THE HONOURABLE MR v. State rep byThe Special Police,Establishment/Central Bureauof Investigation/Anti-CorruptionBranch, Chennai

BAIL SLIP---------THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NAMELY M.V.NATHAN, WAS DIRECTED TO BE RELEASEDON BAIL IN CRL.M.P.NO. 5804/99 IN C.A.NO.545/99 DATED 20.7.1999 BY THEHON'BLE COURT.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 26.06.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCrl.A.No.545 of 1999M.V.Nathan .. Appellant/Accusedvs.State rep byThe Special Police,Establishment/Central Bureauof Investigation/Anti-CorruptionBranch, Chennai. .. Respondent/ComplainantPrayer: This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated30.6.1999 made in C.C.N O.130 of 1997 on the file of the Principal SpecialJudge for CBI cases, Chennai.For Appellant : Mr.V.Gopinath, Senior Counsel, for S.SureshFor Respondent : Mr.N.Chandrasekaran Special Public Prosecutor for CBI CasesJUDGMENTThis appeal has been preferred against the judgment inC.C.No.130 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge for CBICases, Chennai. Originally there were two accused in this caseviz.M.V.Nathan (A1) and M.C.Ramamoorthy (A2). A2-M.C.Ramamurthy abscondedpending trial, hence the case against A2 was split up as C.C.No.130 of1997 from C.C.No.1 of 1994.2.The short facts of the prosecution case is that whileA1-M.V.Nathan/Appellant was working as a Branch Manager in IndianOverseas Bank, Gudiyatham Branch, during 1989-90, he had entered into acriminal conspiracy with the other accused and in pursuance of the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conspiracy this accused has sanctioned five loans under SEEUY (SelfEmployment to Educated Unemployed Youth) scheme for providing selfemployment to educated unemployed youth in the name of One Krishnamurthyunder loan No.3/89 for Rs.35,000/- dated 15.2.1989 for setting up an oilExpeller through the DIC, loan No.6/89 for Rs.25,000/- dated 2.3.1989 inthe name of M.S.Umapathy, to purchase a paddy thrasher, through the DIC,Loan No.13/89 for Rs.25,064/- dated 4.5.1989 in the name ofK.C.Jagadeeswran for purchase of paddy thrasher through the DIC, LoanNo.22/89 for Rs.35,000/- dated 23.5.1989 in the name of S.Ramachandran, tostart a 500 litre Milk Chilling Plant, through the DIC, Loan No.24/89 forRs.25,000/- in the name of Dasarathan, to start a Jaggery ManufacturingUnit through the DIC. All the above said loan were sanctioned by theaccused M.V.Nathan to the above five persons on the basis of bogusinvoices and cash bills prepared by the absconding accused M.C.Ramamurthy(A2) in the name of M/s.Sri Lakshmi Traders No.73/1 Pillaiyar Koil Street,Gudiyatham, which is a fictitious firm floated by the absconding accusedM.C.Ramamurthy (A2) for cheating Indian Overseas Bank. The appellantM.V.Nathan had sanctioned the above said loans without conducting pre andpost sanction verifications. Thus the accused M.V.Nathan had abused hisofficial position as a public servant favoured and obtained for theabsconding accused M.C.Ramamurthy (A2) thereby causing wrongful loss tothe tune of Rs.1,45,000/- to the Indian Overseas bank and therebycommitted an offence punishable under Section 120(B) r/w 420, 467, 468,471 r/w 465 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988.3.Since the accused/appellant is no longer in service the complainthas been preferred without obtaining any sanction for the prosecution. Onappearance of the accused on summons, copies under section 207 of Cr.P.C.,were furnished and when the charges were framed and questioned the accusedpleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.15 wereexamined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.51 were marked. 4.Out of the 15 witnesses P.W.5, P.W.7 & P.W.8 have turned hostile.P.W.1 was working as a Deputy Manager of IOB, Gudiyatham Branch, duringthe relevant period and he speaks about the procedure relating to thesanction of loans to unemployed youth under SEEUY scheme.5.P.W.2 was working as an Officer in IOB, Regional Office, Vellore,during the relevant period and he also speaks about the sanction of loanto P.W.5 for purchasing an Oil Expeller and grant of loan to P.W.6, P.W.7& P.W.8 for the purchase of paddy hulling machine and grant of loan to oneDhasarathan for the purchase of Timber sawing machine. He would deposethat Ex.P.20-letter addressed by A2 to Zonal Manager IOB, Vellore, whichincriminates A1 and A2 with the crime. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.P.W.3 is a resident of Gudiyatham, who would speak about the rentalagreement-Ex.P.7 entered into between him and P.W.5.7.P.W.4 is also a resident of Gudiyatham, who speaks about the takingof a shop belonging to P.W.3 on lease and that there was no shop in thename of Lakshmi Traders adjacent to his shop.8.P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 & P.W.8 are the loanees, who have obtained loanof Rs.35,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively from IOB,Gudiyatham Branch, for purchasing of Oil Expelling machine, paddy hullingmachine and paddy hulling machine respectively. P.W.5 admits the tenancyagreement under Ex.P.6 with P.W.3. Since P.W.5 and P.W.7 have notsupported the case of the prosecution, they have been treated as hostilewitnesses by the prosecution.9.According to P.W.6, on the instructions of A1 he approached A2and obtained quotation from him under Ex.P.21 and on that basis he hadavailed the loan of Rs.25,000/- from IOB. According to him. A1 haddemanded a percentage from the loan sanctioned towards illegalgratification and that he has also paid Rs.2,500/- to A1 and Rs.500 to A2as a bribe for the sanction of the loan. According to him, even withoutpurchasing the paddy hulling machine the entire loan amount was sanctionedand dispersed to him.10.P.W.9 is an Officer-cum-Accountant in IOB, Gudiyatham, during therelevant period. He speaks about A2, who has opened a current account inthe name of Sri Lakshmi Traders on 17.2.1989 with the IOB, GudiyathamBranch and that on 17.2.1989 he was introduced by P.W.10 who is alreadyhaving an account with the said branch of IOB.11.P.W.10 also speaks about the introducing of A2 for opening currentaccount in IOB, Gudiyatham Branch.12.P.W.11 is the owner of a Timber Depot in Gudiyathm and he speaksabout renting out his premises to one Dasarathan on 30.3.1989 on the basisof rental agreement Ex.P.38. But the timber sawing machine was noterected in the said place.13.P.W.12 is the then Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, whowould depose about the recording of a statement under Section 164 ofCr.P.C. From A2 and the proceedings relating to that have been marked asEx.P.39 to Ex.P.43. Ex.P.42 is the statement recorded the said Magistratefrom A2 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14.P.W.13 is an handwriting expert, who had compared the disputedsignature in the document with that of the admitted signature of A1 & A2and has given an opinion under Ex.P.45-report that the disputed signaturein the documents does not relate to A1 but the same relates to A2.15.P.W.14 is a resident of Gudiyatham, who had sublet his premises toA2.16.P.W.15 is an Investigating Officer, who after examining thewitnesses and recording the statements of the witnesses and afterfollowing the formalities had filed the final report against the accused.According to him, no incriminating documents or any cash or any jewelsrecovered from A1 during the search.17.When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused underSection 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied their complicity with thecrime. After going through the material placed before the trial Court andafter scanning the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned trialJudge has come to the conclusion that this appellant/A1 is guilty underSections 120(B) r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 465 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and convictedthe accused under Section 120(B) r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 465 IPC andsentenced to undergo one year RI and also convicted the accused underSection 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years RI and convicted theaccused under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of CorruptionAct, 1988, and sentenced to undergo two years RI and a fine of Rs.500/- indefault to undergo 6 months RI. Aggrieved by the findings of the learnedtrial Judge, the accused-1 has preferred this appeal.18.Heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Gopinath and the learnedSpecial Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases Mr.N.Chandrasekaran and consideredtheir respective submissions. 19.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Gopinath would submit that he isnot going to touch upon the merit of the case but only on the sentence.The learned Senior Counsel would represent that the accused was aged 68years (as per the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.) at the time ofawarding of he sentence by the the trial Court and now he is aged 76 yearsand he is no more in service and had undergone by-pass surgery and hisentire movement are restricted and he is not able to move freely withoutthe assistant and at this advanced age he will not survive in prison.The learned senior counsel relying on 2007 (1) LW (Crl) 123 (S.P.Meiappanappellant/A1 in Crl.A.719/00 & G.Chandragiri appellant/A2 in Crl.A.720/00 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vs. State rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI (V & A.C),Chennai), would contend that while confirming the conviction the sentencealone can be modified to that of one year SI under Section 120(B) r/w 420,467, 468, 471 r/w 465 IPC instead of two years RI and also one year SIunder Section 420 IPC instead of two years RI and also one year SI underSection 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,instead of two years RI, to enable the accused to approach the StateGovernment under Section 432(3) of Cr.P.C., for conversion of simpleimprisonment to fine. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has notraised any serious objection for this course on the ground of the advancedage of the accused. 20. Under such circumstances, considering the age of the accused andthe fact that he has already repaid the entire amount of ill gotten moneyand also the fact that the accused had undergone by-pass surgery even inthe year 1990, I am inclined to modify the sentence alone as indicatedabove. As far as the conviction of the trial Court is concerned the sameis confirmed, but the sentence alone is modified as follows:- As far as the sentence under Sections 120(B) r/w 420, 467, 468, 471r/w 465 IPC is concerned the sentence of one year RI is modified to thatof one year SI and under Section 420 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is concerned the sentenceof two years RI for each offence is modified to that of one year SI each.The appellant/A1 is further directed to pay an additional fine ofRs.25,000/- to be deposited before the Principal Sessions Court for CBICases, Chennai, to enable the appellant/A1 to approach the StateGovernment under Sub-section 3 of Section 432 of Cr.P.C., for conversionof simple imprisonment to fine. Since there is no loss to the bank and nocomplaint has been preferred by the bank in this case, it is furtherrecommended to the State Government to release the appellant/accused oncharging fine of Rs.3000/- and to pass an appropriate order to that effectwithin a period of three months from this date. The appellant shalldeposit the additional fine of Rs.25,000/- imposed by this Court and alsothe altered fine of Rs.3000/- before the trial Court within a period ofthree weeks from today and appraise the State Government to dispose ofthis application. On doing so, the appellant need not undergo thesentence of imprisonment, otherwise he shall undergo the modified sentenceas stated earlier. With this direction Crl.A.No.545 of 1999 preferred bythe appellant/A1 stands disposed of.ssvSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.2.The Special Police, Establishment/ Central Bureau of Investigation Anti-corruption Branch, Chennai.3.The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases.Madras.+ One cc to Mr. L. Mahendran, Advocate SR 37725NSM (co)sg 27/6/07Crl.A.No.545 of 199926.06.2007