Kerala High Court
M.Raman vs Dhanalakshmi Bank on 2 August, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
CRL.REV.PET NO. 3133 OF 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 3133 OF 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 12.08.2009 IN CC NO.510 OF
2003 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
M.RAMAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RTD)
INSURANCE SURVEYOR, LOSS ASSESSOR AND VALUER, OLD
THEVARA ROAD, KOCHI-16.
BY ADVS.
SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.K.M.ANEESH
SRI.SUMESH KUMAR N.C.
SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR KALIYANAM
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 DHANALAKSHMI BANK LIMITED, REP.BY SRI.RANGANATHAN,
S/O.KRISHNA IYER, ASST.GENERAL, MANAGER AND PRINCIPAL
OFFICER, DHANALAKSHMI BANK, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
2 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,.
BY ADV C.K.KARUNAKARAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.RENJITH.T.R, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 3133 OF 2009 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No. 3133 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the order
dated 12.08.2009 in CC No. 510/2003 of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. It is a complaint filed by the 1 st
respondent against four accused persons alleging offences
punishable under Secs. 120B, 417, 418, 420 r/w 34 IPC. The
petitioner is the 3rd accused in the above case.
2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is
a Banking Company incorporated under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956. The 1st accused is the Managing Director
of M/s. International Merchandise Trades and Exports Pvt. Ltd.
The 2nd accused is the wife of the 1 st accused and she is a
director of the abovesaid company. The accused Nos. 3 and 4
are the approved valuers of the complainant-Bank. They are
Engineers by their profession is the submission. It is the case of
the complainant that the clients of the complainant engaged
letter of credit facility, which is extended by the company only
to selected customers. The said facility is available only to the
persons who produce adequate security. It is also the case of
the complainant that, it is the discretion of the bank to grant
letter of credit facility. In April, 1999, the accused entered into
criminal conspiracy to cheat the complainant and accused No.1
submitted two applications for letter of credit facilities to the
tune of Rs.2 crores and Rs.2.35 crores respectively is the
submission. They had submitted the title deed of 4.09 acres of
land at Mangalappuzha in Aluva stating that it is a prime
residential property situated in a prime locality, adjacent to
hotels and tourist resorts. The said property was offered as
collateral security. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were the valuers of the
property gave an inflated valuation for the property and also on
the basis of that the bank advanced loan to the tune of Rs.435
lakhs is the case of the company. But, subsequently, it was
revealed that the property offered as security is a waterlogged
area far away from the road with no road facilities. Therefore,
the bank was forced to advance loan on the false valuation
certificate issued by the 3 rd and 4th accused is the submission.
Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.
3. The case against accused Nos.1 and 2 were quashed
by this court in Crl.M.C. 2307/2004. The case against the 4 th
accused is also quashed by this court as per order dated
19.01.2010 in Crl.M.C. No. 3251/2009. The petitioner, who is
the 3rd accused filed discharge petition before the trial court.
The same was dismissed by the trial court as per order dated
12.08.2009 in C.C.No.510/2003. Aggrieved by the same, this
criminal revision is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. I also heard
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. It is an admitted fact that, petitioner earlier filed
the Crl.M.C. No.1195/2004 to quash the proceedings
against him. This Court was not inclined to quash the
proceedings. But, this Court as per order dated 30.01.2007
in Crl.M.C. No.1195/2004, allowed the petitioner to file
discharge petition at the appropriate stage. Accordingly, the
petitioner filed a discharge petition before the trial court.
The same is dismissed as per the impugned order in this
revision.
6. The case of the complainant against the 3 rd and
4th accused are one and the same. According to the
complainant, the 3rd and 4th accused were valuers. Accused
No.4 approached this court by filing Crl.M.C. 3251/2009
and by a detailed order, this Court held that the case
against the 4th accused is not maintainable. It will be
beneficial to extract the relevant portion of the above
order:
" 7. It is the very case of the first respondent that it was
accused 1 and 2 who availed the letter of credit facility by
approaching the first respondent Bank. It is their case that
towards security, a valuation certificate issued by the petitioner
and third accused, who are the approved valuers of the Bank,
was produced and if the officers of the Bank had inspected the
property, the real facts would have been found out and
therefore, it is the officers of the Bank who are guilty of the
offences, if any, committed. Learned counsel pointed out that
after retirement of the Assistant General Manager, who lodged
Annexure-A2 complaint, Annexure-A4 petition was filed by the
successor Assistant General Manager. It shows that apart from
the four accused, respondents 5 to 7 shown therein, who are the
officers of the Bank, are also responsible and in view of the
findings in Annexure-A3 order that real persons, who committed
the offences, if any, could only be the officers of the Bank, the
case as against the petitioner is to be quashed.
8. In the light of Annexure-A3 order, when accused 1 and 2,
who approached the Bank and applied for letter of credit facility
and produced the valuation statement prepared by the petitioner
and third accused and who, according to the first respondent,
conspired with the other accused and for whose benefit the
offences, if any, was committed, were already quashed by
Annexure-A3 order, the case as against the petitioner can only
be quashed."
7. In the light of the above order, I am of the
considered opinion that the case of the petitioner is also
similar and he is also entitled the same benefit. Therefore,
the impugned order can be set aside and the revision
petitioner, who is the 3rd accused also can be discharged.
Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is allowed in the following
manner :
1) The order dated 12.08.2009 in C.C.No.510/2003 as
against the petitioner is set aside and the revision
petitioner is discharged from the offences alleged in
C.C.No.510/2003 on the files of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.
2) Forward a copy of this order to the trial court
forthwith.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS/Alfiya
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C
NO.2307/2004 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL
