The main legal point established is that the existence of a civil remedy does not preclude criminal prosecution, and the framing of charges indicates a prima facie case.

P. K. PATRA, J.

( 1 ) THESE three cases arise out of the same case, i. e. T. R. No. 88/20 of 1999/96, pending before the Special Judge (C. B. I.), Bhubaneswar and were heard together and this judgment disposes of all the three cases.

( 2 ) IN Criminal Revision No. 355 of 2000, petitioner Suman Naik has prayed for quashing the order dated 2-6-2000 passed by the learned Special Judge (C. B. I.), Bhubaneswar rejecting his prayer under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging him of the accusation. In Criminal Misc. Case No. 5923 of 2000, the same petitioner Suman Naik has prayed for quashing the order dated 29-3-1996 passed by the learned Special Judge (C. B. I.) taking cognizance against him under Sections 120-B/420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter REFERRED TO as 'ipc') and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the 'p. C. Act') as also the entire criminal proceeding against him. In Criminal Misc. Case No. 888 of 2001, petitioner Satyananda Das has prayed for quashing the order dated 29-3-1996 passed by the learned Special Judge (C. B. I.), Bhubaneswar taking cognizance against him of offences under Sections 120-B/420, IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) (d) of P. C. Act as also the order dated 18-9-2000 framing charge against him.

( 3 ) MR. Y. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cri. Revision No. 355 of 2000 and Cri. Misc. Case No. 5923 of 2000, Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cri. Misc. Case No. 888 of 2001 and Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for C. B. I. were heard at length.

( 4 ) BRIEFLY stated, it is alleged by the prosecution that accused No. 1 in T. R. No. 88/20 of 1999/96, the Branch Manager of UCO Bank, C. R. Branch, Bhubaneswar; accused No. 2 Suman Naik and accused No. 3 Satyananda Das, an employee under accused No. 2, entered into a criminal conspiracy and a loan of Rs. 10,00,000. 00 (ten lakhs) was sanctioned from the aforesaid Branch of UCO Bank in favour of accused No. 3, Satyananda Das, on the recommendation and guarantee of accused No. 2, Suman Naik. The said amount was disbursed to accused No. 3 in two instalments of Rs. 5,00,000. 00 (five lakhs) each, on 6-11-1990 and 15-11-1990 and thereby accused No. 1 abused his official position and caused wrongful gain to accused Nos. 2 and 3. Accused No. 2 has four firms, namely, (1) M/s. Coastal Exports, (2) East Coast Exports, (3) M/s. Basanta Food and (4) M/s. S. L. Textiles, and one of the said firms, namely, M/s. Coastal Exports, had already availed of loan of Rs. 40 lakhs and another loan of Rs. 19 lakhs from the UCO Bank and the said loan amounts along with interest thereon amounted to Rs. 63,79,970 which was outstanding against him. Besides, the other firms belonging to accused No. 2 had also availed loan of Rs. 1 crore from State Bank of India and Rs. 60 lakhs from Andhra Bank, which were also outstanding against him. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had full knowledge about the said outstanding loans against accused No. 2 for which they were sure that further loan would not be granted in favour of accused No. 2. Therefore, they set up accused No. 3, an employee of accused No. 2 in the firm M/s. East Coast Exports Private Limited, for the purpose of availing another loan of Rs. 10 lakhs from the UCO Bank. Pursuant to the said conspiracy among the three accused persons, accused No. 3 Satyananda Das filed a loan application on 3-11-1990 along with a letter of M/s. Coastal Exports dated 3-11-1990 before accused No. 1, but prior to that, i. e. on 1-11-1990, accused No. 1 had prepared a credit report. In the loan application of accused No. 3, he had given his address fraudulently to show that he was a resident of Balugaon in the district of Puri, though he was not a resident of that village, but was a resident of Bhubaneswar and was an employee of accused No. 2. The letter dated 3-11-1990 of M/s. Coastal Exports stated that