GOPAKUMAR B. NAIR Vs. C.B.I.
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-15
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on
April 07,2014
Gopakumar B. Nair
Appellant
VERSUS
C.B.I.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
B S JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]NIKHIL MERCHANT VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ SHARMA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
CBI, ACB, MUMBAI VS. NARENDRA LAL JAIN [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SANJAY BHANDARI AND ORS. VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2015-6-20] [REFERRED TO]JOGINDER SINGH LOGANI VS. STATE (CBI) [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-536] [REFERRED]
JAGDISHBHAI BHOGILAL PANDYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-2-2123] [REFERRED TO]
B. NAGESHWARA RAO VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2018-8-85] [REFERRED TO]
SATHYAN NARAVOOR SOUPARNIKA, NARAVOOR, KOOTHUPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT VS. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, NEW DELHI [LAWS(KER)-2017-2-88] [REFERRED TO]
B. NAGESWARA RAO VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(TLNG)-2018-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. HARI SINGH RANKA [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-133] [REFERRED TO]
DHYAN INVESTMENTS & TRADING COMPANY LTD VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(BOM)-2023-8-551] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. VIKRAM ANANTRAI DOSHI [LAWS(SC)-2014-9-62] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH MUKHYAN VS. CBI [LAWS(HPH)-2024-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU SECY. AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-11-106] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHU MURUGAN VS. BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
SANDHYABEN AKSHAYKUMAR CHOKHAWALA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-8-638] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD GOEL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-144] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MP AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-281] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. MOHAMMED YOUSUF [LAWS(KAR)-2016-1-177] [REFERRED TO]
M. RAMA REDDY VS. STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(KAR)-2021-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA MISHRA VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-1-118] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA MISHRA VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-1-118] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL RAMJI SINGH VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(BOM)-2024-2-124] [REFERRED TO]
NAJIR HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2016-12-76] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellant is the second accused (hereinafter referred to as 'A- 2') in CC No. 48 of 2011 (RC 27(A)/2004) in the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram. He is aggrieved by the refusal dated 25.06.2013 of the High Court of Kerala to quash the aforesaid criminal proceeding lodged by the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter for short 'CBI').
(3.)The allegations made against the accused-appellant in the FIR dated 30.11.2004 are to the effect that the accused-appellant alongwith one T.K. Rajeev Kumar (A-1), Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Killippalam Branch, Trivandrum and C. Sivaramakrishna Pillai (A-3) (since deceased) had entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain undue pecuniary advantage for themselves. Specifically, it was alleged that in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy the accused-appellant dishonestly applied for a car loan of Rs. 5 lakhs and opened a bank account bearing No. 1277 on 24.08.2002 without proper introduction. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, the accused-appellant furnished a forged agreement for purchase of a second hand Lancer Car bearing No. KL-5L-7447 showing the value thereof as Rs. 6.65 lakhs though the accused-appellant had purchased the said vehicle for Rs. 5.15 lakhs only. It is further alleged that A-1, by abusing his official position as Branch Manager, dishonestly sanctioned Rs. 5 lakhs towards car loan without prerequisite sanction inspection. It is also alleged that A-1, who did not have the authority to do so, sanctioned education loan of Rs.4 lakhs under the Vidyajyothi Scheme to the accused-appellant for undergoing a course on Digital Film Making at SAE Technology College, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the prosecution, the accused-appellant had submitted two forged receipts of the aforesaid college showing payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- as fees which amount was duly released in his favour though he had actually paid Rs. 47,500/- to the college and had attended the course only for three days.
(2.)The appellant is the second accused (hereinafter referred to as 'A- 2') in CC No. 48 of 2011 (RC 27(A)/2004) in the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram. He is aggrieved by the refusal dated 25.06.2013 of the High Court of Kerala to quash the aforesaid criminal proceeding lodged by the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter for short 'CBI').
(3.)The allegations made against the accused-appellant in the FIR dated 30.11.2004 are to the effect that the accused-appellant alongwith one T.K. Rajeev Kumar (A-1), Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Killippalam Branch, Trivandrum and C. Sivaramakrishna Pillai (A-3) (since deceased) had entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain undue pecuniary advantage for themselves. Specifically, it was alleged that in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy the accused-appellant dishonestly applied for a car loan of Rs. 5 lakhs and opened a bank account bearing No. 1277 on 24.08.2002 without proper introduction. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, the accused-appellant furnished a forged agreement for purchase of a second hand Lancer Car bearing No. KL-5L-7447 showing the value thereof as Rs. 6.65 lakhs though the accused-appellant had purchased the said vehicle for Rs. 5.15 lakhs only. It is further alleged that A-1, by abusing his official position as Branch Manager, dishonestly sanctioned Rs. 5 lakhs towards car loan without prerequisite sanction inspection. It is also alleged that A-1, who did not have the authority to do so, sanctioned education loan of Rs.4 lakhs under the Vidyajyothi Scheme to the accused-appellant for undergoing a course on Digital Film Making at SAE Technology College, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the prosecution, the accused-appellant had submitted two forged receipts of the aforesaid college showing payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- as fees which amount was duly released in his favour though he had actually paid Rs. 47,500/- to the college and had attended the course only for three days.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.