Madras High Court
Niyazkhan @ Abdul Razack vs The State Represented By on 4 March, 2025
CRL.A(MD).No.382 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 16.07.2024
Pronounced On : 04.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).No.382 of 2020
Niyazkhan @ Abdul Razack ... Appellant
Vs.
The State Represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
SPE/CBI/EOW,
Chennai. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the
Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.3 of 2006 dated
15.12.2020, by the learned II Additional District Court for CBI Cases,
Madurai, against the appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Robinson
for Mr.M.Sathish Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.M.D.Poornachari,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
CRL.A(MD).No.382 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The absconding accused No.6 in C.C.No.9 of 2003, on the file of
the learned II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai, has filed
this appeal, challenging the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed
against him, in the split up C.C.No.3 of 2006, dated 15.12.2020, by the
learned II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai.
2. The Brief facts of the case read as follows:
2.1.The appellant and other accused in C.C.No. 9 of 2003 on the file
of the II Additional District Judge CBI Cases, Madurai entered into a
conspiracy during the year 2001 at Tuticorin and various other places to
cheat the Canara Bank, Beach Road Branch, Tuticorin and defrauded the
amount of the bank to the tune of Rs.1,17,69,751/- by opening bogus
current account A/c.No.2653 in the name of a firm namely, APN
International represented by Niyazkhan @ Abdul Razack as a proprietor of
APN International and presented 20 bogus out stations cheques in the said
account and forged the Inter Branch Advices (IBA) and caused to sent
them to Canara Bank, Beach Road branch, Tuticorin to be credited in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
said account and on the basis of the said 13 forged Inter Branch Advices
(IBA) an amount of Rs.76,58,751/- was credited in the said account and
the same was withdrawn by A1 and this appellant issued bearer cheques to
withdraw the amounts and payment cheques and thereby, caused wrongful
loss of Rs.76,58,751/- and made wrongful gain. Remaining 7 forged
cheques were promptly found out to be forged, before crediting the amount
and thereby, they attempted to commit offences. Hence, the CBI registered
a case in FIR No. RC1/E/2002, CBI/EOW, Chennai, dated 19.04.2002, on
the basis of the complaint given by the Disciplinary Action Cell, Canara
Bank, Madurai.
2.2. After investigation, final report was filed against the following
accused including the appellant:-
1.RaajKafur @ Mohd.Asmath(A-1)
2.JohnFernando(A-2)
3.Sharmila(A-3)
4.S.Arumugam(A-4)
5.S.Sundarsingh(A-5)
6.Niyazkhan @ Abdul Razack
7.T.Mohan(A-6)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
2.3.The said final report was taken on file in C.C.No. 9 of 2003 on
the file of the II Additional District Judge CBI Cases, Madurai and the case
against the appellant was split up in C.C.No. 3 of 2006 and the trial was
continued in C.C.No.9 of 2003 against the following accused namely,
1.RaajKafur @ Mohd.Asmath, 2.John Fernando, 3.Sharmila,
4.S.Arumugam, 5.S.Sundarsingh and 6.T.Mohan and the learned trial judge
after the trial, convicted them under the charged offences.
3. Aggrieved over the same, they preferred Crl.A.(MD).No.565 of
2006 and Crl.A.(MD).No. 580 of 2006 before this Court and this Court
after a detailed discussion confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed
against the above accused. The same was confirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP (Crl).No. 5215 of 2018.
4. Thereafter, the present appellant faced the trial and learned trial
judge served the copies under section 207 of Cr.P.C. and framed the
necessary charges and questioned the appellant. The appellant pleaded not
guilty and he stood for trial. The prosecution to prove the case examined
PW1 to PW19 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P141 and the learned trial judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
questioned the appellant under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting the
incriminating material available against him and the appellant denied the
same as false and specifically submitted that his name is not Niyazkhan @
Abdul Razack and his name is Mujit, S/o. Abdul Miyan. The appellant
neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents on his side and
the learned trial judge after considering the evidence, passed the impugned
judgment dated 15.12.2020, and found him guilty, convicted and sentenced
him as detailed below:-
Accused Convicted under Section Sentence of Imprisonment/
fine imposed
Sole U/s 120B r/w 419, To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to
accused 467, 468, 471, 420 of pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous
IPC and 420 r/w 511 Imprisonment for six months.
IPC and Section 13(2)
r/w 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
U/s 419 of IPC To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for six months.
U/s 467 of IPC To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for six months.
U/s 468 of IPC To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for six months.
U/s 471 of IPC To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for six months.
U/s 420 of IPC To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for six months.
U/s 420 r/w 511 IPC To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for six months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
5. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant
has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
6. Thiru. A.Robinson, the learned counsel for the appellant made
the following submission:-
6.1. When the appellant disputed his identity and his involvement in
the occurrence by taking the plea that his name is “Mujit”, it is duty of the
prosecution to prove his involvement beyond reasonable doubt. But no
legal evidence was adduced to prove his involvement in the occurrence as
“Niyazkhan @ Abdul Razack”.
6.2. The prosecution neither produced any material nor established
any circumstances to prove his involvement in the conspired act of
opening of the bogus account in the name of APN International and
withdrawal of the amount from the bogus account of APN International by
preparing the forged out stations cheques, Inter Branch Advices (IBA) and
through the bearer cheques, payment cheques. The identification of the
bank officials about the company of the appellant along with A1 is not a
circumstance to pass a conviction against the appellant for the charged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
offence. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case
against the appellant under section 120 (b) of I.P.C.
6.3. Before registering the FIR by CBI, earlier report was filed by
not mentioning the name of the appellant and the same was suppressed by
the prosecution. Therefore, the case against the appellant is liable to be set
aside. Even, in the original FIR registered by CBI, the appellant’s name
was not found and only in the final report, the appellant was included
without sufficient materials to show the appellant's involvement in the
occurrence.
6.4. According to PW1's evidence, A1 and the appellant have opened
account in the name of APN International, a bogus dry flower unit. But his
name was not found in Ex.P.10 (Complaint). Therefore, the prosecution has
not proved his involvement in the occurrence. The learned trial judge
relied upon the statement of P.W.7 recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C.
without any corroborating material.
6.5.The evidence of P.W.7, P.W.14, P.W.9 and P.W.6 are not
sufficient to convict the appellant under the charged offence. The learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
trial judge in all aspects, without properly considering the evidence,
erroneously convicted the appellant and imposed the maximum
punishment of imprisonment.
7.Dr.M.D.Poornachari, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for CBI made the following submissions:-
7.1. The appellant and the accused No.1 Raaj Kafur @ Mohd.
Asmath, had committed similar offence in various banks disguising
himself in different names by opening different account in various banks
and defrauded the amount of the banks. The identity of the appellant has
been clearly spoken by various prosecution witnesses. They specifically
deposed that he along with his younger brother Raaj Kafur @ Mohd.
Asmath, had visited the Canara Bank, Beach Road Branch, Tuticorin on
various occasions and had secret discussion with the other remaining bank
officials who had been convicted in the parent C.C.No. 9 of 2003 and his
active participation in the process of opening of account in the name of the
non-existent APN International dry flower unit, presentation of the bogus
out station cheques, transmission of bogus inter branch advises and credit
of the amount on the basis of the bogus inter branch advises and
withdrawal of the amount by the appellant are all clearly proved beyond
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
reasonable doubt both in the trial of the C.C.No.9 of 2003 and in C.C.No. 3
of 2006 with sufficient materials and the conviction in C.C.No. 9 of 2003
was confirmed by this court in Crl.A.(MD).No. 565 of 2006 and Crl.A.
(MD). No. 580 of 2006 and the same was confirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP (Crl).No. 5215 of 2018 and due to his absconding,
CBI was forced to conduct the separate trial and in this case also, sufficient
evidence was produced to prove the involvement of the appellant and the
learned trial judge correctly appreciated the entire facts and convicted the
appellant as per law and the same deserves to be confirmed.
7.2. The special public prosecutor would further submit that in this
type of bank fraud theory of “particeps criminis” comes into operation.
The appellant's involvement in every stage of the case is proved through
the established circumstances. The appellant has received the amount from
the said APN International account for his personal use. Therefore, the
prosecution clearly proved the charge framed against the appellant.
7.3. The special public prosecutor also submitted that the appellant
and A1 had committed similar type of offences in various banks and hence
he deserves maximum punishment and he relied the following precedents:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
Sl.No Citations
1. 1996(4) SCC 659
2. 2012 7 SCC 699
3. 2015 2 SCC 553
4. 2019 7 SCC 204
5. 2022 1 SCC (Cri.) 208
6. 2009 11 SCC 737
8. This court considered the rival submission and perused the
records and impugned judgment and the precedents relied by the respective
counsel.
9. The question that arises in this appeal is that whether the
conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned trial
judge vide impugned judgment requires any interference?
10.For the purpose of convenience and sequence, the rank of the
accused stated in the original C.C.No. 9 of 2003 is herein after referred in
this case. As discussed earlier, CBI have filed the final report against the
appellant and other following 6 accused for the offence under section 120B
IPC r/w Sec.419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Sec.511 of IPC r/w 420
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1988:-
1.RaajKafur @ Mohd.Asmath(A-1)
2.JohnFernando(A-2)
3.Sharmila(A-3)
4.S.Arumugam(A-4)
5.S.Sundarsingh(A-5)
6.Niyazkhan @ Abdul Razack
7.T.Mohan(A-6)
The appellant and Raaj Kafur @Mohd.Asmath are brothers.
Accused No. 2 and accused No.3 are husband and wife. The accused No. 4
was the manager of the Canara Bank, Breach Road, Branch, Tuticorin
during the occurrence period. Accused No.5 was the sub-staff of the said
branch. Accused No.6 a private individual had introduced Raaj Kafur @
Mohd. Asmath and the appellant to A4 manager. Accused No.2 acted as
introducer in the bogus account opened in the name of APN International
represented by the Raaj Kafur @ Mohd. Asmath. A new account was
opened in the name of A3 Sharmila to divert the fund from the APN
International in the name of Maria Reals in UCO Bank, Tuticorin and
amount was also withdrawn. She also acted as instrument in preparing the
rental deed on the basis of which the account was opened in the name of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
APN International in the A4's branch.
11.1. This Court in Crl.A.(MD).No. 565 of 2006 and Crl.A.(MD).
No. 580 of 2006 made a detailed discussion about the opening of the
account in the name of the non-existing APN International firm with wrong
information of doing manufacturing of dry flowers, preparation of the 20
bogus outstation cheques, presentation of the said bogus 20 out station
cheques in the account of APN International, credit of the amount of Rs.
76,58,751/- on the basis of 13 bogus cheques in the said account and the
consequential withdrawal of the said amount by the accused including this
appellant, and thwarting of 7 bogus withdrawal cheques upon finding of
forgery of bogus cheque and forged IBA and confirmed the conviction and
sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge in the parent C.C.No. 9 of
2003. The said judgment of this Court is also confirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP (Crl).No. 5215 of 2018.
11.2.From the perusal of the records and evidence, the following
material circumstances have emanated:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
Creation of
Sham and nominal rental agreement to
Open the bogus bank account
in the Canara Bank.
Opening of APN
International in Canara Bank
Beach road Branch,
Thoothukudi in A/c. No. CA2653
Using the said agreement
preparation of the
Bogus out station cheques
Removal of the
said forged outstations
cheques in the courier
and inserted the forged
inter branch Advices (IBA)
Amount credited in the said APN Withdrawn the said amount by A1
account, on the basis of the forged through the bearer cheques and
Inter branch advise payment cheques
11.3. This court makes discussion on the above said heading:
Accused No. 3 Sharmila is the owner of the building situated in
Tuticorin City in D.No. 320B, South Cotton Road, Maria Square. She and
the appellant created the rental agreement for the purpose of opening the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
account in the Branch where A4 was the Manager. To prove the same, the
said rental agreement was marked as Ex.P26 and it is not the case of A3
that she had no relationship with the appellant and they had only landlord
and tenant relationship. She actively participated in the entire conspiracy
by withdrawing the amount through the payment cheque issued by the
appellant and A1, in her account opened for the said purpose in the UCO
Bank, Tuticorin and she has not produced any rental receipt for the proof
of the landlord and tenant relationship. Therefore, the case of the
prosecution that the said document was created to open the current account
in A4's branch is clearly proved.
11.4. The opening of the current account in C.A.No. 2653 in the
Tuticorin Beach Road Branch of A4 in the name of non-existing
proprietorship concern namely, APN International represented by one
Abdul Razak with introduction of A2, who was none other than the
husband of A3 is also proved. According to the accused, the said
proprietorship concern was doing the business of exporting dry flower.
But, neither any registration certificate, customs documents nor foreign
export licenses or any valid documents were produced to show the
business. Even the bogus cheques presented in the said account were not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
concerned with the dry flower business. Therefore, the prosecution has
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the opening of the account in the
name of the Non-existing APN International proprietorship concern
represented by accused was with an intention to cheat the bank and defraud
the amount.
11.5. The appellant and his brother Raaj Kafur @Mohd.Asmath were
in the bank at the time of the opening of the current account in the name of
APN International and their meeting with A4 and their company with A2
and A3 is clearly proved through the evidence of PW6, PW7, PW15 and
PW16. The witnesses, namely, PW17 clearly deposed about the company
of the appellant along with A1 and opening of the account on the basis of
the said rental agreement to show the address proof with the introduction
of A2. The appellant himself impersonated as “Abdul Razak” by putting
the signature in the opening form. His evidence is cogent and also
corroborated with the evidence of PW9 who also deposed about the
presence of the appellant and his brother A1 and their secret talk with A4
and A5 and he also identified the appellant before the court during the
course of the trial. PW2 is the Manager of one Sathiya Agency, Tuticorin,
PW6 is the proprietor of M/s. Ultimate Computer Care and they also
deposed cogently that A2 introduced the appellant as a customer and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
appellant purchased the articles from their shop by issuing the cheques in
the name of the APN International and the cheques were marked as Ex.P7
and Ex.P12. Apart from that PW3, brother of A3 also identified the
appellant and spoken about his unusual company with his sister A3 and
brother in law. He further deposed that he handed over the Rs.5 Lakhs at
the instance of his sister.
11.6. A2 conducted the construction business in the name of Maria
construction and A3 opened the account in the name of Maria
Constructions. In the said construction company PW7 was working as a
Manager. He deposed about the new business venture intended to be
started by A2 with the guidance of A1 and appellant and their company in
the relevant period of time. He also deposed about the presentation of the
cheque of APN International in the account of the Maria constructions and
encashment of amount. Similarly, PW3, PW6 also identified the appellant.
Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved the fact of unholy company of
the remaining accused along with the appellant and the utilization of the
amount credited in the APN International account on the basis of the bogus
out stations cheques and forged IBA.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
11.7. The learned trial judge in parent case C.C.No. 9 of 2003 made
a detailed discussion about the conspired act of remaining accused along
with the appellant to cheat the bank and their further attempt to
encashment of amount on the basis of the forged outstation cheques which
was thwarted and the said finding was confirmed by this court and further
affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the said circumstances, the
prosecution clearly proved that the appellant is the nerve center for the
entire transaction of preparation of the following bogus outstation cheques
and the credit of the amount mentioned in the cheques by preparing of the
forged IBA:-
Sl. Ex.P-90-Pay-in-slip for FCS with its IBA.No and Rs.
No. collection of cheque for date
1. Rs.3,70,410/- FCS-192/ IBA No.*27924/
23.05.2001 28.05.2001/
(Ex.P-21) Rs.3,70,410/- (Ex.P.30)
2. Rs.4,65,000/- FCS-981/ IBA No.*27894/
14.05.2001 21.05.2001/
(Ex.P-24) Rs.4,65,000/-
(Ex.P.29)
3. Rs.4,92,000/- FCS-192 IBA No.*27925/
23.05.2001 28.05.2001/
(Ex.P-21) Rs.4,92,000/-
(x.P.31)
4. Rs.6,42,000/- OSC-1198 IBA No.*35396/
16.06.2001 21.06.2001/
(Ex.P-21) Rs.6,42,000/- (Ex.P.17)
5 Rs.5,42,000/- OSC-1199/ IBA No.*35438/
16.06.2001/ 21.06.2001/
(Ex.P.21) Rs.5,42,000/- (Ex.P.17)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
Sl. Ex.P-90-Pay-in-slip for FCS with its IBA.No and Rs.
No. collection of cheque for date
6. Rs.8,35,700/- OSC-1201/ IBA No.*35509/
16.06.2001/ 22.06.2001/
(Ex.P.21) Rs.8,35,700/- (Ex.P.32)
7. Rs.7,78,900/- OSC-1200/ IBA No.*35506/
16.06.2001/ 22.06.2001/
(Ex.P.21) Rs.7,78,900/-
(Ex.P.33)
8 Rs.7,95,000/- OSC-1202/ IBA No.*35595/
16.06.2001/ 23.06.2001/
(Ex.P.21) Rs.7,95,000/-
(Ex.P.34)
9. Rs.8,58,000/- OSC-1362/ IBA No.*39795/
07.07.2001/ 16.07.2001/
(Ex.P.21) Rs.8,58,000/-
(Ex.P.35)
10. Rs.3,33,600/- OSC-1352/ IBA No.*9343/
06.07.2001/ 21.07.2001/
(Ex.P.21) Rs.3,33,600/-
(Ex.P.16)
11. Rs.5,60,841/- OSC-1353/ IBA No.*9347/
06.07.2001/ 23.07.2001/
(Ex.P.21) Rs.5,60,841/-
(Ex.P.16)
12. Rs,4,46,000/- OSC-1430 IBA No.*329142/
(As per entry in 23.07.2001/
(Ex.P.36) Rs,4,46,000/-
(Ex.P.36)
13. Rs.5,38,500/- OSC-1431 IBA No.329437/
(As per entry in 24.07.2001/
(Ex.P.37) Rs.5,38,500/-
(Ex.P.37)
11.8. The details of the forged outstation cheques deposited in
C.A.No.2653 in the name of M/s.A.P.N. International are as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
Sl. Cheque Date Amount Issued by Bank
No No. (Rs)
1. 977081 23.05.2001 Rs. M/s.Vijay Exports SBI, Fort
3,70,410/- Mumbai
2. 912569 06.05.2001 Rs. A/c.No.864 SBI, Fort
4,65,000/- Mumbai
3. 977099 02.06.2001 Rs. M/s.Vijay Exports SBI, Fort
4,92,000/- Mumbai
4. 977087 23.05.2001 Rs. M/s.Vijay Exports SBI, Fort
6,42,000/- Mumbai
5. 977090 20.05.2001 Rs. M/s.Vijay Exports SBI, Fort
5,42,000/- Mumbai
6. 977086 21.05.2001 Rs. M/s.Vijay Exports SBI, Fort
8,35,700/- Mumbai
7. 977079 23.05.2001 Rs. M/s.Vijay Exports SBI, Fort
7,78,900/- Mumbai
8. 977089 23.05.2001 Rs. M/s.Vijay Exports SBI, Fort
7,95,000/- Mumbai
9. 977098 11.06.2001 Rs. M/s.Vijay Exports SBI, Fort
8,58,800/- Mumbai
10. 527922 02.07.2001 Rs. Indian Bank,
3,33,600/- Cosmopolitan
Hospital Branch,
Trivandrum.
11. 527920 30.06.2001 Rs. Indian Bank,
5,60,841/- Cosmopolitan
Hospital Branch,
Trivandrum.
12. 933053 07.07.2001 Rs. Deccan Exports UCO Bank,
4,46,000/- Perambur,
Chennai.
13. 933051 05.07.2001 Rs. Deccan Exports UCO Bank,
5,38,500/- Perambur,
Chennai.
14. 933064 15.06.2001 Rs. Deccan Exports UCO Bank,
6,25,000/- Perambur,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
Sl. Cheque Date Amount Issued by Bank
No No. (Rs)
15. 933065 15.07.2001 Rs. Deccan Exports UCO Bank,
5,10,000/- Perambur,
Chennai.
16. 933054 15.07.2001 Rs. Deccan Exports UCO Bank,
6,32,000/- Perambur,
Chennai.
17. 119635 06.07.2001 Rs. Deepak Vijaya Bank,
6,70,000/- Enterprises Race Course
Road,
Bangalore.
18. 119634 06.07.2001 Rs. Deepak Vijaya Bank,
7,82,000/- Enterprises Race Course
Road,
Bangalore.
19. 119639 24.07.2001 Rs. Deepak Vijaya Bank,
5,72,000/- Enterprises Race Course
Road,
Bangalore.
20. 119638 27.07.2001 Rs.32,000/- Deepak Vijaya Bank,
Enterprises Race Course
Road,
Bangalore.
11.9.The following are the details of the corresponding OSC
Schedules prepared, but intercepted and not sent, but for which forged
IBAs were forwarded to the branch:-
S.No. Cheque No. OSC No & Date IBA No. & Date
1. 977081 FCS-192; 23.05.2001 27924; 28.05.2001
2. 912569 981; 14.05.2001 27894; 21.05.2004
3. 977099 FCS-192; 23.05.2001 27925; 28.05.2001
4. 977087 1198 ; 14.05.2001 35396; 21.06.2001
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
S.No. Cheque No. OSC No & Date IBA No. & Date
5. 977090 1199; 14.06.2001 35438; 21.06.2001
6. 977086 1201;14.06.2001 35509; 22.06.2001
7. 977079 1200; 14.06.2001 35506; 22.06.2001
8. 977089 1202;14.06.2001 35595; 23.06.2001
9. 977098 1262; 06.07.2001 35795; 16.07.2001
10. 527922 1352; 05.07.2001 9343; 21.07.2001
11. 527920 1353;05.07.2001 9347; 23.07.2001
12. 933053 1430; 16.07.2001 329142;23.07.2001
13. 933051 1431; 16.07.2001 329437; 24.07.2001
14. 933064 1501; 24.07.2001 Not available
15. 933065 1502; 24.07.2001 332506; 30.07.2001
16. 933054 1503; 24.07.2001 332625;01.08.2001
17. 119635 1498;24.07.2001 552465; 01.08.2001
18. 119634 1499; 24.07.2001 Not received
19. 119639 1579; 31.07.2001 Not received
20. 119638 1580; 31.07.2001 Not received
11.10. The prosecution also proved through the presentation of the
following 7 outstation cheques and their intentional attempt to encash the
same which was thwarted:-
Sl.No Cheque No. Date Amount in
Rs.
1 933064 15.06.2001 6,25,000/-
2 933065 15.07.2001 5,10,000/-
3 933054 15.05.2001 6,32,000/-
4 119635 06.07.2001 6,70,000/-
5 119634 06.07.2001 7,82,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
6 119639 24.07.2001 5,72,000/-
7 119638 27.07.2001 3,20,000/-
11.11.The submission for the learned counsel for the appellant that
the prosecution has not proved the identity of the appellant by conducting
the test identification parade and other method, cannot be accepted. His
company on various occasions from the opening of the account along with
A2, A3 andA4 is clearly proved through the bank witnesses and also
through the independent witnesses apart from the deposition of PW3, who
is none other than the brother in law of A1 and brother of A3.
11.12. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are
no circumstances to prove the conspiracy and this submission is to be
rejected on the ground that, as already discussed, that he was the kingpin
for the entire transaction in preparation of the bogus cheques, forged IBA
and withdrawal of the amount from the account of A3 and also other
persons through the cheque issued in the name of APN International. He
was instrumental in the presentation of the forged outstation cheques from
various cities in the name of various exporters purported to have been
issued in favour of the APN International. Therefore, in all aspects
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
prosecution clearly proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this
court finds no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant and the appeal lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed.
12.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction
and sentence passed by the learned II Additional District Court for CBI
Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.3 of 2006, dated 15.12.2020, is hereby
confirmed. The bail bond executed by the appellant is hereby cancelled
and the learned trial Judge is directed to secure the accused to make him
undergo the remaining part of sentence of imprisonment.
04.03.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss
To:
1.The II Additional District Court for CBI Cases,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
SPE/CBI/EOW, Chennai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section(Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
04.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
