Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High Court

Modus Operandi Having Come to the Notice of the Higher Officers, Inspection of the Branch was Carried Out – Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Petitioners in Bank Fraud Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India has affirmed the conviction of T.R. Vijayaraman and B. Kanagarajan, rejecting their Special Leave Petitions against the High Court’s decision which upheld their sentences for conspiracy, fraud, and cheating related to unauthorized banking transactions. The bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal supported the earlier judicial findings in a detailed judgment.

The accusations centered around Sections 120-B (conspiracy), 420 (cheating), and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case pertains to illicit activities involving unauthorized temporary Demand Overdrafts arranged by bank officials, which benefited various businessmen including the petitioners.

Originating from an FIR by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2004, the case details fraudulent transactions at the Indian Bank, Srirangam Branch, Trichy, where funds were irregularly credited without the backing of negotiable instruments, resulting in interest-free advances to the accused. An internal bank inspection in January 2004 unveiled these discrepancies, leading to the immediate rectification of accounts by the implicated parties, indicating acknowledgment of their misconduct.

Direct Benefits: The court observed that the fraudulent transactions were specifically tailored to benefit the petitioners, who promptly rectified their accounts following the inspection, an act that underscored their complicity.

  1. Dismissal of Defenses: Arguments positing that the transactions were standard banking practices were dismissed, with the court underscoring the orchestrated manipulation of banking processes to facilitate these transactions.
  2. Evidence and Conspiracy: Detailed examination by the court showed a clear pattern of collusion between bank officials and the businessmen, aimed at circumventing standard banking norms for personal gain.
  3. Reference to Similar Cases: The dismissal of related SLPs involving co-accused in earlier proceedings affirmed the consistency of judicial appraisal in these matters.

Decision: The Supreme Court, finding no merit in the appeals, confirmed the lower courts’ decisions, mandating the petitioners to surrender within two weeks.

Date of Decision: May 3, 2024

T.R. Vijayaraman vs. The State of Tamil Nadu

Latest Legal News