Cbi case HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.R.C.Nos.200 & 376 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos. 1493, 1496, 3894 & 3895 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.Nos.200 & 376 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.Nos. 1493, 1496, 3894 & 3895 of 2025

Crl.R.C.No. 200 of 2025

1. M/s. Risher Engineering and Components Private Limited,
Represented by its Managing Directors S.Chellakumar,
& C.Jayasujatha,
Registered Office at 15, Grace Avenue,
Renganathan Nagar, Selaiyur, Chennai,
and Factory address at 1/150, Ottiyambakkam Main Road,
Chittalapakkam (V),
Chennai – 600 126.

2. S.Chellakumar

3. C.Jayasujatha … Petitioners
Vs
The State, rep. by Inspector of Police,
CBI/ACB, Chennai
(RC No. MA1/2016A/0001) … Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023, to set aside the order dated 06.08.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 2607/2019 in C.C.No. 32/2017 on the file of the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases (relating to Banks and Financial Institutions) at Chennai.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Srinivasan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases

Crl.R.C.No. 376 of 2025

P. Ilango .. Petitioner
Vs
The Inspector of Police,
CBI/ACB, Chennai. … Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023, to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1038/2018 dated 06.08.2024 in C.C.No. 32/2017 by the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and discharge him from the above case.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.S.Mahesh
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases

COMMON ORDER
These two revision cases arise out of the same C.C. No. 32 of 2017 on the file of the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai (since transferred to the XXIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai), based on the orders passed in Criminal M.P. Nos. 2607 of 2019 and 1038 of 2018 dated 06.08.2024, both being discharge applications filed by Accused Nos. 2 to 4 and Accused No. 1, respectively. As such, both are dealt with and disposed of by this common order.
2. By separate orders, the discharge applications filed by Accused No. 1 Ilango, and Accused Nos. 2 to 4, namely M/s.Risher Engineering and Components Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Directors S. Chellakumar and C. Jayasujatha, S. Chellakumar and C. Jayasujatha, were dismissed by the Trial Court. At the time of admission, this Court, speaking through the Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.Nirmal Kumar by order dated 27.03.2025, captured the factual matrix of the entire case, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-
“The petitioner/A1 was Assistant General Manager/Loan Sanction Authority of complainant – Bank/Bank of Baroda, T.Nagar Branch, Chennai, from 2012 to 2015. The borrower, namely A2 Company/M/s. Risher Engineering and Components Private Limited and its Director, namely A3 and A4, who are the principal beneficiaries of the loan of Rs.4.93 crores, had committed the offence of cheating using A5-Company/M/s.New Line Machinery Private Limited. A6 and A7, who are the Directors of A5 Company, said to have obtained the banker’s cheque from the complainant bank for disbursement of loan or Rs.166.31 lakhs by giving false quotations/Proforma Invocie in the guise of supply of machinery and facilitated A3 and A4 to defraud the fund for their own use. A8-Company/ M/s.DRA Industries Private Limited through its Director A9 obtained the banker’s cheque from the complainant Bank for disbursement of loan to the tune of Rs.80.38 lakhs by giving false quotations/proforma Invoice in the guise of supply for machinery and facilitated A3 and A4 to defraud the fund for their own use. Thus the accused in this case, namely A2 and A3 through A5 to A8 cheated the complainant bank to the tune of Rs.4.05 crores.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a public servant against whom, charge sheet filed for offence under Sections 411, 420, 409, 468, 471 r/w 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Since the loan account of A2-Company became NPA on 31.03.2014, during verification of documnets the cheating committed by the accused company came to light. The petitioner as Assistant General Manager, on the recommendation put up by the concerned loan officer after prior verification, had granted loan. Since the loan has become NPA now he was falsely implicated on the complaint given by the then Deputy General Manager on 29.12.2015. Thereafter, charge sheet filed in the year 2017 listing 31 witnesses and 157 documents.”

3. Heard Mr.K.Srinivasan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.R.C.No. 200 of 2025, Mr.G.S.Mahesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No. 376 of 2025 and Mr.K.Srinivasan, the learned Special Public Prosector(CBI Cases) appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first accused, who is a public servant would submit that in this case, the final report was filed by the respondent on 04.01.2017. The petitioner was a public servant on that date, and therefore, without obtaining sanction, the final report was filed and cognizance was taken by the Trial Court. As such, the petitioner is liable to be discharged, as the entire final report and the cognizance taken ought to be held void in the absence of valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Accused Nos. 2 to 4 submitted that this is a case where they had obtained a loan and due to a slump in business, there was some irregularity in repayment. Without any material with reference to dishonesty or other, a criminal case was registered and the prosecution, with no substantive material, has filed the final report. The Trial Court ought to have found that there was absolutely no material to proceed against Accused Nos. 2 to 4 and ought to have discharged them.

6. In reply, Mr.K.Srinivasan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI Cases), submitted that as far as sanction is concerned, the final report was presented to the Court while awaiting the sanction order, to reach the respondent shortly. As a matter of fact, communication had been duly addressed to the sanctioning authority, and when the final report was presented on 04.01.2017, before it was taken up for consideration by the Trial Court and before the authority could apply its mind, the first accused, Ilango, retired from service upon superannuation with effect from 31.01.2017. Therefore, the entire file relating to the grant of sanction was returned with an endorsement. Hence, even though the respondent could have awaited the sanction order before presenting the final report, in the factual context of the present case, it makes no difference at all and no relief can be granted to the first accused in this regard.

7. As far as the contentions with reference to the other accused are concerned, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that it is the respondent’s case that false quotations/proforma invoices were submitted in the supply of machinery and therefore, it cannot be contended that there are no materials indicating dishonest intent at the inception of the transaction.

8. I have considered the rival submissions on both sides and perused the material records of the case.

9. On an earlier occasion, upon hearing the learned counsel on both sides, by an order dated 18.07.2025, this Court called for a report from the Trial Court regarding the date on which cognizance of the offence was taken. Today, by a report dated 28.07.2025, it has been brought on record that cognizance was taken only on 08.09.2017. Therefore, at the time of taking cognizance, the petitioner had already superannuated from service. Thus, in the discharge application, I am unable to hold that the entire exercise of taking cognizance was void. However, the learned counsel pleaded that the act of the Investigating Officer in filing the final report before the sanction file has to be gone into by this Court. Whether any prejudice or miscarriage of justice has been caused to the accused cannot be decided at the stage of discharge. Such a plea, if available, can be raised by the petitioner during the course of trial. The liberty of the accused No. 1 is kept open in that regard.

10. Similarly, when there is prima facie material suggesting submission of false invoices, etc., at the state of discharge, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial. Any findings at this stage may adversely affect Accused Nos. 2 to 4 also. Suffice it to say that at the stage of discharge, the Court has to examine the materials produced by the prosecution. If there are sufficient materials to frame a charge, even if two views are possible, the view which is in favour of the prosecution will only be taken which will be the contrary in case of deciding the case finally. Hence, I find no merit in the case of Accused Nos. 2 to 4 for entertaining this revision, which arises out of the dismissal of their discharge applications.

11. Accordingly, finding no merit, but keeping open the liberty of the petitioners to raise all these grounds during the course of the trial, these criminal revision cases stand dismissed.

12. At this stage, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners requested that the personal appearance of the accused before the Trial Court be dispensed with.

13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including that part of the bank dues has been recovered and the other difficulties pleaded by the accused, I am of the view that the personal appearance of the accused can be dispensed with before the Trial Court, except for neccessary hearings such as framing of charge, questioning or such other hearing as the Trial Court may insist upon.

14. In view thereof, these Criminal Revision Petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The order passed by the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases (relating to Banks and Financial Institutions), Chennai in Criminal M.P. No.2607 of 2019 and 1038 of 2018 dated 06.08.2024 is confirmed.

(ii) The appearance of the petitioners before the Trial Court in C.C.No. 32 of 2017 stands dispensed with, except for necessary hearings such as charge framing, questioning and other proceedings that the Trial Court may insist upon.

(iii) Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.1496 & 3895 of 2025 is ordered and Crl.M.P.Nos. 1493 & 3894 of 2025 is closed.

01.08.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes
nsl

To

1.The Inspector of Police,
CBI/ACB, Chennai
(RC No. MA1/2016A/0001)

2. The XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases
(relating to Banks and Financial Institutions), Chennai

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

nsl

Crl.R.C.Nos. 200 & 376 of 2025

01.08.2025