Madras High Court
K.Saravanan vs State Rep.By on 7 August, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.14311 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 07.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.14311 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.No.8879 of 2023
K.Saravanan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State rep.by
Inspector of Police,
CBI/BS&FC, Bangaluru-560 302.
2.Shri.V.Pattabhiraman,
Chief Vigilance Officer,
State Bank of Mysore,
Head Office, K.G.Road,
Bangalore-560 009. ..Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records connected with C.C.No.39 of
2013 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Velayutham Pichaiya
Assisted by Mr.B.Sathish Sundar
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel
Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)
ORDER
M/s.Asian Health & Nutri Foods Limited and its Directors were brought
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14311 of 2023
under scanner of CBI, pursuant to two complaints one by V.Pattabiraman, the
Chief Vigilance Officer, State Bank of Mysore registered in RC.No.7E/2012
dated 05.07.2012 and another based on the complaint given by K.D.Menon, the
Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India in RC.2E/2013 dated
21.02.2013. These two cases were investigated and culminated in the final
report.
2. The trial Court took the report on file and assigned C.C.Nos.39 and
54 of 2013 respectively. The petitioner herein arrayed as accused sought for
quashing of criminal prosecution culminated in C.C.No.54 of 2013 before the
High Court and also filed a discharge petition before the trial Court. After the
quash petition came to be dismissed by this Court, the said discharge petition
also got dismissed. Revision preferred against the dismissal of the discharge
petition was not entertained by this Court. However, direction was given to the
trial Court to expedite the trial on priority basis. This Court, while dismissing
the quash petition, had directed by way of advice to conduct joint trial of both
cases or simultaneous trial of both the cases in C.C.Nos.39 & 54 of 2013.
Though the orders and direction were passed a long back, yet nothing has
progressed in the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14311 of 2023
3. The petitioner right throughout contended that the loan availed by
M/s.Asian Health & Nutri Foods Limited been settled through One Time
Settlement long back. Despite the settlement, the Court has declined to quash
the complaint as well as refused to discharge him. When the petitioner was
ready to undergo the trial, the trial Court did not make any headway. Therefore,
the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to call for the records
pertaining to C.C.No.39 of 2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Coimbatore and quash the same.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is ready to file an application for plea bargain. The trial Court may
consider the application in accordance with law as laid down under Chapter
XXI A of the Code, and the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid in suo
motu W.P.(Crl.) No.4 of 2021 in the policy strategy for grant of bail.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also circulated articles by
Jurist regarding the provision of plea bargain in India and its effect. The
judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner clearly indicates that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14311 of 2023
legislature after taking into consideration the recommendation of Malimath
Committee had brought in a very effective amendment in the Code of Criminal
Procedure with a laudable intention to mitigate the ordeal of the accused, who is
ready to plea bargain of sentence as well as charges.
6. The object of introduction of this Chapter is to reduce the docket
explosion and unwanted criminal trial. However, the experience so far gained
indicates that this provision has not been understood in the manner in which it
should be understood and applied. Chapter XXI A of the Code not been
explored to the expectation of the legislature as well as the higher judiciary. This
has prompted the Hon'ble Supreme Court to take up this matter and issued
guidelines to the Courts below to exercise their power conferred under the
Chapter XXI A. Though this chapter been introduced in the Code on
05.07.2006, statistics and data indicates that Court is not exercised power under
this provision. The benefit in respect of the accused, in respect of victim and in
respect of prosecution, when the stakeholders resort to plea bargain not been
understood by the stakeholders. This Court is in full agreement with the above
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. After going through the records and the earlier orders passed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14311 of 2023
this Court, this Court is fully convinced that it is a case fit for entertaining plea
bargain.
8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI) also after perusing the
records and on instructions submitted that it is a fit case where the Court can
entertain an application under Section 265 A of Cr.P.C., if the petitioner is
willing to enter into plea bargain. Here is a case where the bank has advanced
loan based on certain documents produced by the company. Now the
prosecution contends that the documents are false and been given to the bank,
induced the bank to advance the loan and that loan amount been diversified for
other purpose than for which the loan was granted. Obviously the transaction
appears to be bordering breach of contract and breach of trust. At the end of the
day, the parties have cleared the loan under One Time Settlement scheme. In
spite of specific direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial, the trial Court is
unable to complete the trial for the reason best known.
9. It is reported across the bar in C.C.No.39 of 2013 so far only one
witness has been examined and in C.C.No.54 of 2013 examination of witnesses
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14311 of 2023
yet to be commenced. Summons to examine the defacto complainant been sent
and the matter is listed on 10.08.2023 for examination of PW.1.
10. In the said circumstances, the petitioner if come forward to file an
application for plea bargain in C.C.No.39 of 2013 as well as C.C.No.54 of
2013, the same may be entertained by the trial Court after causing notice to the
learned Special Public Prosecutor as well as the victim namely State Bank of
India and State Bank of Mysore, who are the defacto complainants. They shall
work out Mutually Satisfactory Disposition as per the guidelines laid in the
Code and thereafter, dispose of the case in tune with Section 265 (E) of the
Code. While disposing the case, the trial Court shall exercise its power
conferred under the Code as well as follow the principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the suo motu Writ Petition as well as the principle
adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kothari Polymers case. In any event,
the above said exercise shall be completed by the trial Court within a period of 3
months.
11. With these directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of
accordingly. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is
also closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14311 of 2023
07.08.2023
Internet : Yes/No
rpl
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
CBI/BS&FC
Bangaluru-560 302.
2.Shri.V.Pattabhiraman,
Chief Vigilance Officer,
State Bank of Mysore,
Head Office, K.G.Road,
Bangalore-560 009.
3.The Pubic Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
rpl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14311 of 2023
Crl.O.P.No.14311 of 2023
07.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
