Madras High Court
S.Kumaravel vs State Rep.By The Inspector Of Police on 1 September, 2022
Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
[Judgment RESERVED ON : 11.08.2022]
[Judgment PRONOUNCED ON : 01.09.2022]
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
S.Kumaravel ......Appellant/Accused-1
.. Vs ..
State rep.by the Inspector of Police,
SPE CBI ACB Chennai,
(R.C.11(A)/1990) ...Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the
conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned II Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Special Court for CBI Cases, Coimbatore in
C.C.No.4 of 2005 dated 30.03.2012 for the offence under Sections
120(B) r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C r/w 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, Sec.420 (15 counts), 468 (15 counts),
467 (15 counts), 471 (15 counts) I.P.C and 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) (15 counts)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to 6 months R.I
and also to pay a fine of Rs.300/- for each count in default three
months R.I. Total fine amount is Rs.22,800/-. The sentences to run
concurrently.
1/50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
For Appellant : Mr.V.Gobinath,
Senior counsel
For Mr.S.Suresh
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.
-----
JUDGMENT
It is a case arising under the old Act (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947).
2. This Case pertaining to alleged irregularity in sanctioning of "Goat Loan".
3. The convicted first accused preferred this appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Special Court for CBI Cases, Coimbatore in C.C.No.4 of 2005 dated 30.03.2012 for the offence under Sections 120 (B) r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C r/w 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sec.420 (15 counts), 468 (15 counts), 467 (15 counts), 471 (15 counts) I.P.C. and 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) (15 counts) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to 6 months R.I and also to pay a fine of Rs.300/- for each 2/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 count in default three months R.I. Total fine amount is Rs.22,800/-. The sentences to run concurrently.
4. Final report has been filed by the C.B.I for the alleged occurrence taken place in the year 1987-1988 and F.I.R was filed after 15 years against 5 persons by namely A1-S.Kumaravel, Agricultural Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Kruichi Branch; A2-Dr.B.Showgath Ali, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Officer of Animal Husbandry, Perur Panchayat, Coimbatore; A3-Dr.C.R.Pandurangan, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Officer of Animal Husbandry, Perur Panchayat, Coimbatore; A4-B.Gopalakrishanan, Rural Welfare Officer, Perur Block, Sundarapuram, Coimbatore and A5-D.Issac, Rural Welfare Officer, Perur Block, Sundarapuram, Headquarters Coimbatore.
5. Pending trial, A2 and A4 died charge against them stood abated and accordingly, A1, A3 and A5 faced the trial.
6. After trial, the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, C.B.I cases acquitted A3 and A5 and convicted the first accused as stated supra and hence the Criminal Appeal.
3/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
7. At the outset as against the order of acquittal against A3 and A4, the Special Public Prosecutor (CBI Cases) submitted that no appeal has been preferred by the C.B.I.
8. As per the final report, the case of the prosecution in brief is that:-
(a) The Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai has laid a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., against all the accused alleging that A-1 Sri.SKumaravel, Agricultural Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Kurichi Branch; A2-Dr.B.Showgath Ali, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Officer of Animal Husbandry, Perur Panchayat, Coimbatore; A3-
Dr.C.R.Pandurangan, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Officer of Animal Husbandry, Perur Panchayat, Coimbatore; A4-B.Gopalakrishnan, Rural Welfare Officer, Perur Block, Sundarapuram, Coimbatore and A5- D.Issac, Rural Welfare Officer, Perur Block, Sundarapuram, Headquarters Coimbatore have entered into a criminal conspiracy in Coimbatore and other places to cheat the Indian Overseas Bank, Kurichi Branch, Coimbatore during 1987 and 1988 in the matter of sanctioning of loans under IRDP Schemes in the names of fictitious persons.
4/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
(b) In pursuance of the said conspiracy, the loan documents in the names of Shri/smt.Karuppathal, Palaniappan, Ammasi, Ramakrishnan, Pachaiammal, Palaniammal, P.Saraswathi, another saraswathi, Thulasiammal, Alamelu, T.Mariappan, Ranagasamy, Vijayakumari, Arumugam, Sundarammal and Rangappan were fraudulently and dishonestly prepared by A1-S.Kumaravel in collusion with A2 Dr.B.Showgath Ali and A3-Dr.C.R.Pandurangan and in that, Dr.Showgath Ali had issued false health certificate of the animals and Dr.C.R.Pandurangan had issued false postmortem certificates of the cattle, as if the cattles shown in the loan documents were purchased by the fictitious persons.
(c) D.Gopalakrishnan and D.Issac, Rural Welfare Officers had affixed their LTI/RTI in the fabricated loan documents as that of the applicants A1-S.Kumaravel dishonestly obtained the loan amount to the tune of Rs.92,100/- and thus the accused persons caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.92,100/- and obtained wrongful gain for themselves.
5/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
9. The appellant-A1 stands charged for offence under Sections 120-B r/w Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C and 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for the I.P.C offence under Sections 420 (15 counts), 468 (15 counts), 467 (15 counts) and 471 (15 counts) of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) (15 counts) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
10. During the time of trial as stated supra A2 and A4 having died the criminal proceedings stands abated. At the time of the occurrence A1, A3 and A5 are different suffice as defined under Sections 120(b) r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 and 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for the I.P.C offence under Sections 420 (15 counts), 468 (15 counts), 467 (15 counts) and 471 (15 counts) of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d)(15 counts) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
11. Prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.26 and marked as Exs.P1 to P224. On the side of the defence D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D6 were marked. M.O.1 to M.O.5 are the tag used for Goat/sheep of the respective loan is whose goat/sheep were died. As 6/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 A3 and A5 are acquitted in the absence of the appeal by the respondent-C.B.I., the finding rendered in their behalf has become final.
12. The case of the prosecution in brief as against the appellant/A1 is that the accused persons have entered into criminal conspiracy at Kurichi in Coimbatore and other places to cheat the Indian Overseas Bank where A1 was employed as Agricultural Extension Officer and also the United India Insurance Company and New India Assurance all are Government of India undertaking and they being the public servant have caused loss to the respective organization to an extent of Rs.91,000/-.
13. The criminal law was settled into motion by P.W.2 during March, 1989, he (P.W.2) joined in Kurichi Bank as an Agricultural Officer. After assuming office, he found number of accounts pending without repayment. So, he sent notice to the borrowers to make repayment. One person namely Venkatachalam came to the branch with a notice issued and informed that he did not avail any loan but he has received notice for payment from the bank. Then, he lodged a complaint in that manner with the Branch Manager. In turn, the 7/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 complaint was forwarded to the Regional Office and Zonal office by the Branch Manager. Consequently, Vigilance Officer of their bank visited the bank. He conducted a thorough enquiry and also enquired the borrowers. He received number of similar complaints from various persons. After conducting enquiry for about 2 months, the Vigilance Officer submitted the report to their Central Office and the Regional office. The Central Office has handed over the matter to the C.B.I. Subsequently, CBI officer, Jones (P.W.24) visited their branch and conducted enquiry.
14. The case of the defense as could be seen from the written statement given by the A1 during examination of 313 of the Cr.P.C is that, A1 has stated that the Bank Manager alone is empowered to grant and reject and loan, that as an Agricultural Extension Officer, he has no specific power but he can recommend the loan and his work is over till the recommendation. His duty is only to recommend the loan and nothing more. It is the duty of the Manager to verify and sanction the loan and that this case is foisted due to the instigation of the higher bank official. He filed the list of defence witness. 8/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
15. To probablize the suggestive case, D1 examined one G.D.Ramakrishnan and 6 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D6.
16. The sum and substance of the evidence of D.W.1 are to the effect that there was a printed guide issued by the Indian Overseas Bank Officer's Association under the title 'A' Guide to Your Rights & Duties (2005) Book' was marked as Ex.D2. The duties and responsibilities of the bank employees including the Branch Manager, Deputy Manager and Officers have been clearly described in that guide. All the terms and the procedures have been forwarded through their Head Office at Chennai.
Role and responsibility and duty of Bank Officer (in this instant case):-
17 (a) As per Ex.D2, An Agricultural Extension Officer of the Indian Overseas Bank has the responsibility as a Deputy Manager. It has been clearly noted under Rule of Ex.D2. Accordingly, the Branch Manager of the Bank is specifically responsible for the working of the branch in the areas of business development, working results and advances and to have overall responsibilities for the working of the 9/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 branch in the areas of procedure and routine, customer service, security and industrial relations. He has to oversee the functioning of his subordinates and the works done by the Deputy Manager, Assistant Manager and other clerical staff. The branch Manager is responsible for the cash and bank balances of the branch and the securities and documents and also to be responsible for the accuracy of the GL balance. He is responsible for taking appropriate and necessary action on the officers/staff of the branch for any shortcoming, irregularity, discrepancy and indiscipline etc. The Assistant Manager of the Bank is responsible to implement the instructions of the Branch Manager. It is the duty of the Assistant Manager to convey any shortcoming/irregularity/discrepancy relating to his department, branch or the bank in general to the notice of the Branch Manager. No cash transaction can be made without the knowledge of the Branch Manager. It is not possible to issue cash to the borrowers by the Assistant Manager, Bank Employees and by any 3rd person, without the knowledge of the Branch Manager.
(b) It is not possible to see all the relevant documents comes under 30% loan by the branch manager directly. Only suspicious loan documents are to be checked. After issuing the loan to purchase the 10/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 cattles, the bank has to pay the insurance premium to the Insurance Companies. It has been mentioned that an Agricultural Extension Officer may recommend the IRDP Scheme Loan, but he has no the authority to take final decision in respect of the same. The Bank Manager has to take any final decision for issuing the loan. The cashier of the bank was not authorized to give loan as per the order of the Agricultural Extension Officer. Only the Branch Manager was authorized to issue loan or not after verifying the applications which recommended by the Agricultural Extension Officer. If the Agricultural Extension Officer has found out any mistake committed by him on the loan application, the Branch Manager has the power to take any action against him.
(c) The role, basic functions and the responsibilities of the Branch Managers have been quoted at Page No.194 and 195 under Sub-title "Role Functions of Officers". The same were marked as Ex.D2 and Ex.D3. Likewise, the role, basic functions and the responsibilities of the Assistant Managers have been quoted at Page No.189 and 190 under the sub-title "Role Functions of Officers - Assistant Managers". The same was marked as Ex.D4.
11/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
(d) D.W.1 in cross examination had marked three documents viz(i) Ex.D5 which is certified portion by the B.D.O., and A.P.O in Ex.P48 at Page No.2, (2) Ex.D6 which is the xerox copy of the circular from I.O.B., Chennai to its all Indian and Regional Offices related to the role functions of officers, employees of the bank and 3) the details appeared in the short index page in the box column of Team of Authors in Ex.D2.
18. D.W.1 officer who where he worked as a Agricultural Extension Officer.
19. Processing of loan application in this case:-
From the final report and the prosecution witnesses, the flow of the loan application form commencing and conclusion in grant of the loan. The flow of the proceedings that has to be adopted is summarised as under:-
(i) The beneficiaries identified the IRDB loanee by VDO office Government guidelines is there to identify the beneficiaries. The VDO office will forward applications to DRDA. Then the applications will be received by them. The application will be enclosed with photo as beneficiaries and also the recommendation of VDO, DRDA office. The 12/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 branch Manager will receive the applications which were sent either by post or messenger. According to service area, DRDA will forward the applications to the particular branch.
(ii) On receipt of the application, the branch manager should hand over the agricultural officer. Then, the agricultural officer will conduct re-sanctioning verification. Agricultural Officer will do field verification. He will take Gramsevak or local people to identify the beneficiaries. According to the eligibility, they will recommend to the branch to sanction loan in the application itself. In some cases when the conditions are not fulfilled, the applications were rejected. They will verify about other loan availed by him from other banks and that case reject them. These loans are unsecured loan. They did not collect any security from the beneficiaries. After their recommendation, the application will be placed before the Manager.
(iii) The Branch Manager is the sanctioning authority. Normally the Manager will sanction as per their recommendation. Based upon the unit cost fixed by DRDA, loan will be sanctioned for each individual one unit will be sanctioned. In some cases, they will give the money to the beneficiaries. After purchase of the animal, they will go and verify whether they used to give money to the supplier through the 13/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 beneficiaries only. The veterinary Doctor has to give certificate about the age, worth, fitness of the animal. As far as the milk animal is concerned, the repayment will start immediately normally with 36 installments. For sheep loans, the repayment will start after one year.
Whenever the animals are sold by the beneficiaries to third party without their knowledge, they should lodge complaint to the VDO or police.
(iv) After purchase of the animal, they will pay the premium of the Insurance. In case of death, the beneficiaries should inform the VDO office and also the bank. In turn, they will inform Insurance Company and the payment will be made. D.R.D.A and Government has formulated basic norms to identify the I.R.D.B.I beneficiaries based on the said norms Gramsevaks prepared the list of benefit lists of a particular village. DRDA and Government has formulated basic norms to identify the IRDP beneficiaries. Based on the said norms, the Gramsevaks prepared the list of benefit lists of a particular village. The Gramsevak has no ask the beneficiaries or vise-versa about the need for loan. On the basis of loan requirement application will be obtained from the beneficiary and the same will be forwarded to BDO with the recommendation of Gramsevak. Then, the application will be 14/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 submitted to the Project Officer of D.R.D.A for recommending subsiding. The Project Officer will forward the subsidiary applications through B.D.O to the concerned bank.
(v) On receipt of the application, the Bank Manager will hand over the same to the concerned Agricultural Officer of the bank. The Agricultural Officer will visit the village and identify the beneficiary along with the loan documents. Demand Promissory-Note, Hypothecation of Livestock, Undertaking letter for repayment will be obtained from the beneficiary. Debit voucher and stamps for documentation will be obtained. Premium for livestock will be collected.
(vi) On sanction, after the beneficiary signs in the documents, loan will be disbursed. Normally, the amount will be handed over to the beneficiary directly, for purchasing livestock. After the purchase of livestock, the Agricultural Officer, Veterinary Doctor, concerned B.D.O and Gramsevak will inspect the animal and they must produce the certificate with particulars about age, health, condition, value from the Veterinary Doctor. Then, the subsidy amount will be credited in the loan account.
15/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
(vii) In the event of death of animal to report to the Bank or B.D.O or Gramsevak by the beneficiary after getting the postmortem certificate from the Doctor along with the claim form with the signature of the beneficiary will be forwarded to the Insurance Company by the bank. Insurance Company will send the money directly to the bank and then it will be credited to the beneficiary's account.
20. Grant of goat insurance procedure:-
The flow of collection of identification of the eligible loan is processed through Grama Sevas and for identification of loan , the application goes to BDO and inturn to the project officer in IRDS section. Thereafter goes to Rural Welfare Officer then to Bank Officer. It is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witness in which there is no dispute.
21. The above admitted facts with regard to the flow of identification of eligible loan and grant of loan by the Bank Officer A1 and in case of death of the goats, claim of the insurance and grant of the insurance amount as against the loan granted are all admitted. 16/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
22. The case of the defence in respect of the appellant A1 is as stated supra.
23. As to the alleged irregularity in grant of loan, totally 22 instances relating to 16 loans were projected by the prosecution.
24.This appeal is confined to A1 only.
25. The prime contention of the prosecution is some of the loan is against whom the loan was granted are fictitious and improper. A1 had alleged to have entered upon a criminal conspiracy with other accused to cheat the bank by arranging for fictitious loan. Out of 22 incidents mentioned in the charge sheet the second accused had issued health certificate for 8 cattles only in the year 1988.
26. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence adduced before the Court has interpreted and gave a finding that the alleged loan in loan No.107/87, 216/2008 in the name of Karuppathal, in view of the post-mortem certificate issued by the A3 of the goats to the New India Insurance Company the insurance amount was received from the Company by A1 and loan was raised.
17/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
27. On consideration of both the stand of the accused, A4 as Rural Welfare Officer forwarded the application through B.D.O Perur to Kuruchi branch for IRDB loan of Rs.6,300/- for the goats and same was recommended by giving false information of health certificate by A4.
28. However there is no evidence to show that Karuppathal didn't fix the alleged thumb impression on the loan amount pertaining to the loan. Since the opinion of the expert of the finger print is silent in respect of left thumb impression available in Exs.B8 to B15. Besides, a Karupathal was not examined before this Court. Accordingly trial Court has rendered a finding that in respect of the above loan, the case of the prosecution is not true, in respect of that the above loan alleged to be given in the bogus name. So also in respect of the alleged irregularity in loan No.235/87 and 184/88 in the name of Thiru.Palaniappan, trial Court came to the similar conclusion that, in the absence of the evidence. The trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the loan was not availed by Palaniappan and the accused person cannot be said to have been committed offence in respect of these loan.
18/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
29. The trial Court has given benefit of doubt in respect of loan No.234/87 and 183/88 in the name of Ramakrishnan and benefit of doubt was also given by the trial Court in respect of Loan No.108/87 and 210/88 in the name of Pachaiammal. So also benefit of doubt was given to loan in respect of Loan No.30/88 for Mariappam, loan No.33/88 in the name of Rangasamy, Loan No.225/88 in the name of Arumugam, Loan No.31/88 and 32/88 in the name of Sundarambal and Rangappan wherein the trial Court has granted benefit of doubt and held that in respect of those loans, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused and hence the trial Court has held that in respect of Loan No.110/87 and 186/88 in the name of Amavasai, Loan No.111/87 and 250/08 in the name of Palaniammal, Loan No.233/08 and 208/08 in the name of Smt. Saraswathy, Loan No. 109/87 thulasiammal , Loan No. 29/88 Alamelu, 34/88 by Vijayakumari are too against the A1.
30. Thus out of 16 loanees P.W.10 to 16 were examined by the prosecution. The summary is as under:-
19/50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
a) Ammasai P.W.10 Exs.P16 & 22
b) A.Saraswathy P.W.11 Ex.P163
c) Vijayakumari P.W.12 Ex.P64
d) Maraiappan P.W.13 Ex.P55
e) Rangappan P.W.14 Ex.P81
f) Saraswathy P.W.15 Ex.P127 & 133
g) Sundarambal P.W.16 Ex.P73
31. It is Pertinent to note none of the above said documents i.e., the loan agreement and other relevant documents were not marked through P.W.10 to 16. All these documents have been marked only through P.W.2. The above documents were not even brought to the notice of the witnesses assumes significance.
32. During the cross-examination, P.W.14 and P.W.16 had admitted about the receipt of the loan and repayment and therefore the charge that loan was given to fictitious person falls to ground.
33. A similar finding has been rendered by the trial Court based upon the evidence of P.W.4 admission in the cross-examination regarding availing the loan and repayment of the loan. The P.W.16 Sundarambal in connection Ex.P73 though admitted the loan from the bank and repaid by selling her cow for the reasons recorded therein 20/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 the trial Court has disbelieved her evidence, in view of the fact that there is a material contradiction according exonerated the appellant in respect of these two loans.
34. Thus the next loanee namely P.W.10 Amavasai coupled with Exs.P.16 and P22 could depose that P.Ws.10 to 13 years prior to the deposition he lived in a farm at Malumichampatti. Police did not record any statement from him. Admits he did not have any ration card or voter ID and never voted in an election. He also admits that police did not show any documents and enquiry him. The prosecution made an attempt to show that P.W.10 has not borrowed the amount in his name. But the prosecution failed to prove that the loanee Ammasai, S/o.Ammasa, Kamarajar Nagar, Madukkarai Road, Sundarapuram is the same person who was examined as P.W.10. P.W.10 has deposed that he is residing at Sidco Industrial Estate, Kamaraj Nagar, Coimbatore. In the cross examination he said that 13 years ago, he was residing in a Malumichampatty, Coimbatore as if not as found in Ex.P16. The CBI is also failed to produce evidence to show that the name of the P.W.10 Ammasai, S/o.Ammasai and he was residing at Kamaraj Nagar, Malamaichampatty. Sidco Industrial estate, Coimbatore has availed the loan. The trial Court Page No.92 Para 68 has opined that there is no 21/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 connection between the person mentioned IRDP loan application and the person who has been examined as P.W.10. Hence the evidence of P.W.10 cannot be looked into and it is untrustworthy. Therefore, the appellant-accused is to be exonerated in connection with the change of this loan.
35. The next loanee, P.W.11 Saraswathy turned hostile. Her address is different from the address given in the loan application Ex.P2 was the address is totally different and she has not identified the 5th accused and therefore the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 and treated her hostile.
36. On coming to the next loanee Vijayakumari, P.W.2 deposed that her father's name is Natarajan and she is residing at 1/3, 34-D, Vanjinathan street, Sathyamoorthy Nagar, Sidco Post, Coimbatore for the past 25 years. But P.W.12 has stated that in the year 1988 that she was residing at D.No.190 Mariyappa Konar street, Edyarpalayam, Kuniayamuthur, Coimbatore 18.
37. Though P.W.12 has deposed that she is having the ration card and voter's card, the CBI has not seized and produced the same 22/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 before this Court, to prove the residential address of P.W.12. It is also pertinent to note P.W.18 has deposed that Ex.P64 is the application form of P.W.12 she applied for grinding machine. Since under IRDP scheme grinding machine was not provided the application for grinding machine was striked off and corrected has goat loan. Like the same way in the loan application Ex.P64 syndicate Bank was struck off and it was corrected as IOB by him. The amount Rs.3200/- was striked off and Rs4500/- was written by him. In Ex.P64 the project officer and the block development officer signed in it. The trial Court has rightly disbelieved the evidence of this witness also.
38. So also P.W.13 he has deposed that his father's name is Dasappa Konar, residing at 233, Saradha Mill Road, Sundarapuram, Coimbatore. He has not resided at House No.234. Whereas, the prosecution has not placed records before this Court that P.W.13 was residing at the above said address. Whereas, as per the loan application Ex.P55 the name of the loanee is Mr.Mrappan, S/o.Dasappa Konar of D.No.234, Ganesh Nagar, Sundarapuram Post, Coimbatore
24. For this witness also the identity and the address is not proved. The trial Court has disbelieved his evidence stating that the prosecution did not produced any material to prove the person mentioned in IRDP application and the loanee are one and the same. 23/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
39. Coming to the next loanee, P.W.15 deposed that her father's name is one Chinnasamy and she is residing at Sathyamoorthy Nagar, Madukkarai Road, Sidco Post, Coimbatore. She further deposed that her husband name is Ponnusamy and that neither she nor her husband raised any loan from IOB, Kurichy, Coimbatore. Apart from that P.W.15 as deposed that the signatures found in Exhibits 127 to 139 are not that of her. Thus, this Court finds that the prosecution has not produced any documentary evidences to prove that the names of P.W.15 is Saraswathy and her husband name is Ponnusamy and that she was residing at 3/21, Sangam St., Sundarapuram, Coimbatore and also Sathyamoorthy Nagar, Madukkarai Road, Coimbatore. In the absence of above said documents, cannot conclude that P.W.15 is the loanee relating to Exhibit either P.127 or Ex.P133.
40. It remains to be stated that P.W.24 has admitted in the cross-examination that many persons will be there in the same name. Both the witnesses P.W.11 and 15 examined, the husband name R.Ponnusamy. P.W.24 admits this applicant Ponnusamy's wife was not examined by him. He examined only Saraswathy D/o.Ayyasamy. The evidence of this witness also has been rightly disbelieved by the trial 24/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 Court since no reliance, importance and evidenciary value can be attached to her evidence.
41. Thus this Court finds that the evidence of these witnesses P.W.14, P.W.10, P.W.11 to P.W.13 and P.W.15, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved they are not reliable and does not any evidentiary value and hence I find that in respect of loans covers in respect of P.W.10 to 16, the case of the prosecution has to be disbelieved as the same does not passed the test of credibility and want of identification and non filing of any relevant document to show the identity of the said persons though they claim to be so.
42. The next set of person are alleged loanees said to have been examined by the Investigation Officer and their statement has said to have been recorded, but for the reasons best known they were not examined before the Court during the trial assumes significance.
43. The following details of the non-examined alleged loanees who are the loanees under the IRDP scheme.
25/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 Sl.N Name Exhibits o. 1. Smt.Karupathal, Ex.P2 to 15 and 157 W/o.Palaniappa Pillai, 1/101, Ganeshapuram, Sundarapuram, Coimbatore. 2. Palaniappan Ex.P94 to 100 3. Ramakrishnan Ex.P101 to 105 and S/o.Chinnaramasamy 160 Konar, Annai Illam, Kurichy,Coimbatore 4. Ramakrishnan, Ex.P106 to 113 S/o.Chinnaramasamy Konar, Madukkarai Road, Sundarapuram, Coimbatore. 5. Pachaimmal Ex.P114 to 126, 161 W/o.Karuppanna Thevar, and 221 315/B, Pollachi Main Road, Sundarapuram, Coimbatore. 6. Smt.Palaniammal, Ex.P28 to 41 and 162 W/o.Late.Kulandaisamy, 1/2, Round Road, Machampalayam, Sundararpuram, Coimbatore. 7. Thulasiammal, Ex.P42 to 47 and 164 W/o.Late Ramasamym Loganathapuram, Sundarapuram, Coimbatore. 8. Smt.Alamelu, Ex.P48 to 54, 165 and W/o.Venkatachalam, P.222 1/42, Round Road, Machampalayam, Sundarapuram, Coimbatore. 26/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 Sl.N Name Exhibits o. 9. Rangasamy, Ex.P142 to 147 S/o.Thimman, Harijan Colony, Kulathupalayam, Kovai Pudur, Coimbatore. 10. Arumugam, Ex.P148 to 155 S/o.Andi gounder, Vellagounder Street, Edyarpalayam, Kuniyamuthur,Coimbatore.
44. It remains to be stated that, from the official witnesses namely bank witnesses, police witnesses have examined P.W.4, P.W.8, P.W.24 that they have examined the other loanees, however they were not examined before the trial Court and hence when the official witnesses bank witnesses police witnesses have admitted that the loanees are available, this Court is unable to uphold the contention of the respondent-CBI that they are fictitious persons.
45. P.W.4 during the police investigation he had stated that loan was sanctioned Karuppathall, Pazhani ammal, Ammasai (P.W.10). He admits he know loan was sanctioned to them.
27/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
46. It is specific evidence of P.W.18 that a person by name Arumugam applied for getting Goat loan. He admits that he recommended that application and forwarded the same to BDO office.
47. Through, the witness P.W.18, the loan application of Pechiamal Ex.P114, Thulaiammal Ex.P42, Ammasi Ex.P16, Pazhaniammal Ex.P28, Ramakrishnan Ex.P101, Alamelu Ex.P48, Marappan Ex.P55 in all these documents were recommended by R.W.O Suntharapuram for sanctioning the loan and B.D.O has forwarded the same to the bank for further process. The loan application of P.W.15 is Ex.P127 it has been recommended for sanctioning by P.W.4.
48. So also, from the evidence of P.W.24, discloses that he had examined Karuppathaal, Pazhaniappan, Ramakrishnan, Pechiammal, Pachaiammal, Pazhaniammal, Thulasiammal, Arumugam, Rangasamy and recorded their statements. But they were not examined as witness. Hence this Court finds, such person exists and there are examined by P.W.24. So they are not fictitious person as claimed by prosecution.
28/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
49. P.W.24, in his cross-examination had admitted in the 15 disputed loan applications in this case one Veerusamy has signed in the capacity of Perur BDO. The aforesaid Perur BDO Veerusamy was not examined as a witness and he further admitted in the application the physical features of applicants was not mentioned, the photographs were also not affixed. It is also correct in a same name several persons will be there in the locality. Thus it can be seen the above factual position, loanees are not fictitious,they are in existence, they have been examined by I.O and also availed loan.
50. For the next set of loanees, the respondent prosecution has taken a stand that some of the loanees have died and hence they could not be examined. In this regard, reliance was place upon the report of the V.A.O under Ex.P.219.
51. On the combined reading of Ex.P 219, 218, 291, 220, 221 and 222, these are all reports of the VAO regarding the existence of the loanee but for the reason best known, the prosecution has not examined the V.A.O, the author of above said report, assumes significance.
29/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
52. On a bare reading of documentary evidence of Ex.219, it has been mentioned that Pachaiammal died in the year of 1976. In Ex.P218 mentioned Karuppannan died in the year of 1977. In Ex.P291 mentioned Pachaiammal died in the year of 1991. Neither the VAO nor the government officials who gave the dead certificate were examined as a witness and how it appears the prosecution have recorded their statements.
53. It is seen from the documents, viz., Ex.P220, Ex.P.221, Ex.P.222, Ex.P.219 is the report of V.A.O regarding the existence of loanees. But he was not examined hence, this Court is considered view that Ex.P219 is not admissible. Ex.P220 is the death certificate of Palaniappa Pillai. The above person and his death certificate is nothing to do with this case. Ex.P221 is the death certificate of Pachayammal but the address mentioned in it is totally contradictory with the loan application. Hence this Court finds that the leg of prosecution theory also cannot accepted for legal infirmity, as stated supra.
54. In this regard, the prosecution had failed to examine Karuppathal, Palaniammal, Alamelu and Thulasiammal, though they were cited as a witness. No explanations or reasons were given by the 30/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 prosecution for not examining those persons. The non-examination of those material witness is a fatal to the prosecution case. Though the prosecution says that those persons are dead, however the prosecution had not filed any authenticated document of death certificates of those persons assumes relevancy. The silence on the part of the prosecution for the same is a fatal to their case.
55. On a clear scanning and scrutiny of the oral evidence of the Investigation Officer through whom the report of the V.A.O Ex.P219 was filed, I find that non examination of the V.A.O is fatal.The Government officials who has issued the death certificate were not examined and the Investigation Officer has produced the report of the V.A.O and even in the death certificate of Pachaiammal, the address does not tally with the loan application and therefore the similar finding rendered by the lower trial Court appears to be just and fair and same cannot be re-agitated in the appeal by the prosecution.
56. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would contend that P.W.17 speaks about loan application and the relevant field inspection, identification of loanee and recommendation made thereon, for disbursement of the amount and further could contend that in this 31/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 connection the role of A1 in granting loan was established by the prosecution. He would further contend that as per the evidence of P.W.19, there are various corrections in the loan applications and however, there is no whisper about, who has made the corrections in the loan applications. In respect of Ex.P20, my attention was drawn to the fact that A4 and A5 has made thumb impressions in the loan application, as per the forensic report.
57. The next contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases is about P.W.22 and P.W.5. As per P.W.22, he had deposed regarding the loan, which said to have been paid by A1 and recommending the loan. At the time of turn of his duty, thumb impressions were already fixed in the loan applications. However, the application forms remain unfilled and hence, unfilled applications with thumb impressions were placed before A1 and A1 has filled up the application forms and therefore, forensic report also stated that thumb impressions found in the application forms were not that of the loanees but of A4 and A5. At this juncture, it remains to be stated that the forensic report is rejected as against A4, A5 by the trial Court and A4, A5 were acquitted. The CBI has not filed any appeal against the aquittal of A4 and A5 assumes significance.
32/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
58. The next contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor is that on behalf of the loanees, A1 has received the money and relied upon the evidence of P.W.5/Cashier. According to P.W.12, P.W.14 and P.W.16, loan amount has been received. As far as P.W.14 is concerned, he turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.16 deposed regarding wet grinder loan, which is not the subject matter of this case and their version cannot advance the case of the prosecution.
59. Next contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor is that A1 remitted back some amount and draw my attention to evidence of P.W.8 at Page No.95 and 97 to the effect that certain amount has been deposited by A1 on behalf of the Loanees.
60. By way of reply, learned Senior counsel for the accused would contend that when the loanees were illiterate, they cannot come and make payment, in due course, they will remit the same and it is the usual practice, so as to make effective recovery of the amount is found to have force and acceptance of this Court. 33/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
61. The sum and substance of the contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases is that, when an unfilled loan application were given to A1, he has to be diligent enough to check the identification of the loanee and background of the loanees.
62. In this connection, the learned counsel for the accused would contend that the original identification of the loanees are vested with the gramasevas and none of the gramasevas were examined, who are the primarily assigned the duty of identification of the loanees for the said scheme. From the Gramaseva, those applications has to go to BDO in turn goes to the Project Officer, thereafter it goes to rural welfare officer and then to the Bank officer. While so, none of the Rural Officer has been examined in respect of filling up of the application forms.
63. The sanction of the loan under the IRDA, involves the identification of the loanees, that is not the job of A1 and identification of the loanee for the benefit is vested with the Project Officer and further it is also stated that P.W.12 deposed regarding wet grinder loan and hence the process involves various stakeholders under A1. P.W.12 and P.W.17 are originally arrayed as accused in FIR, 34/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 after investigation, they are deleted and added as witness and their evidence is only for self serving.
64 (a) Thus from the forgoing discussions, in the forgoing paragraphs this Court finds that the prosecution has projected the case that loan has been sanctioned by the appellant-A1 to the fictitious person in respect of 16 loanees, the charge against first appellant A1 is that he by misusing his official position and fraudulently and dishonestly fabricated the I.R.D.B loan documents in the name of fictitious person for enabling loan sanction. The charge against A1 is specific that the loan documents are fabricated by A1 in the name of the fictitious persons and hence it is the duty of the C.B.I to place on record that A1 has fabricated the documents in the name of the person who are not in existence and they are fictitious.
(b) In this regard, prosecution has come forward with 3 sets of evidence 1) Out of 16 loanees, the prosecution has examined 7 persons, P.W.10 to P.W.16 through whom Exs.P16, 22, 163, 164, 55, 81, 127, 33 and Ex.P73, respectively were considered. 35/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
65. In the forgoing paragraphs, this Court has discussed the loans that has been admitted by Vijayakumari, Rangappan and in respect of others, the reason assigned by the trial Court with regard to their identity and missing of the address, not tallying the address given by the witnesses have held that those witnesses does not advance the case of the prosecution.
66 (a) The next batch of the persons relating to alleged loanees have not examined by the prosecution, though they have been cited as a prosecution witness in the charge sheet.
(b) The reasons that was assigned for non-examination of Palaniappan and Pachaiammal stating that they are dead and marked Exs.P220 and 221.
67 (a) In the preceding paragraph, this Court has dealt with Ex.P219, 220, 221 and 222 and for the reasons assigned therein, the finding of the trial Court that Ex.P19 is not admissible in evidence,since the same was marked through Investigation Officer not through the V.A.O, the author of the documents. Further, in foregoing paragraphs, this Court has rendered a specific finding that non- 36/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 examination of those material witnesses is fatal to the prosecution and hence the non-examination of above 9 persons is held also against the prosecution and thus this Court finds that 7 persons who have been examined alleged loanees.
(b) Out of 16 loanees who are said to be fixititous persons for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, the evidence of those P.W.10 and P.W.16 held to be not advancing the case of the prosecution for the reasons stated therein and non-examination of the other 9 persons is held to be fatal to the prosecution. The reasons assigned by the respondent-C.B.I for non-examining 2 persons being dead is also not proved in the manner known to law.
68. Hence I find that the final limb of the prosecution theory that as against the fictitious persons the appellant-A1 has granted loan is also not proved in the manner known to law. A contra finding rendered by the trial Court is liable to be set aside as against the first appellant/accused.
69. In an attempt to establish the allegation that the loan papers have been fabricated by the first accused, the services of the 37/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 Forensic expert, P.W.20 was availed. P.W.20 is a scientific officer attached to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Department who had taken the finger print from the suspected loan documents and also taken the signature thumb impression of the accused.
70. The bank officers have been examined as P.W.2 to P.W.9. The insurance office staff is examined as P.W 23. The bank officer who were initially arrayed as an accused subsequently shifted as witness were P.W.17 and P.W.22. The finger print expert, revenue witness namely Village Assistant (Gramaseva) were examined as P.W.18 and P.W.19 respectively. Finger print scientific officer is P.W.20. Investigation officer is P.W.24, 25 and 26. The single defence witness is a former bank employee who is well versed in sanctioning these kinds of subject matter of loans.
71 (a) P.W.20, Geetha, Inspector of Police, finger print in the cross-examination has admitted that Ex.P186 is whether an admitted document or disputed thumb impression and one Kalaiselvi has taken the photos of Ex.P187 and she has not produced the negatives of the said thumb impression nor Kalaiselvi who is taken the photograph of the alleged thumb impression of the accused were also not examined. 38/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 The questioned thumb impression are 116 documents, she also admitted that she has not filed the enlarged photo she had used for comparison of the signature found in the loan documents in connection with Karuppathal, Poomaalai, Palaniappan, Thulasiammal, Alamelu, Sundarammal. She also admitted in the cross-examination that he does not known who has obtained the thumb impression of the accused.
(b) The prosecution has heavily relied upon the report of the P.W.20 in Ex.P186, Final report of the finger print Bureau. In this connection, it appears that the trial Court has accepted the contentions of the accused A3 and A5 that since the signature of the accused was not taken before the learned Magistrate which has been sent for forensic, the same cannot be relied upon.
(c) The finger prints of these accused was not taken before or under the Order of the Magistrate and relied upon the decision 1997 SCC Crl.Page 777 [Mohd.Aman & anr V.State of Rajasthan] held that when the specimen finger prints of the accused not taken before or under the Order of the Magistrate, conviction cannot be sustainable on the basis of the finger prints and relying upon the provision of the 39/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that evidence relating to the fingerprints of the accused cannot safely be relied upon in 2003 M.L.J (Crl) Page 217 [Dhanasekaran V.State] wherin Specimen signature from accused not obtained under order of Magistrate and failure to obtain permission of Magistrate to obtain specimen signature and its non compliance is a defect and held that to eliminate possibility of fabrication of evidence and to establish bonafides Magistrate's order is necessary and further held that Handwriting experts' opinion not corroborated and accused entitled for acquittal".
72. The case in our hand also the specimen thumb impressions of these accused were not taken before the Magistrate or under the order of the Magistrate, which is a fatal to the prosecution case. Though the P.W.20 at Page No.6 deposed that vy;/fiyr;bry;tp vd;gth; muR jug;g[ rhd;whtzk; 187y; epHw;gl';fis vLj;Js;shh;/ mthplkpUe;J mjd; befot;fis rpgpI nghyprhh; th';ftpy;iy/ But neither the prosecution nor the P.W.20 produced those negatives before this Court to substantiate their case assumes significance. 40/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 73 (a) In view of the statement and discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that due to the non obtaining of permission or order under Magistrate any sample or specimen signature or specimen thumb impression obtained by the Magistrate not cannot be the basis of the evidence for contention and accordingly accepted the notion only in favour of accused A3 and A5. However for the reasons unknown, has chosen to act different A1 for laying the conviction.
(b) Hence this Court finds that, the charge against the appellant is that by creating forged documents,he made the bank to sanction the loan in the name of fictitious persons and the accused has enriched themselves from the above money illegality. But it is pertinent to note that the trial Court after discussing the evidence of P.W.22 in its judgment in Para No.66 it has categorically observed in Para No.67 that the allegations by the prosecution, the loan was issued in the name of fictitious person was not correct and no legs to stand before this Court. Further in Para 97 also it has observed that the plea of the prosecution that the loan was sanctioned to fictitious persons and no milk animal was purchased is not established by the prosecution and hence the above specific finding of the trial Court in 41/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 respect of A4 and A5, the benevolence should have been extended to the appellant as well.
74. The trial Judge failed to note that the sample signatures taken from the appellant has not proved by the prosecution and the trial Court itself has disbelieved the evidence of P.W.20. Thus, this Court finds that acquitting A4 and A5 and convicting the appellant on the same set of evidence is highly arbitrary in nature.
75 (a) Hence I find that when the Court has entertained the doubt on the non observance of the procedure in taking the specimen signatures or thumb impression of the accused has to apply the same yardstick in respect of the all the accused, the Court cannot pick and choose the accused for conviction and hence the finding rendered by the trial Court in this regard as against A1 stands vacated.
(b) I find that the another attempt made by the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged forged signature of the loan document and fabrication of the loan documents in favour of the fictitious persons, the assistance taken and produced before the Court below through the scientific officer of the finger prints, for the 42/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 reasons states supra cannot be the ground for conviction and hence conviction of the first accused/appellant on the above score is hereby set aside.
76. At this juncture, the submissions made by the learned senior advocate Mr.V.Gobinath with regard to identity of the P.W.10 to P.W.16 that, without any proof or alleged loanee, they have been cited as a witness in the final report and examined before the trial Court. It cannot be presumed that P.W.10 to P.W.16 are the loanees mentioned in IRDB application are the one and the same person. Furthermore, as narrated supra, the investigation officer has not examined the V.A.O who is the linked person between the revenue and the bank. Non examination of V.A.O is also fatal to the prosecution. It is to be stated that the prosecution has examined P.W.10 to P.W.16 by projecting them as the true person in the said loan application thinking the witness that may be the loanee since they are having the similar name as that of the loanees mentioned in the IRDB application.
77. Thus this Court finds that none of the charge framed against the appellant/accused has been proved in the manner known to law. All the attempt made by the prosecution in support of the charge for the reasons discussed supra are held to be not proved in 43/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 the manner known to law and the P.W.17 and P.W.22 are initially arraryed as an accused or bank Manager and for the reasons best known the Investigation Officer has deleted them from the accused list and added them in the witness list. Their statement is only to save their skin and hence this Court finds that they are the persons who has granted the loan. While the first accused is in middle of the transaction and hence I find that the application of P.W.17 and P.W.22 are in the nature of self serving statement to save the skin. P.W.18 and P.W.19, the village assistant (gramaseva) have deposed regarding their duties and hence I find that there is a number of stakeholders involved and the first accused cannot be held responsible nor can be accused of fabricating the loan documents.
78. Coming to the next limb of the prosecution that without purchasing milk cows and cattles the loan was granted in the fictitious name and subsequently death certificate have been produced and the Insurance Company A3, A5 has paid the insured amount to the bank. In this regard the trial Court has acquitted both the persons of the Insurance Company as against which the respondent-CBI has not preferred any appeal.
44/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
79. The learned Senior Advocate Mr.V.Gobinath draws my attention to the quantum money in the charge sheet to the extend of Rs.92,000/- as wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to the first accused.
80. The above said amount of the Rs.92,000/- referred by the CBI in the charge sheet is the loan amounts related to the 16 loanees under 22 loan applications. It is subsidies that for the above said 22 loan amounts the Government of India through IRDA has granted the subsidize to the extent of Rs.24,000/- and the same were also received by IOB, Kurichy Branch, Coimbatore. But there is no complaint either from the Central Government, or from IRDB that they have suffered wrongful less. But the CBI has not deducted the subsidy amount of Rs.24,000/- while filing the charge sheet in the above case against the accused from the alleged loss amount of Rs.92,000/-
81. Apart from that, the cattles purchased out of the loan amount under IRDP scheme, was also insured with the Insurance Company and the amounts for the same were paid by the bank to the concerned Insurance Co., but there is no complaint by the Insurance 45/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 Company that they were misdirected to make the payment as compensation towards the death of the cattles. Whereas the Insurance officials made verification regarding the death of the cattles on various dates and confirmed that cattles died due to Rinderpest decease during December 1998 and January 1989. After receiving necessary certificates and making verification the Insurance Company paid the insurance amount to the extent of Rs.14,251/- to the IOB, Kurichy Branch, Coimbatore.
82. It is pertinent to mention here that the CBI has failed to take note of the fact that there was recoveries by the bank from the loanees of the above case to the extent of Rs.25,748/-.
83. With regard to charge against the Insurance Company Officer A3, A5 that the death of cattle on various dates due to the rinderpest disease, the trial Court has accepted the stand of the accused-Insurance Company Officer and rendered an acquittal and the same is not challenged by the C.B.I.
84. From the insurance documents viz., Ex.P23 and Ex.P202 and ExP203 the cattle of Palaniappan has died and in view of the said disease and nature of the disease, post mortem was not conducted 46/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 and the amount has been credited to and it is the admission of P.W.3 that between the month of December 1988 to January 1989, 7% claim Rs.10,524/- as a insurance account for the death of the cattle as reflected in Ex.P210 assumes significance.
85. Hence I find that only after verification of the genuineness of the claim, the Insurance amount has been mentioned and it is a specifically mentioned under Ex.P211 that cattles were properly maintained. However died only due to the disease. The ear tag of the deceased cattles was submitted during the time of the claim which is also marked as M.O1 to M.O5.
86. The another claim application of the Palaniammal was marked as Ex.P213 and 214. So also purusthotaman Ex.P211 and thus I find that the stand projected by the prosecution that there was a bogus claim to cover up the fictitious person also falls to ground in view of the categorical evidence of P.W.23 and Ex.P202 and P.203, 213, 211, 214 and 215 and hence viewing from any stand point, the allegation of the prosecution that the A1 has misused his official capacity for granting loan for fictitious persons is not proved in the manner known to law and there is a material contradiction between 47/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 the revenue witness and the insurance witness and there are material contradiction between the investigation officer with that of the scientific officer regarding the obtainment of the signature of the accused and further non-compliance of the procedure prescribed therefore and in view of the serious infirmity found in the prosecution, I find that the finding rendered by the trial Court holding that the accused has committed the offence as stated in the charge is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and as the prosecution has not proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt goes to the first accused and accordingly, the first accused is acquitted of all the charges with which stands charged.
87. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and the sentence passed by the Learned IInd Additional and District and Sessions Judge, CBI Cases, Coimbatore in CC.NO. 4 of 2005 dated 30.03.2012 is set aside. The appellant/ A1 is acquitted of all charges. The bail bond shall stand cancelled. Fine amount is ordered to be returned.
01.09.2022
nvi
Internet :Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
48/50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.294 of 2012
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
SPE CBI ACB Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
3. The II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Special Court for CBI Cases, Coimbatore.
49/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
nvi Judgment made in Crl.A.No.294 of 2012 01.09.2022 50/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis