IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a lack of prima facie evidence warrants quashing of criminal proceedings, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. This is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for quashing a proceeding of Special (CBI) Case No. 12 of 2011pending before the Learned Judge, Special Court, No. 4, Bichar Bhaban Calcutta arising out of RC No. 0102010A0010 whereby the Learned Special Judge, has rejected the application of the petitioner u/s 239 Cr.P.C. on 18.07.2018 and framed charge against the petitioner u/s 120B/420/417 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the instant criminal case was initiated on the basis of written complaint lodged by Canara Bank on 30.03.2010 alleging inter alia that the present petitioner while posted as Branch manager of Canara Bank, Sarat Sarani, Hooghly Branch during 2004-09 entered into a criminal conspiracy with Prabhunath Singh of M/s. M.K. Enterprise, Hooghly, Rajesh Singh of M/s. Sri Mahakali Enterprise Hooghly and others in pursuance of the said conspiracy they cheated Canara Bank to the tune of Rs. 25.89 Lakhs by availing credit facilities on the basis of the forge and fabricated financial papers, false valuation report, legal security report in respect of the properties mortgage to the Bank.

3. After completion of investigation the CBI submitted charge sheet against the present petitioner and three others before the Learned Special Court, CBI.

4. The present petitioner preferred an application for discharge u/s 239 Cr.P.C. The Learned Special Court after hearing the parties as rejected the said petition by passing the impugned order dated 29.06.2017 and framed charge against the petitioner including the other accused persons u/s 120B/420/471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988.

5. Hence this revision.

6. Learned Advocate Mr. Mukherjee for the petitioner submits that the Learned Special Court has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of this case and mechanically rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioner. He further submits there no sufficient ground to frame charge against the present petitioner still then the charge has been framed against the present petitioner. He further argued that the Learned Special Court failed to appreciate or applied his judicial mind to the materials collected by the CBI. He submits the allegation made in the FIR as well as in the charge sheet even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not make difference a prima facie case against the present petitioner. He further submits that an allegation made against the present petitioner is nothing but to bring out the complicity of the present petitioner with regard to the commission of offence as alleged. There is no material to establish the involvement of the present petitioner regarding his involvement in the alleged offence with the other accused persons. He submits that if the said proceeding is allowed to be continued the state would be tantamount to be an abuse of process of court.

7. Learned Advocate Mr. Mukherjee for the petitioner further submits that the present petitioner was a Branch Manager of the Canara Bank Sarat Sarani Branch from 28.07.2001 to 25.08.2004, after that he was transferred to another Branch. During his tenure at Sarat Sarani Branch he sanctioned two (2) OCC loan in favour of (i) M/s. MK Enterprise of Rs. 10 lakh on 07.02.2004 for one year with collateral security of Rs. 2 lakh and, (ii) in favour of the M/s. Sri Mahakali Enterprise on 28.07.2004 amounting to Rs. 10 lakh for one year with a collateral security of Rs. 6 lakh. He further submits that before sanctioning such loan, necessary approval was obtained from the circle office. After sanctioning such loan he transferred from the said Branch on 25.08.2004. The present petitioner retired from his service with satisfactory comment from the bank on 31.12.2008 and after his retirement on 30.07.2010 the instant FIR was lodged.

8. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that