The court will not discharge accused when a prima facie case exists for criminal charges, requiring trial to establish intent and responsibility.

ORDER :

Renuka Yara, J.

Heard Sri G. Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri T. Srujan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the CBI/respondent.

2. The present criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 4 aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned XXI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Special Judicial Magistrate First Class for trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad, (‘CBI Court’), in Crl.M.P.No.403 of 2018 in C.C.No.23 of 2018 (Old Crl.M.P.No.189 of 2014 in old C.C.No.77 of 2013), wherein petition for discharge of accused Nos.1 and 4 from the offences under Sections 120-B read with 409, 420, 471 read with 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’) was dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that a criminal case was registered vide FIR No.RC-5 (E)/2012 on 17.04.2012 by the Inspector, CBI, Bank Securities & Fraud Cell (‘BS & FC’), Bangalore, against Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Agarwal (A1/petitioner No.1), Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Kumar Agarwal (A2), Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Agarwal (A3) and M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels (A4/petitioner No.2) regarding availment of Gold Metal Loan limits in the name of petitioner No.2 by providing security of gold and jewellery hypothecated to the Punjab National Bank (‘de facto complainant’) and other collateral securities. Thereafter, accused have removed the primary security without the knowledge and consent of the de facto complainant and thereafter, committed default in repayment of the outstanding liabilities and thereby, committed criminal breach of trust and cheating resulting in wrongful loss of Rs.30,09,63,890.00 + contractual interest to the de facto complainant and consequent wrongful gain to petitioner No.2.

4. Additionally, there is allegation of submission of copy of false and forged sanction letter No.F.No.IDB/GB, dated 21.10.2010 allegedly issued by the State Bank of India addressed to petitioner No.2 bearing rubber stamp and impression of petitioner No.2 falsely reflecting sanction of Gold Metal Loan limit of 600 kg to petitioner No.2 at an interest rate of 3.75% against Fixed Deposits, to the de facto complainant. Further, letter dated 06.04.2011 is addressed to the Assistant General Manager of the de facto complainant falsely stating that petitioner No.2 is already availing Gold Metal Loan from the State Bank of India at 3.75% and said sanction letter was submitted to the de facto complainant. The said letter falsely stated that petitioner No.2 firm had diverted the business from the State Bank of India to the de facto complainant and requested for competitive rate as compared to interest rate of the State Bank of India. Thus, based on the request of petitioner No.1, the New Delhi office of the de facto complainant relaxed the rate of interest by 2% from the applicable rate of interest of 4%. Petitioner No.1 has taken delivery of Gold on thirteen different dates during the period from 27.06.2011 to 10.08.2011 aggregating to 275 kgs against the sanctioned limit by duly acknowledging in the delivery register of the de facto complainant by creating Fixed Deposits in the name of petitioner No.2 and also in the name of Smt. Shanta Bai, who is the partner of petitioner No.2 firm. The gold deliveries made on 27.06.2011 and 29.06.2011 aggregating 50 kgs were duly repaid on 29.07.2011, thereby leaving an outstanding of 225 kgs. Thereafter, at the request of petitioner No.1, the de facto complainant had placed indent with its Treasury Division, Head Office, New Delhi, for importing 100 kgs gold for petitioner No.1 on 27.07.2011 and wh