9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. A perusal of the Memorandum placed before the respondent for sanction showed that as many as 14 Public Sector Banks were lending to the Company apart from an international private sector bank - No material is placed on record to show that any of the accused other than bank officials ever met the respondent before the sanction of the proposal by the Management Committee. Only because the entire proposal was processed and cleared within a short span of time, no offence is made out against the respondent. Taking the material in the charge sheet as it is, complicity of the respondent is not made out. There are no scope to interfere with the impugned order - appeal dismissed. - Abhay S Oka And Ujjal Bhuyan , JJ. For the Appellant : Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. B.L.N. Shivani, Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. P V Yogeswaran, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. P. N. Puri, AOR JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. The present appeal arises out of a charge sheet filed in First Information Report bearing no. RC 7/E/2014 registered with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) (Bank Securities and Fraud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egedly sold the coal. Similarly, the Company opened another SBLC for Euro 2.05 million in favour of Castleshine Pte. Ltd., Singapore, for the supply of a Continuous Hot Strip Mill for the proposed steel plant to be set up in Tanzania. The Bank had to pay Euro 2.05 million to the bank of M/s. Castleshine Pte. Ltd., though the Company did not procure any machinery. The allegation is that the Bank was put to an undue loss of Rs.436.74 crores, and there was a corresponding gain to the Company. 5. An application for discharge made by the respondent (accused no.7) was rejected by the learned Special Judge of C.B.I., Court. In a revision application filed by the respondent before the High Court, by the impugned judgment, the High Court has discharged the respondent. The Appellant-CBI, being aggrieved by the said judgment, is before this Court. SUBMISSIONS 6. In support of the appeal, the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) submitted that though the conduct of a minitrial was not contemplated at the stage of framing of the charge, the High Court has purported to conduct a minitrial in this case. She submitted that to prove allegations of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted the three facilities mentioned above to the Company. In paragraph 3 of the charge sheet, it is stated that in furtherance of the conspiracy, accused nos.5 to 7: (i) hurriedly got the Memorandum to the Management Committee prepared; (ii) without proper appraisal by the Credit Department/Central Office, without clearance by the New Business Group added/inserted EPC limit of Rs.330 crores for execution of an export order for setting up a steel plant in Tanzania, Africa by the Company. Standby letters of Credit (SBLC) within the LC limit, without any written request from the Company were allowed. (iii) The Memorandum was hurriedly approved by accused no.6 and the respondent on 10.08.2010 for placing the Memorandum before the Management Committee of the Board of Directors. The said Memorandum was placed before the Management Committee in its meeting held on 13.08.2010, and based on the recommendations in the Memorandum to the Management Committee, the credit facilities, i.e. (i) Short Term Loan of Rs.50 crore, (ii) LC/SBLC/Buyer's Credit limit of Rs.100 crore and EPC limit of Rs.339 crore were sanctioned to the Company. The sanction was conveyed by the Credit Department, Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t directors, one of them being chairman of the Audit Committee. The Memorandum placed before the Management Committee was prepared by the Bank's Credit Department and signed by the Deputy General Manager (Credit) and General Manager (Credit). 11. Dr Ram Saduba Sangapure (PW-4) was a Member of the Committee of New Business Group (NBG) and Loan Advisory Committee (LAC). He stated that NBG examines large credit proposals concerning new borrowers and takes a view. He stated that as per the practice that prevailed at the relevant time in the Bank, after receiving regular proposals from the branch/zonal office, the same was processed by the Credit Department. Recommendations of the Credit Department in Executive Brief format used to be sent to the Risk Management Department to weigh the risk involved. After that, it used to be placed before the LAC. Subsequently, the proposal used to be placed before the Executive Director and CMD. After their clearance, the proposal was placed before the Management Committee for a final decision. He also referred to the Memorandum of Management Committee dated 10th August 2010, which contained a proposal for the grant of EPC facility in the sum of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the credit proposal was beyond the sanctioning authority of the respondent, it was directed to be placed before the Management Committee. Apart from the Loan Clearance Committee, the proposal was approved by the Bank's Chief General Manager (Credit). 15. The respondent's role started with signing the Memorandum after it was approved by the Chief General Manager (Credit) and the Executive Director. A perusal of the Memorandum placed before the respondent for sanction showed that as many as 14 Public Sector Banks were lending to the Company apart from an international private sector bank. The respondent's role was confined to signing the memorandum prepared by the senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal. No material is placed on record to show that any of the accused other than bank officials ever met the respondent before the sanction of the proposal by the Management Committee. Only because the entire proposal was processed and cleared within a short span of time, no offence is made out against the respondent. Taking the material in the charge sheet as it is, complicity of the respondent is not made out. 16. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
