IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

114+115 (4 cases)

1. CRR-2523-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision: 10.01.2025 Kamlesh Wadhawan .....Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation .....Respondent

2. CRR-2536-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision: 10.01.2025 Devinder Kumar Gupta .....Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation .....Respondent

3. CRR-2557-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision: 10.01.2025 Om Parkash Kathpal .....Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation .....Respondent

4. CRR-2567-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision: 10.01.2025 Anil Kumar Khosla .....Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. B.B. Bagga, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

1. This order shall dispose of abovementioned four Revision Petitions as they all arise out the same case and similar questions of facts and law are involved in them.

1A. The petitioners are seeking quashing of order dated

06.12.2023 vide which applications for their discharge were dismissed by learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh, as well as charge sheet dated 29.01.2024 in case FIR No.RCBD1-2017-E0002 dated 07.04.2017 registered at Police Station CBI, New Delhi, whereby charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)D of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act') have been framed against them.

Submissions on behalf of petitioner Kamlesh Wadhawan

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Special Court failed to consider the relevant facts and the legal principles while passing the impugned order. Specifically, the learned Special Court while passing the impugned order erroneously relied on the principle that at the stage of framing charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be examined. However, it has been argued that in the present case, there was no necessity to assess the probative value, as the facts on record overwhelmingly point to the innocence of the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was posted as Manager in Foreign Exchange Section in Large Corporate Branch of Punjab National Bank (PNB), Sector 17, Chandigarh from 05.07.2011 to 10.08.2013. The allegations in the case pertain to the loan account of an exporter M/s Kudos Chemie Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'accused company'). This account was sanctioned and monitored at the head office of PNB and had been operational in the branch since the year 1994, long before the tenure of the petitioner. It has still further been argued that the FIR in question annexed as Annexure P-1, reveals that the petitioner has not been named therein as an accused. In fact, the petitioner was implicated as an accused, two years after her superannuation and nearly ten years after her transfer from the concerned branch. Furthermore, during her tenure, the bank conducted thorough investigations, including a review by the Vigilance Department and Forensic Audits. At no point were any malpractices or malfeasance attributed to the petitioner regarding this account. It has been further argued that the following facts further underscore the absence of any culpability of the petitioner:-

(i) No charge sheet was issued against the petitioner during her service;

(ii) No disciplinary proceedings were initiated concerned the account of accused company;

(iii) The petitioner was transferred from the branch on

10.08.2013, and the borrowers' account remained a standard assert unless 31.03.2015.

2A. In addition, It has been further urged that the account of the borrower underwent multiple layers of scrutiny, including concurrent audits at the branch level, inspections and audits conducted by independent agencies, which revealed no culpable conduct or malafides attributable to the petitioner. Furthermore and pertinently, following her retirement, no adverse observations or allegations of misconduct were made agai