IMPORTANT POINT
The Court affirmed that serious allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be quashed merely based on a lack of personal wrongdoing by the accused.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

Heard Mr. A. W. Aman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Haloi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI for the respondent No. 1.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of the FIR No. RC11(A)/2018-GWH(RC 0172018A0011) dated 09.06.2018 under Section 120B/420/467/468 and 471 IPC, R/w Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was posted as a Credit Manager, Scale-III in bank of India, Guwahati Branch. On 09.06.2018 an FIR bearing No. RC11(A)/2018-GWH(RC 0172018A0011) was filed by the respondent under Section 120B/420/467/468 and 471 IPC, R/w 13(2) and 13(1) (d) PC Act. With the allegation that the present petitioner who was working as Chief Manager, Bank of India, Guwahati Main Branch during the years 2012-14, by misusing his official position entered into a criminal conspiracy with Shri Lhakpa Tsering proprietor of M/s Lhakpa Tsering Agency & unknown others has sanctioned the Term Loans and Cash Credit Loans for purchasing the Machinery/Excavators and civil contract work by violating the procedures and guidelines of bank and disbursed the loan without any due diligence causing wrongful loss to the bank of the tune of Rs. 2.69 crore and wrongful gain to themselves. Apart from the allegation brought against the present petitioner there are some other allegation against the accused Nos. 2 & 3 and accordingly, after investigating, the case has been charge-sheeted on 25.03.2020 and the present petitioner was wrongfully arrayed as accused No. 1 in the charge-sheet. It is further stated that the task of the Senior Manager Credit is to see if the loan seeker in his proposal adduce the proper documents like PAN Card, Property documents, Income Tax Return, certificate issued by Chartered Accountant etc. In this case also as far as the pre sanction of the collateral mortgage was concerned, it was found to be correct and a house located in Indrapuram in NCR region is now duly acquired by the Authority on the failure to return the loan amount. Moreover, the present petitioner is not a proposer of the loan amount nor is the sanctioning authority. In the charge-sheet, it is stated that the Kabi Ram Rabha then Manager In-charge recommended for the purpose of approval of application of M/s Lhakpa Tsering. But the said Kabi Ram Rabha is not even arrayed as accused in this matter while the present petitioner who is junior officer is wrongly made an accused in the instant case. It is further stated that actually the Zonal Level Credit Committee, who has sanctioned the said loan and the petitioner was not a member of the said committee. Further, the accused No. 5 who is a registered surveyor and loss assessor had submitted the pre inspection insurance report to the Insurance Company and he physically verified the machine and it was found to be fit for insured. Hence, the present petitioner is not at all responsible for any wrong doing.

4. Mr. Aman, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the FIR and the charge-sheet did not reveal anything against the present petitioner for his dishonest intension, at the time of discharging the official duty. He further submitted that even if the allegation made in the charge-sheet is taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not even constitute a prima facie case against the present petitioner.

5. Mr. Aman, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a task of the Senior Manager Credit is only to see as to whether the proposer has produced all the relevant documents like PAN Card, property documents, Income Tax Return, certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant, etc to pass the pre sanctioned of the collateral mortgage is concerned which was found to be correct at the time of the verification. The present petitioner is also not a proposer of the loan amount nor is he the proper sanctioning authority. Moreover, it is the accused No. 3 who issue