MUNNASS TABSIM v. THE STATE OF KERALA AND KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK KANNUR BRANCH

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1943** **OP(CRL.) NO. 274 OF 2020** **TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.98/2016 ON THE FILE OF EQNUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THALASSERRY AGAINST WHOM COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE WAS TAKEN AS PER THE ORDER MADE IN EXHIBIT P3 IN C.C NO.05/2011 (FIR NO.VC7/06/KNR) ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOZHIKODE LATER TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMISSIONER AS CC NO.98/2016)** ## **PETITIONER/2nd ACCUSED:** **MUNNASS TABSIM AGED 41 YEARS** **D/O. LATE P. A. ABBAS, THEKKEKUNNIL HOUSE, JOLLY NAGAR, POST PALLIKKARA - 671 316, KASARAGODE DIST.** **BY ADVS. T.ASAFALI SMT.LALIZA.T.Y.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA** - **(DY. S.P., VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KANNUR), REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.** **2 KERALA STATE CO-OP. BANK KANNUR BRANCH, REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, RM APARTMENTS, TALAP, KANNUR - 670 002. BY ADVS.SMT.S.REKHA, SR.PP SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA** **THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** - **28.10.2021, THE COURT ON 15.11.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 2 ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J ************************ O.P.(Crl) No.274 of 2020 ------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of November, 2021 ------------------------------------------- ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the second accused in the case C.C.No.98/2016 pending in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery. 2. The offences alleged against the accused in the above case are punishable under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and also under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. There are altogether three accused in the case. The first accused was the Managing Director of the company by name P.A.Trading (P) Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). The petitioner, the second accused, was the Director of that O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 3 company. The third accused was the Senior Manager of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank, Kannur Branch (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'). 4. The Bank filed Ext.P2 complaint against the first and the second accused in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kannur alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of the I.P.C by them. Learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the SHO concerned under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). On the basis of that complaint, Crime No.24/2006 of the Kannur Town Police Station was registered against the first and the second accused for the above offences. It appears that, the investigation of the case was subsequently entrusted with the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) and the case was re-registered as V.C.No.7/06/KNR under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and also under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Kannur Unit. After completing the investigation of the O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 4 case, he filed charge-sheet against the accused in the Special Court for the above offences. The Special Court took cognizance of the offences against the accused. 5. The summary of the allegations against the accused is stated in Ext.P3 charge-sheet as follows: _“The charge against the accused is that the accused persons with a criminal intention of cheating the Kerala State Co-operative Bank, Kannur Branch entered into a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of that conspiracy A1 and A2 pretended as Managing Director and Director respectively of a fictitious firm namely P.A.Trading Company Ltd., applied for a loan of Rs.300 lakhs at Kerala State Co-operative Bank, Kannur Branch dishonestly and fraudulently produced certain forged documents, false stock statements and invoices. A3 being the Sr.Manager of the bank abused his official position by taking exorbitant valuation of the property given as collateral security by A1 and A2, without ascertaining the functioning of the firm and without verifying the genuineness of invoices and stock statements produced by A1_ O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 5 _and A2 blindly recommended for granting cash credit for Rs.130 lakhs by the executive committee of the bank and thereby A1 and A2 obtained a loan of Rs.130 lakhs on December 2003. A1 and A2 defaulted the loan repayment and misappropriated Rs.130 lakhs on December 2003. A1 and A2 defaulted the loan repayment and misappropriated Rs.130 lakhs and thereby cheated the Kerala State Co-operative Bank.”_ 6. The second accused in the case has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: _“a) To quash entire proceedings as against the petitioner in C.C.No.98/2016 (FIR No.VC 7/06/KNR) on the file of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery, the cognizance of offence of which was taken by the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode in CC No.5/2011 and issued process, which was later transferred to the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery and re-numbered as CC No.98/2016_ O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 6 _and now pending;_ _b) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to secure the ends of justice.”_ 7. The investigating officer as well as the second respondent Bank has filed counter statement and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the second respondent Bank. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions to challenge the order of the Special Court, taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner on the basis of the allegations in Ext.P3 charge-sheet. The petitioner, the second accused in the case, was the Director of the company. Her father, the first accused, was the Managing Director of the company. He is no more. The company was one incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The Kannur Municipality had granted licence to the company for conducting automobile spare O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 7 parts business. The cash credit facility was granted to the company by the Bank not on the basis of the stock-in-trade but on the strength of collateral security worth Rs.4,74,27,550/-. The company had repaid a substantial amount of Rs.80,76,880/towards principal and Rs.4,83,177/- towards interest. The petitioner had not produced any bogus or fictitious invoices or bills to obtain loan from the Bank. She did not commit any forgery. It is inherently improbable that cash credit facility was granted by the Bank to the tune of one crore and thirty lakhs rupees on the basis of invoices and stock-in-trade. Default in repayment of the loan was made due to the death of the first accused. The very fact that a substantial amount of the loan was repaid would indicate that the first and the second accused had no dishonest intention to cheat the Bank. The petitioner had no direct control over the affairs of the company. She was in no way connected with the affairs of the company. Even if the entire allegations in the charge-sheet are accepted as true, it would not make out the offences alleged against the petitioner. The Bank, O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 8 instead of suing the petitioner for recovery of the debt, initiated criminal prosecution against her with a view to coerce her to repay the balance amount. The transaction with the Bank was a loan transaction, purely civil in nature. On the basis of the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner based on Ext.P3 charge-sheet. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor has invited the attention of this Court to the statements of certain witnesses and documents filed by the prosecution along with the charge-sheet and contended that the prosecution has produced sufficient materials before the trial court which would, prima facie, reveal commission of the offences by the accused, including the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the second respondent Bank has raised a preliminary objection that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable for quashing the charge-sheet. He has also submitted that the loan was obtained O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 9 by the first and the second accused in the name of a fictitious company and in order to obtain the loan from the Bank, they had produced bogus bills and invoices. He also submitted that the loan was granted to the first and the second accused on the basis of stock in trade also but the company actually did not exist and the accused had defrauded the Bank. 12. The petitioner has challenged the action/order of the trial court taking cognizance of the offences against her on the basis of the allegations in Ext.P3 charge-sheet. Therefore, there is no merit in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the second respondent Bank that the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Moreover, nothing prevents this Court, in an appropriate case, from invoking the inherent power saved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') to prevent abuse of process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. 13. The plea of the petitioner that she had no role in O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 10 managing the affairs of the company and that she had no role in availing the loan from the Bank cannot be accepted. Documents produced by the prosecution alongwith the final report belie this plea. The petitioner had signed the application form for opening account in the Bank in the name of the company. She had signed the application for availing the loan from the Bank. She had signed the mortgage deed executed by the company in favour of the Bank. 14. However, the fact that the petitioner was the Director of the company, by itself, does not mean that she is liable for the offences committed by the company. 15. Indian Penal Code, save and except some provisions specifically providing therefor, does not contemplate any vicarious liability on the part of a party who is not charged directly for commission of an offence. In the absence of any provision laid down under the statute, a Director of a company or an employee cannot be held to be vicariously liable for any offence committed by the company itself (See **S. K. Alagh v.** O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 11 ## **State of U.P: AIR 2008 SC 1731** ) 16. No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through its officers, directors, managing director, chairman etc. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that individual who acts on behalf of the company. It would be more so, when the criminal act is that of conspiracy. At the same time, it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made accused, along with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. Second situation in which he can be implicated is in those cases where the statutory regime itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, by specifically incorporating such a provision. When the company is the offender, vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed automatically, in the absence of any statutory provision to that O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 12 effect (See **Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation : AIR 2015 SC 923** ). 17. An individual, either as a Director or a Managing Director or Chairman of the company, can be made an accused, along with the company, only if there is sufficient material to prove his active role coupled with the criminal intent (See **Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State : AIR 2019 SC 4463** ). 18. If a person, thus, has to be proceeded with as being vicariously liable for the acts of the company, the company must be made an accused (See **R.Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta : (2009) 1 SCC 516** ). 19. In the instant case, the loan was availed of by the company and not by the first and the second accused. The company is not made an accused in the case. Neither the Act nor the Indian Penal Code contains any provision making the Director of a company liable for an offence under the Act or the Code committed by the company. In such circumstances,the petitioner, O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 13 who was a Director of the company, can be made criminally liable only for the individual acts, if any, committed with criminal intent by her, in connection with the loan transaction. 20. When the company is not made an accused and when one of its Directors is attributed with criminal liability in respect of a transaction relating to the company, the complaint or the charge-sheet shall contain specific allegations against the Director (See **Sushil Sethi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh : AIR 2020 SC 765** ). 21. But, the persons managing the affairs of the company cannot use the juristic entity and corporate personality of the company as a shield to evade themselves from prosecution for individual acts of offences under the Penal Code committed by them. 22. In the instant case, as per Ext.P3 charge-sheet, the individual criminal acts allegedly committed by the petitioner, the second accused, are the following: (1) The petitioner pretended that she was the Director of the company, which was a fictitious O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 14 company. (2) The petitioner dishonestly and fraudulently produced forged documents, false stock statements and invoices in the Bank. (3) The petitioner made default in repayment of the loan amount and misappropriated one crore and thirty lakhs rupees and thereby she cheated the Bank. It is alleged that the above mentioned acts were committed by the petitioner along with the first accused. It is significant that the above allegations raised are common to the first and the second accused. 23. The allegation against the petitioner that she pretended to be the Director of the company is totally baseless. The statement filed by the investigating officer discloses that the petitioner was actually the Director of the company and that she had signed the documents required for obtaining the loan from the Bank in her capacity as the Director of the company. 24. No doubt, the company was a bogus one. True, the company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. But, the company existed only on paper. No business was actually conducted by the company. The statements of witnesses and the O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 15 documents produced by the prosecution along with the final report would show that buildings were taken on lease by the first accused solely with the intention to obtain licence from the local authority and to use such licence to create an impression that business was conducted by the company in such address and to obtain loan from the Bank. However, there are no materials to show that the petitioner had played any role in such matters. The licence issued from the local authority to conduct business is in the name of the first accused and not in the name of the company. The real person behind the whole drama was the first accused, the father of the petitioner. Moreover, it is to be remembered that the petitioner is being prosecuted in the instant case not for forming a fictitious company but for defrauding the Bank. 25. True, the petitioner had signed the application made to the Bank for availing the loan. She had also signed the mortgage deed created in favour of the bank. Such acts were done by her in her capacity as the Director of the company and not in her O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 16 personal capacity. It was not a personal loan availed of by the first or the second accused. The loan was availed of by the company. No criminal liability can be attributed to the petitioner for making application for loan to the Bank in her capacity as the Director of the company, especially when the company is not made an accused in the case. 26. It is alleged that the petitioner and her father produced forged documents, false stock statements and false invoices in the Bank for the purpose of availing loan from the Bank. It is not stated in the charge-sheet, what forged documents, other than the stock statement and invoices, were produced in the Bank. 27. The application for availing the loan, which is signed also by the petitioner, shows that stock-in-trade was offered as primary security and landed property was offered as collateral security. The petitioner herself has produced in the original petition a hypothecation deed which would indicate that the stock-in-trade was hypothecated to the Bank as a security for the O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 17 loan. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the loan was granted by the Bank not on the basis of any stock in trade. Landed property also was offered as collateral security and mortgage deed was also executed by the persons concerned, including the petitioner. 28. If the company was a bogus one, how stock in trade was made security for the loan, is a question that would naturally arise. There the involvement of the Manager of the Bank, the third accused, in defrauding the Bank, becomes apparent. But for the deal or conspiracy between the first accused and the third accused, the Bank would not have granted the loan to the company. The statements of the witnesses and the documents produced along with the final report would show that the third accused had made entries in the relevant records to the effect that he had visited the business premises of the company and satisfied about the stock in trade. 29. No doubt, false invoices and bills had also been O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 18 produced in the Bank. The prosecution has produced sufficient materials along with the final report to substantiate that allegation. However, there is no material produced by the prosecution to show that, it was the petitioner who produced the false invoices and bills in the Bank. Learned Public Prosecutor has not pointed out any material produced by the prosecution along with the final report which would show that the petitioner was the person who actually produced the false bills or invoices in the Bank. The documents signed and given by the petitioner in the Bank, including the application for loan, will not show that she had produced any bills or invoices along with such application or other documents. In such circumstances, the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of the I.P.C are not attracted against the petitioner. 30. Now, the question arises, whether the failure of the company to repay the loan amount would make the petitioner liable for the offence of cheating as defined under Section 420 of the I.P.C. O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 19 31. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a plethora of decisions to impress upon this Court the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating. It is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. No doubt, mere inability of the accused to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is the crux of the offence. The legislature intended to criminalise only those breaches which are accompanied by fraudulent, dishonest or deceptive inducements (See **S.R.Shah v. State of Gujarat : AIR 2019 SC 1538** ). 32. In the instant case, there was dishonest intention. Formation of a bogus company by the first accused, with the help of the second accused, clearly points towards dishonest intention. But, one cannot ignore the fact that the company had repaid a substantial amount of Rs.80,76,880/- towards principal and Rs.4,83,177/- towards interest within a few months. Learned counsel for the Bank would submit that other loans had been O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 20 taken from the Bank in the name of the company and it was by using such amount that the loan in the instant case was repaid. It is immaterial how the petitioner or the company had raised the amount for repayment of the loan. If the petitioner or the company had defrauded the bank in other loan transactions, it is for the Bank to proceed against her or the company in respect of those transactions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has highlighted the fact of repayment of substantial portion of the loan amount only to lay emphasis on the contention that there was no dishonest intention right at the beginning of the loan transaction. Further, the loan was secured by creating an equitable mortgage of properties, which included the property owned by the petitioner. In these circumstances, merely on account of the failure of the company to repay the entire loan amount, prima facie, it cannot be found that the petitioner has committed the offence of cheating. 33. Learned Public Prosecutor has not pointed out the circumstances from which criminal conspiracy between the O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 21 petitioner and the third accused can be inferred. As noticed earlier, there are sufficient materials and circumstances indicating conspiracy between the first and the third accused to get the loan sanctioned by the Bank. But, learned Public Prosecutor has not pointed out any material produced by the prosecution indicating that the petitioner had at some point of time participated in such conspiracy. 34. Normally, at pre-trial stage, this Court would not have ventured to undertake the exercise of examining the entire issue as to whether the offences alleged against an accused are made out or not. However, there are certain peculiar circumstances in the case. The loan transaction was in the year 2003. Landed properties, including the property of the petitioner, had been mortgaged to the Bank to secure the loan transaction. The loan sanctioned was one crore and thirty lakhs rupees. A substantial amount, Rs.80,76,880/- towards principal and Rs.4,83,177/towards interest, was repaid within a few months of taking the loan. The company which availed the loan is not made an O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 22 accused in the case. Offences under the Indian Penal Code are alleged against the petitioner on flimsy grounds without any clarity. The statement filed by the investigating officer shows that not only the first accused, the father of the petitioner, but also the third accused is dead. Now, the chances of a successful prosecution against the petitioner alone, on the basis of the materials produced by the prosecution, that too without the company in the array of accused, are very bleak. Taking into account these facts also, this Court is of the view that the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed to secure the ends of justice. 35. At this juncture, it is apt to quote the observations made by the Supreme Court in **Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia** **v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre** : **AIR 1988 SC 709** , which read as follows: _"The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the_ O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 23 _Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage"._ (emphasis supplied) 36. Consequently, the original petition is allowed. The entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner based on Ext.P3 charge-sheet are hereby quashed. All pending interlocutory applications are closed. ## **Sd/- R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** jsr O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 24 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 274/2020** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR DATED 12TH SEPTEMBER 2006 NO.VC NO.7/06/KNR OF VACB, KANNUR. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13TH JANUARY 2006 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KANNUR. EXHIBIT P3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 12TH SEPTEMBER 2011 WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE SPECIAL COURT, KOZHIKODE AND TOOK COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED.** **EXHIBIT P3 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 14TH AUGUST 2003 OF THE COMPANY. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF COMPANY DATED 30TH JULY 2003. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT MINUTES DATED 6TH OCTOBER 2003 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. EXHIBIT P7 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 16TH DECEMBER 2003 ISSUED TO THE DECEASED FATHER OF THE PETITIONER P. A. ABBAS, WHO WAS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. EXHIBIT P7(a) CERTIFIED COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE DATED 15TH DECEMBER, 2003. EXHIBIT P7(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN UNDERTAKING DATED NIL GIVEN BY THE BUILDING OWNER OF THE COMPANY PERMITTING THE DECEASED FATHER OF THE PETITIONER FOR CONDUCTING SPARE PARTS BUSINESS IN THE RENTED PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING LICENSE FROM MUNICIPALITY.** O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 25 **EXHIBIT P7(c) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16TH NOVEMBER 2006.** **EXHIBIT P8 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 6TH OCTOBER 2003.** **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6TH DECEMBER 2003 SENT TO THE SENIOR MANAGER, STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KANNUR BRANCH BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **EXHIBIT P9(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6TH DECEMBER 2003 VIDE NO.ILD/137/PAT/4784/2003-04 ISSUED BY THE SR. MANAGER, KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK, KANNUR BRANCH TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10TH DECEMBER 2003 SHOWING DEPOSIT OF THE TITLE DEED MADE BY THE PETITIONER IN THE BANK.** - **EXHIBIT P10(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10TH DECEMBER 2003 BY THE CO-OBLIGANT MRS. SAIRABANU ABBAS.** - **EXHIBIT P10(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10TH DECEMBER 2003 SHOWING THE DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEEDS MADE BY MRS. LUBNA THABSEEM.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM ACCOMPANYING DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEEDS DATED 10TH DECEMBER 2003 JOINTLY EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER, HER MOTHER SAIRA BHANU ABBAS AND SISTER LUBNA THABSEEM IN FAVOUR OF THE BANK IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASH CREDIT FACILITY GIVEN TO THE COMPANY.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE DECEASED FATHER OF THE PETITIONER MR. P. A. ABBAS, THE PETITIONER AND 2 OTHERS AS CO-OBLIGANTS ON 10TH DECEMBER 2003 INCORPORATING ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EQUITABLE MORTGAGE BY DEPOSITING TITLE DEEDS IN** O.P.(Crl) No.274/2020 26 ## **FAVOUR OF THE BANK.** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 1ST NOVEMBER 2003 ISSUED BY P.T.K.ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, KANNUR.** **EXHIBIT P13(a) SEPARATE VALUATION REPORT OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY MRS. LUBNA THABSUM. EXHIBIT P13(b) SEPARATE VALUATION REPORT OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY MRS. SAIRA BHANU ABBAS.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF HYPOTHECATION DATED 10TH DECEMBER 2003 EXECUTED BY THE PRINCIPAL BORROWER AND THE COOBLIGIANTS.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE OF THE GOODS AND PREMISES CREATED BY THE COMPANY DATED 15TH DECEMBER 2003.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED NIL GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER TWO CO-OBLIGANTS.** - **EXHIBIT P17 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE LEGAL OPINION DATED 29TH OCTOBER 2003 ISSUED BY N.JAYARAJAN, ADVOCATE, KANNUR.** - **EXHIBIT P18 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF N. JAYARAJAN, CW-1 RECORDED UNDER SECTION 161 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AT THE TIME OF INVESTIGATION IN THE CASE.** - **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.A TO JUDGE** **RPK**