This petition sought quashing of criminal proceedings against a bank officer under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court found a prima facie case was made out. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to raise further points before the trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1161 of 2016
Brajesh Ranjan Sinha … … Petitioner Versus The Union of India through C.B.I.
… … Opposite Party
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Kumar Basant, Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate ---
16 /17.12.2019 Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Mr. Kumar Basant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party – Central Bureau of Investigation.
3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.03.2016 passed by learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad whereby cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 120B r/w 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been taken and the petitioner has been summoned to face trial as well as the entire criminal proceeding in connection with R.C. Case No. 4(A)/2013-D, registered under Sections 120B r/w 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is now said to be pending in the Court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-XI cum Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire criminal proceeding is an abuse of process of law and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. She also submits that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was posted
2
in the regional office of the bank and while discharging his duty as a field officer, his duty was to inspect the site in connection with the loan account and he had inspected the same.
5. Learned counsel for the C.B.I., by referring to the chargesheet which has been submitted in the instant case, has referred to the allegation made against the petitioner and submits that the investigation revealed serious allegations against the petitioner and on account of the acts and omissions of the petitioner, the Bank has suffered huge losses. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted and there are serious charges against the petitioner and the petitioner has been made accused with other persons under Sections 120B r/w 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This Court finds that as per the charge-sheet, following allegations have been made against the petitioner:
“He processed the Loan application received from Branch but did not point out deficiency has in the loan application. As per terms of sanction, the unit was supposed to be inspected by the Dhanbad Branch Officials as and when required for effective monitoring of the account. He did not ensure the compliance of clause no. 19 (related to compliance of terms of sanction, due diligence certificates etc.) of RO sanction and deviated from the sanctioned terms of loan. He did not obtain documents in ASD13 format in support of the purchase of machineries before release of the limit meant for working capital. He did not ensure the stock statement submitted by the party to the Bank on regular basis. He willfully did not comply the extent guidelines of the Bank and thereby caused loss to the Bank. He had given false report regarding the installation of plant and machinery while inspecting the factory in December, 2007. Further in criminal conspiracy with other Bank Officers as well as party processed the OD loan account of party and recommended for sanction of
3
Rs. 90 lakhs. He had mentioned about his inspection dtd. 27.12.2007 on 10.01.2008, while he was recommending for the release of OD facility to the said Company.”
7. Considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, it cannot be said that no case at all is made out against the petitioner and accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 05.03.2016 taking cognizance of offence. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
8. However, dismissal of this petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner to raise all the points which may be available to the petitioner at appropriate stage before the learned court below and dismissal of this case will not prejudice the case of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.
9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
10. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed on the ground that they are an abuse of the process of law.
Whether a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner based on the chargesheet and investigation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Brajesh Ranjan Sinha
The Union of India through C.B.I.
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
