JUDGMENT : 1. These appeals are arising out of the conviction against the appellants passed by the learned XI Additional Judge, CBI Cases, Chennai dated 19.05.2009 in C.C.No.65 of 2004. 2. Brief facts leading to these appeals are as follows: A1 [J.S.Prabhu] Manager of Corporation Bank, Tambaram-Sanatorium Branch during the year 1999-2000 had conspired with other accused and sanctioned CORP VYAPAR Loan to Imyaya Varamban[A4], Proprietor of M/s Everest Garments a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs, knowing fully well that it is a non-existing firm and based on fake and fabricated documents produced by Imyaya Varamban[A4] in connivance with the other accused. The said M/s Everest Garments, No.33, 1st Floor, 5th Street, Ranganathapuram, West Tambaram, Chennai-45 is a non-existing firm and there is no such firm in the said address. However, by furnishing false information in the loan application and annexing fabricated revenue documents and title deeds, a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs had been sanctioned and credited into the current account of M/s Everest Garments. The said account had been opened with introduction of one Saravanan at the request of the A2 [Palanivel]. For the said loan, the document of property in S.No.165/3 of Mangavaram village has been given as collateral security. This property of 19 cents as if owned by Ponnappa Reddy, the title document was misappropriated from him by Gunaseakran[A3] with false promise to arrange loan. The chitta, adangal and encumbrance certified for this property produced by Imyaya Varamban[A4] were not genuine but forged documents. 3. A5 [T.N.Ravi] Valuer (died pending Crl.A.No.270 of 2009) had given false valuation certificate for the property shown as collateral security. Though there is no building in the said property, A5[T.N.Ravi] had given valuation certificate as if there is a building in the said land and worth of the land and building is Rs.3,80,000/-After sanctioning the loan based on the forged and fabricated documents to the non-existing firm, the loan amount had been credited into the account of M/s Everest Garments. After crediting the amount into M/s Everest Garments, the money has been withdrawn by A2[Palanivel] through cheques signed by Imyaya Varamban[A4]: Cheque No. Date Amount Payee 547503 31.03.2000 72,500/- Ramesh hand loom-(Lakshmi Vilas bank) 547504 04.04.2000 75,000/- R.Sankar 547505 05.04.2000 1,00,000/- Ramesh hand loom-(Lakshmi Vilas bank) 2,47,500/- 4. After crediting the amount into M/s Everest Garments, the money has been withdrawn by A2[Palanivel] through cheques signed by Imyaya Varamban[A4]: Cheque No. Date Amount Payee 547503 31.03.2000 72,500/- Ramesh hand loom-(Lakshmi Vilas bank) 547504 04.04.2000 75,000/- R.Sankar 547505 05.04.2000 1,00,000/- Ramesh hand loom-(Lakshmi Vilas bank) 2,47,500/- 4. The account in Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. in the name of Ramesh HandLoom & Textiles had been opened by A2[Palanivel] showing his brother V.Sekar as Proprietor and money deposited in that account were withdrawn by A2[Palanivel]. The bearer cheque in the name of R.Sankar for Rs.75,000/- had been withdrawn by A2[Palanivel] himself by impersonating as R.Sankar. 5. PW-18[Mr.Sudhakar K.Bhat], Assistant Regional Manager of Corporation Bank who come to know about the irregularity in sanctioning loan by A1[J.S.Prabhu], Manager of Tambaram-Sanatorium Branch had lodged the complaint to the CBI. Based on which, First Information Report [Ex.P58] had been registered and investigated. The trial Court had framed charges against the accused persons for conspiracy, cheating, forgery, impersonation, fabricating documents, breach of trust and for using fabricated documents as genuine to cheat the bank. The specific charges were framed against each of the accused for their respective overtact in the crime. The trial Court framed 11 charges and the accused on completion of the trial found them guilty and convicted them for the charges as under:- Rank of the accused Conviction under Section Sentence imposed by the trial Court A1 to A5 Under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 467 r/w 471, 467, 467 r/w 471 IPC, 419 IPC, 467, 467 r/w 471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 Each of them to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo RI for 6 months A4 Under Section 420 IPC To undergo RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo RI for 6 months A5 Under Sections 467 and 467 r/w 471 IPC each To undergo RI for 4 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/ d to undergo RI for 6 months A3 Under Section 467, 467 r/w 471 IPC each To undergo RI for 4 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo RI for 6 months A2 1. Under Section 419 IPC2. Under Section 467 IPC, 467 r/w 471 IPC each 1. Under Section 419 IPC2. Under Section 467 IPC, 467 r/w 471 IPC each 1. To undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo RI for 6 months2. To undergo RI for 4 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo 6 months A1 Under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 To undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo RI for 6 months. The sentence imposed in C.C.Nos.61 to 64 of 2004 shall run concurrently along with the sentence imposed in this case. 6. Aggrieved by that, the present appeals are preferred by J.S.Prabhu[A1], Palanivel[A2], Gunasekaran[A3] and U.Imaya Varamban[A4] and T.N.Ravi[A5], who preferred Crl.A.No.270 of 2009 died pending appeal hence, appeal is abated. 7. A1[J.S.Prabhu] appellant in Crl.A.No.298 of 2009 contends that there was only procedural irregularity in adhering to the regulation while sanctioning loan. But, there was no dishonest intention on his part to cheat the bank. In Support of this submission, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in C.Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P[1996 Crl.L.J.346(SC)]. It is further contended that the bank has recovered the entire loan and there is no due from the borrower. This fact has been spoken by DW1 and DW3. While so, taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. J.K.Khanna & Major I.C.Lala [1972 Cri.L.J.849], the trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant, contrary to law and facts, the trial Court has erroneously convicted him. Hence, the judgment has to be set aside. 8. A2 [Palanivel] who is the appellant Crl.A.No. 273 of 2009 contends that through the loan transaction made in favour of M/s Everest garments, he does not gain to stand any thing. The loan was extended to M/s Everest Garments under beneficial scheme introduced by Union of India. There is no irregularity or illegality in sanctioning the loan. Further, the loan has been utilised for that purpose it was sanctioned. The facts which have been elucidated in favour of the defence during the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses had not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. Admittedly, the appellant had no role in the alleged forgery or fabrication of documents furnished along with the loan application. Further, the loan has been utilised for that purpose it was sanctioned. The facts which have been elucidated in favour of the defence during the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses had not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. Admittedly, the appellant had no role in the alleged forgery or fabrication of documents furnished along with the loan application. While so, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant[A2] for want of proof. 9. D.Gunasekaran[A3] appellant Crl.A.No.286 of 2009 strongly contended that except the evidence of rubber stamp maker [PW.16], there is no evidence to implicate him in the crime of conspiracy cheating and fabrication of documents. The opinion of the handwriting expert cannot be a conclusive proof to convict the appellant for forgery, particularly, in the absence of evidence corroborating his opinion. Therefore, the trial Court judgment based on surmises and conjectures is liable to be set aside. 10. A4[U.Imaya Varamban] appellant in Crl.A.No.257 of 2009 would contend that he did not sign the loan application form or the application for opening the bank account and application for non-priority trade advance. While fact being so, the trial court without considering the said plea had erroneously held him guilty of the charges framed against him. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for A4[U.Imaya Varamban] that A4[U.Imaya Varamban] was employee under A2[Palanivel]. At his direction, he has signed certain documents. He never applied for bank loan. It was A1[J.S.Prabhu] and A2[Palanivel] who has created the documents pertaining to the loan sanctioned. PW-8 in his deposition has categorically stated that Exs.P-21 and P22 were filled up by A1[J.S.Prabhu]. This appellant who neither applied for loan nor consented others to use his name for availing loan. In the absence of mens rea, no criminal liability can be fastened on him. It is further contended by this appellant that the loan has been discharged subsequently by A2[Palanivel]. Therefore, the bank has not incurred monitory loss. In such circumstances, the charges against him does not survives. Hence, trial Court judgment is liable to be set aside. 12. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI Cases would submit that A1[J.S.Prabhu] Manager of the Corporation bank, Tamabram Sanatorium Branch had miserably failed to follow the banking regulation and rules while extending the loan to one A4[U.Imaya Varamban] who claims himself as Proprietor of M/s Everest Garments. Hence, trial Court judgment is liable to be set aside. 12. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI Cases would submit that A1[J.S.Prabhu] Manager of the Corporation bank, Tamabram Sanatorium Branch had miserably failed to follow the banking regulation and rules while extending the loan to one A4[U.Imaya Varamban] who claims himself as Proprietor of M/s Everest Garments. He with an intention to cheat the bank had conspired with other accused namely, Palanivel[A2], Gunasekaran[A3], U.Imaya Varamban[A4] and in pursuant to the said conspiracy, he accepted fake and fabricated documents produced by A4[U.Imaya Varamban] to show as if he is running the business in the name of M/s Everest Garments, No.33, First Floor, 5th Street, Ranganathapuram, West Tambaram, Chennai-45 and to make his business working capital of Rs.2.50 lakhs had been sanctioned by A1[J.S.Prabhu] to A4[Thirumurthy] under CORP VYAPARA Loan Scheme. While the banking regulation mandates that before sanctioning the loan pre-sanction inspection has to be conducted by the Branch Manager A1[J.S.Prabhu] knowing fully well that there is no firm by name M/s Everest Garments in the given address and the documents produced for availing loan are fabricated documents without making any pre-sanction inspection the loan of Rs.2.50 lakhs into account of M/s Everest Garments. Pursuant to the credit of money into the account of M/s Everest Garments, the entire money has been siphoned out by A2[Palanivel] through cheques in the name of 3rd parties. The documents such as 'A' register extract, chitta and adangal in respect of the property shown as collateral security were all proved to be fabricated documents with forged seal of revenue authorities. A3[Gunasekaran] with the help of rubber stamp maker had fabricated chitta, adangal and 'A' register as if the property in S.No.165/3 belongs to Kanniappan Reddiar consists of land and building worth about Rs.3,83,500/-. Whereas the prosecution has proved through competent witness that the valuation report is a false report given by A5[T.N.Ravi deceased] the property does not belong to Kanniappan and there is no building of S.No.165/3. Therefore, after thorough scrutiny of the evidence let in by the prosecution, the trial Court has come to right conclusion that the appellants are guilty of the charges. Hence, these appeals are liable to be dismissed. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the respective appellants and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases. Records perused. 14. Therefore, after thorough scrutiny of the evidence let in by the prosecution, the trial Court has come to right conclusion that the appellants are guilty of the charges. Hence, these appeals are liable to be dismissed. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the respective appellants and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases. Records perused. 14. The loan application made by M/s Everest Garments showing No.33, 1st Street, Ranganathapuram, Chennai-45 is dated 03.03.2000 is marked as Ex.P21. In the said application, thumb impression is fixed in the column guarantor and identified as left thumb impression of Ponnappa Reddiar. The land bearing No.165/3, Mangavaram is shown as collateral security. This land belongs to Ponnappa Reddiar. A1[J.S.Prabhu] has recommended for sanctioning the loan and signed in the application. Along with the loan application, the application for non-priority Trade Advance other than for vehicle loan is also submitted showing the address of M/s Everest Garments at No.36, 1st Street, Ranganathapuram, West Tambaram, Chennai. In this application also thumb impression of Ponnappa Reddiar is found along with the signature of Imyaya Varamban[A4]. The letter of proprietorship [Ex.P22] indicates that on 28.03.2000, Imyaya Varamban[A4] carrying on business by name M/s Everest Garments in No.33, 1st Street, Ranganathapuram, Chennai-45. In Ex.P24[Statement of Assets and Liabilities], address of Imyaya Varamban[A4] is shown as No. 36, 1st floor, Ranganathapuram, West Tambaram, contrary to the loan application [Ex.P21] and letter of proprietorship [Ex.P22]. Property Statement of P.Ponnappa Reddiar is also furnished to the bank and the same is marked as Ex.P25. In this document, this Court find the thumb impression of Ponnappa Reddiar. The prosecution to prove that the property shown as collateral security alleged to be owned by Ponnappa Reddiar is false and fabricated document, had examined PW-4 [Mr. K.S. Vivekanandan], who is the Village Administrative Officer of Mangavaram Village. He has given 'A' Register extract [Ex.P8], chitta [Ex.P9] and adangal [Ex.P10] in respect of S.No.165/3 indicating it belongs to Kanniyappa reddiar and there is no building in the said property. Whereas, valuation certificate given by T.N. Ravi [A5] (deceased), which is marked as Ex.P34 indicates that there is a building in the said land worth about Rs.94,500/- and the total value of the property is Rs.3,83,500/- which is false and fabricated in order to avail the loan from the Corporation bank. 15. Whereas, valuation certificate given by T.N. Ravi [A5] (deceased), which is marked as Ex.P34 indicates that there is a building in the said land worth about Rs.94,500/- and the total value of the property is Rs.3,83,500/- which is false and fabricated in order to avail the loan from the Corporation bank. 15. PW-5 [Tmt.S.Mahalakshmi], Manager of Anna Nagar Branch, where equitable mortgage is supposed to be registered, had deposed that till A1[J.S.Prabhu] transferred from Tambaram Sanatorium Branch, he did not create equitable mortgage in respect of loan advanced to M/s Everest Garments and just before leaving to Kholapur on transfer, A1[J.S.Prabhu] came to her house along with one Anbalazahan and rectified the creation of equitable mortgage for the loan, he advanced but not created till then. She has identified Ex.P11 which is the memorandum of deposit of title deed in the name of Ponnappa Reddiar. While creating this document, Ponnappa Reddiar was not present. The prosecution has proved through PW-6 [Mr. P.S. Viswanathan] that M/s Everest Garments is a non-existing firm. He is the post-man attached to Tambaram Head Post Office under whose control Ranganathapuram area falls. He has deposed that the cover addressed to Imyaya Varamban[A4], No.33, 1st Street, Ranganathapuram, Tambaram, Chennai-45, marked as Ex.P12 which has been returned as 'such address is not correct' and there is no company by name M/s Everest Garments in the said address. 16. From the evidence of PW-6 [Mr.P.S.Viswanathan], PW-14 [Mr.S.Mohan kumar], Municipal Commissioner, Tambaram Municipality and PW-15[Mr.M.Abdul Karim], CTO in-charge of Tambaram Assessment Circle-I examined by the prosecution to show that there is no business establishment by name M/s Everest Garments in the said address. PW-9 [Mr.Madhavan], Village Administrative Officer of Tambaram Town has also fortified the case of the prosecution regarding non-existence of M/s Everest Garments in the given address by stating that he made a personal verification in the given address and found that there is no such door No.33, 1st Street, Ranganathapuram. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the loan has been extended by A1[J.S.Prabhu] to the non-existing firm, without making any pre-sanction inspection and post-sanction inspection of the premises especially when the application and the documents annexed to it contains different addresses. 17. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the loan has been extended by A1[J.S.Prabhu] to the non-existing firm, without making any pre-sanction inspection and post-sanction inspection of the premises especially when the application and the documents annexed to it contains different addresses. 17. Regarding the revenue documents such as, chitta, adangal, patta, which are marked as Exs.P15, P16 and P17 for the property given as collateral security and accompanied with the loan application, they are proved to be fake documents. This is spoken by PW-4 [Mr. K.S. Visvanathan] Village Administrative Officer of concerned village. The original documents pertaining to S.No.165/3 has been marked through this witness by the prosecution as Exs.P8, P9 and P10 along with the certificate issued by Village Administrative Officer marked as Ex.P7. Thus, through the evidence of the Village Administrative Officer, the fabrication of revenue document is established by the prosecution. 18. Sanction of the loan in one lump sum is contrary to the banking procedure. Further, the amount has been withdrawn immediately by A2 [Palanivel] using the blank cheques signed by Imyaya Varamban[A4]. PW3 [Mr.K.Paneerselvam], Manager of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. had spoken about the credit of Rs.72,500/- on 31.03.2000 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 06.04.2000 into the account of Ramesh Hand Loom & Textiles. Mr.Sekar, is the Proprietor of Ramesh Hand Loom & Textiles who is none other than the brother of A2 [Palanivel]. The statement of account maintained by Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. for Ramesh Hand Loom & Textiles is marked as Ex.P4, wherein the money credited against the cheques issued by M/s Everest Garments is reflected. Those two cheques are marked as Exs.P5 and P6. Mr.V.Sekar examined as PW-20 by the prosecution admits that his brother Palanivel [A2] opened the account in Lakshmi Vilas Bank in his name and he was operating the bank account. He has also deposed that Ramesh Hand Looms & Textiles a non-functional and non-existing concern was created at the instance of his brother A2[Palanivel]. 19. As far as the bearer cheque for a sum of Rs.75,000/- which is marked as Ex.P38 is concerned, it is in the name of R.Sankar issued by U.Imaya Varamban[A4] Proprietor M/s Everest Garments. The hand writing expert [PW-22] in his report which is marked as Ex.P66, has opined that the entries found in the cheque marked as Ex.P38 in respect of the amount, figures are that of the handwriting of A2 [Palanivel]. 20. The hand writing expert [PW-22] in his report which is marked as Ex.P66, has opined that the entries found in the cheque marked as Ex.P38 in respect of the amount, figures are that of the handwriting of A2 [Palanivel]. 20. Thus, the scheme of conspiracy to sanction the loan to non existing concern by name M/s Everest Garments, based on fake documents and withdrawal of the money for the purpose other than the loan sanctioned is established by the prosecution. A1[Prabhu] without making any verification regarding the borrower, the documents furnished along with the loan application and the guarantor, had sanctioned the loan and released the money into the account of Imyaya Varamban[A4] Proprietor of M/s Everest Garments. A3[Gunasekaran] got the document from Ponnappa Reddiar promising him that he will get loan, but had misappropriated it and made use of that document for creating collateral security. A2[Palanivel] on his part had masterminded the process and siphoned out the loan amount through cheques signed by Imyaya Varamban[A4]. A portion of the amount, he had withdrawn by impersonating himself as R.Sankar. Remaining amount he got diverted into the account to his brother V.Sekar Proprietor of Ramesh Handloom and textiles and thereafter withdrawn the money. Sofar as the revenue document furnished for the property given as collateral security is concerned, PW-10 [M.M. Gonvidasamy] Sub Registrar of Gummudipundi has deposed that the encumbrance certificate marked as Ex.P18 had not been issued by the Sub Register Office and it is a fake document. 21. In so far as the property in S.No.165/1 Mangapuram village is concerned, it is in the name of Valliammal. Ponnappa Reddiar is not the present owner of the said property. To prove it, the prosecution has exhibited the sale deed in favour of Valliammal, which is marked as Ex.P39. So based on the overwhelming evidence relied on by the prosecution, the trial Court has convicted the appellant and this Court finds no error in the judgment of the trial Court to interfere with. Hence, the Judgment of conviction dated 19.05.2009 made in C.C.No.65 of 2004 passed by Learned XI Additional Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai is hereby confirmed. 22. So based on the overwhelming evidence relied on by the prosecution, the trial Court has convicted the appellant and this Court finds no error in the judgment of the trial Court to interfere with. Hence, the Judgment of conviction dated 19.05.2009 made in C.C.No.65 of 2004 passed by Learned XI Additional Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai is hereby confirmed. 22. However taking note of the fact that the loan amount has been discharged subsequently by A2[Palanivel] under one time settlement, the period of imprisonment is modified as under: Rank of the accused Convicted by the trial Court under Section Sentence imposed by the trial Court Sentence modified by this Court A1 to A5 Under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 467 r/w 471, 467, 467 r/w 471 IPC, 419 IPC, 467, 467 r/w 471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 Each of them to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo RI for 6 months Remains unaltered A4 Under Section 420 IPC To undergo RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo RI for 6 months To undergo RI for 2 years. No change in the fine imposed by the trial Court. A5 Under Sections 467 and 467 r/w 471 IPC each To undergo RI for 4 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/ d to undergo RI for 6 months To undergo RI for 2 years each. No change in the fine imposed by the trial Court. A3 Under Section 467, 467 r/w 471 IPC each To undergo RI for 4 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo RI for 6 months To undergo RI for 2 years each. No change in the fine imposed by the trial Court. A2 1. Under Section 419 IPC2. Under Section 467 IPC, 467 r/w 471 IPC each (1) To undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo RI for 6 months(2) To undergo RI for 4 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo 6 months (1) To undergo RI for 2 years. No change in the fine imposed by the trial Court.(2) To undergo RI for 2 years each. No change in the fine imposed by the trial Court. No change in the fine imposed by the trial Court.(2) To undergo RI for 2 years each. No change in the fine imposed by the trial Court. A1 Under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 To undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo RI for 6 months. Remains unaltered 23. The sentence imposed by this Court shall run concurrently. So far as the accused viz., A1[J.S.Prabhu, A2[Palanivel] and A3[Gunasekaran] are concerned, the sentences imposed on them in CC.No.61 of 2004 shall run concurrently along with the sentence imposed in this case(C.C.No.65 of 2004). The period of imprisonment already undergone is ordered to be set off under Section 427Cr.P.C. 24. In the result, with the above modification, these Criminal Appeals are disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.