Hardeo Singh VS State of Bihar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2000(3) Crimes 1 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Patna High Court)
G.B. Pattanaik & Umesh C. Banerjee, JJ.
Hardeo Singh —Appellant
versus
State of Bihar & Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 110 of 2000)
Decided on 11-5-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, P.S. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, S.B. Upadhyay, Sanjay K. Shandilya, Rajeev Sharma, P. Parmeshwaran, Kumar Rajesh Singh, B.B. Singh, Advocates.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 120B—Quashment of charge—Complaint under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477 read with diverse provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act —Allegation accused got sanctioned from Manager of Bank (co-accused), overdraft facilities and gained wrongful gains—Petition to quash charge on ground loan sanctioned were repaid —Rejection—Held, allegation pertain to factum of habit of co-accused, Branch Manager of Bank, receiving illegal gratification—Criminal purpose cannot be possibly ruled out as against accused in question—Petition for discharge rightly rejected—High Court rightly refused to quash charge-sheet.
       Held : It is no doubt true that only one person has been named to be providing the illegal gratification but does that mean and imply release of another beneficiary of largess of the Branch Manager and it is on this score the totality of the situation shall have to be scrutinised in a little more greater detail. It appears that the appellant herein has obtained some overdraft facilities from the Bank which is stated to be much beyond the financial power of the Branch Manager but paid back the same within 46 days inclusive of all interests therein and the Branch Manager is in the habit of receiving illegal gratification from Shri Ved Prakash Agrawal which is apparent from the entries in the personal diary of Shri Ved Prakash Agrawal and the account of Sh. S.K. Roy. The charge pertaining to the appellant, therefore, is restrictive but allowing him overdraft of Rs. 21.5 lacs on different dates which stands repaid alongwith interest and which according to the charge is much beyond the financial powers of the Branch Manager also needs a probe. The chargesheet has been filed against the persons named in the charge, including the appellant under Section 120B, 420, 418, 467, 477A of the IPC and Section 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for taking cognizance and the Special Judge did take cognizance in regard to such offences so far as the Appellant is concerned. True there is no accusation that the account of Roy depicts a balance which is much higher than the amount shown in the personal diary of Shri Ved Prakash, but two several sums of Rs. 60,000/- have been stated to have been deposited on 14.2.85 and 26.3.85 which though by itself not, connote any culpability of the Appellant Hardeo Singh, neither the same however proves his innocence at this juncture. There may not be any direct evidence against the appellant herein as regards the payment of illegal gratification by the appellant to the Branch Manager or the Accountant, but factum of having enjoyed the privilege of having large sums of money on term loans without any authorisation to allow the same obviously raises some eye-brows somewhere and this is inspite of the fact of repayment of the term loan with interest : The question cannot be avoided as to the reasons for such an act which stands beyond the powers - Is this a purely customer and the Bank relationship or something else —This is what is to be investigated more so having regard to this so-called habit of Roy as noticed above. (Paras 8 & 9)
       The criminal purpose in the matter cannot possibly be ruled out as against the appellant. The allegation pertains to the factum of the habit of Branch Manager, of receiving illegal gratification from Shri Ved Prakash Agrawal, however, by itself, in our view, may or may not be sufficient to bring home the charge of conspiracy but that by itself would not authorise the court to call it a day in regard to the charge of conspiracy on the wake of the factual matrix of the situation at this stage of proceedings. Criminal prosecution does not necessarily mean harassment and in the event the prosecution of this nature is allowed to be continued, it would not be in our view a travesty of justice or any undue prejudice or even otherwise prejudicial, since ultimately in the event the charge is not proved, he would be acquitted. (Para 11)
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

Banerjee, J.—Leave granted.

2. This Appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Patna High Court pertains to refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in the matter of discharge of the complaint against the petitioner under Section 120B, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477A IPC read with diverse provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act in RC No. 35/85 before the Special Judge, Patna. On the factual score it appears that the First Information Report was lodged against one S.K. Roy, Branch Manager, Birpur Branch of Central Bank of India alleging inter alia that in connivance with some other named accused he has cheated the Bank to the tune of Rs. 7,47,000/- by misusing his official position, and thus, wrongful loss to the bank to the above extent and wrongful gain to himself and others having entered into a criminal conspiracy with Ved Prakash Agrawal, Satya Narain Agrawal and M/s. Arun Khadya Tel Udyog. During the course of investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the present Appellant’s name surfaced from the record that the latter having an Account in the Bank made an application on 8th February, 1985 for sanction of loan of Rs. 14 lakhs for urgent payment of labourers in contract work. It has also come to light that the Branch Manager S.K. Roy has given sanction and allowed a total amount of overdraft facility to the extent of Rs. 21,50,000/- on different dates to the Appellant. It is this grant of overdraft facility which have been very strongly criticised by Mr. Altaf Ahmed, the learned Additional Solicitor General. Mr. Ahmed contended that the Branch Manager of the Bank has had no power to the grant of overdraft facility beyond a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and this accommodation to the appellant herein is, obviously, for reasons not far to seek.

3. The contextual facts depict that Inspector of Police, SPE, CBI, Patna Shri Jyoti Kumar lodged an FIR being RC No. 35/85 Patna wherein it has been alleged as below :

“An information has been received through a reliable source that Shri S.K. Roy, while functioning as Branch Manager, Birpur Branch of Central Bank of India during the period 1983 to 1985 entered into a criminal conspiracy with S/Shri Ved Prakash Agrawal, Satya Narain Agrawal, M/s. Arun Khadya Tel Udyog and others and cheated the Central Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 7,47,000/- by misusing his official position and thus caused wrongful loss to the Bank to the extent of Rs. 7,47,000/- with corresponding wrongful gain to himself and others.

2. It is alleged that Shri Ved Prakash Agrawal applied for loan and filled up only the amount of finance required by him leaving all the other particulars including the nature of business blank in the loan application form. Shri S.K. Roy, Branch Manager sanctioned Rs. 10,000/- cash credit open limit on adhoc basis pending regular proposal and sanction Shri S.K. Roy also fraudulently and dishonestly allowed the party to draw to the extent of Rs. 2,57,655.55 without knowing the nature of business and without obtaining the financial statement, financial report, inspection report and stock statement.

3. It is alleged that there was no shop/establishment in the name of Shri Ved Prakash Agrawal.

4. It is alleged that Shri Ved Prakash Agrawal (A-3) was fraudulently and dishonestly allowed by Shri S.K. Roy (A-1) to withdraw to the extent of Rs. 89,464.10 without any loan application, proposal, sanction, financial statement, financial report, stock statement and inspection report. It is also alleged that this also is a fake and fictitious financing since there is no establishment/shop in the name of Shri Satya Narain Agrawal.

5. Further it is alleged that M/s. Arun Khadya Tel Udyog (A-4) was allowed by A-1 Shri S.K. Roy to draw to the extent of Rs. 4,94,620.50/- without regular proposal, sanction, financial statement, financial report and inspection report. All the documents are blank, undated and unstamped.

6. It is also alleged that Shri S.K.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document