In a recent ruling by the Madras High Court, the conviction of T. Maran, M. Ramalingam, and N. Rajangam has been upheld for offenses under various sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. This case involves false entries in jewel loan movement registers, leading to significant losses for the bank. While M. Ramalingam and N. Rajangam have been acquitted from certain charges, T. Maran’s sentence of rigorous imprisonment has been confirmed. The judgment brings to light important considerations regarding misuse of public funds and conspiracy. Follow for more updates on this significant legal case.
Facts
- The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld the conviction of appellant T. Maran for offenses under various sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Appellant T. Maran was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in all three cases, with the sentence directed to run concurrently.
- Appellant M. Ramalingam was convicted under Section 120B and 420 IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo further imprisonment in case of non-payment.
- Appellant N. Rajangam was convicted under Section 120B, 467 read with 471 IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo further imprisonment in case of non-payment.
- Accused T. Maran along with Nagrajan were custodians of the jewel safe of the branch.
- False entries were made by A1 in the jewel loan movement register causing loss to the bank.
- Various jewel loans were sanctioned based on false entries and discrepancies were unearthed during a period of leave taken by A1.
- A1 was charged under multiple sections including conspiracy to cheat the bank and misuse of public money.
- Departmental enquiries were conducted leading to dismissal of A1 from service.
- Witness statements and physical verifications supported the prosecution’s case against A1.
- A1 was found guilty and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine which was confirmed by the High Court.
Also Read: Tower Infotech Ltd. Bail Order Appeal
Analysis
- Loan applications were submitted by illiterate agriculturists with the help of T. Maran (A1-Bank Manager) and Nagrajan (deceased)
- No evidence of dishonesty or misuse in obtaining the loan without security was found
- Prosecution failed to prove charges against M. Ramalingam and N. Rajangam in Criminal Appeals No. 1949 of 2009 and 347 of 2010
- Conviction of M. Ramalingam under Section 120B and 420 IPC and N. Rajangam under Section 120B, 467 read with 471 IPC was set aside
- Judgment allowed the appeals filed by M. Ramalingam and N. Rajangam, and their bail bonds were discharged
- High Court upheld the conviction of T. Maran for various offences under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act
- No evidence connecting M. Ramalingam and N. Rajangam to the offences under Section 120B and 420 IPC (Ramalingam) and 120B, 467, 467 read with 471 IPC (Rajangam)
- Prosecution did not establish that the loanee A2 (Ramalingam and Rajangam) were aware that the loan required jewellery pledge
Also Read: Priority of Employees’ Dues in Asset Sale: SARFAESI Act vs. Land Revenue Code
Decision
- Bail bonds of the appellant T. Maran have been cancelled.
- He is directed to surrender and undergo the remaining part of the sentence.
- Criminal Appeal Nos. 2186-2188 of 2009 filed by appellant T. Maran (A1) have been dismissed.
- Pending application(s) have been disposed of.
- Appellant T. Maran was granted bail on 9 April, 2010.
Also Read: Landmark Judgement on Consumer Rights in Healthcare Sector
Case Title: M.RAMALINGAM Vs. STATE TR.INSP.OF POLICE
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001949-001949 / 2009
