To sustain a conviction for criminal conspiracy, there must be sufficient evidence demonstrating a meeting of minds and the intent to commit fraud, as mere presumption is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

This appeal is filed by accused No.3 challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Special C.C.No.67/2002 dated 13.02.2013 for the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC and prayed this Court to acquit him and pass appropriate order.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the CBI before the Trial Court is that the appellant herein is a general power of attorney holder of accused No.2, who is the proprietrix of M/s. V.B Bakery. The firm had availed the overdraft and term loan facility from State Bank of India Bank, V.V.Puram Branch, Bengaluru. The accused No.1 was the Manager of the Bank when the loan was availed by the firm. The prosecution has filed a complaint making the allegation that accused Nos.1 to 3 have entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank in the matter of obtaining the overdraft facility in the current account of accused No.2. Accused No.1 committed the misconduct being a public servant by corrupt and illegal means and has abused his official position as public servant, has permitted the huge overdraft facility without any adequate security and he did not ensure the end use of the funds. The offences invoked against the accused is Section 120B read with Sections 420 , 468, 471, 477A of IPC and Sections 13 (1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’ for short).

3. After the registration of FIR and before filing the charge-sheet, the bank instituted a recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the same was compromised and accused No.2 discharged the entire liability by disposing off two sites under private negotiations, by the consent of the recovery officer of the DRT. In all 14 charges have been framed and the Trial Court acquitted accused No.2. But without proper application of mind and by not appreciating the evidence, has reached to an incorrect conclusion by convicting accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC and in respect of accused No.1 also invoked Section 13 (1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act.

4. It is contended in the appeal that the Trial Court has failed to see that the loan application was properly submitted and account opening form Ex.P.2 clearly indicates that accused No.3 is the authorized signatory of accused No.2 firm and absolutely there is no conspiracy among any of the accused to commit any unlawful act or object and none of the ingredients of Section 120B of IPC would attract. It is contended that the Trial Court has failed to see that loan application Exs.P.3 and 12 was submitted along with all required documents Exs.P.1, 2, 4 to 11, 13, 15 and 16 and sanction was proper and the same was in terms of banking norms and the accused firm has executed all loan documents. Accused No.1 had the power of sanction and while invoking Section 120B of IPC, there must be a meeting of minds and the same is absent in the present case. The Trial Court has failed to see the very fact that the civil liability has been settled voluntarily and while convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC, there must be a material regarding meeting of minds and intention to cheat the bank, transaction was taken place and no fraudulent intention or criminal conspiracy can be attributed to the appellant.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous and only an inference was