9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appears that the First Information Report was lodged against one S.K. Roy, Branch Manager, Birpur Branch of Central Bank of India alleging inter alia that in connivance with some other named accused he has cheated the Bank to the tune of ₹ 7,47,000 by misusing his official position, and thus, wrongful loss to the bank to the above extent and wrongful gain to himself and others having entered into a criminal conspiracy with Ved Prakash Agrawal, Satya Narain Agrawal and M/s Arun Khadya Tel Udyog. During the course of investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the present Appellant s name surfaced from the record that the latter having an Account in the Bank made an application on 8th February, 1985 for sanction of loan of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs including the nature of business blank in the loan application form. Shri S.K. Roy, Branch Manager sanctioned ₹ 10,000 cash credit open limit on adhoc basis pending regular proposal and sanction Shri S.K. Roy also fraudulently and dishonestly allowed the party to draw to the extent of Rs, 2,57,655.55 without knowing the nature of business and without obtaining the financial statement, financial report, inspection report and stock statement. 3. It is alleged that there was no shop/establishment in the name of Shri Ved Prakash Agrawal. 4. It is alleged that Shri Ved Prakash Agrawal (A-3) was fraudulently and dishonesty allowed by Shri S.K. Roy (A-l) to withdraw to the extent of ₹ 89,464.10 without any loan application, pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts disclose, commission of offence U/S S120B, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477A IPC and 5(2) r/w 5(1)(c) (d) of the P.C. Act (Act II of 1947) by Shri S.K. Roy, Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Birpur Branch, Shri Ved Prakash Agrawal, Shri Satya Narain Agrawal, M/s. Arun Khadya Tel Udyog all of Birpur and others, While it is true that the First Information Report has not named the appellant herein but the appellant s name does figure as a person receiving loan on clear breach of financial obligation. The facts depict that the appellant was however, subsequently made an accused and the chargesheet No.7/87 submitted by the SPE (CBI) Patna in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Patna was filed against the appellant, wherein it has been stated: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding against the petitioner pending before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, North Bihar, Patna. The High Court, however, dismissed the application of the Petitioner and hence the Appeal before this Court. Mr. Mishra, the learned Senior Advocate very strongly commented upon the factum of total omission of repayment of the loan in the charge by the Appellant herein within forty six (46) days, being the shortest possible time. Be it noted that similar submission was also made before the High Court and the learned Single Judge though recorded the same but did not take note of the same by reason of the submission of the learned Advocate appearing for CBI that the court below decided the matter, has come to a posit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is in the habit of receiving illegal gratification from Shri Ved Prakash Agrawal which is apparent from the entries in the personal diary of Shri Ved Prakash Agrawal and account of S.K. Roy. The charge pertaining to the appellant, therefore, is restrictive but allowing him overdraft of ₹ 21.5 lacs on different dates which stands repaid alongwith interest and which according to the charge is much beyond the financial powers of the Branch Manager also needs a probe. The chargesheet has been filed against the persons named in the charge, including the appellant under Sections 120B, 420, 418, 467, 477A of the IPC and Sections 5(1 )(a), 5(l)(c) and 5(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for taking cognizance and the Special Judge d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... true that the gist of the offence, is the agreement between two or more offenders but particular facts of the conspiracy need not even be show in the charge. Some general evidence pertaining to the conspiracy would be sufficient to form part of the charge of conspiracy in the chargesheet. As a matter of fact some connecting link or connecting factor somewhere would be good enough for framing of charge since framing of charge and to establish the charge of conspiracy can not possibly be placed at par: To establish the charge of conspiracy, there is required cogent evidence of meeting of two minds in the matter of commission of an offence-in the absence of which the charge cannot be sustained-This is however not so, in the matter of framing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
