Telangana High Court
CRLP/2485/2010 of Gourishetti Chandraiah (A-140 Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2485 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner/ A .14 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 109 IPC along with others. He was one of the Directors in Vasavi Co- operative Urban Bank Limited (in
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2485 of 2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
The petitioner/A.14 is accused of offences punishableunder Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 109 IPCalong with others. He was one of the Directors in Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited (in short, the bank). He filedCrl.M.P.No.3568 of 2009 in C.C.No.152 of 2004 fordischarging him from the case. By order dated 17.08.2009the Magistrate dismissed the said petition. The said orderwas questioned by the petitioner before the MetropolitanSessions Judge, Hyderabad by way of Crl.R.P.No.142 of2009. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad byjudgment dated 15.12.2009 dismissed the said revisionpetition. Now, the petitioner approached this Court with thisCriminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court is ofthe opinion that this is nothing but to circumvent the ban ofentertaining a second revision petition against a revisionalorder. It is contended by the Senior Counsel that thisCriminal Petition is maintainable in case there is miscarriageof justice committed by both the Courts below.
2. Subject matter of the case is obtaining of term loan ofRs.30,00,000/- and OD facility of Rs.10,00,000/- by A.1 andA.2 from the bank by forging signatures of T.VenkateswaraRao (2[nd] witness as per the list in the charge sheet) bymortgaging property standing in the joint names of A.1, A.2and T.Venkateswara Rao. Subsequently, OD facility wasenhanced from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/- and againfrom Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/-. The said sanction ofloan including OD facility as well as enhancements of ODfacility were without prior approval of Board of Directors andwithout following procedure. The allegations against A.12 toA.16 who are Directors of the bank is that they haveapproved sanction of enhancement of OD facility fromRs.15,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/- in the Board of Directorsmeeting held on 31.05.2001 after release of loan amount. Itis contended by the Senior Counsel for the petitioner thatmere post-facto approval of enhancements of OD facilityafter release of loan amount will not attract any of the penalprovisions alleged against the petitioner and that in order toconstitute cheating, there must be deception from theinception of the transaction and that in order to constitute conspiracy, there must be prior meeting of minds and thatthere is no material to show the same. By virtue of post-factoapproval by the Board of Direcdtors of the bank, the fraudcommitted on the bank was approved by the Board. It is amatter for evidence to find out whether the Board of Directorsincluding the petitioner/A.14 had any prior knowledge of thefraud resulting in loss to the bank before approvingenhancement of the OD facility. It cannot be said that thereis no triable case against A.14 in this offence. I do not findany gross miscarriage of justice in this matter and it is amatter which has to be finally decided after full trial of thecase before the trial Court.
3. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Dt.29[th] December, 2011
PNV
_______________________
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J