Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2777 (KER)

K. Sreenivasan v. Central Bureau of Investigation

2025-11-11

A.BADHARUDEEN

body2025
ORDER : The 5 th accused in C.C.No.7/2011, pending before the Special Court (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Cr.P.C .’ for short), challenging order in Crl.M.P.No.4/2022 dated 22.01.2022, along with Crl.M.P.No.20/2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, thereby the plea of discharge at the option of the revision petitioner was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI in detail. Perused the documents. 3. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, during the period between March, 2006 and August, 2006, accused Nos.1 to 5, hatched conspiracy to cheat the State Bank of India, ADB Branch, Cullan Road, Allappuzha. Pursuant to the conspiracy, accused Nos.3 and 4 approached the land owners who were in debt but having landed properties, assuring that they would purchase the landed properties. Accordingly, some advances were also paid to them after executing agreements for sale. Thereafter, they collected the original title deeds and other supporting documents from the sellers, and produced the same before the SBI, where accused Nos.1 and 2 were working, under the premise of opening accounts in their names. In continuation of the conspiracy hatched, accused Nos.1 and 2, by abusing their position as public servants, dishonestly obtained the signatures of the proposed sellers on the mortgaged loan documents and sanctioned 40 mortgaged loans and three cash credit loans amounting to Rs. 4.33 Crore. The specific allegation against the 5 th accused is that, in order to grant this much higher amount of loan, the 5 th accused overvalued the properties to a higher sum, even though the actual value would fetch during the relevant period was much less. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act, 1988' for short) by the accused. 4. The 5 th accused moved discharge petition before the Special Court, mainly urging that he did not overvalue the property and he had valued the property and shown the actual value and he did not participate in the conspiracy as alleged. 4. The 5 th accused moved discharge petition before the Special Court, mainly urging that he did not overvalue the property and he had valued the property and shown the actual value and he did not participate in the conspiracy as alleged. In paragraph No.18 of the impugned order, the learned Special Judge discussed the contention of the 5 th accused and negatived the same, while disallowing the discharge, which reads as under: “18. With respect to the contention raised by A5 that he discharged his professional duty while preparing the valuation report, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that from the statement of CW73, A5 could not be heard to submit that he had discharged his professional duty. From the materials produced by the prosecution, it is luculent that A5 exaggerated the value of the properties for the purpose of availing loans. The difference in the valuation prepared by A5 and the valuation prepared by CW73 is significant. The involvement of A5 in the matter can only be ascertained as a result of a full-fledge trial.” 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/5th accused vehemently contended that merely for the purpose of undervaluing a property, when compared with another valuation report obtained subsequently, if such subsequent reports are not based on any scientific or legally recognized method, the same would not, by itself, constitute a valid reason to conclude that the 5 th accused had overvalued the property so as to fasten the criminal culpability upon him. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed decisions of this Court in Crl.R.P.Nos.926/2018 and 927/2018, dated 11.10.2018. 6. Referring the decisions, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI argued that, as far as the facts dealt in the above decisions are concerned, the same have no application in the present case because in Crl.R.P.No.926/2018 relief of discharge was allowed, mainly on the finding, as observed in paragraph No.10 of the order, that, admittedly, the loan therein was advanced prior to the submitting of the valuation report by the revision petitioner. Further, in the said case, this Court found that the valuation report relied on by the prosecution, through CW15, does not depict that the valuation made by the revision petitioner therein was exorbitant and such a valuation was made for the purpose of defrauding the bank pursuant to the conspiracy with the other conspirators. Further, in the said case, this Court found that the valuation report relied on by the prosecution, through CW15, does not depict that the valuation made by the revision petitioner therein was exorbitant and such a valuation was made for the purpose of defrauding the bank pursuant to the conspiracy with the other conspirators. It is also submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, referring the decision in Crl.R.P.No.927/2018 , that whether the valuation done by the petitioner is overvalued or the same is properly valued is a matter of evidence to be decided after trial. In Crl.R.P.No.927/2018 , this Court found that the valuation made by CW26 was based on any scientific or legal method. However, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in this case, two valuers thereafter valued the property with reasoning, apart from the report referred in Crl.R.P.No.927/2018 . In such view of the matter, the decision in Cr.R.P.No.927/2018 also would not apply in the facts of this case. 7. On perusal of the decisions, the argument advanced by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, insofar as Crl.R.P. No.926/2018 is concerned, is found to be correct. However, in Crl.R.P.No.927/2018 , it could be gathered that this Court taken a view that CW6, CW16, CW18 as well as CW26 referred therein did not reveal any scientific method for valuing the properties. In fact, these aspects could not be considered at the discharge stage and therefore, the ratio in the above decisions could not be applied to grant discharge. 8. Coming to the allegations, the prosecution relied on the valuation made by the revision petitioner and the valuation made by Sri.T.R.Shankaran and Sri.Madhavapanicker Krishnan. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI produced the valuation of each property valued by the 5 th accused, re-valuation done by the Bank at the request of the CBI, and the valuation at the instance of Sri.T.R.Shankaran and Sri.Madhavapanicker Krishnan, as well as the valuation effected by the Village Officer in a tabular form. For easy understanding, the chart as such is reproduced as under: Sl.No. Details of Property Valuation by the accused K. Sreenivasan (A5) at time of Sanctioning the loan (2006) Revaluation by Bank as per the request of CBI (Jan 2007) Valuation by Independent Valuer Valuation as per Village Officer 1 Sy.No.127/2,3,4, 123/5 and 124/3 of Kanjikode (11.108 ares) Rs.3,71,24,000 Rs.50,00,000 CW73 T.R. Shankaran (March-May 2006) Pg. 159 44,40,000/- 2 Sy.No.1900 of Sholayoor (11 ares) Rs.18,23,000 Rs.50,000 CW 71- Anil Narayanan Nair (March-May 2006) (Pg. 157) Rs.5,50,000/- 3 Sy No. 1899, 1900 and 1901 (14.94 ares) Rs.22,41,000 Rs.50,000 CW 71- Anil Narayanan Nair (March-May 2006) (Pg. 157) Rs.7,47,000/- 4 Sy No. 172/ 8A, 172/9 A, 172/3-9 of Pulikunnu Alleppey (122 cents) Rs.36,25,000/- Rs.66,00,000/- CW 15- Madhavapanicker Krishnan (March-May 2006) (Pg. 20) Rs.15,99,200/-, CW 67- PJ Peter D' Silva (March-June 2006) (Pg. 150) 5 Sy No. 621/2-B of Chingoli, Alleppey (59.89 ares) Rs.48,00,000/- Rs.25,52,000 CW 15- Madhavapanicker Krishnan (March-May 2006) (Pg. 20) Rs.18,29,340/-, CW 64- Indhu (March-June 2006) (Pg. 147) 6 Sy No. 621/2-2 of Chingoli (42.90 ares) Rs.30,00,000/- Rs.18,30,000 CW 15- Madhavapanicker Krishnan (March-May 2006) (Pg. 20) Rs.13,44,000/-, CW 64- Sindhu (March-June 2006) (Pg. 147) 7 Sy No. 464/6, 12, 13, 16,17, 18 of Mulandurathy (59.98 ares) Rs.38,38,000/- Rs.28,15,000 CW 15- Madhavapanicker Krishnan (March-May 2006) (Pg. 20) Rs.35,60,400/-, CW 63- Muraleedharan (March-June 2006) (Pg. 146) 8 Sy No. 21/4 and 21/6 of Muttambalam (3.6 ares and 0.55 sqmts) Rs.25,00,000/- Rs.28,00,000 CW 15- Madhavapanicker Krishnan (March-May 2006) (Pg. 20) Rs.21,49,870/-, CW 62- Kurian Jacob (March-June 2006) (Pg. 145) 9 Sy No. 1899 of Sholayoor (13.26 ares) Rs.19,89,000 Rs.50,000 CW 71- Anil Narayanan Nair (March-May 2006) (Pg. 157) Rs.6,63,000/- 10 Sy No. 10/12-2 of Kainikary (1 hectare and 31.55 ares) Rs.58,70,000 Rs.11,16,000 CW 15- Madhavapanicker Krishnan (March-May 2006) (Pg. 20) Rs.40,38,000/-, CW 66- Sasidharan (March-June 2006) (Pg. 149) 11 Sy No. 624/1-101-1 of Mullackal (3.4 ares) Rs.25,53,000 Rs.21,95,000 CW 15- Madhavapanicker Krishnan (March-May 2006) (Pg. 20) Rs.19,07,500, CW 68- Jiju George (March-June 2006) (Pg. 151) 12 Sy No.18/2A1, A2 and A3 of Mullackal (9.06 ares) Rs.60,00,000 Rs.61,65,000 CW 15- Madhavapanicker Krishnan (March-May 2006) (Pg. 20) Rs.53,39,400 13 Sy No.284/8 of Purakkad (96 ares) Rs.1,05,00,000 Rs.9,40,000 CW 15- Madhavapanicker Krishnan (March-May 2006) (Pg. 20) Rs.6,08,250, CW 65- Anila D S (March-June 2006) (Pg. 148) 14 Sy No.910/3G, 3J, 3F and 3P of Mullackal (121 cents) Rs.1,06,00,000 Rs.55,71,000 CW 15- Madhavapanicker Krishnan (March-May 2006) (Pg. 20) Rs.60,99,000 TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY Rs.9,62,63,000 Rs.3,77,34,000 3,48,74,960 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner produced report dated 31.11.2007 prepared by Sri.T.R.Shankaran, which was produced by the prosecution as document No.186, and another valuation report dated 31.03.2006. 20) Rs.60,99,000 TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY Rs.9,62,63,000 Rs.3,77,34,000 3,48,74,960 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner produced report dated 31.11.2007 prepared by Sri.T.R.Shankaran, which was produced by the prosecution as document No.186, and another valuation report dated 31.03.2006. On perusal of these two reports along with the chart, it is seen that Sl.No.1 in the chart is parallel to document No.186 and the valuation shown therein is to the tune of Rs.44,40,000/-. In the report dated 31.03.2006 also, the valuation is one and the same. On comparison of the valuation alleged to have been made by the accused with that of the valuation made by witness No.73, Sri.T.R.Shankaran and witness No.15, Sri.Madhavapanicker Krishnan, as detailed in the chart produced by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, it could be seen that there was marginal reduction in the value of the property as against the valuation made by the accused. Here, the allegation of the prosecution is that the accused herein had overvalued the property with a view to grant higher loan amount as against the amount otherwise entitled as per the actual valuation. Even though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner also is of the view that when compared to the valuation made by Sri.T.R.Shankaran and Sri.Madhavapanicker Krishnan, the valuation made by the accused is much higher, relying on the decision in Crl.R.P.Nos.926/2018 and 927/2018, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner zealously contended that when the reports are not based on any scientific or legally recognized method, the same, by itself, would not constitute a valid reason to conclude that the person had overvalued the property so as to fasten the criminal liability upon him. It is true that, in the above criminal revision petitions, this Court made such observations at the pre-trial stage. I respectfully disagree with the above finding specifically in Crl.R.P.No.927/2018 . In fact, for ascertaining whether the valuation made by the accused is higher compared to the valuation made by the Bank at the request of the CBI and the valuation made by Sri.T.R.Shankaran and Sri.Madhavapanicker Krishnan, it is necessary to adduce evidence. Merely looking at the report, without examining the authors thereof and the methodology adopted for valuing the property during trial, jumping into conclusion that the reports showing subsequent valuations made by CW73 and CW15 are without any rationale at the pre-trial stage, would be fatal to the prosecution. Merely looking at the report, without examining the authors thereof and the methodology adopted for valuing the property during trial, jumping into conclusion that the reports showing subsequent valuations made by CW73 and CW15 are without any rationale at the pre-trial stage, would be fatal to the prosecution. Therefore, the contention raised by the revision petitioner in this regard is found to be untenable. It is specifically made clear that when overvaluation is the allegation and there are valuation reports showing that the actual valuation would come to a lesser amount, then the question of overvaluation is a matter of evidence and the same cannot be considered at the pre-trial stage, though such contentions can be considered if the valuations relied on by the prosecution and the valuations made by the accused are too low or so trivial to be ignored. 10. Having held so, this criminal revision petition is found to be unsustainable, and the order impugned is liable to be sustained. In the result, this criminal revision petition stands dismissed. The interim stay in operation stands vacated with direction to the learned Special Judge to expedite the trial of this matter, considering the fact that this case has been pending from 2011 onwards, within a time-frame, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. It is specifically made clear that the observations in the order have no binding effect during trial. Registry is directed to the forward a copy of this order to the special court forthwith.