was paid to the petitioner for handing over the original sale deed to co-accused, recovery of that amount is required to be effected as such the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 5. It is not in dispute that the complainant Mohd. Yusuf had applied for loan of Rs.l5 lacs in Central Bank of India, Angle Public School, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi and at that time, the petitioner was posted as a branch manager. It is also not in dispute that a loan of Rs.I5 lacs was sanctioned and property bearing number 269, Khureji Khas, Delhi was mortgaged in lieu of the said loan. It is also not in dispute that the co-accused Mohd. Mustakeen Ansari secured a loan of Rs.l95 lacs from Punjab National Bank on the strength of the original sale deed which was mortgaged with Central Bank of India by the complainantwhile obtaining loan of Rs.l5 lacs. Much emphasis has been laid by the petitioner on the fact that the complainant sold the' property:to co-accused vide sale deed registered on 11.08.2011 wherein it was wrongly alleged that the property is free from all encumbrances.However,'the core issiie is how the original sale deed was changed with the coloured sale deed which was mortgaged with Central Bank of India in the year 2009 while securingii-'l loan. The allegations:against^the^ petitionerare verj4 serious in nature. Thoroughinvestigationis requiredto unearthithetruth. 11 fi ' If
