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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more