{"id":145897,"date":"2010-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-03-30T07:53:40","modified_gmt":"2017-03-30T02:23:40","slug":"k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 16\/02\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM\n\nCriminal Appeal (MD)No.1860 of 2002\n\n\nK.Thakkshinamurthy\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\nvs\n\nState rep.by\n The Inspector of Police,\n SPE\/CBI\/ACB, Chennai\n (RC.No.20(A)\/99) \t\t\t\t..  Respondent\n\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Sections 374 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in\nC.C.No.3 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI\ncases, Madurai, peruse and set aside the judgment dated 27.12.2002 and thereby\nacquit the appellant.\n\n!For Appellant \t ... Mr.K.Thakshinamurthy\n   \t             Party in Person\n^For Respondent\t ... Mr.S.Rozario Sundar Raj,\n\t\t     Special Public Prosecutor \t\t\t\n\t\t     (for CBI Cases)\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe appellant herein is the accused in C.C.No.3 of 2002 on the file of the
\nPrincipal Special Judge for CBI cases, Madurai and stands convicted for the
\noffence under Sections 467, 468, 467 r\/w 471, 420   IPC and for the offence
\nunder Sections 13(2) r\/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act and sentenced as follows:
\n\t“i)The accused was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine
\nof Rs.10,000\/-, in default to undergo RI for 6 months for the offence under
\nSection 467 of IPC\n<\/p>\n
\tii)The accused was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine
\nof Rs.10,000\/-, in default to undergo RI for 6 months for the offence under
\nSection 468 of IPC\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)The accused was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine
\nof Rs.10,000\/- in default to undergo RI for 6 months for the offence under
\nSection 467 r\/w 471 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tiv)The accused was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine
\nof Rs.10,000\/- in default to undergo RI for 6 months for the offence under
\nSection 420 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tv)The accused was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of
\nRs.16,00,000\/- (Rs.16 lakhs) in default to undergo RI for one year for the
\noffence under Section 13(2) r\/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, 1988″.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the appellant herein has
\npreferred this criminal appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\ta)The accused K.Thakkshinamurthy, joined in the State Bank of India at
\nArasaradi Branch as Branch Manager on 05.07.1996 on transfer from, Commercial
\nTax Office,  Madurai.  As a Branch Manager, he was the overall in charge of the
\nBranch and he was the Branch Manager till 06.10.1998.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)During the relevant period, P.W.10 Clerk\/Cashier in the said branch was
\nlooking after TDR seat. On 13.11.1996, he received blank forms bearing
\nNos.179601 to 179650 from P.W.9 who was the custodian of the STDR security
\nforms. The accused approached P.W.10 and asked two STDRs forms saying that it
\nwas to be issued for some V.I.P customers. P.W.10 handed over the STDR blank
\nforms bearing Nos.179604 and 179605. P.W.10, did not get any acknowledgement
\nfrom the accused since the accused was the Branch Manager. P.W.10 also informed
\nabout this to P.W.9, Accountant. P.W.9 noted two instrument numbers received by
\nthe accused in Ex.P.8. Making use of the blank STDR form bearing No.179605, the
\naccused created a loan for Rs.20,00,000\/- in the name of K.Raju and the receipt
\nalso was ante dated as 20.07.1996. Thereafter, in February 1997, the accused
\napproached P.W.6 who was the then Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Madurai
\nKamaraj University Branch and collected a loan application. Two days thereafter,
\nthe accused approached P.W.6 along with filled and signed loan application under
\nEx.P.10 and other documents namely demand promissory note\/Ex.P.11 duly signed on
\nthe revenue stamp by one K.Raju and one D.P.note delivery letter under Ex.P.12
\nalso signed by K.Raju along with fake STDR Ex.P.3. On the basis of the document,
\nthe accused requested P.W.6 to give a loan of Rs.15 lakhs on the strength of
\nEx.P.3, a fake STDR.  The accused also told P.W.6 that the depositor was a
\ncontractor and was a good customer and as he was a busy man, he could not come
\nto the branch. P.W.6 also sanctioned the loan and the loan amount was disbursed
\nby way of two Demand Drafts one for Rs.9 lakhs and another one for Rs.6 lakhs in
\nthe name of K.Raju which are marked as Exs.P.15 and 16 respectively.  P.W.6 had
\npersonally handed over those demand drafts Exs.P.15 and 16 to the accused. When
\nthere was an inspection during 1997, the Inspecting Officer insisted for filing
\nof the account opening form for the purpose of verification of signature. As it
\nwas requested by P.W.6, the accused gave Ex.P.19, account opening form and
\nspecimen signature card, dated 04.04.1997 and it was attested by the accused.
\nThe accused who brought those two demand drafts Exs.P.15 and 16 to his branch
\ncreated another STDR bearing No.179842 for Rs.15 lakhs, dated 26.02.1997 in
\nfavour of K.Raju. The accused also opened a current account in the name of
\nK.Raju with Current A\/c.No.013693. Thereafter, the accused passed Ex.P.4 cheque
\nfor Rs.5 lakhs, dated 27.02.1997 in the name of K.Raju and also passed another
\ncheque Ex.P.5, dated 28.02.1997 for Rs.6 lakhs in the name of K.Raju.
\nSubsequently, on 27.03.1997, the STDR bearing No.179842 dated 26.02.1997 under
\nEx.P.7 was closed by the accused and the proceeds amounting to Rs.15,07,150\/-
\nwas credited to the current account of K.Raju through Ex.P.6\/pay in slips.
\nSubsequently, the amount which was credited to the current account of K.Raju
\nalso was withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)P.W.15, who was working as Assistant Manager in State Bank of India,
\nM.K.U Branch contacted the Arasaradi Branch Manager, P.W.4, who was the
\nsuccessor of the accused as Manager in SBI, Arasaradi and asked whether
\nEx.P.3\/TDR No.179605 was available in their books since their branch had
\nadvanced a loan against the said TDR. Ex.P.3 had matured on 20.07.1998. P.W.4
\nasked P.W.15 to bring all the relevant documents. On verifying the records found
\nthat no such STDR\/Ex.P.3 was issued by Arasaradi Branch. The fraud was detected
\nand P.W.17 who was the Manager Vigilance in SBI, local Head Office at Chennai
\nwas instructed by the Deputy General Manager to conduct an enquiry and he also
\nconducted an enquiry and submitted his report Ex.P.31.  P.W.17 found so many
\nirregularities and the fraud committed by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\td)P.W.18, who was working as Inspector in CBI\/ACB, Chennai registered a
\ncase in Crime No.21(A)\/99 for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
\n477-A of IPC and under Sections 13(2) r\/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act on 13.07.1999 and
\nprepared Ex.P.32\/FIR. After receiving the case, P.W.18 obtained  documents from
\nthe bank and also examined witnesses collected relevant materials. He also
\nexamined the accused after obtaining specimen signature and writings sent those
\nspecimen signatures and writings of the accused to the handwriting expert for
\ncomparison of questioned documents. P.W.16, handwriting expert has given his
\nopinion under Ex.P.30. The Investigating Officer after obtaining sanction\/Ex.P.2
\nfrom P.W.1 laid a final report against the accused on 29.12.1999 under Sections
\n420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of IPC and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of
\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
\nprosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and marked Exs.P.1 to 32.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The learned trial Judge, with reference to the incriminating materials
\nadduced by the prosecution, questioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
\nfor which, he pleaded innocence. No defence witness was examined but Exs.D-1 to
\nD-94 were marked during the cross examination of witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The learned trial Judge, after assessing the materials placed and
\nconsidering the arguments advanced on either side, convicted and sentenced the
\naccused as stated supra.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The appellant herein who is confined in prison appeared before this
\nCourt and submitted his arguments as a party-in-person. When this Court
\nspecifically questioned him whether he requires the assistance of any lawyer, he
\nsaid that he himself would argue the case since he was thorough with the facts
\nof this case and he would be in a better position in explaining the documents
\nbefore this Court.  The appellant apart from making his oral submissions also
\nfiled written arguments. Though there is no specific provision for filing
\nwritten arguments in the appeal this Court entertained the written submissions.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.The learned Special Public Prosecutor also was heard.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.This Court after hearing the arguments reserved the judgment and perused
\nall the records carefully.   Since this Court felt that any important point in
\nfavour of the accused which may disprove the prosecution case should not go
\nunnoticed.  Though this Court has taken into consideration the oral and written
\narguments of the appellant\/accused while perusing the records, the relevant
\narguments are now dealt with by this Court in this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The appellant submitted that Ex.P.3 was never prepared by him and it is
\nnot in his handwriting and Ex.P.3 was concocted by P.W.6, the Branch Manager of
\nMKU branch.\n<\/p>\n
\tii)The appellant also pointed out that as per Ex.D-1, the show cause
\nnotice, dated 01.03.1999 issued by the Regional Zonal Office, Madurai to the
\naccused wherein it was mentioned that TDR Nos.179604 and 179605 were issued for
\nthe amount of Rs.10 lakhs each.\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)The appellant also pointed out certain contradictions from the copy of
\nthe plaint in O.S.No.127 of 2002 on the file of the learned II Additional Sub
\nCourt, Madurai filed by P.W.3.\n<\/p>\n
\tiv)The appellant also submitted that if the loan was sanctioned at the
\ninstance of the accused by P.W.6, he could have got the signature of the accused
\nwhile delivering the demand drafts Exs.P.15 and 16 respectively and there was a
\ncollusion between the Branch Manager of MKU Branch\/P.W.6 and the accountant of
\nArasaradi Branch P.W.9. The signatures of the accused found on the back side of
\nthe cheques Exs.P.4 and 5 would not be incriminating against the accused since
\nthe initial made by the accused amounts to only attestation which was done for
\nthe genuineness of the signatures and regarding the identification of the payee.
\nP.W.16, handwriting expert also has not given any opinion that the signature of
\nK.Raju was forged by the accused and K.Raju is not a fictitious person. The
\namount of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.6 lakhs in Exs.P.4 and 5 were paid only to the
\naccount holder K.Raju and the entry in the cashier’s payment scroll Exs.D-19 and
\n20 show that the payments are made only to K.Raju.\n<\/p>\n
\tv)The appellant further submitted that no documentary evidence has been
\nlet in by the prosecution regarding the loss to the MKU Branch and if Ex.P.3 is
\nforged one, then there would have been loss at Arasaradi Branch but no document
\nhas been filed by the prosecution and the accused cannot be implicated.\n<\/p>\n
\tvi)The appellant further added that the opinion given by handwriting
\nexpert were not based on sound reasonings and the sanction accorded by P.W.1 was
\nnot proper and the particulars contained in Ex.P.2 are contrary to the facts
\nalleged by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that there
\nis ample oral and documentary evidence against the accused to show that the
\naccount of K.Raju was handled only by the accused and the said K.Raju never
\nappeared before the bank or before any of the officials and all the transactions
\nwere made only by the accused. The prosecution also has let in evidence through
\nBank Inspecting Officer and P.W.5, Postman, the address of the account holder
\nK.Raju is false and it is only a fictitious account created by the accused only
\nfor the purpose of committing fraud. Ex.P.3\/the fictitious STDR was created by
\nthe accused and P.W.16, the handwriting expert also has given opinion that the
\nhandwriting found in Ex.P.3 is that of the accused. The accused had also signed
\nin Ex.P.18 letter given from the MKU Branch. Ex.P.19, Account opening form was
\nalso produced only by the accused. The cheque amount of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.6
\nlakhs in Exs.P.4 and 5 were given only to the accused.  P.W.14, Computer
\noperator had given evidence to that effect. The oral evidence given by the bank
\nofficials against the accused cannot be rejected since there was no necessity
\nfor them to depose falsely against the accused. The learned Special Public
\nProsecutor also submitted that several cases were filed against the accused for
\ncommitting bank fraud and the conviction of the accused in C.C.No.1 of 2000 has
\nbeen confirmed by this Court in C.A.No.1858 of 2002.  The accused is also
\nconvicted by the trial Court for possessing disproportionate assets and no mercy
\ncould be shown to the accused, even with regard to the sentenced imposed on him
\nby the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.This Court considered the submissions made by the appellant\/accused and
\nthe learned Special Public Prosecutor and also perused the entire materials
\navailable on record.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.The main allegation against the accused is that the accused got two
\nblank STDR forms from P.W.10 and misusing it created and forged short term
\ndeposit receipt (STDR) for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs which is marked as Ex.P.3 in
\nthis case. With the help of Ex.P.3, the accused by approaching P.W.6, the Branch
\nManager of MKU Branch loan was obtained for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs in the name of
\nK.Raju and getting two demand drafts one for a sum of Rs.9 lakhs and another one
\nfor a sum of Rs.6 lakhs and again coming to his own Arasaradi Branch opened a
\nfictitious current account in the name of K.Raju with the overdraft facility for
\na sum of Rs.11 lakhs. The said  STDR\/Ex.P.7, dated 26.02.1997 for a sum of
\nRs.15,00,000\/- was foreclosed on 27.03.1997 and the proceeds were transferred to
\nthe current account of K.Raju and subsequently, the amounts were withdrawn from
\nthe said current account, thereby the accused has obtained undue pecuniary
\nadvantage to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs causing loss to the SBI.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.Now it is to be seen that what are the oral and documentary evidence
\navailable for the allegation made against the accused. Ex.P.3\/STDR for a sum of
\nRs.20 lakhs is bogus one since for issuing Ex.P.3 in favour of K.Raju, no amount
\nwas deposited in the bank at Arasaradi Branch.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.P.W.4, the Branch Manager of the Arasaradi Branch who is the successor
\nof the accused had specifically stated that as STDR bearing Nos.179600 to 179650
\nwere taken out by the joint custodian of the Arasaradi Branch for use only on
\n12.11.1996, it was not possible for the branch to issue STDR bearing No.179605
\nfor Rs.20 lakhs on 20.07.1996. He further stated that on 20.07.1996 there was no
\nentry with regard to the STDR No.179605 being issued to K.Raju and there was no
\nconsideration or cash was deposited in the bank for issuing Ex.P.3. It is
\nestablished by the prosecution that Ex.P.3 is a fictitious receipt.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.P.W.2, who was working as Assistant Accountant\/Typist in the Arasaradi
\nBranch had deposed that the writings in Ex.P.3 are in the handwriting of the
\naccused and he has put his signature in the manager column specified in Ex.P.3.
\nThe writings in Ex.P.3 marked as Q-39 and sent for comparison with the specimen
\nwritings of the accused. P.W.16, handwriting expert also given opinion that
\nthose writings in Q-39 are similar to the specimen writings of the accused.
\nThough P.W.16 could not give opinion regarding the signature of K.Raju, on the
\nback side of Ex.P.3, he had given his definite opinion about the writings in
\nEx.P.3. Further, the accused signature is found in the column of Branch Manager.
\nTherefore, the prosecution established that Ex.P.3 had been issued by the
\naccused and it had been created by the accused. Ex.P.3 is dated 20.07.1996 but
\nP.W.10, the Clerk of the Arasaradi Branch had specifically given evidence that
\non 13.11.1996, he had given two blank STDR forms to the accused. P.W.10 also
\nstated who is familiar with the writings of the accused that Ex.P.3 is written
\nand signed by the accused. There is clear evidence to the extent that blank
\nSTDRs were obtained from P.W.10 on 13.11.1996 and it was ante dated as
\n20.07.1996 and created falsely by the accused. The said Ex.P.3 also has been
\nproduced by the accused but P.W.6, the Manager of the MKU Branch had deposed
\nthat the accused only produced Ex.P.3 along with loan application.  Based on
\nEx.P.3, the loan was obtained for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs in the name of K.Raju and
\nall the relevant forms were only produced by the accused.  Though it is
\ncontended by the accused that P.W.6 had colluded with P.W.9 which cannot be
\naccepted for the reason that in Ex.P.18, lien letter given by P.W.6, the accused
\nhad signed. The writings of the accused “noted the lien in our Branch books” and
\nthe signature of the accused which is marked as Q-41 had been compared by the
\nhandwriting expert with the specimen writings of the accused and opinion has
\nbeen given that they are similar. Further, even Ex.P.19 which was subsequently
\nproduced by the accused dated 04.04.1997 also was written only by the accused
\nand the writings of the name of K.Raju which is marked as Q-42 also had been
\ncompared with the specimen writings of the accused. Even in Ex.P.19, the accused
\nhad signed only in the capacity of Branch Manager of Arasaradi Branch.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.According to P.W.6, the other documents for getting loan such as
\nExs.P.10 to 12 were produced only by the accused. From the evidence of P.W.6 and
\nalso from the documents, it is established by the prosecution that using the
\nforged document Ex.P.3, the accused had obtained two demand drafts Exs.P.15 and
\n16 respectively, dated 24.02.1997 in favour of K.Raju. Immediately based on
\nthose two demand drafts Exs.P.15 and 16, STDR for a sum of Rs.15,00,000\/- was
\nissued in favour of K.Raju. Ex.P.17 is the pay in slip for getting the STDR.  In
\nEx.P.17 the numbers of the two demand drafts Exs.15 and 16 are mentioned. On the
\nsame day, the current account was opened in the name of K.Raju. P.W.11 who was
\nworking as System Administrator in the Arasaradi Branch had deposed that the
\naccount was opened based on the account opening form given by the accused and
\nthe said form was also authorised by the accused and the accused was the
\nintroducer of K.Raju. P.W.11 also stated that the current account with the
\noverdraft facility of Rs.11.25 lakhs in the name of K.Raju was opened in the
\ncomputer system by him and he only filled the pay in slip form of Ex.P.17.
\nP.W.11 had further stated that the account opening forms are not available and
\nhe could not locate it from the file.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.According to the prosecution, K.Raju is the fictitious person but it is
\ndenied by the accused. Though according to the prosecution, K.Raju is not
\nfictitious person, the accused is only the introducer. The address given on
\nbehalf of the said K.Raju is found to be bogus. The postman\/P.W.5 had
\nspecifically stated that there was no such person in the said address.  P.W.4
\nalso had stated that he had verified and found that the address is bogus.  The
\nhandwriting expert has not given any opinion that signature of K.Raju was put by
\nthe accused. The evidence of bank employee witnesses is that the person K.Raju
\nhad never come before the bank officials. Though the accused is introducer of
\nK.Raju he is unable to state the identity of the said person  K.Raju and is
\nunable to establish the fact that the prosecution has not established the fact.
\nThough the signature of K.Raju was put by the accused, the prosecution had
\nestablished that the documents are forged one and they were used by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.Exs.P.4 and 5 are the two cheques which are used for withdrawing the
\namount. Both the cheques were passed by the accused and he had attested the
\nsignature of K.Raju on the reverse side of the cheque. P.W.14, who was working
\nas computer operator had deposed that the cheques were tendered by the accused.
\nIn Exs.P.4 and 5\/cheques, the writings are marked as Q29\/1 and Q31\/1 and these
\nwritings have been compared by the handwriting expert with the specimen writings
\nof the accused and P.W.16 has given opinion that those writings are similar to
\nthe specimen writings of the accused. The prosecution has established that the
\naccount of K.Raju was opened and operated by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.The contention of the accused that Ex.P.3 was never prepared is to be
\nrejected, in view of the reasons already given by this Court. What is stated in
\nEx.D.1 regarding the amount particulars in STDR No.176905, may not be correct.
\nBut that will not affect the case of the prosecution since Ex.P.3 (STDR) has
\nbeen marked by the prosecution in which it is mentioned as Rs.20,00,000\/-.
\nFurther, the minor contradictions pointed out by the accused in the copy of the
\nplaint filed by P.W.3 cannot be considered in this case since ample oral as well
\nas documentary evidence has been let in by the prosecution as already discussed
\nabove.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.The contention of the accused that the loan was not sanctioned at the
\ninstance of the accused by P.W.6 and it is evident from the fact that P.W.6 did
\nnot get the signature while delivering the demand drafts is not acceptable. As
\nalready stated above, Exs.18 and 19 clearly prove the involvement of the accused
\nin producing fake Ex.P.3 to P.W.6. Though it is the submission of the accused
\nthat under Exs.P.4 and 5 on the reverse side, the accused put his initial only
\nfor the purpose of attesting the genuineness of the signature of K.Raju, the
\nwritings in Exs.P.4 and 5 had been identified by the witnesses as that of the
\nwritings of the accused and as already stated, the handwriting expert also has
\ngiven opinion in support of it. The entries made in Exs.D.19 and 20, the cashier
\npayment scroll that the payment was made to K.Raju will not affect the case of
\nthe prosecution, as the cheques were produced by the accused. Normally, the name
\nof the person who signed in the cheque will be mentioned in the cashier payment
\nscroll.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.The contention of the accused that the opinion given by the handwriting
\nexpert P.W.16 not based on the sound reasonings, cannot be accepted since P.W.16
\nalong with his opinion Ex.P.30 had elaborately given reasons for forming the
\nopinion, taking into consideration, manner of formation of letters, nature of
\nits connection of letters and so many other aspects. Further, apart from the
\nopinion given by the handwriting expert, the bank employees also given evidence
\nwho were acquainted with the handwritings of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.Regarding the sanction\/Ex.P.2 given by P.W.1, he had specifically given
\nevidence that he had fully gone through all the connected materials, relevant
\nand material records and only after being satisfied that a prima facie case has
\nbeen made out against the accused, he had granted sanction. In Ex.P.2, it is
\nalso mentioned by the sanctioning authority that the     copies of FIR,
\nstatements of witnesses and documents     such as Special Term Deposit Receipts,
\nloan application, Demand Drafts, Cheques, Special Term Deposit Receipt pay in
\nslip, Current Account pay in slips, TDR\/STDR issued register, Security forms
\nIssued Register and other relevant documents placed before him. This Court holds
\nthat sanction\/Ex.P.2 accorded by  P.W.1 is valid.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.For the above said reasons, the conviction imposed on the accused by
\nthe trial Court is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.With regard to the sentence imposed on the accused by the trial Court
\nfor the offences under Sections 467, 468, 467 r\/w 471 IPC 420 IPC are confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.With regard to the sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence
\nunder Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the
\nsentence of five years Rigorous Imprisonment is confirmed. But the sentence of
\nfine amount of Rs.16 lakhs is set aside and instead, he is sentenced to pay a
\nfine of Rs.10,000\/- only and in default to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for six
\nmonths.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.The modification with regard to the fine amount is made by this Court
\nsince it was represented by the appellant\/accused that already he is in jail for
\nmore than five years, and he has no money to pay the fine amount since all his
\nproperties have already been attached in the proceedings taken against him for
\nthe disproportionate assets. Only on the said circumstance, this Court felt to
\nmodify the fine amount imposed on the accused. Consequently, the order passed by
\nthe trial Court that from out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.15,00,000\/- to be
\npaid as compensation to the Bank is also set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.It is brought to the notice of this Court by the appellant that the
\njudgment in C.C.No.1 of 2000,  C.C.No.2 of 2000, and C.C.No.3 of 2000 against
\nwhich this appeal is preferred were pronounced on the same day i.e. on
\n27.12.2002. But the trial Court has not directed the sentence of imprisonment to
\nrun concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment imposed in C.C.No.1 of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
\t28.This Court now wants to exercise its power under Section 427 Cr.P.C and
\nthe reasons for exercising such power had already been mentioned by this Court
\nin the judgment pronounced by this Court in Crl.A.No.1859 of 2002. Accordingly,
\nthe sentence of imprisonment imposed in C.C.No.3 of 2000 on the file of the
\nPrincipal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai, which are confirmed by this
\nCourt is directed to run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment imposed
\non the accused by the same Judge in C.C.No.1 of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
\t29.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed only with the above modification
\nwith regard to the sentence.\n<\/p>\n
sms<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Principal Special Judge
\n  for CBI cases, Madurai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16\/02\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM Criminal Appeal (MD)No.1860 of 2002 K.Thakkshinamurthy .. Appellant vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police, SPE\/CBI\/ACB, Chennai (RC.No.20(A)\/99) .. Respondent Prayer Appeal filed under Sections 374 Cr.P.C., to call […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-145897","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-30T02:23:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-30T02:23:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4328,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010\",\"name\":\"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-30T02:23:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-30T02:23:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-30T02:23:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010"},"wordCount":4328,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010","name":"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-30T02:23:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145897","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=145897"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145897\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}