Accusations of overvaluing properties for fraudulent loans require thorough evidential examination during trial; mere reliance on subsequent lower valuations is insufficient for discharge.

ORDER :

The 5^th accused in C.C.No.7/2011, pending before the Special Court (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Cr.P.C .’ for short), challenging order in Crl.M.P.No.4/2022 dated 22.01.2022, along with Crl.M.P.No.20/2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, thereby the plea of discharge at the option of the revision petitioner was dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI in detail. Perused the documents.

3. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, during the period between March, 2006 and August, 2006, accused Nos.1 to 5, hatched conspiracy to cheat the State Bank of India, ADB Branch, Cullan Road, Allappuzha. Pursuant to the conspiracy, accused Nos.3 and 4 approached the land owners who were in debt but having landed properties, assuring that they would purchase the landed properties. Accordingly, some advances were also paid to them after executing agreements for sale. Thereafter, they collected the original title deeds and other supporting documents from the sellers, and produced the same before the SBI, where accused Nos.1 and 2 were working, under the premise of opening accounts in their names. In continuation of the conspiracy hatched, accused Nos.1 and 2, by abusing their position as public servants, dishonestly obtained the signatures of the proposed sellers on the mortgaged loan documents and sanctioned 40 mortgaged loans and three cash credit loans amounting to Rs. 4.33 Crore. The specific allegation against the 5^th accused is that, in order to grant this much higher amount of loan, the 5^th accused overvalued the properties to a higher sum, even though the actual value would fetch during the relevant period was much less. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act, 1988' for short) by the accused.

4. The 5^th accused moved discharge petition before the Special Court, mainly urging that he did not overvalue the property and he had valued the property and shown the actual value and he did not participate in the conspiracy as alleged. In paragraph No.18 of the impugned order, the learned Special Judge discussed the contention of the 5^th accused and negatived the same, while disallowing the discharge, which reads as under:

“18. With respect to the contention raised by A5 that he discharged his professional duty while preparing the valuation report, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that from the statement of CW73, A5 could not be heard to submit that he had discharged his professional duty. From the materials produced by the prosecution, it is luculent that A5 exaggerated the value of the properties for the purpose of availing loans. The difference in the valuation prepared by A5 and the valuation prepared by CW73 is significant. The involvement of A5 in the matter can only be ascertained as a result of a full-fledge trial.”

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/5th accused vehemently contended that merely for the purpose of undervaluing a property, when compared with another valuation report obtained subsequently, if such subsequent reports are not based on any scientific or legally recognized method, the same would not, by itself, constitute a valid reason to conclude that the 5^th accused had overvalued the property so as to fasten the criminal culpability upon him. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revision p