TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1007
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by entering into a criminal conspiracy with the sixth accused, Branch Manager of Andhra Bank, whereby a sum of Rs. 41 Crores was availed from the bank in connivance with Mr.R.Varadarajan/fifth accused/petitioner herein, by furnishing fake documents and cooked-up financial statements to secure the funds. The loan proceeds were subsequently diverted in collusion with the Branch Manager, thereby causing a total loss to the tune of Rs. 57.64 Crores. 3. Based on the complaint lodged by Andhra Bank, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case in FIR No.RC-3(E)/2012. After completion of investigation, the CBI filed a charge sheet, which was taken on file as C.C.No.48 of 2013 on the file of the XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. 4. Following the registration of the predicate case for a scheduled offence, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) No.13 of 2013 under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA']. After completion of investigation, the Enfor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner stands exactly on the same footing as the sixth accused, the complaint against the petitioner is equally liable to be quashed in the line of the said order. 9. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate, contended that the petitioner is not a bona fide contractor, and had, in fact, conspired with the first accused and actively indulged in diverting the proceeds of crime by receiving the money from the trust account of the first accused and subsequently transferring them back to the various personal accounts of A1, A2 and several other accounts for the purpose of diverting and using the proceeds of crime. 10. He further submitted that the petitioner conspired with the first and second accused and had indulged in submitting manipulated jackedup Income Tax certificates to the bank for availing substantial loans. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that ample materials are available on record against the petitioner to attract the offences under Section 3 of the PMLA, as a co-accused and as such the present quash petition is not sustainable and liable to be dismissed. 11. We have given our anxious....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... documents of his qualifications, cooked-up financial statements, etc., & diverted the term loan proceeds in collusion with Shri R. Varadarajan (A-2) for various other purposes and thereby caused wrongful loss to the bank to the tune of Rs. 57.64 Crores and Shri N.Raveendranadha Reddy (A-3), the then branch Manager of Anna Nagar Branch, had facilitated the fraud by his acts of recommending sanction of limit without proper due diligence of the background of Shri T. D. Naidu and also by disbursing the loan without following the sanctioned terms and without ensuring proper end use of the funds in gross violation of the sanction stipulations, a Criminal Case No.RC 3(E)/2012 was registered on 20.03.2012 by CBI, BS & FC, Bangalore. 4.7.2................. 4.7.3................. 4.7.4................. 4.7.5................. 4.7.6. The term loan of Rs. 41 crores was sanctioned and the terms & conditions were accepted by Shri T. D. Naidu, Smt. T. D. Prabhavathy, Shri T. D. Tataji & Ms. T. D. Sonia, who have signed all pages of the said sanction letter. 4.7.7. An amount of Rs. 19,69,00,000/- was disbursed to M/s DDE&MT on 16.08.2008, out o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....record, it is evident that after the first accused received Rs. 41 Crore in the trust account through manipulation and fabrication, a portion of the amount was routed through the petitioner. Specifically a sum of Rs. 14.40 Crores was paid to Mr.R.Varadarajan/petitioner in his personal account for purchase of steel material and construction work, which was deposited by the petitioner in the Indian Bank account, Chennai. Immediately, thereafter, out of the funds received, the petitioner transferred Rs. 14.20 Crores back to the personal account of Mr.T.D.Naidu/first accused. 19. Further, again a sum of Rs. 6.50 Crores was paid to the petitioner on 07.10.2008 and a sum of Rs. 9 Crores was paid to the petitioner on 14.10.2008 for procuring building materials. However, the petitioner, in turn, transferred Rs. 6.45 Crores and Rs. 9 Crores to the personal account of the first accused/Mr.T.D.Naidu. Therefore, out of the total amount of Rs. 29.90 Crores received by the petitioner towards the construction purposes from the Trust, he has immediately re-transferred a sum of Rs. 29.65 Crores to the personal account of Mr.T.D.Naidu and other personal accounts as instructed, which prima facie d....