AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The 3rd accused in S.C No. 879/2017 on the files of the Special Court under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC/ST (PoA) Act') assails the order dated 07.05.2026 in Crl. M.P.No. 2987/2017, whereby the plea of discharge raised by the 3rd accused was negatived by the learned Special Judge.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the prosecution. Though notice has been served upon the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant, as mandated under Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, he did not appear.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant/3rd accused, earlier Crl.A. No. 1262/2025 had been filed by the same appellant/3rd accused challenging dismissal of the same petition by the Special Judge and as per judgment dated 23.02.2026, this Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for consideration of both reports (initial and final reports), by the Special Judge, and to consider the discharge petition afresh. The order impugned is one passed on 07.05.2026, thereafter in consideration of both reports. According to him, even if both the reports are considered together, then also the appellant/3rd accused, the Bank Manager, who had granted loan based on genuine documents submitted by the other accused persons showing title, no criminal culpability to be found against the appellant/3rd accused prima facie. Therefore, the learned Special Judge went wrong in finding that a prima facie case to proceed with trial as against the appellant/3rd accused. Thus the learned counsel for the appellant/3rd accused sought reversal of the order impugned to grant discharge to the appellant/3rd accused.
The learned Public Prosecutor produced statement of CW4, when this Court specifically directed to produce materials to show the conspiracy alleged against the appellant/3rd accused in the matter of grant of loan which is the plank of the entire case. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, in the statement of CW4, no conspiracy elements could be found even remotely. He also submitted that none of the prosecution records would show any conspiracy hatched by the appellant/3rd accused.
The prosecution case based on both reports have been stated in paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the impugned order which reads as under:-
“3.There are two Final Reports in this case. One final Report is dtd 15/01/2014 and the other Final Report is dtd 31/03/2015. The 1 Final Report was filed by the Dy.S.P., Ernakulam Rural, Aluva and the 2 Final Report was filed by the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam. In both the Final Reports the complaint is one Mr. T.B. Ratheesh. The reasons for the filing of the 2 Final Report is not stated anywhere. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the complainant has complaint against one more accused and that led to the filing of the 2 Final Report. But in both Final Reports the same accused are arrayed and the petitioner herein is the 3 accused. On perusing the 1 Final Report it is found that even though the date of Report is shown as 15/01/2014, it is submitted before the Court on 02/05/2017. The Final Report dtd 31/03/2015 is submitted before the Court on the same day. Both Final Reports are based on the FIS of complainant by name T.B. Ratheesh.
4.The gist of the allegation in the final report is that, with the intention to extort the house and land in the name of the father of the first witness, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste, the 1 , 2 and 3 accused conspired to give CW1 a bank loan of Rs. 3 lakhs to solve his financial crisis which he had faced during the construction of his buildings. He was in need of a loan. The conspiracy was that two houses and 5 cents of property in the name of CW1's father would be registered in the Ernakulam Sub Registrar Office on 24/04/2009 in the name of the second accused, including the house where CW1 and his family live. After registering this property in the name of the 2 accused, the second accused would mortgage this property in the Ernakulam branch of Tamil Nadu Bank, of which the third accused was the Manager. This plan made by all the accused was executed . The bank loan of Rs. 20,00,0,00/- was sanctioned to the 2 accused for purchasing a house and property. Utilizing the same he purchased the property from Bhaskaran, the father of the defacto complainant (CW1), as per registered document No. 1083/2009 dated 24.04.2009. He thereafter filed income tax return in the name of a non-existent entity in order to show the income from the repayment of the loan. The second accused, with the connivance of the third accused, obtained the purchase loan of Rs. 20 lakhs from the bank and deposited this amount in the account number 112100050300827 in the name of CW1's father. After withdrawing the entire amount through the first witness, CW1 was given only Rs. 3,05,000/- and the remaining amount was divided between the first and second accused and used it for their own needs and is not yet repaid to the bank, incurring a liability of Rs.59,89,447.04, causing this property to face confiscation proceedings. The accused, who do not belong to the Schedule Caste category, illegally interfered with the right to use the property belonging to CW1's family, who belong to the Scheduled Caste community and thereby they have committed offences U/Ss. 406, 420, 120B, r/w 34 of the IPC and section 3(1)(v) & 3(1)(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.”
While considering the discharge petition, as regards the involvement of the appellant/3rd accused, in paragraph No. 16, the learned Special Judge observed as under:-
“16.The statements of the witnesses disclose only the involvement Ibrahim, A1 and the 2 accused and certain others. A reading of the statements of witnesses will convince that there is nothing to implicate the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner or the bank has not done anything against the defacto complainant or their family or their property in any manner, who are alleged to be members of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe community. The action taken by the bank was only against the 2 accused and the property mortgaged by him is also one Tajudheen who was the guarantor to the loan.”
On scrutiny of the statements and reports, what to be elicited is that the appellant, who is the 3rd accused and the Bank Manager granted loan merely relying on the documents showing title in the name of accused Nos. 1 and 2, that too after obtaining positive legal advice and satisfying valuation of the property.
It is pertinent to note that in the statement of CW4 produced, which form part of the Final Report, CW4, the wife of the defacto complainant stated that they permitted to avail some amount of loan, but they never thought of availing the huge amount as loan. Thus grant of loan, in fact, permitted by CW2. In fact, none of the statements would implicate that the appellant/3rd accused as an offender prima facie and the records would show that the Manager granted loan on production of valid documents, in fact, executed by the defacto complainant in favour of the other accused and in such view of the matter, prima facie, the allegations could not be found. It is more explicit that even a strong suspicion regarding involvement of the appellant/3rd accused could not be found from the prosecution materials. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that when a Bank Manager who is competent to grant loans, acting on genuine documents of title, grants loans as per the Rules and Regulations of the Bank, that too after getting positive legal opinion and proper valuation of the property which are in tact, in all esteem, the grant of loan to be found as one within the purview of the power of the Bank Manager and the said acts would not constitute any offences. In such view of the matter, the plea raised by the appellant/3rd accused seeking discharge is liable to succeed.
In view of the above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The appellant/third accused is discharged from this case, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (v) and 3(1)(xv) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court concerned, forthwith, for information and further steps.