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
26/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
15. To substantiate the said report, the prosecution had produced
volumes of documents. There was no letter of authority for each loan. All
the letter of authorities are in blanks. For better appreciation, this court has
extracted one of the form submitted along with each loan:
27/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
16. A2 had not annexed his NGO resolutions along with all loan
forms and there was also no pre inspection report of the functioning of the
individual SHG, to ascertain their repaying capacity. Even the agreement is
blank. For better appreciation this court has extracted one of the forms
submitted along with the loan application:
28/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
29/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
30/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
17. The prosecution also produced account details of A2 in the
account No. 7080 Srivenkatespuram Branch, Account No. 1 of
Marthandam Branch and the fictitious account No. 1111 of Marthandam
Branch. From the transaction in the said accounts, it is clear that there was
a clear diversion of the loan amount. Ex.P673 to Ex.P89 are pay in slips in
the account No. 1 of Marthandam operated by A2. The prosecution proved
all the transactions under the various exhibits including Ex.P652, P654,
P660, P665, P666 etc., This court perused all the records along with the
31/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
evidence of the bank officials namely PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW8,
PW9, PW10, PW11, PW12 and finds that the prosecution clearly proved
the charges i.e., A1 and A2 conspired together to cheat the bank and
defrauded the funds of the bank by granting loan in the name of various
SHG without proper pre sanction loan verification and other material
formalities as required under the scheme and sanctioned the loan in the
name of the various SHGs’. Illegally collected Rs.10,000/- from the SHGs’
as insurance premium and failed to remit the repayment made by the
individual SHG’s towards the loan account in Srivenkatespuram Branch
and subsequently obtained loan in the Marthandam Branch after the
transfer of A1 to that place, without disclosing the default committed by
the 42 SHGs’ and diverted the said fund for the other purpose of settling
the earlier defaults. In view of the above discussion, the judgment relied by
the learned Senior counsel in the case of Sathischandra Ratanlal Shah vs.
State of Gujarat and another in Crl.A.No.9 of 2019 is not applicable to the
present case. Even in the said judgment, in paragraph No.15 it is stated
about those breaches which are accompanied by fraudulent, dishonest or
deceptive inducements, which resulted in involuntary and in-efficient
transfers, under Section 415 of IPC. In this case, after failure to make
payment of the collected amount from various SHG's groups in
32/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
Srivenkadeswaram Branch, A1 was transferred to the Marthandam Branch.
In the Marthandam Branch, A1 granted loan in the name of the same SHG
groups, which committed default in making the repayment in the
Srivenkatesapuram Branch and transferred the loan amount of Rs.
95,17,000/- in the new account of A2. Therefore, both fraudulent and
dishonest intention at the inception is clearly made out from the entire
circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai vs. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1960 SC
979 has held that making of false representation is one of the ingredients
for an offence of cheating and also the Hon'ble Three Judges Bench of the
Supreme Court in the case of Shivanarayan Kabra vs. The State of
Madras reported in AIR 1967 SC 986 has held as follows:
The appellant knew fully well that he had no
right to do forward business and that he was not a
member of any recognised association and that he
could not lawfully advertise to P.W.2 for investment in
forward contracts. It is not necessary that a false
pretence should be made in express words by the
appellant. It may be inferred from all the
circumstances including the conduct of the appellant
in obtaining the property and in Ex.P34 (a) the
appellant stated something which was not true and
33/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
concealed from P.W.2 the fact that he was not a member
of any recognised association and that he was not
entitled to carry on the forward contract business, it is
clear that P.W.2 could not have parted with the sum of
Rs.12,000/- but for the inducement contained in Ex.P34
and the representation of the appellant that he could
lawfully carry on forward contract business.
17.1. In the present case, false pretence can be legally inferred from
the conduct of the appellant in diverting loan amount of various SHG and
obtaining fresh loan from Marthandam Branch in the name of SHGS’ that
had already committed default of earlier loan in the S.V. Puram Branch and
siphoning off the said amount also. A2 NGO has no authority to utilise the
various loan amount of SHGs. Even he has not taken any steps to deposit
the collected amount from each SHG groups. The offence is completed,
when misappropriation of amount has been made dishonestly. Therefore
prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and this appeal lacks
merit and hence liable to be dismissed.
17.2. In view of the above discussion, this Court concurs with the
finding of the learned trial judge that the appellant has committed offence
34/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
under section 120 (b) r/w. 420 of I.P.C, 120 (b) r/w. 409 of I.P.C., 420 of
I.P.C., 409 of I.P.C. and considering the huge loss and also the fact that no
payment was made either during the pendency of the trial or appeal, this
Court has no reason to interfere with the punishment imposed by the
learned trial Judge.
18. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming
the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No. 3 of 2011 on the file of
the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai. The bail bond
executed by the appellant is hereby cancelled and the learned trial judge is
directed to secure the accused to undergo the remaining part of sentence of
imprisonment.
.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sbn
35/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
To
1. The II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases,
Madurai District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
SPE:CBI:ACB:Chennai.
3. The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4. The Section Officer,
Criminal Section(Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
36/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
sbn Pre-delivery judgment made in CRL.A(MD).No.69 of 2018 .3.2025 37/37 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 08:12:53 pm )