SURESH KAIT, J

1. Vide the instant petition the petitioner has sought to quash the criminal case FIR no. RCA/BDI/2001 (E)/2005/CBI/BS registered for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 409/420 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, against the petitioner.

2. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for the petitioner, that whole thrust of allegation against the petitioner in the charge sheet is regarding his act as a Zonal Manager of the Bank, and by making recommendation for enhancement of Working Capital Limits of the company (A-4) and permitting the then Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Janpath Branch, New Delhi to purchase and discount the Foreign Export Bills of the Company (A-4) on DA basis.

3. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner in the charge sheet are that petitioner dishonestly and deceitfully acted upon, but has completely failed to take into account the fact that the petitioner, who at that point of time was posted as Zonal Manager, of the New Delhi Zone of the Bank, recommended for enhancement credit limit of the Company (A-4), which was made on the basis of recommendation sent by Sh. M.P. Sharma, the then Branch Manager, Janpath Branch to the Regional Manager, North India Region Sh. Hari Ram Pandey. Thereafter, forwarded by the Regional Manager to the Petitioner has traveled from General Manager (Credit) to the Chief Manager (Credit) at Head Office to Chief Manager (Credit) to the Assistant General Manager then to the Deputy Manager and again to General Manager (Credit) then to the Executive Director, then Chairman cum Managing Director and finally to the Board of Directors.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no allegation has been made against the Board of Directors or the CMD or the Executive Director and if that is so, then how can the petitioner be dragged for criminal prosecution for a decision which was finally taken and approved by Board of Directors, which was travelled through the Senior Officers of the Bank. Ld. Counsel has relied upon a case of Duncan’s Agro Case 1996 5 SCC 591, whereby the Hon?ble Supreme Court has quashed the criminal proceedings, observing therein that

“If the officer of the Bank has not acted properly because of the fact that ultimate decision was taken by the Board of Directors, it cannot reasonably be held that some of the Officers of the Bank connived and mislead the Board, more precisely, then there is no allegation against the members of the Board”.

5. Ld. counsel has further pointed out that CBI sought sanction to prosecute Shri Shantanu Guha, the then Chief Manager (Credit Operations-II) from Head Office, but the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) being the competent authority had declined the same and therefore, he has not been sent for trial and shown in Column No.2 in the charge-sheet.

6. The petitioner was Zonal Manager at that particular point of time and had acted on the basis of the telex message sent by Shri Shantanu Guha intimating that the competent authority has approved recommendation of the petitioner to modify/amend the terms and conditions of the sanction letter so as to include the discounting of Foreign Export Bills on DA basis also.

7. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has asserted that undisputedly the accused company was a very valued client of the bank and had immensely satisfactory transaction with the bank for more than two decades. The Managing Director of the Company used to directly correspond with the with the CMD of the bank and its file was directly controlled by the Head office. Even the enhancement proposal was initiated and forwarded by Head Office to the Branch Manager to be processed. It is also an undisputed fact that the Company has already settled its account with the bank, and in pursuant thereto, the bank had issued No Dues certificate vi