The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the prosecution's material at the stage of considering an application for discharge and highlighted that the trial court is not expected to conduct a detailed inquiry into the case at the stage of framing charges.

ORDER :

R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.

1. The revision petitioner is the second accused in the case C.C. No. 15/2013 pending in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The offences alleged against the accused in the case are under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC and under Section 120B IPC.

3. The first accused was the Branch Manager of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank, Medical College Branch, Thiruvananthapuram (for short 'the Bank') during the period from 1.9.2004 to 25.2.2006. The prosecution case relates to a transaction in which an amount of twenty-five lakhs rupees was granted to the second accused as loan from the Bank.

4. The prosecution case against the accused, as stated in the final report filed by the Dy. S.P., Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), is as follows:

"That A-1 being the Branch Manager of Kerala State Co-operative bank, Medical College Branch, Thiruvananthapuram from 01.09.2004 to 25.02.2006 and as such being a public servant entrusted with the day to day transactions, proper maintenance and upkeeping of records ensuring safety and security of valuables, property and the funds of the Bank to protect the best interest of the bank etc., made criminal conspiracy with A-2 and in furtherance of the said conspiracy hatched between A-1 and A-2, A-1 by abusing his official position flouted all norms and guidelines and with their common intention to cheat and cause wrongful loss to the Bank, A-1 introduced A-2 for opening a current account in the Bank and thereafter obtained an in genuine term loan application of Rs. 25 lakhs from A-2 which was supported by false and forged documents such as lease agreement, invoice and vouchers and A-1 without conducting any verification and by suppressing material facts with the connivance of A-2, A-1 recommended the loan application to the head office for obtaining loan for A-2 while the loan application was under process, A-1 sanctioned a mortgage loan to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs, so as to facilitate A-2 to obtain the said mortgage loan by using the same collateral security offered by A-2 for his term loan and disbursed the mortgage loan of Rs. 10 lakhs to A-2 on 10.06.2005 and thereafter the term loan was sanctioned by the executive committee. A-1 disbursed the loan amount to A-2 by flouting all norms and thereby A-1 caused undue pecuniary advantage to A-2 and the Bank sustained a loss of Rs. 25 lakhs towards the disbursal of the said loan amount to A-2 and hence A-1 and A-2 committed the offences punishable under the above provisions of law."

5. The second accused has filed this revision petition challenging the charges framed against him by the Special Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The main grounds stated in the revision petition, in challenging the charges framed against the petitioner by the trial court, are the following: (1) There are no sufficient materials produced by the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Special Court did not apply its mind to find out whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. (2) The nature of the allegations raised against the petitioner are purely civil in nature. (3) The materials on record produced by the prosecution do not disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions before this Court elaborating the above mentioned grounds. The sum and substance of the submissions is that the loan was sanctioned to the petitioner by the Bank on the basis of the security offered by him by creating equitable mortgage in respect of his property and that the security so offered was sufficient and proper. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was a pure and simple loan transaction and the loan amount