Madras High Court
Gunaseelan vs The State Rep.By on 4 March, 2025
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 22.07.2024
Pronounced on : 04.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493, 506, 521, 562, 563,
570, 744, 751 and 830 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P(MD).No.5859 of 2024
Crl.A(MD).No.493 of 2023:
Gunaseelan ... Appellant
Vs.
The State Rep.by,
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBI:SCB, Chennai.
(RC 9 (S) /2010) ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C.
to call for the records relating to the Judgment dated 12.06.2023 made in
C.C.No.7 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Court(CBI
Cases), Madurai and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against
the appellant/accused No.6 and allow the above appeal by acquitting the
appellant/accused No.6.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Thirumahilmaran
For Respondent : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
1/90
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
Crl.A(MD).No.506 of 2023:
A.Kumaresan ... Appellant
Vs.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBI:SCB, Chennai.
(in RC 9 (S) /2010/CBI/SCB/Chn) ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C.
to call for the records relating to the Judgment passed in C.C.No.7 of 2012,
dated 12.06.2023, on the file of the II Additional District Court (CBI
Cases), Madurai and set aside the same and acquit the appellant/accused
No.3 from the charge leveled against him.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Gowrishankar
For Respondent : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
Crl.A(MD).No.521 of 2023:
1. Paul Johnson
2. Jesuvin Febi ... Appellants
Vs.
The State Rep.by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBI:SCB, Chennai.
( RC 9 (S) of 2010 ) ... Respondent
2/90
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C.
to call for the records relating to the Judgment dated 12.06.2023, made in
C.C.No.7 of 2012, on the file of the II Additional District Court (CBI
Cases), Madurai and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against
the appellants and allow above appeal by acquitting the appellants.
For Appellants : Ms.Benazir Begum
For Respondent : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
Crl.A(MD).No.562 of 2023:
S.Sundaresan ... Appellant
Vs.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBI:SCB, Chennai.
( RC 9 (S) /2010) ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. to
call for the entire records pertaining to the judgment delivered by the II
Additional District Court (CBI cases), Madurai, in C.C.No.7 of 2012 vide
judgment dated 12.06.2023 and set aside the same and consequently acquit
the appellant honorably.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Anand
For Respondent : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
3/90
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
Crl.A(MD).No.563 of 2023:
A.Jesuraj ... Appellant
Vs.
State represented by,
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBI:SCB, Chennai. ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C.
to call for the records and set aside the order of conviction and sentence
passed in C.C.No.7 of 2012 dated 12.06.2023 by the Learned II Additional
District Court (CBI Cases) under PC Act, 1988, Madurai, Madurai District
and allow this appeal and acquit the appellant/accused No.14 from the
charges leveled against him.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Anand
For Respondent : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
Crl.A(MD).No.570 of 2023:
C.Arumugam ... Appellant
Vs.
The State rep.by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBI:SCB, Chennai.
( Crime No.RC9(S)/2010/CBI/SCB/Chn) ... Respondent
4/90
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to
call for the records relating to the Judgment passed in C.C.No.7/2012 dated
12.06.2023 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions
Judge, (CBI Case), Madurai and to set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan
For Respondent : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
Crl.A(MD).No.744 of 2023:
J.Raja Thomas ... Appellant
Vs.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBI:SCB, Chennai.
RC 9 (S) /2010 ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C.
to call for the records and set aside the Judgment of the II Additional
District Judge (CBI Cases), Madurai District dated 12.06.2023 in C.C.No.7
of 2012.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus
For Respondent : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
5/90
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
Crl.A(MD).No.751 of 2023:
1.R.Mahalingam
2.R.Thiruppathi
3.Thangarajan
4.R.Vadamalai ... Appellants
Vs.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBI:SCB, Chennai.
Crime No.RC 9 (S) /2010/CBI/SCB/CHN) ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C.
to call for the records relating to the judgment in C.C.No.7 of 2012 dated
12.06.2023 on the file of the II Additional District Court (CBI
Cases),Madurai, and to set aside the same and allow this Criminal Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Udhayakumar
For Respondent : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
Crl.A(MD).No.830 of 2023:
1. R.Murali
2.Sharun Rashit ... Appellants
Vs.
6/90
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
The State Rep.by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBI:SCB, Chennai.
(RC 9 (S) /2010) ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C.
to call for the records in C.C.No.7 of 2012 dated 12.06.2023 passed by the
learned II Additional District Court(CBI Cases), Madurai, and to set aside
the same.
For Appellants : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
COMMON JUDGMENT
The above appellants are the accused in C.C No. 7 of 2012 on the
file of the II Additional District Judge, Special Court for the CBI cases,
Madurai.
2.They were arrayed as the accused number A1, A2, A4, A3, A5, A6,
A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16, A17 & A18. Among the
original accused, A5 and A18 died during the pendency of trial. The
remaining accused faced the trial and A4 was acquitted from all the
charges. The remaining accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15 & 17 were convicted and sentenced to undergo the following sentences
for the offences as stated below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
2.1. A6 has filed Crl.A.(MD).No.493 of 2023 challenging the
following conviction and sentence of imprisonment:
Crl.A. Rank of the Charges proved Punishment
(MD). Accused and under sections (Imprisonment and Fine)
No. Name
i) U/s.120B r/w 420 Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years
IPC and Sec.7 and and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in
13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of default to undergo Rigorous
PC Act, 1988. Imprisonment for 9 months.
ii) U/s.7 of PC Act, Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years
1988 and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in
A-6 default to undergo Rigorous
493/ Imprisonment for 8 months.
2023 N.Gunaseelan
iii) U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1) Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years
(d) of PC Act, 1988 and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in
default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 9 months.
The substantial period of sentences shall run concurrently
2.2. A3 has filed Crl.A.(MD).No.506 of 2023 challenging the
following conviction and sentence of imprisonment:
Crl.A. Rank of the Charges proved Punishment
(MD). Accused and under sections (Imprisonment and Fine)
No. Name
120-B r/w 420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years
Sec.8 & 13(2) r/w and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in
506/ A-3 13(1) (d) of PC Act default to undergo Rigorous
2023 Kumaresan 1988 Imprisonment for 6 months.
u/s.8 of PC Act, 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in
default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 6 months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
2.3. A-1 and A-7 have filed Crl.A.(MD).No.521 of 2023, challenging
the following conviction and sentence of imprisonment:
Crl.A. Rank of the Charges proved Punishment
(MD). Accused and under sections (Imprisonment and Fine)
No. Name
A-1 120-B r/w 420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and
Sec.8 & 13(2) r/w to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default
Paul Johnson 13(1) (d) of PC Act to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
1988 6 months.
u/s.8 of PC Act, Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and
1988 to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default
to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
6 months.
521 / 120-B r/w 420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and
2023 A-7 and Sec.8 & 13(2) to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default
r/w 13(1) (d) of PC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
Jesuvin Febi Act 1988 6 months.
u/s.420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and
to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default
to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
6 months.
u/s.8 of PC Act, Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and
1988 to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default
to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
6 months.
2.4. A17 has filed Crl.A.(MD).No.562 of 2023, challenging the
following conviction and sentence of imprisonment:
Crl.A Rank of the Charges proved Punishment
(MD) Accused under sections (Imprisonment and Fine)
No. and Name
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
120-B r/w 420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
and Sec.8 & 13(2) r/w pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
562/ A-17 13(1) (d) of PC Act undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
2023 Sundaresan 1988 months.
u/s.420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
months.
u/s.8 of PC Act, 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
months.
2.5. A14 has filed Crl.A.(MD).No.563 of 2023, challenging the
following conviction and sentence of imprisonment:
Crl.A Rank of the Charges proved Punishment
(MD) Accused under sections (Imprisonment and Fine)
No. and Name
120-B r/w 420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
and Sec.8 & 13(2) r/w pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
563/ A-14 13(1) (d) of PC Act undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
2023 Jesuraj 1988 months.
u/s.420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
months.
u/s.8 of PC Act, 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
2.6. A8 has filed Crl.A.(MD).No.570 of 2023, challenging the
following conviction and sentence of imprisonment:
Crl.A Rank of the Charges proved Punishment
(MD) Accused under sections (Imprisonment and Fine)
No. and Name
120-B r/w 420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
and Sec.8 & 13(2) r/w pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
570/ A-8 13(1) (d) of PC Act undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
2023 Arumugam 1988 months.
u/s.420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
months.
u/s.8 of PC Act, 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
months.
2.7. A9 has filed Crl.A.(MD).No.744 of 2023, challenging the
following conviction and sentence of imprisonment:
Crl.A Rank of the Charges proved Punishment
(MD) Accused under sections (Imprisonment and Fine)
No. and Name
120-B r/w 420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
and Sec.8 & 13(2) r/w pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
744/ A-9 13(1) (d) of PC Act undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
2023 1988 months.
u/s.420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
Raja pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
Thomas undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
months.
u/s.8 of PC Act, 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
2.8. A-2, A-11, A-12 and A-13, have filed Crl.A.(MD).No.751 of
2023 challenging the following conviction and sentence of imprisonment:
Crl.A Rank of the Charges proved under Punishment
(MD)No. Accused and sections (Imprisonment and Fine)
Name
120-B r/w 420 IPC and Sec.8 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a
& 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo
Act 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
u/s.420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo
A-2
Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
Mahalingam u/s.8 of PC Act, 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
120-B r/w 420 IPC and Sec.8 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a
751/ & 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo
2023 Act 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
u/s.420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo
A-11 Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
Thiruppathi
u/s.8 of PC Act, 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
120-B r/w 420 IPC and Sec.8 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a
& 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo
Act 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
u/s.420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo
A-12
Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
Thangarajan u/s.8 of PC Act, 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
A-13 120-B r/w 420 IPC and Sec.8 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a
Vadamalai & 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo
Act 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
u/s.420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
u/s.8 of PC Act, 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
2.9. A-10, A-15 have filed Crl.A.(MD).No.830 of 2023, challenging
the following conviction and sentence of imprisonment:
Crl.A Rank of the Charges proved Punishment
(MD) Accused under sections (Imprisonment and Fine)
No. and Name
120-B r/w 420 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
Sec.8 & 13(2) r/w 13(1) pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
A-10 (d) of PC Act 1988 undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
months.
u/s.420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
Murali pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
months.
u/s.8 of PC Act, 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
months.
830/
A-15 120-B r/w 420 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
Sec.8 & 13(2) r/w 13(1) pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
(d) of PC Act 1988 undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
Sharun months.
Rasith u/s.420 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
months.
u/s.8 of PC Act, 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
months.
3.Challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed against
them, the appellants/accused have filed the separate appeals as stated
supra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
For better appreciation of the facts, the rank mentioned in CC is
referred in the present appeals also.
4.A6 was the Bank Manager of the Syndicate Bank, Dindigul main
branch. During the year 2015 to 2018, he conspired with the remaining
appellants/accused in the above appeals and sanctioned loan by obtaining
false documents and thereby, they caused loss to the tune of
Rs.1,06,83,052/- Apart from that, A1 acted as a middle man and acted as
agent to A6 and they received amount of Rs.70,000/- from each witness,
namely, Pappathi/P.W.8 and P.W.9 and the same was taken as bribe. The
said allegation was brought to the knowledge of the higher officials and
hence, the Syndicate Bank vigilance department conducted an enquiry and
found many illegalities in granting various loans. Therefore, they directed
P.W.2 the succeeding manager to prefer a complaint before the CBI. The
CBI upon receipt of the complaint registered a case in R.C.No.9 of 2010
for the offence under Sections 120-B r/w 420 of IPC, 468, 471, 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against number of
officials and individual borrowers. After the investigation, they deleted
number of bank officials and borrowers and filed final report against 18
persons including A6/Bank Manager, number of borrowers, middle man
(A1), Auditor for the offence punishable under Section 120-B r/w 420 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
IPC and Section 8 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.7 of 2012. A5(Charted
Accountant) filed quash petition before this Court and the same was
allowed in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5276 of 2013. The charge was framed against
the remaining 17 accused. Accused No.18/S.Subramanian died during the
pendency of the trial. Hence, there was huge loss.
4.1.After appearance of the accused, copies of records were
furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Judge, on
perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being satisfied that there
existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellant, framed charges
under Sections 120 B r/w 420 of IPC 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 471, 420
and 468 of IPC and the same was read over and explained to them and
when questioned, the accused/appellants denied the charges and pleaded
not guilty and stood for trial.
4.2.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 27
witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.27 and exhibited 76 documents as Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.76. After recording the evidence, the learned trial Judge examined the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
accused under Section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating
materials available against them. they denied the evidence as false and
further stated that a false case was foisted against them. A3, (Kumaresan)
examined himself as D.W.2 and marked Ex.D4, Ex.D5, Ex.D6, Ex.D7,
Ex.D8 and Ex.D9. D.W.1 was examined to substantiate the plea of A1/Paul
Johnson that P.W.9 borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- from A1 upon
executing the promissory note and Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 were marked. The
other accused neither produced any documents nor examined any witness
on their side.
4.3. The learned trial Judge after considering the same acquitted A4
and convicted the appellants under the above stated offences and passed
the sentence as stated above by passing the impugned judgment. The same
was challenged by the appellants and each learned counsel made detailed
submission on facts as well on law.
5. Common submission made by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants:
The case of the prosecution is that individual borrowers who have
been arrayed as accused in these cases, namely, Accused Nos.2, 3, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 conspired with A6 to obtain loan by obtaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
the saral form with inflated amount from Charted Accountant A5 and
boosted valuation certificate from A4 and obtained loan and diverted the
same without utilizing the loan amount to complete the construction of
house. The case against the Charted Accountant, namely, A5 was quashed.
The learned trial Judge acquitted A4 also. Therefore, the case of the
prosecution, individual borrowers submitted inflated saral form and
boosted valuation certificate has no legs to stand on. When the loan was
granted with proper valuation certificate and all the loans are secured one,
the CBI has no jurisdiction to register the case and pressurize the creditors
to make the payment without initiating the recovery proceedings. It is the
case of the mere failure to make the payment and hence, as per the loan
agreement, the bank should have initiated the recovery proceedings as per
the recovery laws. Recovery proceedings also were initiated under the
SARFAESI Act. Without continuing the same, initiation of the criminal
proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. The CBI has not
conducted fair investigation in this case. They have not arrayed number of
creditors as accused who are also similarly placed. They had adopted pick
and choose method and arrayed some of the creditors as witnesses and
arrayed the some of the creditors as accused. They have also deleted
number of bank officials in spite of the incriminating materials available
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
against them. In-fact no sufficient materials were either collected or
sufficient witnesses were examined to prove the conspiracy between A6,
A1 and the remaining creditors. They have registered the case even before
the expiry of 18 months moratorium period mentioned in each loan
account. They have also not deleted the number of accused/borrowers who
had settled the due amount before filing final report by applying the
principle of parity ie., number of witnesses who had settled the amount
who were already arrayed as accused were deleted from the list of accused.
They had picked some of the creditors and arranged for re-scheduling the
loan and obtained the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and added
them as witnesses in this case. The said opportunities were not given to
the number of the accused herein. There was no evidence adduced to prove
the diversion of fund. The valuer/P.W.7 who was examined on the side of
the prosecution is not a competent person and he has not valued the
property as per the Government guidelines and hence, conviction on the
basis of the said valuation report is not legally valid. The above common
submission was made by all the learned counsel in detailed manner. Apart
from the said detailed common submission, each counsel on record
appearing for the individual appellant made some specific submissions and
the said submissions are as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
6. Mr.Thirumayilmaran, learned counsel appearing for A6/the
bank manager in Crl.A.(MD).No.493 of 2023 made the following
submissions:
6.1.The loan was granted by the manager on the basis of the
valuation certificate issued by A4. Apart from that, the chartered
accountant also recommended for granting of loan. The legal advisor also
gave a legal opinion to grant loan. On the basis of the same, he has
sanctioned loan, In the sanctioned loan, there was periodical repayment of
the loan amount and also even before the moratorium period, the FIR was
registered and hence all the borrowers were unable to repay the amount.
All the borrowers were ready to pay the amount periodically as per the
terms of the loan account, but the initiation of the legal proceedings
hindered making the repayment of loan. Apart from that, he acted only on
the basis of the valuation certificate issued by A4. He was acquitted by the
learned trial judge. Hence the basic substratum of the case has gone. The
core of the prosecution case is that he granted loan on the basis of the false
valuation certificate issued by A4, when he was acquitted, no case is made
out against him. Hence, he seeks for acquittal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
6.2.The learned counsel further submitted that all the loan was
granted only after obtaining the marketable title. On the basis of the
marketable title, if there is any default, recovery proceeding can be
initiated either through debt recovery tribunal or by filing a suit. Without
doing that, initiation of prosecution against the officer amounts to abuse of
process of law. Hence he seeks for acquittal.
6.3.The learned counsel further elaborated the argument on reading
the entire evidence of the prosecution in minute, relating to the
involvement of each accused. The counsel submitted that volume of the
evidence is available on record and from the deposition of the bank
officials that the recovery proceedings is the viable one, and hence filing
criminal case amounts amount to abuse of process of law and the CBI
erroneously filed the final report against the accused without closing the
case that it is a case for recovery of loan through due process of law. In
these circumstances, he seeks for acquittal.
6.4.The learned counsel further submitted that when all the
borrowers were ready to pay the balance amount, the bank officers refused
to receive the amount, citing the pendency of investigation by CBI and
therefore, there was some hitch to the recovery proceedings and hence,
there was no loss at all. Apart from that learned counsel further submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
that the bank officers acted as per norms. It is not case of the prosecution
that he granted loan without following the procedure. He acted on the basis
of the documents submitted by the valuer and the chartered account. He
believed the certificate issued by the chartered account and the valuer. In
the said circumstances, convicting the bank officer for non-recovery of the
loan amounts to abuse of process of law. Apart from that, according to the
counsel, the loan amount was not fully distributed. The loan is distributed
state by stage. Without payment of the entire amount and even without
waiting till the moratorium period, the case has been registered which
amounts to abuse of process of law. The learned Counsel further submitted
that the grant of loan and initiation of recovery proceedings is the common
feature in banking, but without initiation such proceedings prosecution has
been initiated. In all the cases the prosecution failed to prove that the
appellant and the other borrowers colluded together and caused loss to the
bank. Apart from that the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.9 namely, Papathi and
her husband is unbelievable. They obtained loan in the year 2008 and they
made the complaint at the instigation of the CBI officer stating that he
received bribe in the year 2011. There is no corroborative evidence. They
are not trustworthy witnesses and the conviction and the sentence imposed
against him on the basis of the evidence of said witnesses under section 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
and 13 (i)(d) of the prevention of Corruption Act, is not correct. He further
elaborated the argument that to sustain the conviction under section 7 and
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevision of Corruption Act, 1988, the demand
and acceptance must be proved. In this case, no evidence is available for
the demand and acceptance against A6. In the said circumstances, he seeks
for acquittal. He also finally concluded that the departmental proceeding
was initiated and action was taken and he was removed from service.
Hence, he suffered a lot and hence, he seeks for allowing the appeal,
holding that the appellant has not committed any offence.
7.Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.
(MD).No.562 of 2023 made the following elaborate submissions:
The learned counsel Mr.Anand, appeared for A-17 and A-14. He
stated that they furnished the marketable title and completed 90% of
construction and submitted the stage completion certificate. They also
regularly paid the due amount and in the said circumstances, the case
registered against the true borrowers amounts to miscarriage of justice. The
counsel submitted the charge also is vague. In the charge, no material
particulars were mentioned. Further, no particulars are available as to who
made conspiracy with which accused and there is mis-joinder of charges.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
They informed the bank stated that they were ready to pay the amount but,
due to the registration of the case, they were not allowed to repay the
amount. He further elaborated the argument stating that even before expiry
of the moratorium period, Criminal case registered . Therefore, there is
miscarriage of justice and hence, he seeks for the interference in the
judgment. There was no disclosure of total amount of cheating. The
learned counsel further submitted that the said Papati and her husband also
are borrowers, and they were added as witnesses after obtaining statement
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Similar opportunity was not given to him to
put forth his case. In the said circumstances, he seeks for acquittal.
7.1.The learned counsel further submitted that not only investigating
agency, the court also has not followed the principle of parity. He means
that A4, namely the valuer and A5, the chartered accountant were
acquitted. In the said circumstances, the prosecution against these
appellants are not valid. In all aspects, the prosecution failed to prove the
case. The prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 463 IPC,
that is preparation of the false document. According to the prosecution, A4
prepared the false document and he was acquitted. In the said
circumstances, no evidence is available to prove the charged offence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
against the appellants and instead of taking recovery proceedings, the help
of CBI was taken to file a false case. Hence, he seeks for the acquittal.
8.Mr.R.Uday Kumar, learned counsel appearing for A-2, A-11,
A-12 and A-13, made the following submissions:
7.1. The bank has not disbursed the entire sanctioned loan amount to
A2, A11, A12, A13. Without disbursing the entire loan amount, the case
was registered against the appellants as if they cheated the bank and
defrauded the bank amount. During the pendency of the case, the Bank
was not willing accept one time settlement by the loances. After the
conviction, as per the condition of this Court, each deposited 3 lakhs was
before the Court below. Except A-11, all have paid the amount and came
out on bail. A-11, was unable to pay the amount and he is inside the jail
and he seeks for acquittal. He also relied the number of judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court to substantiate his submission.
9. Mr.vijaya Raghavan, learned Senior counsel appearing for A8,
made the following submissions:
The registration of Criminal case, without initiating the recovery
proceedings or filing civil suit, amounts to abuse of process of law. They
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
received the amount for construction of the house and there was no
evidence adduced that they used the said amount for any illegal purpose.
Without any evidence showing illegal use, it should be construed that the
amount was used for construction of the house. When they were ready to
settle the entire amount with the interest as agreed by the agreement
entered by the accused with the bank, the same should have been allowed.
But the bank refused to receive the amount citing the investigation. In the
said circumstances, he seeks for the acquittal.
9.1.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the valuation
of property is not correct. The property is a valuable property and the same
was properly assessed by the valuer and the said valuer was acquitted.
When the valuer was acquitted, the certificate issued by him is legally
valid. In the said circumstances, the basic fabric of the case goes. Hence,
he seeks for collapses acquittal.
9.2According to the learned Senior Counsel, the case was registered
case prematurely. A6, according to the report is concerned, there is some
allegation against A6. To punish the accused, all the creditors were
wrongly roped as tools to convict A6. The Senior Counsel also submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
that it is immaterial to see the purpose for which amount is being utilized.
There was no condition in the loan agreement. He further submitted that
even though the claim is barred by limitation, he is ready to settle the entire
amount. Further, his client was ready to settle the entire due and only
because of the registration of the case he could not do so. In the said
circumstances, it is false to allege the loan was granted to ineligible
borrowers the theory of the ineligible borrowers and they all submitted the
documents to show the markable title. Even now, the bank can initiate the
recovery proceedings and the value of the property is much higher. Now,
the proceeding has also been initiated under SARFEAESI Act, In the said
circumstances, he seeks for acquittal.
10.Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, learned counsel appearing for
A- 10 and A-15, made the following submissions.
10.1. A-10 and A-15 is concerned, the prosecution alleged that they
constructed substandard house. To prove substandard house has been built
no material evidence has been produced. He submitted that P.W.7's
evidence to prove the substandard construction is not sufficient He also
stated that P.Ws.11, 14 and 15 did not pay the loan amount but, they have
not been arrayed as accused. Both the court and CBI have not treated all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
the persons who are in the same similar footing equally as that of P.Ws.11,
14 and 15. So far as the conspiracy is concerned, as a matter of fact, the
prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt specifying of the date
of the conspiracy and time of the conspiracy. Apart from that, he also
submitted that the vigilance department attached to the bank after receiving
the report, sent it to P.W.2 along with the written communication to register
the case. According to the counsel, they said written communication is the
earliest complaint. Same was not produced and hence, the prosecution,
burked the same and hence, adverse inference is to be taken. The same was
not also considered by the trial court.
10.2. The counsel further submitted that there was no intention to
cheat the bank from the inception. They borrowed the loan. They deposited
the title deed without any encumbrance and also there was no circumstance
to infer that there was intentional deception at the time of raising the loan.
All the legal formalities were complied with. He also stated that getting the
loan amount and not paying the amount, does not amount to criminal case.
They should have filed the suit for recovery or initiated the recovery
proceeding under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act. Without doing that, the criminal prosecution can not be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
launched against the appellant that they had the intention to cheat the bank.
Now, the recovery proceedings have been initiated and therefore, he seeks
for acquittal.
11.Mr.R.Gowrisankar, learned counsel for A3, made the
following submissions:
According to the prosecution, A3 is the Government servant. He
obtained loan in the name of his mother, Muthulakshmi. He stood as a
surety to the said loan in addition to the execution of the mortgage deed in
respect of the property and also as surety to his mother who died due to
cancer. The other witnesses Tamilarasi, Revathi also stood as a sureties to
the said loan and they were not added as accused. Before registration of the
case, the amount was periodically recovered from the surety's account.
Subsequently, after the registration of the case, during the pendency of the
above criminal case, the bank official accepted the OTS scheme and the
same was paid. And the said document was marked as Ex.D7. The same
was not considered by the learned trial judge and hence he seeks for the
consideration of the same and exonerate him from the charges. He
specifically argued that on the basis of the ground Nos.G and H stated in
memorandum of grounds that there was unfair investigation and unfair
trial. Hence, he seeks for acquittal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
11.1. Mrs. Benazir Begum, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.521 of 2023, made the following elaborate
submissions on the basis of the material available on record:
She submitted that A7 is wife of A1. She was working as a teaching
assistant and eligible to obtain loan and she obtained the loan providing
sufficient surety and upon execution of the mortgage deed and she repaid
the entire amount. Therefore, A7 is entitled to acquittal. She also placed
the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 (2) SCC
579 and the unreported case of this court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.525 of 2020.
11.2. The learned counsel would further submit that according to the
prosecution, A1 acted as middleman and he received the bribe amount on
behalf of A6/Bank Manager and hence, in addition to the charge under
Section 120-B, r/w 420 of IPC, the charge under Section 8 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 has been framed. But, no evidence was adduced to
prove both the charged offences. P.W.8 and her husband were examined
after very long time and they were tutored witnesses and they deposed
under duress and hence, conviction on the basis of their evidence is not
legally correct. The learned trial Judge has not properly considered the
evidence of D.W.1 and has followed different yardstick to appreciate the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
defence witness. Therefore, miscarriage of justice is caused. D.W.1 clearly
deposed about borrowing of money by P.W.8 from accused No.1 and he
also produced the promissory note. Therefore, there are two views on
record in respect of the receipt of the amount from P.W.8. Hence, benefit of
doubt is to be given to the accused. She also submitted that no clinching
evidence is available on record to prove the conspiracy between A1 and the
remaining accused. She relied the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in 2013(14) SCC 153 and 2009 (15) SCC 200 and hence, she
seeks acquittal.
12. Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/ in Crl.A.(MD).No.744 of 2023 made the following detailed
submission:
He stated that all the creditors were arrayed as accused/and used as
tools to convict. Every small infraction in granting loan is not a reason to
file a criminal case. CBI has not conducted investigation in proper manner.
He has settled the entire due amount even before registration of the case.
He obtained loan as per the procedure and he furnished valid documents to
obtain the loan. Hence, he seeks acquittal. He paid the amount of Rs.
2,50,000/-namely before the registration of the case. In the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
circumstance, the registration of the case and filing of the final report
against thim is not legally valid.
13.Thiru.Mohideen Bacha learned Special Public Prosecutor
made the following detailed submissions:
He has prepared detailed chart with particulars of incriminating
materials available against each accused in meticulous manner and
submitted that each loanee submitted documents with false particulars and
obtained loan. The acquittal of A4 is not a ground to acquit the appellants
herein on the basis of the available sufficient materials to hold their the
conviction. Even though A4 was acquitted, each loanee produced
documents with false particulars annexed with the loan application. The
said false particulars is within the knowledge of the bank Manager/A6.
Apart from that, all the accused is diverted the fund and utilized for some
other purpose. In none of the cases, the loanees had completed the
constructions. But, they received the amount for construction. As per the
loan agreement clause, both criminal prosecution and recovery proceedings
are permissible. In this case, each loanee obtained loan amount on the basis
of submitting false particulars and therefore, they are liable to be
prosecuted. Hence, the repeated contents of all the counsel that when the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
remedy of recovery proceeding is available, the registration of the criminal
case is not permissible cannot be accepted. The settlement of the loan
amount is not a ground to seek acquittal. The acquittal of A4 and discharge
of the auditor is not a ground to acquit the appellants when the available
materials prove the charged offences. There is clinching evidence to prove
the demand and acceptance on the part of A6 from the Papati and her
husband. Apart from that another witness also said that they handed over
the bribe amount directly to A6 and hence, the conviction and sentence
imposed under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 is in accordance with law. Similarly, sufficient materials were
adduced to prove the involvement of A1 for the charged offences. The
learned trial Judge has correctly relied the inspection report to convict the
accused. P.W.7 inspected the premises and found out the misdeeds and his
report was marked without any objection and therefore, the learned trial
Judge has considered the same and rendered a finding about the diversion
of the fund. The learned trial Judge also considered entire material and
convicted the accused. The learned trial Judge, considering the gravity of
the offence and the involvement of the huge amount, correctly awarded
sentence of imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
14.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that
each loanee furnished false particulars in the saral form and applied loan
with criminal intention even at the inception. Hence, they are liable for
prosecution under section 420 of IPC. Two accused obtained the loan and
had not constructed anything. Hence, from the above fact, it is clear that
they have had an intention to deceive from the inception. According to the
learned Special Public Prosecutor, prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt about the fraudulent act of furnishing false particulars in
saral form to obtain loan and diversion of the fund. He vehemently
countered that there is no necessity to prove the conspiracy by direct
evidence. In these type of case of documentary evidence conspiracy can
be inferred from the act of the parties. The public prosecutor submitted that
submitting false particulars to obtain loan itself is a strong circumstance to
prove the conspiracy. Apart from that they did not utilize the fund for the
purpose for which they obtained the loan. This would further strengthen
the case of conspiracy. In each case there is a false declaration and also
intentional act of furnishing false particulars to obtain loan. Therefore, he
seeks to confirm the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
15. Discussion on submissions:
15.1. The argument of the both counsels were concluded. This Court
considered the rival submissions and also the meticulous submissions
made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record and the precedents cited by the both parties.
15.2.The question in this case is whether the conviction and
sentence passed against the appellants in the impugned judgment is
sustainable?
15.3.The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that A6 was
the manager of the Syndicate Bank, Dindigul. He conspired with 20
housing loanees and flouted all banking norms, procedure and fraudulently
sanctioned housing loan to 20 persons causing wrongful loss to the tune of
Rs.1,06,83,052/- and made the corresponding wrongful gain. He is said to
have granted loan to the said 20 persons on the basis of the valuation
certificate given by A4 and certificate of income issued by A5
(Chitrambala Nadarajan discharged as per the order of this Court in quash
petition in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5276 of 2013). He sanctioned the loan on the
basis of the above said person's certificate and without proper verification
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
and end use of the loan amounts and released the said loan amounts. Due
to the said improper verification, they committed default in repayment.
Therefore, an enquiry was conducted by the department and found that the
loans were granted against procedure and without proper verification. The
loan also was granted to the ineligible persons. Therefore, FIR was
registered against number of the bank officials and other loanees. After
investigation, the Investigating Agency have not found sufficient material
against the other the bank officials except involvement of A6. During the
investigation, number of loanees settled the amount and hence, some of the
loanees were deleted in the final report and A3/mother obtained loan and
she died as a result of cancer and hence, she was deleted. Number of other
loanees were deleted on the ground that they got regularisation of the loan.
Finally, the final report was filed against A1 to A18 for the alleged offence
under Sections 120(b) r/w 420 of IPC and 8 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of
prevention of Corruption Act. The auditor was arrayed as A5. He said to
have furnished the forged saral form inflating the income of the each
individual loanee in order to show the repaying capacity. A4 is the valuer
and he is said to have given the valuation with inflated value of the land as
well as building. On the basis of their certificates, A6 granted loan. During
the process, he is said to have received bribe through A1 and also through
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
some witnesses directly. As per the finding of the learned trial Judge, there
was no evidence against A4 and hence, the valuation was correct.
A5/Auditor, who gave the certificate of the saral form with inflated income
to show the repaying capacity was discharged by this Court in the Crl.O.P.
(MD).No.5276 of 2013. In the said circumstances, now the only question
in this case is whether the prosecution established the remaining allegation
that A6 is granted loan to the each individual loanee without following the
prescribed norms and the mandatory procedure and improperly granted
loan without verifying the stage of the construction and end use of the loan
amount.
15.4. In this case, this Court perused the 13 volumes of the typed set
of papers and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.76 and evidence P.W.1 to P.W.27 and defence
witnesse D.W.1 and defence document Ex.D1 to Ex.P.D9 and the answers
given by all the accused during questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
and the written submission filed by the both the parties to the appeals
herewith and also the detailed written submission filed before the trial
Court and impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. From the
consideration of the above materials, this Court finds that there are five
types of allegations against the appellants herein. A6 bank manager
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
without verifying the end use of the loan amount and without verifying the
stage of the construction granted loan to number of accused who had not
even commenced the construction. Similarly, he had not verified the
incomplete construction and disbursed the loan before completion of the
entire structure. There are some cases where some loanees constructed the
house and there are some loanees who made substandard constructions
they are diversion of founds. There are some loanees who had paid the
entire amount and the same was not considered by the learned trial Judge.
15.5. To prove the substandard construction and the under valuation,
they examined P.W.7/Chandrasekaran, who made inspection at the request
of the branch Manager. He admitted that he has not enquired with the local
residents to verify the valuation. He also admitted that he has not stated in
his report about the valuation of the Government guidelines value. This
Court perused his reports corresponding to 20 loanees. He has annexed the
photograph for the construction of building by each loanee. The learned
Special public Prosecutor appearing for CBI submitted written argument
disclosing the stage of the construction after perusal of the said documents.
Some of the appellants utilized the entire installments put up the building
Number of the appellants have received the installments but, they have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
constructed only portion of the building and the remaining persons have
not constructed any structure in spite of receipt of the entire installments.
This Court considered both the above report with photographs.
16.Discussion on unfair investigation and unfair trial:
A detailed submission was made on behalf of the accused about the
unfair investigation and unfair trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated
the principle that merely because the Investigating Officer has committed
some lapse either intentionally or inadvertently it is not a ground to
disbelieve the available cogent and trustworthy evidence to sustain the
conviction imposed by the learned Trial Judge against the appellant.
Therefore, the plea of the appellant that they are entitled to acquittal on the
ground of lapse in investigation cannot be accepted.
17.Discussion on allegation of A1's Receipt of bribe:
The allegation against A1 is that he is said to have received bribe
from some of the loanees to facilitate the loan and hence, charge was
framed under Section 8 of the prevention of Corruption Act, apart from the
common charge under Section 120(b) r/w 420 of IPC. His wife was A7 and
she is said to be involved in the said loan transaction without properly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
utilizing of the amount. To prove the same, the prosecution examined the
following witnesses:-
17.1. P.W.8 and P.W.9 cogently deposed that he made a demand and
accepted the bribe. P.W.8 deposed that A1 received Rs.70,000/- from her as
a commission to grant the loan. She was subjected to incisive cross
examination and nothing was elicited to disbelieve her evidence. In fact,
she reaffirmed the same in the cross examination. P.W.9 also deposed that
she also gave Rs.70,000/- to A1 and she also corroborated the version of
P.W.9. A1 to disprove the said allegation, examined D.W.1 as his side.
D.W.1 deposed in chief examination that he knew A1 and P.W.9 received
an amount of Rs.70,000/- from A1, upon execution of the pronote/Ex.D.2.
The said document was objected by the learned Special Public Prosecutor
for the reason that the same was created to prove the defence. He also
admitted that except on the day except the day of the execution of the
pronote, he never saw him thereafter. In his cross examination, he admitted
that he does not know the address of A1. It is the case of the prosecution
and also number of witnesses and undisputed fact that A1 was a pastor. He
also deposed that he does not know the scribe of the pro-note. He came to
know about of P.W.9 only through his uncle. He has no knowledge about
the village of P.W.9. He further deposed that he could not remember
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
whether P.W.9 either put signature or the thumb impression on the pro-
note. He also admitted that there was no mentioning about date in the
promissory note. He also deposed that he was doing goat business and he
purchased goats from the friend of A1 and hence, he had acquaintance with
the friend of A1. In the above circumstances, the learned trial Judge
correctly disbelieved the witness and this Court also for the above stated
reasons holds that the said witness is a planted witness to escape from the
punishment. If the pro-note was available, the appellant/A1 could have
very well produced earlier. Apart from that, the CBI made search in his
house and the said pro-note was not available. There was no explanation
on the part of A1 to disown the same. Apart from that, there was no
explanation from A1 relating to transaction of Pappathi. The evidence of
the Pappathi is still on record and the same is trustworthy. Therefore, the
conviction passed against him under Section 8 of the Prevention of
corruption Act, needs no interference.
18.Discussion on the plea of A6/bank Manager:
The learned counsel appearing for A6/Bank Manager made the
detailed submission as stated above and more particularly, argued that he
granted loan on the basis of the certificate issued by the valuer(A4) and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
auditor (A5). The case against A5 had been quashed by this Court in
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5276 of 2013. The learned trial Judge acquitted A4.
Therefore, he has to be acquitted. Apart from that, the conviction against
A6 can not be maintained only on the basis of the evidence of
Chandrasekaran/P.W.7. He further submitted that the conviction against A6
under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not
maintainable on the ground that there was no demand and acceptance and
there was no evidence that he illegally obtained any pecuniary advantage
by abusing his official position. The duty of A6 is that he ought to have
followed the instruction as mentioned here under:-
“4.2. Monitoring the End Use
Banks/ Fis should closely monitor the end-use of
funds and obtain certificates from borrowers certifying
that the funds are utilized for the purpose for which they
were obtained. In case of wrong certification by the
borrowers, banks/FIs may consider appropriate legal
proceedings, including criminal action wherever
necessary, against the borrowers.
4.3.Criminal Action by Bank/FIs
It is essential to recognise that there is scope even
under the existing legislations to initiate criminal action
against wilful defaulters depending upon the facts and
circumstances of the case under the provisions of Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
403 and 415 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860,
Bank/FIs are, therefore, advised to seriously and
promptly consider initiating criminal action against
wilful defaulters or wrong certification by borrowers,
wherever considered necessary, based on the facts and
circumstances of each case under the above provisions of
the IPC to comply with out instructions and the
recommendations of JPC.
It should also be ensured that the penal provisions
are used effectively and determinedly but after careful
consideration and due caution. Towards this end,
banks/FIs are advised to put in place a transparent
mechanism, with the approval of their Board, for
initiating criminal proceedings based on the facts of
individual case.”
18.1.He disbursed the loan to various appellants in other connected
appeals without verifying the stage of the construction as per the loan
terms. As per the loan terms, he is duty bound to verify at every stage and
disburse the corresponding installments. In this case, as discussed earlier,
the loanees had not completed the construction but, they have received the
entire loan amount. In preparing the disbursement voucher, he had played
predominent role and the same was clearly deposed by the various bank
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
witnesses. That apart, P.W.8 in her chief examination clearly deposed that
she handed over Rs.70,000/- to A1 and on the following date, she met A6
that A6 informed that he had received the said amount. Further, P.W.9 also
deposed in similar line and both the evidence corroborated with each other.
P.W.11 in his examination, clearly deposed about that the demand and
receipt of the bribe amount of Rs.50,000/-. Each loanee has furnished false
particulars in the “saral form” and the same was within the knowledge of
A6/Bank Manager and he sanctioned the loan upon receipt of the bribe.
P.W.8 and P.W.9 categorically deposed that A6 demanded and received the
bribe amount. As per the following finding in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5276 of
2013 filed by A5 that the false particulars in the “saral form” are furnished
by each loanee.
17.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent
decision in CBI, Hyderabad vs K.narayana Rao reported
in 2012(9)SCC 512 wile dealing with a case where this
Panel Advocate of a Bank was charge sheeted for
submitting false legal opinion to the Bank in respect of the
housing loans in the capacity of a panel advocate and did
not point out actual ownership of the properties, held that
the liability against an opining advocate arises only when
the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud
the bank. It further held that merely because his opinion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
may not be acceptable, he cannot be mulcted with the
criminal prosecution, particularly, in the absence of
tangible evidence that the associated with other
conspirators.
18.In the instant case, there is nothing in the
complaint to show that the petitioner was aware of the
wrong particulars said to have been furnished by the
assessees or he received or given illegal gratification in
the said process. It is evidence from the materials placed
on record that the petitioner has performed his
professional duty of assisting the assessees in compiling
the particulars in their SARAL forms and submitting the
same before the income tax department. Even if all the
averments made in the charge are true, there would still
be no basis to hold that the petitioner had committed any
of the offences alleged against him.”
18.2. Further, in the loan application, each loanee has affirmed that
the information stated in the documents are true. Therefore, the argument
of all the counsel that the case of the prosecution against the appellants is
not made out after the discharge of A5 Auditor deserves to be rejected. In
the said Criminal original petition, it is categorically held that false
particulars were furnished by each loanee. Therefore, the conspiracy
between A6 and the loanees is clearly proved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
18.3. Yet another submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the learned trial Judge has acquitted the valuer/A4 and
hence, the conviction against the appellants is not legally valid. This Court
is not inclined to acquit the accused for the reason that as already held
above, each loanee obtained the loan by submitting the false particulars in
the saral form with the active connivance of A6/Bank manager. Therefore,
this Court concurs with the finding of the learned trial Judge in convicting
the appellants under the charged offences. Therefore, the case of the
prosecution that they committed misconduct under Section 13(1) (d) r/w
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is clearly proved. The
conspiracy with the remaining appellants in remaining appeals to commit
the offence of cheating is clearly proved from the disbursement of loan
loanees who did not make any construction as per loan terms. Therefore, in
all aspects, the prosecution proved the case against A6.
19.Discussion on defective charges:-
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Thiru. R.Anand,
Thiru. P.Thirumahilmaran, vehemently submitted that charges framed
against them are vague and without necessary particulars as required under
the Secton 216 of Cr.P.C. Each transaction is entirely different transaction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
and clubbing of the all the allegation in one charge without any
specification is an to illegality. Due to the illegality, accused were unable
to defend their case properly. Therefore, there was miscarriage of justice
and serious prejudice was caused. Hence, he seeks acquittal.
19.1. The Hon'ble Constitution Bench Judgment in Willie (William)
Slaney Vs. State of M.P reported in AIR 1956 SC 116 and subsequent
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh Vs, State of U.P
reported in 2004 5 SCC 334 and Anil Vs. Admn of Daman & Diu,
Daman reported in 2006 13 SCC 36, clearly laid down the principle that
the trial of the offence and conviction of the offence without framing the
charge is entirely different from the case where the charges were framed
with defective particulars. Apart from that, Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, clearly stated that the conviction and sentence of
imprisonment cannot be set aside only on the ground that the charge was
not properly framed. In view of the specific provision and also to achieve
the object of the Act, this Court does not find any failure on the part of the
prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
19.2.This Court perused the charges framed by the learned trial
Judge and the initial questioning and 313 questioning and their entire cross
examination and finds no prejudice was caused to the accused. The
understanding of the allegation and cross examining the witnesses and
submitting explanations and also putting forth their case before the learned
trial Judge and also raising the grounds of appeal all would should show
no prejudice was caused to the accused. The allegation are all made in the
final report and the final report along with the material documents were
supplied to the appellants. After understanding the nature of the allegation
they faced trial. They have not established any prejudice and the
consequential miscarriage of justice.
19.3. In these type of the cases where the criminal conspiracy was
hatched to commit bank fraud, the requirement of meeting of mind and the
exact role of the each accused has to be inferred from the established
circumstances of the prosecution case. In this case, the appellants have not
made any construction and obtained loan and siphoned off the amount and
failed to repay the said amount. From that, the charge for the conspiracy
and other offences is clearly proved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
20. Discussion on plea to receive additional documents under
Section 391 Cr.P.C:-
The learned counsel for A1 has filed Crl.M.P.(MD).No.5859 of
2024 under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., to receive the following additional
documents to consider his case:
i) Judgment in C.C.No.8 of 2012 on the file of
the II Additional District Court (CBI Cases) Madurai,
dated 20.05.2014.
ii) Appreciation certificates given by the
Complainant's bank for the years, 2001, 2002, 2004,
2005, 2006.
iii) Appreciation Letters given by the
complainant's bank dated 10.07.2007, 09.04.2007,
24.01.2008, 22.04.2008, 28.02.2007.
20.1.This Court perused the said documents. The acquittal order
passed in C.C.No.8 of 2012, on different transaction is not a ground to
disbelieve the evidence available in this case and to discord the material
documents produced by the prosecution in this case and acquit him. Each
case rests on its own facts. In this case, the prosecution has established
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
beyond reasonable doubt that A6 bank manager conspired with each loanee
accused and granted housing loan with the knowledge of the false
particulars in the saral form and also he was a party to the diversion of the
fund. Apart from that, there is a clear, cogent and trust worthy evidence
available against him to prove the charge of demand and acceptance of the
bribe to grant loan. Hence, this Court is not inclined to receive the said
documents to consider the case of A6/Bank Manager.
20.2. The remaining documents, namely, appreciation certificate
given to A6 are also liable to be rejected. It is specific case of the
prosecution, A6, entered into conspiracy with the number of accused
during the period from 2005 to 2008 and sanctioned loan with knowledge
of the false particulars and subsequently, the bank authorities found that he
had indulged in such fraudulent practice. Therefore, the appreciation
certificate issued by the authority is not a relevant document for even
considering the reduction of sentence. If he had acted in fair manner in
perusing the loan application and in disbursing the loan amount, there
would not have been loss to the bank. From the records, it is clear that he
and A1 committed many of misdeeds in granting loan to the various
accused. Therefore, this Court is not inclined accept the appreciation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
certificate issued by the bank authorities. But, considering his age, illness
and as he also faced disciplinary proceedings and removed from service,
this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence from Seven years to four years
without any reduction of the fine amount.
21. Discussion on plea of parity -:
21.1.The acquittal passed against A4 and A5 is not a ground to order
acquittal against A6 when he flouted all the guidelines and norms and
disbursed the loan to various loanees without even seeing the construction
activities stage by stage. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble three Judges
Bench of Supreme Court in the following judgement when abundant
material is available to convict A6 as discussed above, the conviction and
sentence imposed against A6 needs no interference. Therefore, as held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Achhar Singh v. State of H.P.,
reported in (2021) 5 SCC 543, when the abundant material is available to
convict A6 as discussed above, the conviction and sentence imposed
against A6 needs no interference. The relevant portion of the said judgment
is as follows:-
“26. The learned State counsel has rightly relied
on Gangadhar Behera [Gangadhar Behera v. State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 32] to
contend that even in cases where a major portion of the
evidence is found deficient, if the residue is sufficient to
prove the guilt of the accused, conviction can be based
on it. This Court in Hari Chand v. State of Delhi [Hari
Chand v. State of Delhi, (1996) 9 SCC 112 : 1996 SCC
(Cri) 950] held that : (Hari Chand case [Hari
Chand v. State of Delhi, (1996) 9 SCC 112 : 1996 SCC
(Cri) 950] , SCC pp. 124-25, para 24)
“24. … So far as this contention is concerned it must
be kept in view that while appreciating the evidence of
witnesses in a criminal trial especially in a case of
eyewitnesses the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
cannot apply and the court has to make efforts to sift the
grain from the chaff. It is of course true that when a witness
is said to have exaggerated in his evidence at the stage of
trial and has tried to involve many more accused and if that
part of the evidence is not found acceptable the remaining
part of evidence has to be scrutinised with care and the court
must try to see whether the acceptable part of the evidence
gets corroborated from other evidence on record so that the
acceptable part can be safely relied upon.”
(emphasis supplied)
22. Discussion on maintainability of conviction under section 8 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
The learned trial Judge has convicted the appellants A1 to A4, A6 to
A18 under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is the
specific case of the prosecution that A1(K.Paul Johnson @ Johnson alone
received the bribe amount from the witness namely, Papathi (Approver)
and other witnesses and the Bank Manager (A6- Gunaseelan) also received
the bribe amount from some of the witnesses. There is no evidence on
record to prove that the remaining accused received any bribe from the
approver Papathi. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the
offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against
A2, A3, A4 and A7 to A18 ie., individual loanees/appellants in
Crl.A(MD)Nos.493 of 2023, 506/2023 562/2023 563/2023 570/2023,
744/2023 751/2023 830/2023. But, there is sufficient evidence to prove
the conspiracy and the combined charge under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC,
and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against A2, A3, A4,
A7 to A18 . Therefore, the conviction only on the combined charge is
legally maintainable against A2, A3, A4, A7 to A8.
23. Conclusion on Conviction :-
In view of the above discussion, the prosecution clearly proved the
charged offence against the appellants in Crl.A(MD)Nos.493, 506, 521,
562, 563, 570, 744, 751 and 830 of 2023 and the first appellant in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
Crl.A(MD)No.521 of 2023 beyond reasonable doubt except offence under
Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. But the conviction
against the appellants in Crl.A(MD)No.493 of 2023, second appellant in
Crl.A(MD)No.521 of 2023 is confirmed. Accordingly the conviction
passed against the appellants in Crl.A(MD)Nos.493 of 2023, 506/2023
562/2023 563/2023 570/2023, 744/2023 751/2023 830/2023, first
appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.521 of 2023 vide impugned judgment in
C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge,
for CBI Cases, Madurai, is confirmed except the offence under section 8 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as stated below:
S. Charged offence Accused Rank Trial Court finding This court finding
No
1 120-B r/w 420 IPC A1 to A4, A6 to All are convicted A1, A6 are convicted
Sec.8 & 13(2) r/w A18 under section 120-B 120-B r/w 420 IPC
13(1) (d) of PC Act r/w 420 IPC Sec.8 Sec.8 & 13(2) r/w
1988 & 13(2) r/w 13(1) 13(1) (d) of PC Act
(d) of PC Act 1988 1988
A2, A3, A4, A6 to
A18 are convicted
120-B r/w 420 IPC
& 13(2) r/w 13(1)
(d) of PC Act 1988
A2, A3, A4, A6 to
A18 are acquitted
under section 120-B
r/w 8 of PC Act 1988
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
2 u/s.8 of PC Act, A1 to A4, A6 to All are convicted A2, A3, A4, A6 to
1988 A18 under section Sec. A18 are acquitted
8 of PC Act 1988 under section 8 of
PC Act 1988.
A1, A6 are convicted
under section 8 of
PC Act 1988.
3 420 of I.P.C. A2, A4, A7 to All are convicted Confirmed
A18
4 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) A6 Convicted Confirmed
of Prevention of
Corruption Act,
24.1. Discussion on Question of Sentence in Crl.A(MD)No.493 of
2023/A6/N.Gunaseelan:-
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/A6 would submit
that he is aged about 66 years and he has already undergone treatment for
heart decease, diabetes and blood pressure. The departmental proceeding
has been initiated against him and he has been dismissed from service.
Therefore, he seeks for reduction of sentence. He was manager of the bank.
He has flouted the rules and procedure and granted loan to number of
loanees who did not have eligibility and thereby caused wrongful loss to
the bank to the tune of Rs.1,06,83,052/- (Rupees one Crore six lakhs
eighty three thousand and Fifty two Only). In view of the above mitigating
circumstances, this court inclines to reduce the sentence of imprisonment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
alone by confirming the fine amount with default sentence imposed in
C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on the file of the Learned II Additional District Judge,
for CBI Cases, Madurai, dated 12.06.2023, on the following terms on
payment of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) as compensation
payable to the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank Main Branch, Dindigul
within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
otherwise the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court shall
automatically be restored:
Sl. Offence Punishment imposed by the Punishment imposed by this court
No under Trial Court
Sections
1 120-B r/w Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 Sentence of imprisonment to
420 IPC years and to pay a fine of undergo 7 years rigorous
Sec.7 & Rs.25,000/- in default to imprisonment is reduced to
13(2) r/w undergo Rigorous undergo 1 year.
13(1) (d) Imprisonment for 9 months.
of PC Act Direction to pay the fine of
1988 Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 9
months is confirmed.
2 u/s.7 of PC Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 Sentence of Rigorous
Act, 1988 years and to pay a fine of Imprisonment to undergo 5 years is
Rs.25,000/- in default to reduced into 1 year and direction
undergo Rigorous to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in
Imprisonment for 8 months default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 8 months is
confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
3 13(2) r/w Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 Sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment
13(1)(d) years and to pay a fine of to undergo 7 years is reduced into
PC Act, Rs.25,000/- in default to 1 year and direction to pay a fine
1988 undergo Rigorous of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo
Imprisonment for 9 months. Rigorous Imprisonment for 9
months is confirmed.
4 Substantial period of sentences Substantial period of sentences shall
shall run concurrently run concurrently. The period if
already undergone by the appellant is
order to be set off U/s.428 of CrPC.
24.2. Conclusion in Crl.A.(MD) No.493 of 2023
Accordingly, the Crl.A.(MD) No.493 of 2023 is partly allowed on
the following terms:
1.Conviction passed against the appellant in C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on
the file of the Learned II Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai
dated 12.06.2023, is hereby confirmed.
2.The sentence of imprisonment passed against the appellant in
C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on the file of the Learned II Additional District Judge,
for CBI Cases, Madurai, dated 12.06.2023, is reduced on condition to pay
Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) as a compensation payable
to Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank Main Branch, Dindigul within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
otherwise the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court shall
automatically be restored, on the following terms:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
2.1. Sentence of imprisonment to undergo 7 years
rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 120-B r/w
420 IPC Sec.7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988, is
reduced to undergo 1 year Direction to pay the fine of
Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 9
months is confirmed.
2.2. Sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment to undergo 7
years for the offence under section 7 of PC Act, 1988, is
reduced into 1 year and direction to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-
in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 8 months is
confirmed.
2.3. Sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment to undergo 7
years for the offence under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act,
1988 is reduced into 1 year and direction to pay a fine of
Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 9
months is confirmed.
2.4. Substantial period of sentences shall run
concurrently. The period if already undergone by the appellant
is order to be set off U/s.428 of CrPC.
25.1. Discussion on Question of Sentence in Crl.A(MD)No.751 of
2023/A11/R.Thiruppathi:-
The appellant is aged about 48 years. Many medical records were
produced to prove his various illnesses. He was unable to deposit the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
amount of Rs.3 lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) as per the order of this
Court. The proceedings under SARFAESI Act was already initiated.
Therefore, considering the above mitigating circumstances, this court
inclines to reduce the sentence of imprisonment alone by confirming the
fine amount with default sentence imposed in C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on the
file of the learned II Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai,
dated 12.06.2023, on payment of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and
Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation payable to the Branch Manager,
Syndicate Bank Main Branch, Dindigul within a period of 30 days from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order, otherwise the sentence of
imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court shall automatically be restored
on the following terms:
25.1.1. Discussion on Question of Sentence in Crl.A(MD)No.751
of 2023/A2, A12, A13/Mahalingam, Thangaraj, Vadamalai:-
The appellants are aged about 61, 48, 58 years respectively. Many
medical records were produced to prove their various illnesses. They had
already deposited amount of Rs.3 lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) each
as per the order of this Court. The proceedings under SARFAESI Act was
already initiated. Therefore, considering the above mitigating
circumstances, this court inclines to reduce the sentence of imprisonment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
alone by confirming the fine amount with default sentence imposed in
C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge,
for CBI Cases, Madurai, dated 12.06.2023, on payment of Rs.4,50,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) each as a compensation
payable to the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank Main Branch, Dindigul,
within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
otherwise the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court shall
automatically be restored on the following terms :
Sl. Offenc Punishment imposed Conviction by Punishment imposed by this
N e by the Trial Court this court court
o under
Sectio
ns
1 120-B Rigorous Imprisonment 120-B r/w 420 Sentence of imprisonment to
r/w 420 for 3 years and to IPC & Sec. undergo 3 years rigorous
IPC pay a fine of 13(2) r/w 13(1) imprisonment is reduced to
Sec.8 Rs.20,000/- in default (d) of PC Act undergo 1 year.
& to undergo Rigorous 1988 Direction to pay the fine of
13(2) Imprisonment for 6 Rs.20,000/- in default to
r/w months. undergo Rigorous
13(1) Imprisonment for 6 months is
(d) of confirmed.
PC Act
2. U/s.420 Rigorous Imprisonment confirmed Sentence of imprisonment to
of IPC for 3 years and to undergo 3 years rigorous
pay a fine of imprisonment is reduced to
Rs.10,000/- in default undergo 1 year.
to undergo Rigorous Direction to pay the fine of
Imprisonment for 6 Rs.20,000/- in default to
months. undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 6 months is
confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
3. Substantial period of Substantial period of sentences
sentences shall run shall run concurrently. The
concurrently period if already undergone by
the appellant is order to be set
off U/s.428 of CrPC.
Sl. Offenc Punishment imposed Conviction by Punishment imposed by this
N e by the Trial Court this court court
o under
Sectio
ns
1 120-B Rigorous Imprisonment 120-B r/w 420 Sentence of imprisonment to
r/w 420 for 3 years each and to IPC & Sec. undergo 3 years rigorous
IPC pay a fine of 13(2) r/w 13(1) imprisonment is reduced to
Sec.8 Rs.20,000/- each in (d) of PC Act undergo 1 year each.
& default to undergo 1988 Direction to pay the fine of
13(2) Rigorous Imprisonment Rs.20,000/- each in default to
r/w for 6 months each. undergo Rigorous
13(1) Imprisonment for 6 months
(d) of each is confirmed.
PC Act
2. U/s.420 Rigorous Imprisonment confirmed Sentence of imprisonment to
of IPC for 3 years each and to undergo 3 years rigorous
pay a fine of imprisonment is reduced to
Rs.10,000/- each in undergo 1 year each.
default to undergo Direction to pay the fine of
Rigorous Imprisonment Rs.20,000/- each in default to
for 6 months each. undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 6 months
each is confirmed.
3. Substantial period of Substantial period of sentences
sentences shall run shall run concurrently. The
concurrently period if already undergone by
the appellant is order to be set off
U/s.428 of CrPC.
25.2. Conclusion in Crl.A.(MD) No.751 of 2023
Accordingly, the Crl.A.(MD) No.751 of 2023 is partly allowed on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
the following terms:
1. Conviction passed against the appellants in C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on
the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai,
dated 12.06.2023, under section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is set aside and also conviction under section 120(B), r/w 420 of
I.P.C., Section 8 r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is modified into conviction under section 120(B), r/w 420 of I.P.C.,
r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
conviction under section 420 of IPC is confirmed.
2. The sentence of imprisonment passed against the 2nd
appellant/Thiruppathi in C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on the file of the learned II
Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai, dated 12.06.2023, is
reduced on condition to pay Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and
Fifty Thousand Only) as a compensation payable to Branch Manager,
Syndicate Bank Main Branch, Dindigul within a period of 30 days
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, otherwise, the sentence of
imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court shall be automatically restored
on the following terms:
2 (i) Sentence of imprisonment to undergo 3 years
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 120-B r/w
420 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988 is
reduced to undergo 1 year Direction to pay the fine of Rs.
20,000/- with default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
months is confirmed.
2(ii) Sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment to undergo 3
years for the offence under section 420 of IPC is reduced into
1 year and direction to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months is confirmed.
2(iii). Substantial period of sentences shall run concurrently.
The period if already undergone by the appellant is order to be
set off U/s.428 of CrPC.
3. The sentence of imprisonment passed against the 1st
appellant/Mahalingam, 3rd Appellant/Thangaraj, 4th Appellant/R.Vadamalai
in C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge,
for CBI Cases, Madurai, dated 12.06.2023, are reduced on condition to
pay Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) each
as a compensation payable to Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank Main
Branch, Dindigul in addition to the amount already deposited within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order,
otherwise, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court shall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
automatically be restored on the following terms :
3 (i) Sentence of imprisonment to undergo 3 years
rigorous imprisonment each for the offence under section
120-B r/w 420 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act
1988 is reduced to undergo 1 year each. Direction to pay the
fine of Rs.20,000/- each with default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 6 months is confirmed.
3(ii) Sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment to undergo 3
years each for the offence under section 420 of IPC is
reduced into 1 year each and direction to pay a fine of
Rs.20,000/- each in default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 6 months is confirmed.
3(iii). Substantial period of sentences shall run
concurrently. The period if already undergone by the appellants
is order to be set off U/s.428 of CrPC.
26.1. Discussion on Question of Sentence in Crl.A(MD)No.562 of
2023/A17/S.Sundresan:-
The appellant is aged about 66 years. Many medical records were
produced to prove his various illness. The proceedings under SARFAESI
Act was already initiated Therefore, considering the above mitigating
circumstances, this court inclines to reduce the sentence of imprisonment
alone by confirming the fine amount with default sentence imposed in
C.C.No.7 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
CBI Cases, Madurai, dated 12.06.2023, on the following terms on payment
of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) as a
compensation payable to the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank Main
Branch, Dindigul, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a
copy of order, otherwise, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the
Trial Court shall automatically be restored:
Sl. Offenc Punishment imposed Conviction by this Punishment imposed by
N e by the Trial Court court this court
o under
Section
s
1 120-B Rigorous 120-B r/w 420 IPC & Sentence of
r/w 420 Imprisonment for 3 Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1) imprisonment to undergo
IPC years and to pay a (d) of PC Act 1988 3 years rigorous
Sec.8 fine of Rs.20,000/- in imprisonment is reduced
& default to undergo to undergo 1 year.
13(2) Rigorous Direction to pay the
r/w Imprisonment for 6 fine of Rs.20,000/- with
13(1) months. default to undergo
(d) of Rigorous Imprisonment
PC Act for 6 months is
1988 confirmed.
2. U/s.420 Rigorous confirmed Sentence of imprisonment
of IPC Imprisonment for 3 to undergo 3 years
years and to pay a rigorous imprisonment is
fine of Rs. reduced to undergo 1
10,000/- in default to year.
undergo Rigorous Direction to pay the
Imprisonment for 6 fine of Rs.20,000/- with
months. default to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment
for 6 months is
confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
3. Substantial period of Substantial period of
sentences shall run sentences shall run
concurrently concurrently. The period if
already undergone by the
appellant is order to be set
off U/s.428 of CrPC.
26.2. Conclusion in Crl.A.(MD) No.562 of 2023
Accordingly, the Crl.A.(MD) No.562 of 2023 is partly allowed
on the following terms:
1. Conviction passed against the appellant in C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on
the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai,
dated 12.06.2023, under section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is set aside and also conviction under section 120(B), r/w 420 of
I.P.C., Section 8 r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is modified into conviction under section 120(B), r/w 420 of I.P.C.,
r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
conviction under section 420 of IPC is confirmed.
2. The sentence of imprisonment passed against the appellant in
C.C.No.7 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, for
CBI Cases, Madurai, dated 12.06.2023, is reduced on condition to pay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) as a
compensation payable to Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank Main
Branch, Dindigul, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order, otherwise, the sentence of imprisonment imposed
by the Trial Court shall automatically be restored on the following terms:
2 (i) Sentence of imprisonment to undergo 3 years
rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 120-B
r/w 420 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988 is
reduced to undergo 1 year. Direction to pay the fine of
Rs.20,000/- with default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for 6 months is confirmed.
2(ii) Sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment to undergo 3
years for the offence under section 420 of IPC is reduced into
1 year and direction to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months is confirmed.
2(iii) Substantial period of sentences shall run
concurrently. The period if already undergone by the appellant
is order to be set off U/s.428 of CrPC.
27.1. Discussion on Question of Sentence in Crl.A(MD)No.744 of
2023/A9/Raja Thamos:-
He is aged about 67 years and his right foot was amputated and he is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
suffering from various illness including type II Mellitus Diabetes. He has
already deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) as per
the order of this Court. Due to the registration of FIR and pendency of the
criminal case, the Bank Authority refused to accept his proposal of either
OTS or full settlement. The proceedings under SARFAESI Act was already
initiated. Therefore, considering the above mitigating circumstances, this
Court inclines to reduce the sentence of imprisonment alone by confirming
the fine amount with default sentence imposed in C.C.No.7 of 2012 on the
file of the learned II Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai,
dated 12.06.2023, in the following terms on payment of Rs.4,00,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs Only) as a compensation payable to the Branch
Manager, Syndicate Bank Main Branch, Dindigul, within a period of 30
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, otherwise the sentence
of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court shall automatically be
restored:
Sl. Offence Punishment Conviction by this Punishment imposed by
N under imposed by the Trial court this court
o Sections Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
1 120-B Rigorous 120-B r/w 420 IPC & Sentence of
r/w 420 Imprisonment for 3 Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1) imprisonment to undergo
IPC Sec. years and to pay a (d) of PC Act 1988 3 years rigorous
8 & fine of Rs.20,000/- imprisonment is reduced
13(2) r/w in default to undergo to undergo 1 year.
13(1) (d) Rigorous Direction to pay the
of PC Imprisonment for 6 fine of Rs.20,000/- with
Act 1988 months. default to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment
for 6 months is
confirmed.
2 420 of Rigorous confirmed Sentence of
IPC Imprisonment for 3 imprisonment to undergo
years and to pay a 3 years Rigorous
fine of Imprisonment is reduced
Rs.20,000/- in to 1 year.
default to undergo Direction to pay
Rigorous the fine of
Imprisonment for 6 Rs.20,000/- with default
months. to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 6
months.
Substantial period of Substantial period of
sentences shall run sentences shall run
concurrently concurrently. The period if
already undergone by the
appellant is order to be set
off U/s.428 of CrPC.
27.2. Conclusion in Crl.A.(MD) No.744 of 2023
Accordingly, the Crl.A.(MD) No.744 of 2023 is partly allowed in the
following terms:
1. Conviction passed against the appellant in C.C.No.7 of 2012 on
the file of the Learned II Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
Madurai, dated 12.06.2023, under section 8 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 is set aside and also conviction under section
120(B), r/w 420 of I.P.C., Section 8 r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 is modified into conviction under section 120(B),
r/w 420 of I.P.C., r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and conviction under section 420 of IPC is confirmed.
2. The sentence of imprisonment passed against the appellant in
C.C.No.7 of 2012 on the file of the Learned II Additional District Judge,
for CBI Cases, Madurai, dated 12.06.2023, is reduced on condition to pay
Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) as a compensation in addition
to the amount already deposited by order of this court payable to
Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank Main Branch, Dindigul within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
otherwise the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court shall
automatically be restored on the following terms:
2 (i) Sentence of imprisonment to undergo 3 years
rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 120-B
r/w 420 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988,
is reduced to undergo 1 year Direction to pay the fine of Rs.
20,000/- with default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
6 months is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
2(ii) Sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment to undergo 3
years for the offence under section 420 of IPC is reduced
into 1 year and direction to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in
default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months is
confirmed.
2(iii) Substantial period of sentences shall run
concurrently. The period if already undergone by the
appellant is order to be set off U/s.428 of CrPC.
28.1. Discussion on Question of Sentence in Crl.A(MD)No.830 of
2023/A10 and A15/R.Murali and Sharun Rashit:-
The 1st Appellant is aged about 59 years and 2nd Appellant is aged
about 45 years and both are suffering from various illness. They also
produced in medical records. They have already deposited a sum of Rs.
3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) as per the order of this Court. Due
to the registration of FIR and pendency of the criminal case, the Bank
Authority refused to accept their proposal of either OTS or full settlement.
The proceedings under SARFAESI Act was already commenced.
Therefore, considering the above mitigating circumstances, this Court
inclines to reduce the sentence of imprisonment alone by confirming the
fine amount with default sentence imposed in C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on the
file of the Learned II Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
dated 12.06.2023, on the following terms on payment of Rs.4,50,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) as a compensation
payable to the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank Main Branch, Dindigul in
addition to the compensation already paid within a period of 30 days from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order, otherwise, the sentence of
imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court shall automatically be restored:
Sl. Offenc Punishment Conviction by this Punishment imposed by this
N e imposed by the court court
o under Trial Court
Section
s
1 120-B Rigorous 120-B r/w 420 IPC & Sentence of imprisonment
r/w 420 Imprisonment for Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1) to undergo 3 years rigorous
IPC 3 years and to pay (d) of PC Act 1988 imprisonment is reduced to
Sec.8 a fine of undergo 1 year.
& Rs.20,000/- in Direction to pay the fine of
13(2) default to undergo Rs.20,000/- with default to
r/w Rigorous undergo Rigorous
13(1) Imprisonment for Imprisonment for 6 months is
(d) of 6 months. confirmed.
PC Act
2 420 of Rigorous confirmed Sentence of imprisonment to
IPC Imprisonment for undergo 3 years Rigorous
3 years and to pay Imprisonment is reduced to 1
a fine of year.
Rs.20,000/- in Direction to pay the fine of
default to undergo Rs.20,000/- with default to
Rigorous undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for Imprisonment for 6 months.
6 months.
Substantial period Substantial period of
of sentences shall sentences shall run
run concurrently concurrently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
28.2. Conclusion in Crl.A.(MD) No.830 of 2023
Accordingly, the Crl.A.(MD) No.830 of 2023 is partly allowed in the
following terms:
1. Conviction passed against the appellant in C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on
the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai,
dated 12.06.2023, under section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is set aside and also conviction under section 120(B), r/w 420 of
I.P.C., Section 8 r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is modified into conviction under section 120(B), r/w 420 of I.P.C.,
r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
conviction under section 420 of IPC is confirmed.
2. The sentence of imprisonment passed against the appellant in
C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge,
for CBI Cases, Madurai, dated 12.06.2023, is reduced on condition to pay
Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) as a
compensation in addition to payable to Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank
Main Branch, Dindigul within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order, otherwise the sentence of imprisonment imposed by
the Trial Court shall automatically be restored on the following terms:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
2 (i) Sentence of imprisonment to undergo 3 years
rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 120-B
r/w 420 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988
is reduced to undergo 1 year. Direction to pay the fine of
Rs.20,000/- with default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for 6 months is confirmed.
2(ii) Sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment to undergo
3 years for the offence under section 420 of IPC is reduced
into 1 year and direction to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in
default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months is
confirmed.
2(iii) Substantial period of sentences shall run
concurrently. The period if already undergone by the
appellant is order to be set off U/s.428 of CrPC.
29.1. Discussion on Question of Sentence in Crl.A(MD)No.570 of
2023/A8/:-
The Appellant is aged about 73 years and he is suffering from
various illness. He also produced medical records. Due to the registration
of FIR and pendency of the criminal case, the Bank Authority refused to
accept his proposal of either OTS or full settlement. The proceedings under
SARFAESI Act was already commenced. Therefore, considering the above
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
mitigating circumstances, this Court inclines to reduce the sentence of
imprisonment alone by confirming the fine amount with default sentence
imposed in C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional
District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai, dated 12.06.2023, on the following
terms on payment of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty
Thousand Only) as a compensation payable to the Branch Manager,
Syndicate Bank Main Branch, Dindigul, in addition to the compensation
already paid within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of a copy of
this order, otherwise the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Trial
Court shall automatically be restored:
Sl. Offenc Punishment Conviction by this Punishment imposed by this
N e imposed by the court court
o under Trial Court
Section
s
1 120-B Rigorous 120-B r/w 420 IPC & Sentence of imprisonment to
r/w 420 Imprisonment for Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) undergo 3 years rigorous
IPC 3 years and to of PC Act 1988. imprisonment is reduced to
Sec.8 pay a fine of undergo 1 year.
& Rs.20,000/- in Direction to pay the fine of
13(2) default to Rs.20,000/- with default to
r/w undergo undergo Rigorous
13(1) Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months is
(d) of Imprisonment confirmed.
PC Act for 6 months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
2 420 of Rigorous confirmed Sentence of imprisonment to
IPC Imprisonment for undergo 3 years Rigorous
3 years and to Imprisonment is reduced to
pay a fine of 1 year.
Rs.20,000/- in Direction to pay the fine of
default to Rs.20,000/- with default to
undergo undergo Rigorous
Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
Imprisonment
for 6 months.
Substantial Substantial period of sentences
period of shall run concurrently. The
sentences shall period if already undergone by
run concurrently the appellant is order to be set
off U/s.428 of CrPC.
29.2. Conclusion in Crl.A.(MD) No.570 of 2023
Accordingly, the Crl.A.(MD) No.570 of 2023 is partly allowed in the
following terms:
1. Conviction passed against the appellant in C.C.No.7 of 2012 on
the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai
dated 12.06.2023 under section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is set aside and also conviction under section 120(B), r/w 420 of
I.P.C., Section 8 r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is modified into conviction under section 120(B), r/w 420 of I.P.C.,
r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
conviction under section 420 of IPC is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
2. The sentence of imprisonment passed against the appellant in
C.C.No.7 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, for
CBI Cases, Madurai dated 12.06.2023, is reduced on condition to pay
Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) as a
compensation to payable to Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank Main
Branch, Dindigul within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order, otherwise, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by
the Trial Court shall automatically be restored on the following terms:
2 (i) Sentence of imprisonment to undergo 3 years
rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 120-B
r/w 420 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988
is reduced to undergo 1 year. Direction to pay the fine of
Rs.20,000/- with default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for 6 months is confirmed.
2(ii) Sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment to undergo
3 years for the offence under section 420 of IPC is reduced
into 1 year and direction to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in
default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months is
confirmed.
2(iii) Substantial period of sentences shall run
concurrently. The period if already undergone by the
appellant is order to be set off U/s.428 of CrPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
30.1. Discussion on Question of Sentence in Crl.A(MD)No.506 of
2023/A3/A.Kumaresan:-
The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that his ailing
mother availed loan on furnishing sufficient sureties. He has utilized the
said amount. He has not submitted any loan form. He settled the entire due
amount and bank authorities also issued Ex.D9. He was not an accused in
the FIR and he was arrayed as Accused only in the final report. The learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI on instructions, from CBI and
the Bank Authorities confirmed the same. Therefore, considering the above
mitigating circumstances, this Court inclines to reduce the sentence of
imprisonment alone by confirming the fine amount with default sentence
imposed in C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional
District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai, dated 12.06.2023, on the following
terms:
Sl.No Offence under Punishment Conviction by Punishment
Sections imposed by the this court imposed by this
Trial Court court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
1 120-B r/w 420 Rigorous 120-B r/w 420 Sentence of
IPC Sec.8 & Imprisonment IPC & Sec. imprisonment to
13(2) r/w 13(1) for 3 years and 13(2) r/w 13(1) undergo 3 years
(d) of PC Act to pay a fine of (d) of PC Act rigorous
1988 Rs.10,000/- in 1988 imprisonment is
default to reduced to
undergo period “already
Rigorous undergone”
Imprisonment Direction to pay
for 6 months. the fine of
Rs.10,000/-
with default to
undergo
Rigorous
Imprisonment
for 6 months is
confirmed.
Substantial Period already
period of undergone. So,
sentences shall this will not
run concurrently apply
30.2. Conclusion in Crl.A.(MD) No.506 of 2023
Accordingly the Crl.A.(MD) No.506 of 2023 is partly allowed in the
following terms:
1. Conviction passed against the appellant in C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on
the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai,
dated 12.06.2023, under section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is set aside and also conviction under section 120(B), r/w 420 of
I.P.C., Section 8 r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is modified into conviction under section 120(B), r/w 420 of I.P.C.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
conviction under section 420 of IPC is confirmed.
2. The sentence of imprisonment passed against the appellant in
C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge,
for CBI Cases, Madurai, dated 12.06.2023, is reduced on the following
terms:
2 (i) Sentence of imprisonment to undergo 3 years
rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 120-B r/w
420 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988 is
reduced to the period “already undergone”. Direction to pay
the fine of Rs.10,000/- with default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 6 months is confirmed.
31.1. Discussion on Question of Sentence in Crl.A(MD)No.521 of
2023/A7/Jesuvin Febi:-
The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that she availed
loan on furnishing sufficient sureties. she settled the entire due amount.
The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI on instructions,
from CBI and the Bank Authorities confirmed the same. Therefore,
considering the above mitigating circumstances, this Court inclines to
reduce the sentence of imprisonment alone by confirming the fine amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
with default sentence imposed in C.C.No.7 of 2012 on the file of the
learned II Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai, dated
12.06.2023, in the following terms:
Sl. Offenc Punishment imposed Conviction by this Punishment imposed by
N e by the Trial Court court this court
o under
Section
s
1 120-B Rigorous 120-B r/w 420 IPC & Sentence of imprisonment
r/w 420 Imprisonment for 3 Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1) to undergo 3 years
IPC years and to pay a (d) of PC Act 1988 rigorous imprisonment is
Sec.8 fine of Rs.10,000/- in reduced to the period
& default to undergo “already undergone”
13(2) Rigorous Direction to pay the fine
r/w Imprisonment for 6 of Rs.10,000/- with
13(1) months. default to undergo
(d) of Rigorous Imprisonment
PC Act for 6 months is
1988 confirmed.
2 420 of Rigorous confirmed Sentence of imprisonment
IPC Imprisonment for 3 to undergo 3 years
years and to pay a fine rigorous imprisonment is
of Rs.20,000/- in reduced to the period
default to undergo “already undergone”.
Rigorous Direction to pay the fine
Imprisonment for 6 of Rs.10,000/- with
months. default to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment
for 6 months is
confirmed.
Substantial period of Period already undergone.
sentences shall run So, this will not apply
concurrently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
31.2. Conclusion in Crl.A.(MD)No.521 of 2023
Accordingly the Crl.A.(MD) No. 521 of 2023 in so far as the 2nd
appellant is partly allowed in the following terms:
1. Conviction passed against the appellant in C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on
the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai,
dated 12.06.2023, under section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is set aside and also conviction under section 120(B), r/w 420 of
I.P.C., Section 8 r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is modified into conviction under section 120(B), r/w 420 of I.P.C.,
r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
conviction under section 420 of IPC is confirmed.
2. The sentence of imprisonment passed against the appellant in
C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge,
for CBI Cases, Madurai, dated 12.06.2023, is reduced on the following
terms:
2 (i) Sentence of imprisonment to undergo 3
years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under
section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)
(d) of PC Act 1988 is reduced to the period “already
undergone”. Direction to pay the fine of
Rs.10,000/- with default to undergo Rigorous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
Imprisonment for 6 months is confirmed.
32.1. Discussion on Question of Sentence in Crl.A(MD)No.521 of
2023/A1/ Paul Johnson:-
The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he is aged
about 61 years and he is suffering from various illness. He has not availed
any loan. His wife namely 2nd Appellant in the above appeal has obtained
loan and the same was settled. Therefore he seeks for the reduction of
sentence of imprisonment. The learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for CBI would submit that he was convicted under section 8 of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. He was the kingpin of the entire loan
transaction. He also received the bribe amount from the witnesses. Hence
his request to reduce the sentence of imprisonment deserves to be rejected.
Therefore, considering his conviction under section 8 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and taking into account of the wrongful loss of
Rs.1,06,83,052/- (one Crore six lakhs eighty three thousands and Fifty
two), this Court inclines to reduce the sentence of imprisonment alone by
confirming the fine amount with default sentence imposed in C.C.No. 7 of
2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases,
Madurai, dated 12.06.2023, on the following terms on payment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) as compensation payable to
the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank Main Branch, Dindigul, within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of order, otherwise, the
sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court shall automatically
be restored:
Sl. Offence Punishment imposed by the Punishment imposed by this court
No under Trial Court
Sections
1 120-B r/w Rigorous Imprisonment for Sentence of imprisonment to
420 IPC 3 years and to pay a fine of undergo 3 years rigorous
Sec.8 & Rs.10,000/- in default to imprisonment is reduced to
13(2) r/w undergo Rigorous undergo 1 year.
13(1) (d) Imprisonment for 6 months. Direction to pay the fine of
of PC Act Rs.10,000/- with default to undergo
1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
months is confirmed.
2 Section 8 Rigorous Imprisonment for Sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment
PC Act, 3 years and to pay a fine of to undergo 3 years is reduced into
1988 Rs.10,000/- in default to 1 year and direction to pay a fine of
undergo Rigorous Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo
Imprisonment for 6 months. Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
months is confirmed.
Substantial period of sentences Substantial period of sentences shall
shall run concurrently run concurrently. The period if
already undergone by the appellant is
order to be set off U/s.428 of CrPC.
32.2. Conclusion in Crl.A.(MD)No.521 of 2023/1st
Appellant/A1/Paul Johnson:-
Accordingly, the Crl.A.(MD)No.521 of 2023 is partly allowed in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
following terms:
1. Conviction passed against the appellant in C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on
the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai,
dated 12.06.2023, is confirmed.
2. The sentence of imprisonment passed against the appellant
in C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge,
for CBI Cases, Madurai, dated 12.06.2023, is reduced on condition to pay
Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) as a compensation payable
to Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank Main Branch, Dindigul within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
otherwise, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court shall
automatically be restored on the following terms:
2 (i) Sentence of imprisonment to undergo 3 years
rigorous imprisonment is reduced to undergo 1 year
Direction to pay the fine of Rs.10,000/- with default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months is confirmed.
2(ii) Sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment to undergo 3
years is reduced into 1 year and direction to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
6 months is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
2(iii) Substantial period of sentences shall run
concurrently. The period if already undergone by the
appellant is order to be set off U/s.428 of CrPC.
33.1. Discussion on Question of Sentence in Crl.A(MD)No.563 of
2023/A14/A.Jesuraj :-
The appellant is aged about 48 year. Many medical records were
produced to prove his various illness. He already deposited amount of Rs.3
lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) as per the order of this Court. The
proceedings under SARFAESI Act was already initiated. Therefore,
considering the above mitigating circumstances, this court inclines to
reduce the sentence of imprisonment alone by confirming the fine amount
with default sentence imposed in C.C.No.7 of 2012 on the file of the
learned II Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai, dated
12.06.2023, in the following terms on payment of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees
Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) as a compensation payable to the
Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank Main Branch, Dindigul within a period
of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, otherwise the
sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court shall automatically
be restored:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
Sl.No Offence Punishment Conviction by this Punishment imposed by this
under imposed by court court
Sections the Trial
Court
1 120-B r/w Rigorous 120-B r/w 420 IPC Sentence of imprisonment to
420 IPC Imprisonme & Sec.13(2) r/w undergo 3 years rigorous
Sec.8 & nt for 3 13(1) (d) of PC Act imprisonment is reduced to
13(2) r/w years and to 1988 undergo 1 year.
13(1) (d) pay a fine of Direction to pay the fine of
of PC Act Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- with default to
1988 in default to undergo Rigorous
undergo Imprisonment for 6 months is
Rigorous confirmed.
Imprisonme
nt for 6
months.
2 420 of Rigorous confirmed Sentence of imprisonment to
IPC Imprisonme undergo 3 years Rigorous
nt for 3 Imprisonment is reduced to 1
years and to year.
pay a fine of Direction to pay the fine of
Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- with default to
in default to undergo Rigorous
undergo Imprisonment for 6 months.
Rigorous
Imprisonme
nt for 6
months.
Substantial Substantial period of sentences
period of shall run concurrently. The
sentences period if already undergone by
shall run the appellant is order to be set
concurrently off U/s.428 of CrPC.
33.2. Conclusion in Crl.A.(MD) No.563 of 2023
Accordingly, the Crl.A.(MD) No.563 of 2023 is partly allowed in the
following terms:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
1. Conviction passed against the appellants in C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on
the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, for CBI Cases, Madurai
dated 12.06.2023 under section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is set aside and also conviction under section 120(B), r/w 420 of
I.P.C., Section 8 r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is modified into conviction under section 120(B), r/w 420 of I.P.C.,
r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
conviction under section 420 of IPC is confirmed.
2. The sentence of imprisonment passed against the appellant in
C.C.No. 7 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge,
for CBI Cases, Madurai dated 12.06.2023, is reduced on condition to pay
Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) as a
compensation payable to Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank Main
Branch, Dindigul within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order, otherwise, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by
the Trial Court shall automatically be restored. on the following terms:
2 (i) Sentence of imprisonment to undergo 3 years
rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 120-B
r/w 420 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
is reduced to undergo 1 year Direction to pay the fine of
Rs.20,000/- with default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for 6 months is confirmed.
2(ii) Sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment to undergo 3
years for the offence under section 420 of IPC is reduced
into 1 year and direction to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in
default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months is
confirmed.
2(iii) Substantial period of sentences shall run
concurrently. The period if already undergone by the
appellant is order to be set off U/s.428 of CrPC.
Bail bond executed by the appellants in Crl.A(MD)Nos.493, 562,
563, 570, 744, 751 and 830 of 2023 shall be cancelled and the learned trial
Judge is directed to secure the appellants in Crl.A(MD)Nos.493, 562, 563,
570, 744, 751 and 830 of 2023 to undergo remaining part of sentence of
imprisonment. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
04.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
To
1. The II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases,
Madurai District.
2. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (CBI Case),
Madurai.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBI:SCB, Chennai.
4. The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5. The Section Officer,
Criminal Section(Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,563,570,744,751&830/2023
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
vsg
Pre-delivery common judgment made in
CRL.A(MD).Nos.493,506,521,562,
563,570,744,751 & 830 of 2023
and
04.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 09:40:19 pm )
