1

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1949 OF 2009

M. RAMALINGAM         ..APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE SBE/CBI/ACB, MADRAS               .RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2186­2188 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 347 OF 2010

J U D G M E N T

Rastogi, J.

1. The instant appeals arise from the common judgment dated 21st

July, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras

upholding the conviction of the appellant T. Maran (accused no. 1) for

offences under Section 120B, 467, 467 read with 471, 420, 477­A IPC

and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/­ in all

the three cases and the sentence was directed to run concurrently.

2

Appellant  M.  Ramalingam (accused no.  2 in  CC no.  03/1995)  was

convicted under Section 120B and 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo

rigorous  imprisonment for two years  and also  to  pay a fine  of  Rs.

1,000/­ in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for

each of the offences and appellant N. Rajangam(accused no. 2 in CC

no. 05/1995) was convicted under Section 120B, 467 read with 471

IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years

and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/­ in default to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 6 months for each of the offences.   

2. The brief facts of the case are that T.Maran(A1) in all the three

cases was the Branch Manager in the Indian Overseas Bank (IOB),

Narikudi from 4th May, 1988 to 28th January, 1991.  Accused no. 1(T.

Maran) along with one Nagrajan(A2 in CC No. 04/1995) (who was the

clerk­cum­typist died after filing of the charge­sheets) were the

custodian of the  jewel safe of the Branch.   Three separate criminal

cases CC No. 03/1995, 04/1995 and 05/1995 were filed against him

and the allegation was that appellant(T.Maran­A1) sanctioned

agricultural jewel loan of Rs. 7,000/­ in favour of M. Ramalingam(A2

in CC No. 03/1995) in AJL No. 78/89.  It was alleged that the jewels

deposited in AJL No. 45/81 had been used by A1 (T. Maran) for the

purpose of advancing loan AJL No. 78/89 to M. Ramalingam(appellant

3

in Criminal Appeal No. 1949 of 2009).  For that purpose, account no.

AJL 45/81 was opened on 12th  November, 1981 and closed on 26th

March, 1988.

3. In a  different transaction,  Appellant  T.  Maran  (A1)  sanctioned

jewel  loan of Rs. 7,100/­ to one Nagarajan(A2 in CC No. 04/1995­

since deceased) in JL No. 49/90.   The allegation was that the jewel

deposited in JL No. 50/90 had been altered to JL No. 49/90 and the

same was used for advancing loan to Nagarajan(deceased).  JL 50/90

was opened on 24th March, 1990 and closed on 1st June, 1990.

4. Yet in  another separate transaction,  appellant (T.  Maran­  A1)

sanctioned agricultural jewel loan of Rs. 10,000/­ to one Rajangam

(A2 in CC No. 05/1995) in AJL NO. 123/90.  The allegation was that

the jewel deposited in AJL No 372/87 had been used for the purpose

of advancing the loan AJL No. 123/90 of Rajangam.  AJL No. 372/87

was opened  on  10th  November, 1987  and closed on  28th  January,

1988.

5. It  was  unearthed  when  appellant(T.  Maran­A1)  went on leave

from 4th October, 1990 to 6th October, 1990.   PW­2 (Krishnamoorthy)

became in­charge and found certain discrepancies and informed the

same to the Chief Zonal Officer.  The Vigilance Officer was deputed to

4

enquire into the loan accounts who, after enquiry, found serious

irregularities and thereafter   three separate FIR were registered and

finally the charges were framed in each of them against appellant T.

Maran(A1) who was charged under Section 120B, 467, 467 read with

471, 420, 477­A IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accused M. Ramalingam(A2 in

CC No. 03/1995 was charged under Section 120B, 420 IPC and

accused N. Rajangam(A2 in CC No. 05/1995)  was charged  under

Section 120B, 467 read with 471 IPC.

6. The allegation against appellant(T. Maran) and appellant(M.

Ramalingam­A2  in CC No.  03/1995) was that  A2  (M. Ramalingam)

along with A1 (T. Maran, Branch Manager) and Nagarajan(since

deceased) conspired together so as to cheat the bank to the extent of

Rs. 7000/­ without pledging the jewel.   A2 (M. Ramalingam) applied

for the jewel loan and the same was sanctioned by A1 (T. Maran) by

making false entries in the jewel loan movement register(Exhibit P­4),

as if the jewel was pledged by A2 (M. Ramalingam) but in fact there

was no entry in the register thereby caused wrongful loss to the bank

and wrongful gain for themselves.  As per the jewel register, the jewel

as shown to be pledged by A2 (M. Ramalingam) is pertaining to other

loanee Sri Muthuramalingham(PW­9) (loan dated 12th  November,

5

1981) and he closed his loan account (AJL No. 45/81 on 26th March,

1988) and the jewel pledged by him was not returned to him which

were kept as lien.  The register shows that bank had not obtained any

jewel in support of loan AJL 78/89 by A2 (M. Ramalingam) and there

was no entry for AJL 78/89 and in between 75/89 and 80/89, one

entry has not been done.

7. The allegation against appellant(T. Maran) and A2 Nagrajan(clerk

who died after filing of the charge­sheet) in CC No. 04/1995 was that

appellant T. Maran(A1) entered in conspiracy to cheat the bank.

Further that A2(Nagarajan­deceased) on 24th March, 1990 applied for

the jewel loan for a sum of Rs. 7,100/­ and the same was sanctioned

by A1 (T. Maran) in JL No. 49/90.   There is no entry of 24th March,

1990  in  the jewel loan movement register(Exhibit  P­5) for the  said

jewel loan but there is entry with regard to a jewel loan no. 50/90

obtained by one  ‘Irulan’ (his jewel  application­Exhibit  P4)  and  that

subsequently jewel loan no. 50/90 had been altered to JL No. 49/90

to show that  the  jewel  was pledged for the JL No. 49/90.   JL No.

50/90 to ‘Irulan’ was sanctioned on the same date, i.e. 24 th  March,

1990 and curious enough,  JL No. 50/90 was closed as the  loanee

‘Irulan’ redeemed the jewel and there is entry in the jewel movement

register of 1st June, 1990 to that effect.

6

8. In yet another transaction which is separately registered CC No.

05/1995, allegation was that A2 (N. Rajangam) along with appellant(T.

Maran­branch manager A1) and Nagrajan(clerk who died after filing of

the charge­sheet) have conspired so as to cheat the bank to the extent

of Rs. 10,000/­ without pledging the jewel.  The allegation was that on

30th  August,  1990,  A2(N.  Rajangam)  applied for jewel loan for  Rs.

10,000/­ without pledging the jewel.   A1 (T. Maran) sanctioned the

loan and the jewels alleged to have been pledged were not appraised

by bank appraiser and further there was no entry in the jewel loan

movement register (Exhibit P­4) with regard to AJL Nos. 123 and 124

of 1990 but whereas on 28th  August, 1990 an entry was made with

regard to  jewel loan no.  122 of  1990 and on 4th  September,  1990,

another entry was made with regard to jewel loan no. 125 of 1990.  It

was alleged that jewels in AJL No. 123 of 1990 were not tallied with

the weight as the available chain weight was only 17.5 grams and not

64 grams as stated in the loan application of A2(N. Rajangam) and the

said jewel pertained to one ‘A. Karuppannan’ who pledged the jewel on

10th November, 1987 under the jewel loan no. 372/87 and received the

loan of Rs. 2,000/­ and the loan account was closed by him on 28 th

January, 1988 but the jewel was not returned to him as the same was

kept as lien over the bullock cart loan 8/84.

7

9. It  is to be noticed that apart from the criminal case, both the

employees faced  departmental enquiry and  after  being  held guilty,

appellant(T. Maran­A1) was dismissed from service on 8th July, 1992.

10. That during the course of trial  the statements of PW­2(Officer,

Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office, Madurai), PW­3(Officer,

Vigilance, Indian Overseas Bank), PW­4(Cashier, Indian Overseas

Bank, Narikkudi), PW­5(Chief Officer, Zonal Office), PW­6(Special

Assistant, Indian Overseas Bank, Narikkudi) and PW­8(Mr.

Jayprakash, the legal heir of the loanee Karuppannan) were recorded

in support of the case of the prosecution and the learned trial Judge

conducted simultaneous trial of all the three cases 03/1995, 04/1995

and 05/1995 and held appellant(T. Maran) guilty and convicted him

under Section 120B, 467, 467 read with 471, 420, 477­A  IPC and

Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of  Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/­ in default to undergo

rigorous  imprisonment  for  six months  for  each of the offences and

sentence to run concurrently.   

11. At the same time appellant M. Ramalingam(A2 in CC no.

03/1995) was convicted under Section 120B and 420 IPC and

8

appellant N. Rajangam(A2 in CC no. 05/1995) was convicted under

Section 120B, 467 read with 471 IPC and sentenced to undergo

rigorous  imprisonment for two years  and also  to  pay a fine  of  Rs.

1,000/­ in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for

each of the offences.   

12. The High Court also on appraisal found no infirmity in the

findings recorded by the trial Judge holding the appellants guilty for

the aforesaid offences and proceeded on the indisputed facts which

came on record that appellant T. Maran(A1) was the Branch Manager

from 4th  May, 1988 to 28th  January, 1991 and Nagarajan, since

deceased,  being shroff  during that  period  were joint custodians  of

jewel  safe  of the branch, that  one Karuppannan availed  jewel loan

372/87 and the account was closed on 28th  January,  1988 on his

repayment, that when appellant T. Maran(A1) went on leave from 4th

October, 1990 to 6th  October, 1990, PW­2 Krishnamoorthy was

deputed in his place and also appraised the evidence of PW­3

Vigilance Officer of  the Bank who inspected physically all the jewel

with the pending loan accounts and on physical verification, he found

only one jewel namely gold chain weighing 17.5 grams available in the

pocket relating to AJL 123/90 instead of 10 items of jewels and the

one  jewel  also was pertaining to the  jewel loan 372/87.   The High

9

Court also took note of the statement of PW­4 (S.A. Soosai Prakasam,

Cashier, IOB, Narikkudi), PW­6(P. Ponnuchamy, Spl. Assistant, IOB,

Narikudi), PW­8 (Mr. Jayprakash, the legal heir of the loanee

Karuppannan) and found no infirmity in the finding recorded by the

learned  trial  Judge under the impugned  judgment  and accordingly

confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused appellants and

held that the appellant(T. Maran­A1) being the public servant by

abusing position and by illegal means dishonestly misused the public

money and got the amount sanctioned without furnishing any

security.   Thus, charges framed against the accused appellants have

been held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly

confirmed the conviction  and sentenced  passed  by the trial  Court

under the impugned judgment.

13. We have  heard  learned counsel for the  parties  and with  their

assistance perused the material available on record.

14. As regards the appellant(T. Maran­A1) is concerned, there is

sufficient evidence on record which has been examined by the trial

Judge and so also appraised by the High Court and nothing has been

elicit from the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant

and on appraisal of the evidence which has come on record and after

going through the impugned judgment of the case, we find no

10

apparent error being committed by the High Court in upholding

conviction of the accused appellant(T. Maran) for the offences under

Section 467, 467 read with 471, 420, 477­A IPC and Section 13(2)

read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

15. At the same time so far as appellant M. Ramalingam(A2 in CC

No. 03/1995) and appellant N. Rajangam(A2 in CC No. 05/1995) is

concerned, there was no evidence on record which could at all connect

them for the offences under Section 120B and 420 IPC(appellant M.

Ramalingam) and Section 120B, 467, 467 read with 471 IPC(appellant

N.  Rajangam)  and  it  was not the  case  of the  prosecution  that the

loanee A2(N. Ramalingam and N. Rajangam) were ever aware of this

fact that  such a  loan could be sanctioned only  after  a  jewel  being

pledged.  In all bonafides, it reveals from the record that applications

were submitted by the loanee who are illiterate agriculturists and loan

was got sanctioned by the appellant T. Maran(A1­Bank Manager) with

the connivance of the Nagrajan(deceased)  in violating the rules and

regulations for their personal gains.   

16. We are not able to trace out any evidence in respect of

dishonesty/misuse in obtaining loan without furnishing any security.

In our  view  the  prosecution has failed to  prove  beyond reasonable

doubt the charges levelled against the appellant(M. Ramalingam and

11

N. Rajangam) in Criminal Appeal No. No. 1949 of 2009 and Criminal

Appeal 347 of 2010 and, the conviction of appellant M. Ramalingam

under Section 120B and 420 IPC and appellant N. Rajangam under

Section 120B, 467 read with 471 IPC deserves to be set aside.

17. Consequently,  Criminal  Appeal  No. 1949 of 2009 filed by  M.

Ramalingam and Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2010 filed by N.

Rajangam are allowed.  The impugned judgment qua the appellants is

hereby set aside and since both are on bail, their bail bonds be

discharged.  

18. At the same time, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2186­2188 of 2009 filed

by appellant T. Maran (A1) are hereby dismissed.   The appellant T.

Maran was granted bail on 9th  April, 2010.   His bail bonds are

cancelled and he is directed to surrender and undergo remaining part

of the sentence.   

19. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

……………………………………..J. (N. V. RAMANA)

……………………………………...J. (AJAY RASTOGI)

NEW DELHI OCTOBER 03, 2019  

12