Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 373
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 3787 OF 2024
T.R. VIJAYARAMAN … Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU … Respondent(s)
With
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 3788 OF 2024
B. KANGARAJAN … Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS
INSPECTOR OF POLICE … Respondent(s)
O R D E R
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. This order will dispose off two petitions bearing number
S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3787 of 2024 and S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3788 of 2024.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VARSHA MENDIRATTA
Date: 2024.05.03
15:54:10 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 7
1
2. Aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court in
Criminal Appeal (MD) No.407 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal (MD) No.
386 of 2016, the petitioners are before this court.
2
3. The Trial Court in C.C. No.7 of 2008 after holding the
Petitioner/T.R. Vijayaraman guilty of offence punishable under
Sections 120-B, read with Section 420 IPC and Section 420 IPC
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5
years and to pay a fine of ₹ 5,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months
simple imprisonment. The judgment of sentence as awarded by the
Trial Court was upheld by the High Court in Criminal Appeal (MD)
No.407 of 2016.
3.1 The Trial Court in C.C. No.5 of 2008 after holding the
Petitioner/B. Kanagarajan guilty of offence under Sections 120-B, read
with Section 420 IPC and Section 420 IPC sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of ₹
5,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. The
judgment of sentence as awarded by the Trial Court was upheld by the
High Court in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.386 of 2016.
1
High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bench at Madurai
2
II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai
Page 2 of 7
4. The proceedings arise out of common FIR No. RC MA1 2004
A 0061 dated 27.09.2004 registered by Central Bureau of Investigation
(C.B.I.) under Section 120-B, read with Sections 420, 477(A) of IPC and
Section 13(2), read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act,1988 at Chennai. It is a case in which fraudulent transactions were
made by the accused in connivance with the officers working at that
time in Indian Bank at Srirangam Branch, Trichy.
5. The petitioner in SLP(Crl.) No.3787 of 2024 is proprietor of
M/s Kumaran Silks whereas the petitioner in SLP(Crl.) No.3788 of 2024
is the partner in M/s Sri Ganesh Godown. In the FIR, there are total 14
accused out of which 4 are bank officials and 10 are private
businessmen.
6. The allegations against the accused were that the bank
officers had made certain unauthorised debits in external clearing
account and local drafts accounts and the said amount were credited to
different parties accounts to offset the unauthorised temporary
Demand Overdraft allowed earlier. The transactions were done in
September 2002. The result was interest free advance to the
petitioners. Inspection was carried out by the senior officers of the
bank on 09.01.2004. It was noticed that certain debit entries were made
in the external clearing account and credited in the accounts of the
Page 3 of 7
petitioner. These could be made only if any negotiable instrument is
submitted for clearing. In the case in hand, there was no instrument
submitted. Even the temporary overdraft granted to the parties was not
reported to the head office. After the inspection, the fraudulent entries
were pointed out on 09.01.2004 to the tune of ₹ 1,10,66,100/- (Rupees
one crore ten lakhs sixty-six thousand and one hundred only) in the
case of 10 borrowers including the petitioners. Immediately on the next
date, the payment got deposited by the manager of the bank. It is in
this factual scenario that the Trial Court convicted the petitioners, and
the conviction was upheld by the High Court.
7. The star argument raised by Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioners was that there were 5 separate trials of the accused.
However, the High Court without discussing the evidence in detail in
each case separately has upheld the conviction by merely noticing the
details of the exhibits, the prosecution witnesses and the defence
witnesses in the matter. The petitioners cannot be said to be the
persons involved in the cheating. They had not availed any undue
benefit. Grant of loans by the banks is a normal practice. Security was
furnished when overdraft facility was granted. Immediately when the
petitioners were pointed out that the amount is to be returned back,
they deposited the entire amount. No case of cheating was made out as
Page 4 of 7
the bank did not suffer any loss. It was a normal business transaction.
In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon the judgment of
this court in A.T. Mydeen and Another vs. Assistant Commissioner,
3
Customs Department .
8. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not
find that any case is made out for grant of leave to appeal. As already
noticed above it is a case where bank officers and the private
businessmen, two of whom are petitioners before this court, had
cheated the bank. The fraud started in the year 2002, when without
there being any instrument submitted to the bank for clearance from
the accounts in which there was no balance, entries were made in the
external clearing account and local drafts account for giving credit to
the petitioners. The entries were made on 27.09.2002 for clearing of
overdraft of about ₹ 20 lakhs granted to the petitioner/T.R. Vijayaraman
from July, 2002 onwards, immediately, after the petitioner opened his
current account with the bank. The modus operandi having come to the
notice of the higher officers, inspection of the branch was carried out
on 09.01.2004. When confronted the accused persons got the amount
deposited immediately on the next day. It came out in the report that
3
( 2022) 14 SCC 392 : 2021 INSC 697
Page 5 of 7
advance was enjoyed by the petitioners without payment of any
interest. It was not a loan transaction as was sought to be argued.
9. The argument that the High Court had failed to consider all
the issues in detail is merely to be noticed and rejected as it was a case
of confirmation of conviction by the Trial Court. Relevant facts have
been noticed and relevant evidence discussed by the High Court, as it
was agreeing with the views expressed by the Trial Court.
10. The manner in which the entries were made in the accounts
could not be disputed. In SLP (Crl.) No.3787 of 2024, the amount
deposited by the petitioner after the inspection was to the tune of ₹
20.05 lakhs (Rupees twenty lakhs and five thousand only) which was ₹
21.45 lakhs (Rupees twenty-one lakh and forty-five thousand only) in
SLP (Crl.) No.3788 of 2024.
10.1 The argument that the petitioners did not have any control
over the bank officials in the manner in which the entries were made in
the books of accounts, is nothing else but of desperation. All the
accused in connivance with each other have cheated the bank, by
submitting cheques of the accounts in which there was no balance, or
without any submission thereof and entries by the bank officers in the
Page 6 of 7
books of account showing them to be pending for clearing and giving
credit to the account holder/accused.
11. We may also notice that SLP(Crl.) No.2722 of 2024 filed by
the R. Geetha, one of the accused account holders in the same FIR, was
dismissed by this court on 07.03.2024.
12. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any case
is made out for grant of leave to appeal. The Special Leave Petitions are
accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are directed to surrender
before the concerned Trial Court within 2 weeks from today.
……………….……………..J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
……………….……………..J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
New Delhi
May 3, 2024.
Page 7 of 7