At the discharge stage, the court must determine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused based on the prosecution's evidence, without conducting a mini-trial.

JUDGMENT :

(SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.)

1. The instant petition filed under Section 438 and 442 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is directed against the order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, A.C.B. at Chaibasa in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1536 of 2023 in connection with Vigilance Case No. 08 of 2020 whereby and whereunder, the application filed by the petitioner seeking discharge has been rejected.

Factual Matrix:

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the instant petition which requires to be enumerated herein, read as under:

The petitioner had been made accused in Seraikella P.S. Case No. 118 of 2019 which was instituted for an offence under Sections 419, 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a typed report as contained in Letter No.95 dated 21.08.2019 written by Pradeep Kumar Samal, Branch Manager, Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank Limited, Seraikella wherein he has stated that former Branch Manager Sunil Kumar Satpathy in collusion with the petitioner has defalcated a huge amount of bank money through irregular loans in violation of provision of loan manual as reported by the Bank's Internal Committee.

It is further alleged by the informant that earlier an inquiry report no.179/SA-Ka was submitted by one Bishal Singh, the Member Cooperative Study Circle before the Secretary of Govt. Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative Department stating defalcation of bank fund above 50 crores and in the light of such report, further inquiries were held by combined teams including the Registrar of Co- operative Societies, who conducted inquiry from 07.07.2018 to 10.07.2018 and submitted the report about irregular distribution of loan granted to the petitioner-Sanjay Kumar Dalmia for providing him fiscal gain the manner as follows:-

(i) Cash Credit Loan: On 09.08.2012 the petitioner was granted one crore cash credit limit by the bank's administrator on mortgage of 100% collateral securities and the inquiry team was not provided with relevant documents. In the fiscal year 2013-14 the cash credit limit of the petitioner was enhanced from 1 crore to 4.5 crore against the collateral securities, but relevant documents were never presented before the inquiry committee. In the fiscal year 2016-17, cash credit limit of the petitioner renewed by the then Regional Manager, Singhbhum Regional Office, Chaibasa and against the cash credit limit, the following documents were presented by the petitioner as collateral security.

a) Deed No. 2334/2370, dated 19.06.2015, for an area 1.29 acres, Deed worth Rs.11,50,000, Government value Rs.16,86,030/- was valued by the valuer at Rs.96,75,000/-.

b) Deed No. 3489/3474, dated 27.08.2012, for an area of 25 decimals, Deed worth Rs. 7,50,000/- Govt. Value Rs.26,00,000/- was valued by the valuer Prem Prakash Tiwary at Rs.68,75,000/.

c) Deed No. 5113/5095, dated 21.07.2011, for an area of 1.02 Acres, Deed worth Rs.1,51,000/- Govt. Value Rs.2,15,000/- was valued by the valuer Prem Prakash Tiwary at Rs.10,70,000/-.

d) Deed No3489/3474, dated 27.08.2012, for an area of 25 decimals, deed worth Rs.7,50,000/- Govt. Value Rs.26,00,000/- was valued by the valuer Prem Prakash Tiwary at Rs.68,75,000/.

e) Deed No. 3863/37-87, dated 16.12.2014, for an area of 38.5 decimals, deed worth Rs, 12,00,000/- Govt. Value Rs.46,35,500/- was valued by the valuer Prem Prakash Tiwary at Rs.1,05,87,500/-.

f) Deed No. 3900/3724, dated 15.12.2014 for an area of 31.5 decimals, deed worth Rs.12,86,000/- Govt. Value Rs.37,92,000 was valued by the valuer Prem Prakash Tiwary at Rs.86,92,500/-.

It is further alleged that the valuation of the land furnished in the above deeds are suspicious. The total valuation of lands assessed at Rs.4,70,00,000/- against which Rs, 4,50,00,000/- cash credit loan was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner without support of any legal opinion.

(ii) Loan Against Deposit: The petitioner Sanjay Kumar Dalmia was sanctioned loan