Madras High Court
Rajkapoor vs The State Rep. By on 12 August, 2010
Author: R.Mala
Bench: R.Mala
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12/08/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Criminal Original Petition(MD) No.4877 of 2009 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009 Rajkapoor .. Petitioner Vs The State rep. by CBI/ACB Chennai. .. Respondent Prayer Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining in C.C.No.4 of 2006 pending on the file of the Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. cases, Madurai and quash the same. !For petitioner ... Mr.S.Baskaran ^For Respondent ... Mr.Rosario Sundarraj Spl. P.P. for CBI Cases :ORDER
The petitioner approaches this Court with a prayer to call for the records pertaining in C.C.No.4 of 2006 pending on the file of the Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. cases, Madurai and quash the same.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A5; the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other accused, has prepared various forged cheques as if they were issued by various banks and presented the same for collection; after presenting the cheques for collection, with the help of the courier agent, intercepted the cheques sent for collection to various branches and handed over the forged payment advises to the courier agent, by that way, the petitioner and other accused have cheated the State Bank of India, Pudukkottai Branch to the tune of Rs.1,08,07,599/-; that the petitioner is only brother-in-law of A3 and he is nothing to do with the commission of the offence.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that in the charge sheet, it was stated that A3 cheated the bank and purchased Refrigerator, Phones and C.D.Player and kept the same in the petitioner's house and hence, the petitioner is charged for the offence under Sections 120(b) r/w 420, 419, 468 r/w 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code r/w 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but there is no evidence available against the petitioner to implicate him and merely because, he safeguarded the materials would not attract any offence and thus, he prayed for the allowing of the petition.
4.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases would submit that already 17 witnesses have been examined and 117 documents have also been marked and the case is in progress and after due investigation only, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner/A5 and thus he prayed for the dismissal of the application.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on records.
6.Admittedly, the charge sheet has been filed in the year 2006 and the same has been taken on file in C.C.No.4 of 2006. The petitioner has kept quiet all along, now has come forward with the present application in the year 2009 to quash the proceedings against him even after 17 witnesses have been examined and 117 documents have been marked. Since then, the petitioner has participated in the trial, this Court is of the opinion that there is a delay in preferring this petition.
7.Besides, this Court has to decide whether there is any primafacie case has been made out against this petitioner. A perusal of paragraph No.9 of the charge sheet would reveal that A5 along with A3, A4, and A9 fraudulently and dishonestly prepared cheques as if they were issued from UCO Bank, Santa Cruz (E), Mumbai, UCO Bank, Service Branch, Mumbai, Indian Bank, Mumbai, UCO Bank, Andheri (W) and Indian Bank, Fort, Mumbai and imaginary cheque numbers were given to those cheques and deposited the same from 11.03.2002 onwards to the State Bank of India, Pudukottai Branch to the tune of Rs.1,09,86,000/- and all those fabricated cheques were processed, allotted SC numbers and authorised by Shri Krishnan, Officer of SBI, Pudukkottai branch and kept the cheques along with the collection schedules for onward transmission to SBI, Service Branch, Mumbai. After made entries in the courier outward register, A2 took the covers containing the cheques deposited by A3 and the same covers bearing the consignment note numbers were filled with unwanted papers, which was transmited to SBI, Service Branch, Mumbai through courier. A3 received the collection schedule along with the forged and fabricated cheques and A3, A4, A5 and A9 fradulently prepared 19 forged and fabricated payment advices as if the were issued by SBI, Service Brnach, Mumbai against the Collection schedules forwarded by SBI Pudukkottai and on receipt of the payment advices, the amounts were credited into the account opened by A3 in the name of Ayoob and the amount were withdrawn by A3 to 7 knowingfully well that those amounts were credited into the account of A3, in pursuance of the cospiracy and thereby got pecuniary advantage. While withdrawing the amount A5 Rajkafoor has impersonated himself as Ahamed.
8.During investigation also, a thin film used for preparing forged and fabricated envelope with SBI emblem was seized from the residence of Sheik Amir/A4 under the search list. A5 also used the films and printed the matters and the emblem of SBI, on brown envelopes and used those envelopes to forward the forged and fabricated payment advices prepared by them purportedly emanated from SBI, Mumbai. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that these things have primafacie proved that the petitioner was impersonated himself as Ahamed and he fabricated the cheques and payment advices and hence, the primafacie case has been made out against this petitioner.
9.Furthermore, the case has been registered in RAC MA1 2003 A 0018 dated 04.04.2003 and the charge sheet has been filed in the month of March 2006 and when the trial was in progress and after examining some of the witnesses, the petitioner has come forward with the application only on 10.07.2009 and hence there is a delay in preferring the petition. In the above stated circumstances, I do not find any merits in the application filed by the petitioner and the application is deserved to be dismissed.
10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Since the case is of the year 2006 and already 17 witnesses have been examined and 117 documents have also been marked, the learned Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. cases, Madurai is directed to expedite the trial on day to day basis and disposed of the case as early as possible.
arul To
1.The Central Bureau of Investigation/ACB Chennai.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai