2000 (5) TMI 1078 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for discharge of the complaint against the petitioner under various sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding the discharge of the complaint against the petitioner. The complaint involved allegations under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR alleged a criminal conspiracy involving the Branch Manager of a bank and others, leading to financial losses to the bank. The appellant's name surfaced during the investigation for receiving an overdraft facility beyond the Branch Manager's financial competence.

2. The allegations included fraudulent sanctioning of loans without proper documentation, allowing withdrawals without proper procedures, and fictitious financing to individuals from Nepal. The chargesheet implicated the appellant for receiving an overdraft facility beyond the Branch Manager's powers, which was repaid within 46 days. The Special Judge took cognizance of the matter, leading to the appellant's appearance and subsequent bail.

3. The appellant filed an application for discharge, which was rejected by the Special Court based on sufficient evidence for framing charges. The High Court also dismissed the appellant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellant's repayment of the loan within a short period was highlighted as a defense, but the court emphasized the existence of material evidence against the appellant.

4. The accusation of illegal gratification against other individuals involved in the case was noted, suggesting a pattern of misconduct. The appellant's involvement in receiving the overdraft facility beyond the Branch Manager's limits raised suspicions, despite the repayment. The court emphasized the need for further investigation into the reasons behind such transactions and the possible conspiracy involved.

5. The Additional Solicitor General argued that the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B was independent and did not require specific details in the charge sheet. The court acknowledged the need for evidence of a meeting of minds for conspiracy but highlighted that framing charges did not require the same level of proof. The court expressed reluctance to interfere with the ongoing proceedings based on the evidence presented against the appellant.

6. The court concluded that the allegations against the appellant, including the unauthorized overdraft facility, raised concerns about possible criminal intent. The court emphasized that the continuation of the prosecution was not prejudicial and allowed for further scrutiny of the materials presented. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision, without any order as to costs.