Madras High Court
State Bank Of India vs The Superintendent Of Police on 4 January, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 28.02.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.03.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
CRL.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
State Bank of India,
SME Branch (PN Road)
No.54, 1st Road
(State Bank of India building)
Uthukuli Road, Tirupur. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Palladam Road, Tirupur.
2.Central Bureau of Investigation,
Economic Offences Wing,
Chennai. ... Respondent
(Impleaded R2 as per order in
Crl.M.P.No.8923 of 2021 in
Crl.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
dated 04.01.2021)
Page No.1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the Respondent to transfer the
complaint registered vide FIR No.7 of 2020 on the file of DCB, Tirupur
Police Station to Economic Offence Wing of CBI within a time frame.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.L.Ganesh
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
No.1 Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan
No.2 Special Public Prosecutor
(for CBI)
ORDER
The criminal original petition is filed seeking direction to the first
respondent to transfer the complaint received vide FIR No.7/2020 on the
file of the District Crime Branch, Tirupur Police Station to Central Bureau
of Investigation, Economic Offences Wing of CBI within a time frame.
2.FIR in Crime No.7 of 2020 on the file of the District Crime
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
Branch, Tirupur, was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the
petitioner against Govindhasamy and six others for the offences under
Sections 380, 421 and 408 IPC. The allegation made in the complaint is
that the defacto complainant was the Principal Manager of State Bank of
India, SME Branch, Tirupur. The partners of M/s.K.R.Corporation viz.,
C.Govindasamy and his wife Manimala approached the petitioner's bank
for WHR facility for a storage of cotton bales. The petitioner's bank
sanctioned stand alone WHR facility of 5 crore against the stock of cotton
bales with National Collateral Management Services Limited (NCML).
Cotton bales were handed over to the custody of NCML and there was an
agreement between the bank and NCML entered into on 07.03.2017. The
terms of the conditions are that NCML should send a report on quality
and quantity of the stock every month and without written authorization
of the bank, the stock should not be transferred. NCML is sole
responsible for the stock. 3,500 cotton bales were kept in the godown of
Senthilkumar, which is under the control of NCML. M/s.K.R.Corporation
has not repaid the loan within the time and therefore, it was decided to
sell the cotton bales towards the loan amount. NCML sent a report dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
26.03.2019 stating that the cotton bales of M/s.K.R.Corporation is in
good condition and it's value was Rs.6.8 Crore as on 28.02.2019. When
the decision was taken to sell the cotton bales in auction, Govindasamy
and his wife Manimala approached this Court and this Court ordered
them to deposit Rs.50,00,000/-. Since they did not comply with the
condition, it was decided to sell the cotton bales in auction and
inspection was conducted on 03.06.2019 along with NCML officials.
The bank officials found that inferior quality cotton bales were kept in the
place of quality cotton bales. An inspection was conducted by bank
officials on 30.12.2019 and it was found that there were no cotton bales
available in the godown. Therefore, it is apparent that all the accused
including the officials of NCML, in criminal conspiracy with each other,
in an endeavour to cause wrongful loss to the bank, removed the cotton
bales from the godown. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though this
complaint was registered on 21.12.2020, so far, no effective investigation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
was conducted by the first respondent to arrest the accused and recover
the cotton bales. The offences relating to Public Sector Banks valued
more than three crores and less than 25 crores shall have to be referred to
Economic Wing of CBI and investigated. Therefore, this petition.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the
first respondent submitted that the investigation is in progress. The
previous investigating officer in this case is suffering from amnesia
disease and therefore, delay in completing the investigation.
5.The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the second
respondent opposed this petition and submitted that though it is alleged
in the complaint that the theft of cotton bales had taken place in 2019,
there is a huge delay in giving the complaint. Central Bureau of
Investigation is not required to investigate every case especially, the theft
alleged in this case. Central Bureau of Investigation is dealing with many
sensitive cases and if these kind of cases are transferred to Central
Bureau of Investigation, the agency will not be in a position to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
concentrate on more important and sensitive cases. This case, being
primarily a theft case, the State police can very well complete the
investigation and file a final report.
6.In reply, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
circular issued by the State Bank of India and Policy on Fraud Risk
Management, if the amount involved in a theft is more than 3 crores and
up to 25 crores, the case should be referred to CBI. Unfortunately, in this
case, the complaint was wrongly given to State Police. The State police
i.e. District Crime Branch, Tirupur, has not evinced any interest even
after completion of more than two years. It is not as though there was a
delay on the part of the petitioner to lodge a complaint. Complaint was
given as early as 30.12.2019 and as per instructions, a fresh complaint
was given on 21.12.2020. District Crime Branch, Tirupur has not
conducted proper investigation, therefore, the learned counsel for the
petitioner reiterated his request for the transfer of investigation to the
Central Bureau of investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
7.Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
8.The first respondent filed status report dated 15.11.2021. It is
seen from the status report that A7 took possession of the godown, in
which, 3500 cotton bales were kept through sub-lease. A6 and A7 are
wholly responsible for the said 3500 cotton bales. The staff of A7 have
colluded with A1 & A2, and removed 3500 cotton bales from the godown
and misappropriated cotton bales worth Rs.6 crores. The investigation
revealed that A7, A1 & A2 have ignored to pay the loan amount and
misappropriated 3500 bales worth Rs.6,76,83,000/- with the aid of other
staff of NCML. On 11.01.2020, the Investigating Officer visited another
godown at V.Kallipalayam, Tirupur and found that inferior quality of
cotton bales stored. The worth of the inferior quality cotton bales is Rs.10
per kg. A7 has also preferred a complaint before Kamanaikkenpalayam
Police Station. NCML approached High Court in Crl.O.P.No.12776 of
2020 praying this Court to direct the Inspector of Police,
Kamanaikkenpalayam to register a case and investigate. This Court
passed an order to take appropriate action as against the accused persons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
in accordance with law. A7 filed Crl.O.P.Nos.1543 and 1595 of 2021 and
as per the order of this Court, his name was deleted from the list of
accused in Crime No.7 of 2020. Senthilnathan and his henchmen formed
a team to collectively steal about 5.83 crore worth of cotton bales kept in
godown and attacked A7 and bank employee threatened them with dire
consequences and had stolen cotton bales. The first respondent is
investigating the case in a free, fair, proper and impartial manner.
9.The order passed in Crl.O.P.Nos.1543 and 1595 of 2021 is
produced by the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for
the first respondent. It is seen from this order that the 7th accused viz.,
L.Devaraj, Area Manager of National Collateral Management Services
Limited had also given a complaint with regard to the theft of cotton bales
in this case. In the said circumstances, his name was ordered to be
removed from the array of accused and he be made as a witness.
10.It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)
appearing for the first respondent that as per the order passed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
Crl.O.P.Nos.1543 and 1595 of 2021, the name of 7th accused is removed
from the array of accused. Thus it is clear that as of now, there are only
six accused in this case. It is also clear from the status report that the
accused in this case in connivance with each other had replaced inferior
quality cotton bales in the place of good quality cotton bales and then
totally removed even the inferior quality cotton bales. It is clear from the
status report of the first respondent that cotton bales had been stolen and
amount had been misappropriated by the accused named in the status
report. It is not known why the first respondent has not taken any steps to
recover the cotton bales and bring the case to its logical conclusion. As
things stand now, there are two cases for the same offences, one given by
the petitioner herein and the other given by 7th accused in this case. Both
the complaints have to be necessarily investigated and final report be
filed. So far no active steps were taken by the first respondent for taking
forward the investigation in this case. No arrest was made in this case.
There is justification in the request of the petitioner for the transfer of
investigation. While considering transfer of investigation to CBI, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and
others reported in (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 571 observed as
follows:
“70.Before parting with the case, we deem
it necessary to emphasise that despite wide
powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts
must bear in mind certain self-imposed
limitation on the exercise of these constitutional
powers. The very plenitude of the power under
the said articles requires great caution in its
exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a
direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a
case is concerned, although no inflexible
guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or
not such power should be exercised but time and
again it has been reiterated that such an order is
not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely
because a party has levelled some allegations
against the local police. This extraordinary
power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
and in exceptional situations where it becomes
necessary to provide credibility and instil
confidence in investigations or where the
incident may have national and international
ramifications or where such an order may be
necessary for doing complete justice and
enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise
CBI would be flooded with a large number of
cases and with limited resources, may find it
difficult to properly investigate even serious
cases and in the process lose its credibility and
purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.”
11.This judgment makes it clear that the extraordinary power must
be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it
becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in
investigations or where the incident may have national and international
ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing
complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights. Otherwise, CBI
would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources
may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
12.The case on hand though it is contended by the petitioner that
the offences relating to Public Sector Banks involving more than 3 crores
less than 25 crores shall have to be referred to Economic Wing of CBI
and investigated, the petitioner has chosen to give complaint before the
State police and the State police has conducted investigation, of course
not to the satisfaction of the petitioner.
13.Taking note of the entire factual matrix of this Court, this Court
is of the considered view that the investigation of this case can be
entrusted to CB-CID led by an officer in the rank of Deputy
Superintendent instead by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Accordingly, the investigation of case in Crime No.7 of 2020 on the file of
the District Crime Branch, Tirupur Police station is ordered to be
transferred to CB-CID, Tiruppur and it is further ordered that the officer
in the rank of Deputy Superintendent shall conduct investigation in this
case and file final report within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the criminal original petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
is disposed of.
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No 07.03.2022
sms
To
1.Deputy Inspector General of Police,
CB-CID, Chennai.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
CB-CID, Tirupur.
3.Central Bureau of Investigation,
Economic Offences Wing,
Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.,J
sms
PRE-DELIEVERY ORDER MADE IN
CRL.O.P.No.8061 of 2021
07.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
