Skip to main content

Fraud against bank is offence against society: Supreme Court

Offences related to banking activities are not only confined to banks but have a harmful impact on their customers and society at large, the Supreme Court has said while asking courts not to show leniency to the accused in such cases.

A bench of justices S J Mukhopadhaya and Ranjan Gogoi said such offences involve moral turpitude and the accused should not be let off after refunding the money taken from the bank fraudulently.

"The offences when committed in relation with banking activities including offences under Sections 420 (cheating), 471 (using forged document) have harmful effect on the public and threaten the well-being of the society. These offences fall under the category of offences involving moral turpitude committed by public servants while working in that capacity.

"Prima facie, one may state that the bank as the victim in such cases but, in fact, the society in general, including customers of the bank is the sufferer," the bench said.

It set aside the Calcutta High Court order which had quashed the criminal proceedings against a bank employee and a private person after they refunded the amount to bank.

"We set aside the impugned judgement and order dated March 31, 2010 passed by the high court and direct the trial court to proceed the matter in accordance with law and to conclude the trial expeditiously," the bench said.

In this case a person had obtained a loan of Rs 1.5 crore on the basis of forged documents with the aid of officers of Indian Overseas Bank.

A complaint was registered against a senior manager of the bank along with other persons including the director of a company which had taken loan.

All the accused were prosecuted under various sections of IPC. During the pendency of the trial, they refunded the amount and later on moved the high court for quashing the proceedings against them.

The high court allowed their plea and quashed the trial. The CBI then approached the apex court which set aside the high court order.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more