Cbi/Acb vs No.1 Sri.John Joshua Mathew S/O John on 4 November, 2019

[Cites 24, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

Cbi/Acb vs No.1 Sri.John Joshua Mathew S/O John on 4 November, 2019

                        1
                                 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)

  IN THE COURT OF THE XXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
 SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRL. SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI
      CASES, BANGALORE CITY, CCH.NO.4

      Dated this the 4th day of November 2019

  Present:
   Sri.Rajashekar Venkanagouda Patil, B.A., LLM.,
   XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge
   & Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,
   Bengaluru.

               SPL.C.C.NO:80/2018
      (Splitup from Spl.C.C.No:150/1994)

 Complainant    CBI/ACB, Bengaluru.
                By Public Prosecutor.
                                  Vs
Accused   No.1 Sri.John Joshua Mathew S/o John
               Mathew,
               Presently aged about 63 years,
               Preeviously Manager, State Bank of
               Travencore, Pillanna Garden Branch,
               Bengaluru,

                R/o Plot No.93,Door No.1/140,
                Sarathy                        Nagar,
                Kosavanpalyam,Thirununtavur,
                Thiruvallur District, Tamilnadu State,
                At present : Lodged in Central Jail as
                UTP No:1293/2018.

                By Sri.G.S.Shivakeri, Advocate
                                  2
                                             Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)
                           JUDGMENT

CW98 Sri.K.Y.Guruprasad, Inspector of CBI, ACB/Bengaluru has submitted charge sheet against A1 John Joshua Mathew @ J.J.Mathew number given in charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section.120B IPC r/w 420 IPC and U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 J.J.Mathew, A2 S.A.Basith and A3 Yousuff Shariff and substantive offences.

2. In nutshell case of the prosecution is that;

A1 John Joshua Mathew @ J.J.Mathew, when he was working as Manager of State Bank of Travancore, Pillana Garden Branch, Bengaluru, during the period from January 1990 to March 1991 entered into criminal conspiracy with A2 Soudhagar Abdul Basith @ S.A.Basith and A3 Mohammed Yousuff Shariff to cheat State Bank of Travancore in furtherance of criminal conspiracy A1, then Manager of the said bank abused his official position as public servant and granted cash credit facility to the extent of Rs.One lakh each to 22 firms and also over drawals to 23 units stated to be running small scale industries and other business of A2 and A3 and his relatives and employees of industrial units indiscriminately and without observing banking norms and procedure to such 22 units like:

Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) (1) Bangalore Granites (2) M/s. Royal Interiors (3) M/s. Shabbir Furniture works (4) M/s. Bangalore Timbers (5) M/s. Popular Electronics (6) M/s. Navin Timbers (7) M/s. Ajantha Furniture Works (8) M/s. Bombay Furnitures (9) M/s. Sundeep Furnitures (10) M/s. Diamond Furniture Works (11) M/s. Ravi Industries (12) M/s. Karnataka Engineering Works (13) M/s. Goodwill Furniture Factory (14) M/s. Myfair Furniture Works (15) M/s. Woodsack Furnitures (16) M/s. Dunhill Machines Tools (17) M/s. AK Fabricators (18) M/s. Moti Garment Factory (19) M/s. Hitech Electronics (20) M/s. Alwyn Furniture Works (21) M/s. Praveen Industries (22) M/s. Cosmos Builders and further loans were falsely got released and credited to the bank account of above referred units under small scale industries schemes, though none of such units were in existence or registered as Small Scale Industrial Units 4 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) either professionally or permanently by the Department of Industries & Commerce, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru. Even SSI registration number that were furnished by A2 for his Bangalore Granites was bogus/false and the residential address furnished by many of the proprietor and proprietrix were also bogus/false and residential addresses furnished by many such SSI units were fictitious and they were not in existence/existing in the addresses furnished by A2 and A3 in respect of those 22 units. Many of these loans were also availed under false pretext to persons shown in the proprietor and proprietrix of these units of business.

Further A2 and A3 are only the financial beneficiaries of all the loans granted by and committed fraud and cheated further A2 stood as guarantor for units offered as collateral security for units sl.no.2 to 8, A3 stood as guarantor for units sl.no.9 to 22 and also offered his house, site held by him under GPA as collateral security. Subsequently on 8.6.1991, A2 also voluntarily take over guarantorship of A3 in respect of 14 units from sl.no.9 to 22 except the account of Ravi Industries sl.no.11, which was closed on 6.12.1991, the dues totally amounting to Rs.36,99,408/ in respect of remaining 21 accounts are still outstanding and have become irrecoverable and thereby State Bank of Travancore has suffered financial wrongful loss to the extent of Rs.36,99,409/ because of 5 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) the fraudulent act of these accused and are liable to be prosecuted for the above said offences and sanction to prosecute A1 Bank Manager was not obtained by IO/CW78 from the competent authority to remove A1 from service as required U/Sec.19(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 because A1 was dismissed from service after conducting investigation at the time of taking up investigation and it was found to be not necessary.

3. In respect of the above said fraud committed by A1 public servant, A2 Soudhagar Abdul Basith @ S.A.Basith and A3 Mohammed Yousuff Shariff private persons representing themselves to be running small scale industries, complaint came to be registered by CW97, then Inspector of CBI, Bengaluru at their office FIR RC.39(S)91, Dt:31.12.91, CBI/ACB/BLR against A1, A2 and A3 and others on the basis of reliable source of information for the offences P/U/Sec.120B IPC r/w 420 IPC and U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and dispatched FIR to Special Court and obtained search warrants from the court to conduct search of houses of accused situated at Kerala by deputing his official and house of A2 situate at Bengaluru and personally conducted search of house of A2 on 8.5.1992 by preparing seizure memo and seized documents pertaining to 21 firms relating to this case and account 6 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) books, passbooks, 22 rubber stamps in the name of 22 firms with their name loan was obtained from the bank with the help of Manager/A1 and they gave visit to State Bank of Travancore Branch on 17.6.1992 and 29.6.1992, collected various documents relating to availing loan by making false representation by A2 and A3 in collusion with A1 public servant and in view of transfer, handed over the investigation to CW98 Sri.K.Y.Guruprasad, working as Inspector in CBI.

4. CW98/K.Y.Guruprasad after having taken up investigation from CW97 in continuation of his investigation in order to find out that whether such 22 industries are existing at the address furnished by A2 and A3 running the said industrial units, issued notices through RPAD to the business address to all the borrowers directing them to appear before CBI office on 24.6.1993 and 25.6.1993. On 22.06.1993 he received undelivered RPAD covers sent to Jainuddin Ahamed, Proprietor of M/s Goodwill Furnitures Factory sl.no.13 with remarks of postal authorities that 'no such addressee'. On the same day he collected documents like cheque and payinslips of the borrowers and persons ledger extracts, loan documents pertaining to Ravi Industries sl.no.11 from alleged to have been run by A3 and also on 24.06.1993 he received undelivered RPAD letters sent to Proprietor of 7 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) M/s Navin Timbers sl.no.6 and K. Abdul Bashir of M/s Diamond Furnitures sl.no.10 with postal endorsement that 'insufficient address'. Then on 29.06.1993, he examined and recorded the statement of Sri. Anatharam Krishnan/PW4/CW3. On the same day he also received 11 undelivered RPAD covers with postal endorsement such as 'no such person', 'no such addressee'. 'no such furniture works', 'no such firm', 'no such office in the address' and ' no such addressee'. On 6.07.1993, he received 4 undelivered RPAD cover with postal remarks 'no such person', 'no such name in this address', 'not known' and 'no such address'. On 8.07.1993, IO issued notices through RPAD to the residential addresses of the 23 borrowers directing them to appear before me on 20.07.1993 and 21.07.1993 in the CBI office. On the same day he also received undelivered RPAD covers addressed to Shabir Khan, Proprietor, M/s Shabir Furniture Works sl.no.3. On 14.07.1993, he visited SBT, Pillanna Garden Branch, Bengaluru examined and recorded the statement of PW.6/CW4 G.Sathish Babu and on the same day, he received one RPAD cover (D.68) addressed to N.G. Pillanna, Proprietor of M/s Sundeep Furniture sl.no.9 with postal remarks 'no such address in BG 45'. On 16.07.1993 he received one undelivered RPAD cover addressed to Shabir Khan, proprietor of M/s Shabir Furniture Works sl.no.3 with postal remarks 'left'. This RPAD cover was 8 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) sent to him on 8.07.1993. On 19.7.1993, he received one undelivered RPAD cover (D.48) sent to N.Thomas, proprietor of M/s Ravi Industries sl.no.11 on 08.07.1993 with postal remarks 'no such person in this address'. On 22.07.1993, he received one undelivered RPAD cover which was sent on 08.07.1993 to Smt.Noor Jahan of Hi tech Electronics sl.no.19 with postal remarks 'no such Shadab Nagar, in Bangalore45'. On 23.07.1993, IO received 5 undelivered RPAD covers, which were sent by him on 08.07.1993 to Smt. Moti, Proprietrix of M/s Moti Garment Factory sl.no.18, Smt. Shahida, Proprietrix of M/s Woodsack Furnitures sl.no.15, T.Dayalan, Proprietor of M/s Ajantha Furniture Works sl.no.7, Smt. Lakshmi Proprietrix M/s Myfair Furniture Works sl.no.14 and Sri.Imtiyaz Ahamed, proprietor of M/s Cosmos Builders sl.no.22 with postal remarks 'no such firm', 'insufficient address', 'no such name in the address' and 'no such person in the address'. On 26.07.1993, IO received three undelivered RPAD covers which was send by me on 08.07.1993 to Akbar Khan, proprietor of Bombay furniture sl.no.8, Sri.Selva, Proprietor of M/s Dunhill Machine Tools sl.no.16 and Sri. Shakeel, proprietor of M/s Alwin Furniture Works sl.no.20 with with postal remarks 'no such person', 'insufficient address-not known', 'no such person in the address' and 'no such person in the addressnot known'. On 28.07.1993, IO collected xerox 9 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) copies of ledger folios of borrowers loan accounts, original copies of control returns pertaining to borrowers' loan accounts and original account opening forms relating to borrowers accounts from PW.6/CW4 G.Satish Babu along with his covering letter. On 02.08.1993, received 6 undelivered RPAD covers, which were sent by him on 8.7.1993 to Yousuff Sheriff, proprietor of M/s Bangalore Timbers sl.no.4, Proprietor M/s Popular Electronics sl.no.5, Abdul Basheer, Proprietor of M/s Diamond Furnitures sl.no.10, Syed Ahamed, Proprietor of M/s Karnataka Engineering Works sl.no.12, M.Raju, Proprietor of M/s Parveen Industries sl.no.21 and Hinayath, proprietor of M/s A.K Fabricators sl.no.17 with postal remarks 'house always door locked during delivery time', 'no such addressee', 'not in the beat', 'insufficient address not known', 'no such person' and 'no such addressee'. On 11.10.1993, he collected Ex.P.101 and Ex.P.52 from the Department of Industries and Commerce. On 30.11.1993, IO collected Ex.P.55 from Deputy Revenue Officer (NW), BMP.

5. Further on 13.12.1993, gave visit to the Directorate of Industries and Commerce at Nrupathunga Road and collected Ex.P102 from Assistant Director CW6/PW.28. On the same day he examined and recorded the statements of CW.5G.Chandrashekar and CW6/PW28D. Narayanappa. He gave visit to 10 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Gandhinagar H.S.GII delivery subpost Office, Bangalore 9 and examined CW.8 M. Nanjappa. On the same day, he also visited R.K Puram, Bangalore and examined and recorded statement of CW.7T. Srinivasan. On 14.12.1993, he gave visit to Gandhinagar delivery Post office and examined & recorded statements of PW.1S. Ponnuswamy, PW.2A.J. Azeez and PW.7Krishnappa. On 13.01.1994, he visited Nehru Nagar and Sheshadripuram Delivery Post Office and examined and recorded the statements of PW18L.S.Surendra, PW8 S.Palani, PW9 S.Nagaraj and PW.10B.Anantharam. On 17.01.1994, he visited G.P.O, Bangalore, examined and recorded the statements of PW11Jayadeva Ballala and CW17 K.Balan. On 18.01.1994, he gave visit to R.T.Nagar Post Office and examined and recorded the statement of CW18R.Rajashekar. He also visited Arabic College Post Office and examined and recorded the statements of CW 19M. Kalanidhi and Cw.95R. Jokeen.

6. Further on 24.01.1994, he gave visit to Arabic College Post Office and examined and recorded the statements of CW20/PW13K.V.Lakshminarayana Murthy, CW21/PW.14Syed Hafeez and CW22/PW.19 Raja Manickam. On the same day he also visited D.J. Halli and examined and recorded the statements of CW23 M.C. Jain, CW.24Dr. Ambika, CW.25S.M Fayaaz and 11 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Cw.26Abdul Huq. On 25.01.1994, he gave visit to Vasantha Nagar Post Office, he examined and recorded the statements of CW.27Dayananda Rao and CW.28R.V. Madhusudhan. On the same day he also visited Richmond Town Post Office, he examined and recorded the statements of PW15Smt. G. Kokila, Cw.13Maria Susia, CW.31S.Xavier and PW.16P.Dayalan. On the same day, he gave visit to Richmond Road and examined and recorded the statement of Cw.33Mirza Akthar Hussain. He also visited Office of the Assistant Revenue Officer, BCC (Bangalore City Corporation), examined and recorded the statements of CW.34P.Rangaswamaiah and PW.17D.L.Chandrashekar. On 27.01.1994 he visited R.T. Nagar Post Office, he examined and recorded the statement of PW20J.James. On the same day, he gave visit to Vivek Nagar Post Office and examined and recorded the statement of PW21Sri.R.Gopinath and also visited Audugodi Post Office and examined and recorded the statements of PW22Smt.Mary Stella and CW.39 M.Subramani.

7. Further on 28.01.1994, he gave visit to HAL II Stage Post Office and examined and recorded the statement of CW40/PW.23L.Jayaram. On the same day he also visited New Thippasandra Post Office, examined and recorded the statement of CW41/PW24D. Ramaiah.

Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) He gave visit to Ulsoor and examined and recorded the statements of CW42Tanveer Ahamed, Cw.43M.D Satya Bodha and CW.44T.N. Rajarathnam. On the same day, he gave visit to Office of A.R.O's of Bharathi Nagar, Shivaji Nagar and Jayamahal Ranges of BCC and examined and recorded the statements of CW45/PW.29 B.N.Sudha, CW46/PW.25L.Srinivasaiah and CW.47C.Andhani. On 31.01.1994, he gave visit to Vivek Nagar Post office and other places in Vivek Nagar area and examined and recorded the statements of CW48/PW26Gopal, CW49/PW.27Dr.Mailan, CW.50 Iqbal and CW.51.D Khasim. On the same day he also visited Austin Town and examined and recorded the statement of CW52 Nanjunda Aradhya. On 02.02.1994, he gave visit to Jaya Nagara 3 rd Block Post Office and examined and recorded the statements of CW.53N.Venkatesh, CW54/PW.31 K.Srinivasa, CW.56M.Venkatesh and PW.32 Ashwathnarayana Sharma. On the same day, he also visited A.R.O Office at Hombegowda Nagar, B.C.C and examined and recorded the statement of PW.30 A.M.Balakrishna. He also examined CW.55D. Ranganathan. On 03.02.1994, he gave visit to S.C. Garden Post Office and examined and recorded the statements of CW59/PW33.Joy, CW60/PW.34Nagaraj and CW.61S.C.Babu. On the same day, I also visited Cavalry Road in Ulsoor and I examined and recorded the 13 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) statements of CW.62Narayan Rao and CW63/PW.35 R.Chandrashekar. On 04.02.1994 he gave visit to Kannur Village and examined and recorded the statements of CW.64S. Rajanna, CW65N.Venkatesh and CW66/PW.37 Narayanappa. He also visited office of Sr. Geologist, Bangalore South District at Vishveshwaraiah Towers and examined and recorded the statement of PW.38 K.N.Rajanna. On the same day, he also examined and recorded the statement of CW.79N.G.Pillappa.

8. On 08.02.1994 he gave visit to H.K.P Road Post Office in Shivaji Nagar and examined and recorded the statement of PW.39K.Suresh. On the same day, he also visited Meenakshi Koil Street and examined and recorded the statements of CW.69Smt.Zahida Baanu and PW.40 Lakshmegowda. On 16.04.1994, he gave visit to SBT, Pillanna Garden Branch and collected documents i.e., Ex.P103 and Ex.P104 from Sri.Satish BabuPW.6/CW4. On 20.02.1994, he gave visit to Dommalur and examined and recorded the statement of CW71/PW.41 Smt.Gowramma. On the same day, he also visited Chikkabanasandra and examined and recorded the statement of CW.72B.K.Doraiswamy. On 4.3.1994, he further examined PW.6Satish Babu and recorded his further statement. On 08.03.1994, he gave visit to Nehru Nagar and examined and recorded the statement of 14 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) CW.73Smt.Taharunnisa. On 09.03.1994, he gave visit to office of J.C.C.T (inv) at Gandhi Nagar and collected Ex.P.106 to P108 from PW.49Sri.G.Rabinathan and also examined and recorded his statement. On 10.3.1994, he examined and recorded the statements of CW.75 Mohammed Fairoz and CW.76M.Balaji. On 11.03.1994, he further examined CW4/PW.6G.Satish Babu and recorded his further statement. On 12.3.1994, he examined and recorded the statement of CW77/PW.42 K.Muniyappa. On 14.3.1994, he further examined CW4/PW.6G.Satish Babu and recorded his further statement. On 15.03.1994, he examined and recorded statement of CW78/PW.43N.S.Gopinath. On 16.3.1994, he examined and recorded statement of CW.80 N.G.Thomas. On 25.3.1994, he examined and recorded statements of CW81/PW.44Smt.Margaret.B.M, CW.82 S.P.Francis, CW.83N.Ravi and CW.84C. Jahangir. On the same day, he also collected Ex.P.109 from PW.49. On 26.03.1994, he examined and recorded statement of CW.85Shahid Basha Sait. On 29.03.1994, he examined and recorded statements of CW.91Smt.Naveen Mujeeb @ Navin Basith and CW.92 Smt.Nargis Basith. On 07.04.1994, he gave visit to the Directorate of Industries and Commerce at Nrupathunga Road and collected documents produced as D11 and D12 mentioned in charge sheet from CW.5G.Chandrashekar and also 15 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) examined and recorded his statement and collected letters from Assistant Director (BUSIC) Department of Industries and Commerce.

9. Further on 10.04.1994, IO gave visit to Agha Abbas Ali Road and examined and recorded statements of CW.86S.Kumar and Cw.87C.D.Bharath. On 13.04.1994, he gave visit to H.K.B. Road Post Office and further examined and recorded further statement of CW68/PW.39 K.Suresh. On 15.04.1994, he gave visit to St.Thomas Town Post Office and examined and recorded statements of CW88/PW.45G.Surendra and CW.89 S.B.Venkataramu. On 16.04.1994, he gave visit to M.S. Nagar Post Office and examined and recorded statement of CW94/PW.48S.Devamboo. On the same day, he gave visit to SBT, Pillanna Garden Branch and collected cheque and other related documents. He also collected copy of Staff circular No.24/1994, dated 05.03.1994 regarding dismissal order of Sri.J.J.Mathew. On 18.04.1994, he examined and recorded the statement of PW.47Mujeeb Khan. On 24.05.1994, he gave visit to Office of AEE (Electrical), KEB, E3subdivision, MG Road, Bangalore and collected Ex.P105 from Sri.V.SrinivasaCW.96. On 28.05.1994 he gave visit to SBT Pillanna Garden Branch and collected original letter of under taking given by 16 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) accused No.2 dt. 08.06.1991 addressed to Manager, State Bank of Tranvencore.

10. In course of investigation, IO found that accused no.1 J.J.Mathew was found to be absconding throughout and completed his investigation on 31.05.1994 and having found sufficient materials against accused no.1 to 3 submitted charge sheet for the offences p/u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act1988 and substantive offences U/Sec.120B r/w 420 IPC showing accused No.1 as absconding accused in column no.1 of the charge sheet on 01.06.1994 and accused no.2 and 3 showing not arrested/absconding.

11. After submission of charge sheet, this court was pleased to registered Spl.C.C.No:150/1994 against all the three accused i.e., A1 was shown to be absconding. Accordingly, Sec.82 and 83 Cr.P.C. was exhausted. CBI authorities submitted report stating that accused no.1 has left India and residing abroad. Accordingly, case against A1 splitup and this Spl.C.C.No:80/2018 was registered and Sec.299 Cr.P.C. evidence was recorded and permission of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was sought and case was sent to Long pending Case at No:15/2002 and subsequently CBI authorities on 8.2.2018 arrested A1 and produced before the court, securing his presence by taking out court notice in the International 17 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Community and accused no.1 was remanded to judicial custody, LPC case registered at No:15/2001, then case of LPC was reopened, present accused was remanded to JC from time to time. His bail application filed on two occasions were dismissed by this court and rejection of bail was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In the mean time, accused was in judicial custody throughout charge sheet was framed and explained and accused denied the charges and came to be tried.

12. Copies U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to counsel for defence.

13. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined in all PW1 to PW51 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to P114 documents. Witnesses CW17, CW23, CW28 to CW31, CW34, CW39, CW43, CW44, CW47, CW53, CW56, CW61, CW69, CW72, CW82, CW89 and CW95 reported dead and witnesses CW7, CW23 to CW27, CW33, CW34, CW42, CW47, CW48, CW51, CW52, CW55, CW62, CW67, CW73, CW75, CW76, CW79, CW80, CW83, CW84, CW85, CW87, CW89, CW90, CW92, CW97 and CW98 were unserved as they are not residing in the said address and the said firm and industrial units are not functioning in the said name in the given address and their evidence is dropped with liberty kept open to prosecution to seek for 18 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) further summons after collecting correct address. Pryaer to reissue summons to some of the unserved witnesses by learned Public Prosecutor was rejected as the police report discloses that such persons are not residing in the said address or such person is not residing. After rejecting the prayer of learned Public Prosecutor, prosecution side was treated as closed.

14. Statement of accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. was recorded after explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he has denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him.

15. Heard arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor for CBI and learned defence counsel for accused.

16. The points that would arise for my consideration are:

1. Whether prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused no.1 while working as a public servant in the capacity of Manager of State Bank of Travancore, Pillanna Garden Branch, Bengaluru during the period January 1990 and March 1991, entered into criminal 19 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) conspiracy with accused no.2 Soudhagar Abdul Basith @ S.A.Basith and accused no.3 Mohammad Yousuff Shariff to cheat the bank and in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy, you accused by abusing your official position as a public servant granted cash credit facility to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/ to 23 units and also allowed to overdraw the said amount in the names of accused no.2 and 3 referred above and their relatives and employees indiscriminatingly without observing the banking norms and procedures thereby you have committed an offence P/U/Sec.120B of IPC?

2) Whether prosecution has further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused no.1 in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy has granted cash credit facilities to the said 23 units of Rs.1,00,000/ each which are: (1) Bangalore Granites (2) M/s. Royal Interiors (3) M/s. Shabbir Furniture works (4) M/s. Bangalore Timbers (5) M/s. Popular Electronics 20 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) (6) M/s. Navin Timbers (7) M/s. Ajantha Furniture Works (8) M/s. Bombay Furnitures (9) M/s. Sundeep Furnitures (10) M/s. Diamond Furniture Works (11) M/s. Ravi Industries (12) M/s. Karnataka Engineering Works (13) M/s. Goodwill Furniture Factory (14) M/s. Myfair Furniture Works (15) M/s. Woodsack Furnitures (16) M/s. Dunhill Machines Tools (17) M/s. AK Fabricators (18) M/s. Moti Garment Factory (19) M/s. Hitech Electronics (20) M/s. Alwyn Furniture Works (21) M/s. Praveen Industries (22) M/s. Cosmos Builders The said loans were falsely preferred loans. A1 granted the loans to the above said units in the SSI Scheme without verifying that the said units are registered as SSI Units, either provisionally or permanently by the Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore. Further even the SSI Registration Number furnished by accused no.2 for his 21 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) proprietors/proprietrixes are also found to be bogus. The residential address furnished by many of the units referred above are fictitious as they are not existing in the addresses furnished. Many of these loans are loans availed under misrepresentation of facts and also under false pretexts to the persons shown as the proprietors/proprietrixes of these units and accused no.2 (who is reported to be dead as per Spl.C.C.No:150/94 and accused no.3 (who is already convicted as per orders in Spl.CC.150/94) are only the final beneficiaries of all these loans.

Further, the units from sl.no.1 to 8 wherein accused no.2 stood as guarantor and also offered his land as collateral security for units from sl.no.1 to 8 referred above and accused no.2 stood as guarantor for the units from sl.no.9 to 22 and also offered house site held by him under GPA as a collateral security. Subsequently, on 8.6.1991, accused no.2 has also volunteered to take over the collateral guarantorship of accused no.3 in respect of 14 units from sl.no.9 to 22. Except the account of Ravi Industries, which was 22 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) closed on 6.12.1991, the dues totally amount to Rs.36,99,408/ in respect of remaining 21 accounts and have become irrecoverable and thereby the State Bank of Travancore has been made to suffer wrongful loss, thereby you with a malafide intention in order to cause wrongful loss to bank and others and in order to make wrongful gain for A1 and for others by colluding and conspiring with accused no.2 and 3 referred above have committed offence of cheating P/U/Sec.420 r/w Sec.120B of IPC?

3) Whether prosecution has further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused no.1 being the public servant in the capacity of Manager of State Bank of Travancore, Pillanna Garden Branch, Bengaluru during the said period referred above have without following the banking norms and procedures has granted the cash credit facility to 23 units by colluding and conspiring with accused no.2 and 3 without following due procedures as required by the Bank referred above by abusing your official position in order to cause wrongful loss to the bank and make wrongful gain for himself and others of 23 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Rs.36,99,408/ thereby have committed offence of criminal misconduct P/U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. To what order?

17. My finding on the above points are as under :

Point No.1 - In the negative Point No.2 - In the negative Point No.3 - In the negative Point No.4 As per final order for the following:

REASONS Point No.1 to 4:

18. For the sake of convenience and in order to avoid repetition of facts, I have taken up point no.1 to 3 at a time.

19. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that, prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and sufficient evidence is placed to prove that, accused no.1 being public servant/Manager of State Bank of Travencore, Pillanna Garden Branch, Bengaluru has committed criminal misconduct as a public servant by entering into criminal 24 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) conspiracy with A2 and A3, who were stated to be the proprietors of small scale industrial units alleged to have been legally running industrial units as small scale industries and by abusing his power, A1 has extended credit facility to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/ to A2 and A3 industrial units and without observing the banking norms, accused has caused loss to the banking financial institution to the extent of Rs.36,99,409/ and further argued that in order to prove that accused no.1 Manager of State Bank of Travencore, Pillanna Garden Branch, Bengaluru, examined PW4 Deputy Manager (Staff), State Bank of Travancore, RegionII, Zonal Office, Ernakulam, Kerala State, who has stated about discharging duty of A1 as Manager and his limits of granting to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/ only to small scale industries and PW6 Branch Manager has stated about inspecting the loan application cleared by A1 and observed the irregularities committed by A1 in granting loan to A2 and A3 in the name of small scale industrial units and also spoken about missing of signature of A1 on the loan applications and recommending to grant of loan to 22 industrial units of A2 and A3 hurriedly and loan being disbursed to A2 and A3 through cheques by giving goby to mandatory requirements to be followed by him and further witnesses like PW4 has stated that he was working as Deputy Manager (Staff), State Bank of Travancore, RegionII, 25 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Zonal office, Ernakulam, Kerala State from June 1990 to June 1993.CBI officials enquired him wherein he has stated that A1 like Manager had the power to grant Rs.1,00,000/ loan to small scale industries.

20. Further PW42 K.Muniappa, Head Peon of said branch has stated about signing as witness to the loan forms of the industrial units hurriedly in two days and signing the same under the instruction of A1. PW43 N.S.Gopinath, Typist/Clerk of the said branch has also stated about clearing the cheques in favour of industrial units.

21. Further PW44 Smt.Margaret. B.Muthunayagam, Asst. Manager (Accounts) of said branch has spoken about clearing the cheques to the beneficiaries and also the loan applications being processed and sanctioned by A1 and A1 insisting PW44 to fillup the above said loan documents and loan amount was disbursed to the beneficiaries of 22 units and subsequently loan documents were prepared and IO has conducted detail investigation by collecting as many as 114 documents relating to loan applications filed by A2 and A3 firms scrutinized by himself and granting loan without visiting the small scale industrial units and not verifying as to whether they are existing or not and further it is sufficiently brought on record that examining the businessmen and post office officials, who have stated 26 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) that said 22 industrial units were not functioning and existing in the said addresses given by A2 and A3 in their loan applications and related documents furnished by them.

22. Further argued that death of A2 and releasing of A3 under legal scheme of plea bargaining doctrine will not have bearing in law of criminal liability of A1 for allegedly committing criminal misconduct as a public servant and offence U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been clearly made out against accused and so also criminal offence of criminal conspiracy U/Sec.120B IPC and offence U/Sec. 420 IPC, which is resulted in monetary loss to the banking institution.

23. Per contra, learned counsel for accused argued at length that prosecution has totally failed to bring home guilt against accused no.1 for allegedly committing the offence U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and criminal misconduct as a public servant by receiving any reward or accepting or obtaining any gratification other than legal remuneration or dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated the property entrusted to him under his control and further it was A2 and A3, who made false representation of documents that 22 small scale industrial units are running there business 27 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) by providing legal documents, believing on them, A1 has granted Rs.One lakh to each unit within his limit as manager of said bank and further argues that IO has not collected norms to be followed by A1 like Manager while granting loan under SSI scheme for development of said small scale industrial units. Further no documents is collected by IO to show that bank provided SSI Schemes to industrial unit in the policy and scheme of bank and the above said grant of loan extended by accused no.1 is by fraudulent representation or inducement made by him to the banking institution and further loans have been approved by the higher authorities and they have been audited by the bank periodically and no objections have been faced. So, the basic ingredients for the offence U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (old Act) are not attracted and further more all the loan that was due to the bank has been cleared by A3 and he has invoked plea bargaining doctrine U/Sec.265 Cr.P.C. and he has been convicted.

24. Advocate for A1 further argued that he was unaware of FIR being lodged against him and he was dismissed from service for irregularities committed by him in the bank. He went to Gulf Country, stayed with his son, he was unaware of charge sheet being submitted against him and his presence is secured by issuing International 28 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Lookout Notices. For that reason, it cannot be held that accused was avoiding investigation and arrest and is involved in the offence as alleged in the charge sheet. Hence, prays for acquittal of the accused for the charge leveled against him.

25. After close consideration of all the evidence placed on record, following facts are remained undisputed that:

1) A1 was working as Manager in State Bank of Travencore, Pillanna Garden Branch, Bengaluru.

2) A2 was claiming to be the proprietor of Unit at sl.no.2 to 8 as mentioned in the charge sheet.

3) A3 stated to be the proprietor of Unit at sl.no.9 to 22 and further A2 and A3 had extended collateral security for securing loan in the name of SSI Scheme for their development from the bank where A1 was working as Manager and loans were cleared by A1 in favour of A2 and A3 in the name of those 22 units by issuing cheques and also getting the cheques cleared by obtaining loan applications in the name of firms stated to be owned by A2 and A3 under proprietorship concern.

4) Further A2 died in the course of trial and case against him is abated is admitted.

Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)

5) In respect of A3, he faced the trial. In the course of trial, he invoked the provisions U/Sec.265 Cr.P.C. pleading plea bargaining doctrine and court considering the payment of entire loan due from all these firms and age and length of trial, allowed his application and convicted him till raising of the court by imposing fine.

26. Following material disputed points is treated as matter in controversy:

That whether A1 being a public servant working as Manager of State Bank of Travancore, Pillanna Garden Branch, Bengaluru accepted the loan applications filed by A2 and A3 in respect of 22 small scale industrial units and granted Rs.One lakh loan on each occasion acting on the false and fabricated records submitted by A2 and A3 relating to registration of industries under Industrial & Commerce Department by producing false registered documents of the firms and also providing false address of small scale industrial units where the industrial units were not existing or functioning.

27. In order to prove this point incontroversy that A1 was working as Manager during the period when loans were sanctioned before May 1991 had granted the said loan to small scale industrial units with a limit of Rs.One lakh, prosecution examined PW4 Anantharama Krishnan, 30 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) then working as Deputy Manager of State Bank of Travencore, He has stated before the court that A1 was working as Manager during 1990 when alleged criminal act is committed by A1 and he was vested with official power to sanction loan up to Rs.One lakh under SSI Scheme. His evidence goes to show that A1 was working as Manager of Pillanna Garden Branch, Bengaluru where the alleged misappropriation and act of cheating took place in furtherance of criminal conspiracy.

28. PW6 G.Satish Babu, is examined. He has stated that A1 was working as Manager of State Bank of Travencore, Pillanna Garden Branch, Bengaluru and had authority to sanction Rs.One lakh to small scale industrial units. In order to grant these loans, Manager has to receive the loan applications, small scale industry registration certificate from the Department of Commerce and Industries and project details, inspect the unit and make the report and satisfied by that, he can sanction loan up to Rs.One lakh.

29. Further he has stated that after sanctioning loan, account will be opened in the name of borrower of industrial unit. Based on the stock position, withdrawals will be issued to borrower and these developments are to be returned to the Controller of the department and submit the copies of loan particulars for verification and 31 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) confirmation and must conduct regular inspection of units and must also collect collateral security such as title deeds, valuation of certificate etc., and security documents like hypothecation agreement etc. Security documents filed properly without keeping any blank columns and then Manager like A1 must sign. After sanctioning loan, Manager must verify the stocks of the unit and loanee must also submit the stock position and proprietor of SSI unit must submit balance sheet relating to profit and loss and if immovable property is given as collateral security, equitable mortgage is to be created on the security and after granting loan, Manager must inform the Controlling Authority in Control Return Form as provided in banking norms and Controlling Authority shall verify and confirm the sanction if satisfied, otherwise with the credibility of claim and documents, otherwise send the loan papers with observation note to copy and corrections and remedial measures and the Branch manager must attend to them and further he has stated that he has furnished the documents relating to 22 industrial units in whose name the loan was borrowed such as: Bangalore Granites, M/s Royal Interiors etc. etc., and has stated about furnishing the documents to IO about the account opening forms, ledger extract, files of loans, cheques cleared in favour of borrowers, loan security documents, ledger slips 32 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) and some of the documents returned to A1 from the Regional Office along with their observations.

30. PW6 G.Satish Babu, Retd. Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Hyderabad Branch, Hyderabad has further stated that, IO has collected account opening form of M/s Diamond Furnitures sl.no.10 marked at Ex.P56; CC account at Ex.P57; Security documents of M/s Karnataka Engineering Works sl.no.12 relating to CC A/c at Ex.P58; ledger extract of the same with original cheques, 27 original pay in slips together marked at Ex.P59; security documents of M/s Shabir Furniture Works sl.no.3 relating to CC A/c marked at Ex.P60 and certified statement of account along with 5 original cheques of the same firm along with 29 original pay in slips marked at Ex.P61; security documents of M/s Ajantha Furniture Works sl.no.7 pertaining to CC No.23/90 along with certified statement of account with 7 original cheques, one original pay in slip marked at Ex.P63; security documents file pertaining to M/s Hitech Electronics relating to CC A/c No.3/90 marked at Ex.P64 and also original account opening form, certified copy of ledger sheet along with certified statement of accused along with 12 original cheques, 28 original pay in slips marked at Ex.P65; security documents file pertaining to M/s Bangalore Granites sl.no.1 relating to CC A/c No.135 marked at 33 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Ex.P66; original Account Opening Form, certified copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s Bangalore Granites sl.no.1 pertaining to CC No.135 along with certified statement of Account along with 17 Original cheques, 3 transfer credit vouchers, 26 Original pay in slips marked at Ex.P67; loan security documents file pertaining to M/s Royal Interiors sl.no.2 relating to CC A/c No.138 marked at Ex.P68; certified copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s Royal Interiors sl.no.2 pertaining to CC No.138 along with certified statement of Account along with 9 Original cheques, 2 transfer credit vouchers, 33 Original pay in slips marked at Ex.P69; loan security documents file pertaining to M/s Navin Timbers sl.no.6 relating to CC A/c No.141 marked at Ex.P70 and also certified copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s Navin Timbers sl.no.6 pertaining to CC No.141 along with certified statement of Account along with 15 Original cheques, 1 transfer credit voucher, 27 Original pay in slips marked at Ex.71; loan security documents file pertaining to M/s Moti Garments Factory sl.no.18 relating to CC A/c No.2/90 marked at Ex.P72 and also original Account Opening Form, certified copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s Moti Garments Factory sl.no.18 pertaining to CC No.2/90 along with certified statement of Account along with 11 Original cheques, 27 Original pay in slips marked at Ex.P73; loan security documents file pertaining to M/s 34 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Bombay Furnitures sl.no.8 relating to CC A/c No.22/90 marked at Ex.P74 and also original Account Opening Form, certified copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s Bombay Furnitures sl.no.8 pertaining to CC No.22/90 along with certified statement of Account along with 7 Original cheques, 1 Original pay in slip marked at Ex.P75; loan security documents file pertaining to M/s Bangalore Timbers sl.no.4 relating to CC A/c No.142 marked at Ex.P76 and also shown original Account Opening Form, certified copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s Bangalore Timbers sl.no.4 pertaining to CC No.142 along with certified statement of Account along with 11 Original cheques, 24 Original pay in slips and one transfer voucher are marked at Ex.P77; loan security documents file pertaining to M/s Woodsack Furnitures sl.no.15 relating to CC A/c No.7/90 marked at Ex.P78 and also original Account Opening Form, certified copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s Woodsack Furnitures sl.no.15 pertaining to CC No.7/90 along with certified statement of Account along with 10 Original cheques, 26 Original pay in slips marked at Ex.P79; loan security documents file pertaining to M/s Dunhills Machine Tools sl.no.16 relating to CC A/c No.6/90 marked at Ex.P80 and also shown original Account Opening Form, certified copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s Dunhills Machine Tools sl no.16 pertaining to CC No.6/90 along with 35 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) certified statement of Account along with 7 Original cheques, 19 Original pay in slips marked at Ex.P81; loan security documents file pertaining to M/s A.K Fabricators sl.no.17 relating to CC A/c No.4/90 marked at Ex.P82 and also shown original Account Opening Form, certified copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s A.K. Fabricators sl.no.17 pertaining to CC No.4/90 along with certified statement of Account along with 12 Original cheques, 25 Original pay in slips and 2 transfer vouchers marked at Ex.P83; loan security documents file pertaining to M/s Popular Electronics sl.no.5 relating to CC A/c No.21/90 marked at Ex.P84 and also shown original Account Opening Form, certified copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s Popular Electronics sl.no.5 pertaining to CC No.21/90 along with certified statement of Account along with 5 Original cheques marked at Ex.P85; loan security documents file pertaining to M/s Cosmos Builders sl.no.22 relating to CC A/c No.16/90 marked at Ex.P86 and also shown original Account Opening Form, certified copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s Cosmos Builders sl.no.22 pertaining to CC No.16/90 along with certified statement of Account along with 11 Original cheques, 24 Original pay in slips marked at Ex.P87; loan security documents file pertaining to M/s Alwin Furniture Works sl.no.20 relating to CC A/c No.15/90 marked at Ex.P88 and also shown original Account Opening Form, certified 36 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s Alwin Furniture Works sl.no.20 pertaining to CC No.15/90 along with certified statement of Account along with 10 Original cheques, 27 Original pay in slips marked at Ex.P89; loan security documents file pertaining to M/s Parveen Industries sl.no.21 relating to CC A/c No.14/90 marked at Ex.P90 and also shown original Account Opening Form, certified copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s Parveen Industries sl.no.21 pertaining to CC No.14/90 along with certified statement of Account along with 12 Original cheques, 14 Original pay in slips marked at Ex.P91; loan security documents file pertaining to M/s Myfair Furniture Works sl.no.14 relating to CC A/c No.10/90 marked at Ex.P92 and also shown original Account Opening Form, certified copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s Myfair Furniture Works sl.no.14 pertaining to CC No.10/90 along with certified statement of Account along with 8 Original cheques, 19 Original pay in slips marked at Ex.P93; loan security documents file pertaining to M/s Sundeep Furnitures sl.no.9 relating to CC A/c No.9/90 marked at Ex.P94 and also shown original Account Opening Form, certified copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s Sundeep Furnitures sl.no.9 pertaining to CC No.9/90 along with certified statement of Account along with 11 Original cheques, 26 Original pay in slips marked at Ex.P95; loan security documents 37 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) file pertaining to M/s Goodwill Furniture Factory sl.no.13 relating to CC A/c No.8/90 marked at Ex.P96 and also shown original Account Opening Form, certified copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s Goodwill Furniture Factory sl.no.13 pertaining to CC No.8/90 along with certified statement of Account along with 12 Original cheques, 27 Original pay in slips marked at Ex.P97; loan security documents file pertaining to M/s Ravi Industries sl.no.11 relating to CC A/c No.175 marked at Ex.P98 and also shown certified copy of ledger sheets held in the name of M/s Ravi Industries sl.no.11 pertaining to CC No.175 along with certified statement of Account along with 7 Original cheques, 23 Original pay in slips marked at Ex.P99.

31. He has further stated that then Manager to A1 addressed letter to A3 guarantor for a batch of loan granted to above said 22 firms marked at Ex.P100 and he has further stated that file relating to loan transaction extended to these firms relating to M/s A.K Fabricators, Ex.P.78file relating to M/s Woodsack Furnitures, Ex.P.70 file relating to M/s Navin Timbers, Ex.P.76 file relating to M/s Bangalore Timbers, Ex.P.74file relating to M/s Bombay Furnitures, Ex.P.72file relating to M/s Moti Garments, Ex.P.64 file relating to M/s Hitech Electronics, Ex.P.62 file relating to M/s Ajanta Furniture 38 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Works, Ex.P.58 file relating to M/s Karnataka Engineering Works, Ex.P.57file relating to M/s Diamond Furnitures, Ex.P.60 file relating to M/s Shabir Furniture Works, Ex.P.66 file relating to M/s Bangalore Granites and Ex.P.68file relating to M/s Royal Interiors, all these files are not bearing the signatures of the Manager (Accused) for having recommended and sanctioned the said loans to the said firms at relevant columns. But the signature of the Accused is found in some files, which contains control returns submitted by him to the Regional Office, and returned back by the controlling Office along with their observation.

32. Said witness has been crossexamined at length by the defence counsel in order to elicit that witness was not working as Manager in the said period in which alleged fraudulent act has been committed by A1 by entering into criminal conspiracy with A2 and A3 and further attempt is made to elicit that SSI Scheme file is not confronted by CBI authorities and was not collected by IO from their bank and suggestion is made that borrowers have filed an application for loan in SSI scheme in prescribed form, which is admitted by witness and further admitted that Manager examined these loan applications and also inspect the collateral security documents and the legal opinion will be collected and the 39 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) loan application will be processed by preparing a process note and further he has admitted that only some of the loan files of 22 firms which are borrowers in this case have been processed by A1 and he does not know, who prepared process note and admits that sanction of loan of such kind will be informed to RO in a prescribed form and no monthly statement is submitted in this regard to RO and there is no monetaring agency appointed to look after SSI Scheme loans by RO office and inspection of loan application will disclose collateral security provided by borrowers and he is not able to remember whether CBI officials have collected mortgage register maintained in their branch of borrowers offered as collateral security availed under SSI Scheme and IO has collected penal advocate legal opinion from him in the course of investigation and admits that the loan applications have been inspected and verified by Vigilance Department of their bank and no objection was raised or recorded in writing or his statement was recorded and he is not aware about contemporary colleagues of the bank being examined by Vigilance Department of bank when A1 was working as Manager in the branch and admits that A1 was promoted and transferred to another branch after granting these loans.

Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)

33. Further PW6 clearly admits in cross examination that he is not personally aware about grant or sanction of loan relating to 22 firms and he is only deposing on the basis of the documents available in the bank. Further clearly admits that the process note of the loan files produced in the case are not signed by any of the officials of the bank and he is not aware of the firms about the persons, who filed the applications and cannot identify their handwriting and admitted that borrowers operated their loan account regularly.

34. Defence has tried to test the veracity and credibility of this witness by crossexamining at length about the loan applications filed by borrowers like 22 firms enclosed with documents of security and their credibility and the person competent to consider them and procedure relating to informing the superior officers like RO office of the branch and making process note on the loan applications containing even collateral security documents etc. However, from the evidence of the above two witnesses like PW3 and PW6 what can be made out is, A1 was working in the branch at the relevant time and he has sanctioned loan to the above said firms after receiving loan application and related documents, which are suspected to be irregular and improper and not properly scrutinized and official favour is done by A1 as 41 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Manager to A2 and A3 by granting Rs.One lakh loan to each firm on one occasion by issuing cheques.

35. Further in order to prove the irregularities committed by A1, prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW42 K.Muniappa, who was working as Head Peon in SBT, Pillnna Garden Branch, Bengaluru at the relevant time and has stated that he signed the loan application document Ex.P80 loan security file relating to M/s Dunhill Machine Tools sl.no.16. In Ex.P.80 Form No.1/ HOS178, he has put his signature at Ex.P80 at the request of Accused. Ex.P.90 Loan Security File relating to M/s Parveen Industries sl.no.21. In Ex.P.90 Form No.1/ HOS 178, he put his signature at Ex.P90 at the request of Accused. Ex.P.58 Loan Security File relating to M/s Karnataka Engineering Works sl.no.12. In Ex.P.58 Form No.1/ HOS178, he put his signature at Ex.P58 at the request of Accused. Ex.P.98 Loan Security File relating to M/s Ravi Industries sl.no.11. In Ex.P.98 Form No.1/ HOS

178. He put his signature at Ex.P98 at the request of Accused. He has stated that he has signed the documents at the instruction of accused, then Manager and his suggestion that some officers of the bank are coming for inspection and asked him to sign the said documents as they were not filled up.

Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)

36. Perusal of the evidence of said witness PW42 only discloses about the fact that loan security file documents of borrowers referred above at Ex.P80, Ex.P90, Ex.P58 and Ex.P98 were filled up by him at the instruction of A1.

37. Witness has been crossexamined and facts have been elicited to the fact that all these documents were audited by the auditors when they visited bank and they found irregularities and make note as directed to rectification of irregularities.

38. Further prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW43 N.S.Gopinath, Typist/Clerk in SBT, Pillanna Garden Branch, Bengaluru. He has stated that he was instructed with other duty of the bank other than working as Typist when A1 was working as Manager of the branch in 199091 and IO has confronted him some cheques marked at Ex.P77, 71, 81, which were cleared in favour of M/s Bangalore Timbers sl.no.4, M/s Naveen Timbers sl.no.6, M/s Dunhill Machine Tools sl.no.16 and further stated that he has cleared these cheques by entering in the concerned ledger of the bank by putting initials.

39. In the crossexamination he has admitted that clearing of the above cheques within the power limits of A1 as Manager and loan applications were audited by 43 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) auditors of bank and they will rectify the lapses and it did not come to his knowledge about any irregularity committed in granting loan to the above said borrowers and every day loan account will be verified with credit and debit entries and will be tallied, if they do not tally, they will not close the account.

40. From the evidence of above witness PW43, what can be made out only some three cheques pertaining to above said firms were cleared as part of grant of loan by A1.

41. Prosecution has examined PW44 Smt.Margaret B. Muthunayagam, who was working as Asst. Manager (Accounts) in SBT, Pillanna Garden Branch, Bengaluru from 1989 to October 1990. A1 Manager of the branch in 1991 and she was supervising the bank administration relating to cash book and clearing cheques etc., and she has stated about Ex.P56 consisting of seven cheques cleared by her with amount mentioned therein to M/s Diamond Furniture Works sl.no.10; Ex.P59 consisting of 3 cheques cleared with amount mentioned therein to M/s Shabbir Furniture Works sl.no.3; Ex.P61 consisting of 3 cheques cleared with amount mentioned therein to M/s Ajantha Furniture Works sl.no.7; Ex.P65(a) to Ex.P65(f) consisting of 6 cheques cleared with amount mentioned therein to M/s Hitech Electronics sl.no.19; Ex.P67 to 44 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Ex.P67(j) consisting of 10 cheques cleared with amount mentioned therein to M/s Bangalore Granites sl.no.1; Ex.P69(a) to Ex.P69(f) consisting of 6 cheques cleared with amount mentioned therein to M/s Royal Interiors sl.no.2; Ex.P80 loan security documents files pertaining to CC.No.6/1990 of M/s Dunhill Machine Tools sl.no.16; Ex.P.98 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.175/1990 of M/s Ravi Industries sl.no.11; Ex.P.58 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.196 of M/s Karnataka Engineering Works sl.no.12; Ex.P.90 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.14/1990 of M/s Praveen Industries sl.no.21; Ex.P.57 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.1/1990 of M/s Diamond Furnitures sl.no.10; Ex.P.60 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.137 of M/s Shabir Furniture Works sl.no.3; Ex.P.62 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.23/1990 of M/s Ajantha Furniture Works sl.no.7; Ex.P.64 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.3/1990 of M/s Hitec Electronics sl.no.19; Ex.P.66 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.135 of M/s Bangalore Granites sl.no.1; Ex.P.68 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.138 of M/s Royal Interiors sl.no.2; Ex.P.70 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.141 of M/s Navin Timbers sl.no.6; Ex.P.72 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.2/1990 of M/s Moti Garment Factory 45 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) sl.no.18; Ex.P.74 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.22/1990 of M/s Bombay Furniture sl.no.8; Ex.P.76 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.142 of M/s Bangalore Timbers sl.no.4; Ex.P.78 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.7/1990 of M/s Woodsack Furnitures sl.no.15; Ex.P.82 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.4/1990 of M/s A.K.Fabricators sl.no.17; Ex.P.84 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.21/1990 of M/s Popular Electronics sl.no.5; Ex.P.86 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.16/1990 of M/s Cosmos Builders sl.no.22; Ex.P.88 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.15/1990 of M/s Alwin Furniture Works sl.no.20; Ex.P.92 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.10/1990 of M/s Myfair Furniture Works sl.no.14; Ex.P.94 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.09/1990 of M/s Sundeep Furniture sl.no.9; Ex.P.96 loan security documents file pertaining to CC.No.08/1990 of M/s Goodwill Furniture Factory sl.no.13 and has stated that all these documents referred above till Ex.P96 loan security documents pertaining to said firms were filled up by her and written by her and handwritings belongs to her referred in the loan documents as per the request of accused no.1.

Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)

42. Witness has been crossexamined about the duties of the official like PW44 and admits that the required columns in the said exhibits were written by her and cleared the loan cheques and clearing the cheques were within her financial limits by making payments.

43. From the evidence of all these bank witnesses like PW3, PW6, PW42 to PW44 what can be made out after assessing their evidence is the loan applications filed by the above said SSI units, which were stated to be fictitious and not existing were cleared by A1 and they signed the said loan documents including loan application, security documents etc., at the instruction of A1.

44. After close scrutiny and assessment of the evidence of PW4, PW6, PW42 to PW44 bank officials witnesses, Asst. Manager, Managers, Peon, Typist, staff have made out that A1 being the Manager of SBT, Pillanna Garden Br, Bengaluru cleared the loan applications filed by these 22 applicants relating to development of Small Scale Industries applied in the name of firms such as; Bangalore Granites, M/s Royal Interiors etc., etc., now finding these irregularities stated to have been committed by A1 while discharging his duty as Manager by granting these loans on false and fabricated documents prepared by A2 and A3 proprietors 47 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) of the firms referred in the charge sheet was transferred and promoted and subsequently DE was held against him and was dismissed from service, which has remained undisputed fact.

45. Now after registering the case, IO PW50 and PW51, have registered the case and taken up investigation. Last portion of the investigation is taken up by PW51, who has recorded the statements of witnesses and collected the documents relating to nonexistence of these 22 firms of which name loan was availed. Now in order to prove that A2 and A3 availed loan from A1 by entering into criminal conspiracy with him by filing fictitious documents relating to registered firms from sl.no.1 to 22 mentioned in the charge sheet, IO has adopted method of sending RPAD covers through post officials to the addresses mentioned in the loan application by the borrowers of A2 and A3 in respect of sl.no.1 to 22 SSI units.

46. In this regard, he has examined post officials such as; PW1, PW2, PW7 to PW10, PW12 to PW16, PW19 to PW24, PW26, PW31 to PW34, PW36, PW39, PW45, PW46 and PW48. All these witnesses, who are postmen whose duty is to deliver mails/letters to the addressee.

Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)

47. PW1 S.Ponnuswamy, Postman has stated in his evidence that, no such address of firm called M/s COSMOS Builders, No.13/1, 1st Floor, 2nd Cross, SC Road, Bengaluru20 sl.no.22 was existed in the address mentioned in the loan application in the limits of Gandhi Nagar Post.

48. PW2 Abdul Jabbar Azeez, Postman has stated in his evidence that, no such person is residing in the address given relating to M/s COSMO Buildlers, No.13/1, 1 st Floor, 2nd Cross, SC Road, Bengaluru at sl.no.22 and registered email was returned with endorsement 'No such firm in 2nd Cross, SC Road, Bengaluru9", "redirected to Bengaluru20." and proprietor named as Sri.Imtiyaz Ahmed was not residing in the said address.

49. PW7 Krishnappa, Sorting Postman has stated in his evidence that, he searched for the said address of M/s Cosmo Builders, No.13/1, 1st Floor, 2nd Cross, SC Road,Bengaluru9 sl.no.2, but he could not find the said address. He made an endorsement on the said envelope as 'enquiry'.

50. PW8 Palani, Sorting Postman has stated in his evidence that, in the said address of RPAD Bengaluru20, no firm is functioning with their persons. One Chartered Accountant is residing in the said address. PW9 Nagaraju, Sorting Postman has stated in his evidence that, one 49 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Azeez Ahmed, proprietor of the firm is not residing in the said address, but Chartered Accountant is residing in the said address. PW10 B.Anantharam, and PW11 Jayadev Ballal, Postmen both have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. PW10 has stated that he do not recollect his memory whether the CBI officer has enquired him about any person residing in the said address and PW11 has stated that he do not remember to have searched for the address given by IO to serve the RPAD at M/s Goodwill Furnitures Factory sl.no.13 at Masjid Road Cross. PW12 Rajashekhar, Postman has stated in his evidence that, he has returned two undelivered envelop addressed to Smt. Noor Jahan, Proprietor of M/s Hitec Electronics sl.no.19 marked at Ex.P53 and P54 by endorsing that "no such Shadab Nagar in Kavalbyrasandra, Bangalore32. Re directed to Bangalore45 for final disposal".

51. PW13 K.V.Lakshminarayana Murthy, Postman has stated in his evidence that, he returned two undelivered envelop addressed to M/s Dunhil Machine Tools sl.no.16 and M/s Sundeep Furnitures sl.no.9 with an endorsement that 'no such address is found in the said beat'. PW14 Syed Hafeez, Postman has stated in his evidence that, CBI had given 4 undelivered Registered Post Envelops to serve on i) Proprietor of M/s Moti Garments Factory sl.no.18, ii) Smt. Moti W/o 50 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) M.N.Murthy, Proprietor of M/s Moti Garments Factory,

iii) Akbar Khan, Proprietor of M/s Bombay Furnitures sl.no.8 and iv) Sri. N. Madhu S/o Narasimha Murthy, Proprietor, M/s Popular Electronics, sl.no.5 falling in his jurisdiction and returned the undelivered RPAD covers stating that said addresses are not available in the said places by making endorsement as "no such Firm".

52. PW15 Smt.G.Kokila, Sorting Post Woman has stated in her evidence that, she has returned the RPAD envelope addressed to Sri.Henayath, proprietor of M/s A.K.Fabricators sl.no.17 with an endorsement 'no such addressee' at No.91 in Aga Abdulla Street returned to sender'. PW16 P.Dayalan, Postman has stated in his evidence that, he has returned two RPAD cover addressed to Sri.K.Abdul Basheer, Proprietor of M/s Diamond Furnitures sl.no.10 and Yousuff Shariff, Proprietor of M/s Bangalore Timbers sl.no.4 with an endorsement that address of M/s Bangalore Timbers not available in his beat'. PW19 Rajamanikam, Postman has stated in his evidence that, he do not remember whether CBI officer had inquired him with regard to addresses of Proprietor of M/s Moti Garments Factory sl.no.18, Smt.Moti, proprietor of Moti Garments Factory, Akbar Khan, proprietor of M/s Bombay Furnitures sl.no.8, N.Madhu, Proprietor of M/s 51 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Popular Electronics sl.no.5 and endorsed that there are no such addresses found in D.J.Halli, Bengaluru45.

53. PW20 J.James, Sorting Postman has stated in his evidence that, he returned the undelivered RP envelop addressed to T.Dayalan, proprietor of M/s Ajantha Furnitures sl.no.7 with an endorsement 'no such address found'. PW21 R.Gopinath, Postman has stated in his evidence that, he returned undelivered RP envelops addressed to Imtiyaz Ahmed, proprietor of M/s Cosmos Builders, sl.no.22 and Yousuff Shariff, Proprietor of M/s Bangalore Timbers sl.no.4 with an endorsement that 'no such persons were residing in the said addresses'. PW22 Smt.Mary Stella, Sorting Postmen has stated in her evidence that, she has not delivered any letters addressed to N.G.Pillappa S/o Neelakantan Pillai, No.42, 6th Main, Anepalya, Bangalore30 in beat No.3 and only cross roads from 1st cross to 13th cross were in existence in Anepalya locality.

54. PW23 Jayaram, Postman has stated in his evidence that, he returned the RP envelops addressed to

1) Akbar Khan, proprietor of M/s Bombay Furnitures sl.no.8, 2) T.Dayalan, proprietor of M/s Ajantha Furniture Works sl.no.7 and 3) N.Madhu, proprietor of M/s Popular Electronics with an endorsement that first two addressed covers to it's senders. In respect of third address since the 52 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) said address is relating to Ulsoor III Stage, she redirected the same to Thippasandra Post office. PW24 D.Ramaiah, Postman has stated in his evidence that he received a letter addressed to Sri.N.Madhu, Proprietor of M/s Popular Electrics sl.no.5 by way of redirected from HAL II Stage Post office. After enquiry he returned the same to HAL II Stage Head Post office with an endorsement that 'no such person residing in the said address'. PW26 Gopala, Clerk, working in RMV Extension Post Office, Bengaluru has stated in his evidence that, he returned the undelivered RP cover addressed to M.Raju, Proprietor of M/s Parvin Industries sl.no.21 as 'no such person and firm found therein.

55. PW31 K.Srinivasa, Postman has stated in his evidence that, area situated opposite to Vijaya Engineering College, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, there is no building in No.37/1 and shop named as M/s Woodsack Furnitures sl.no. 15 existing at Property No.654 in 11 th main, 4th Block and M/s Myfair Furniture Works sl.no.14 does not exist anywhere opposite to Vijaya Engineering College, Bengaluru. PW32 Ashwath Narayan Sharma, Postman has stated in his evidence that, he made enquiry about the address of M/s Myfair Furniture Works sl.no.14 situate at property no.39/2, Jayanagar, Bengaluru and after enquiry he made an endorsement on the RPAD cover 53 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) that 'No such number in this beat and the above address does not contains cross road, main roads etc., and it is an incomplete address".

56. PW33 C.Joy, Postman has stated in his evidence that, he made enquiry about M/s Royal Interiors sl.no.2 about the shop and address at Aga Abbas Ali Road, Bengaluru and one S.A.Basith A2, a building contractor is residing with his family in the said property and no M/s Royal Interiors shop sl.no.2 was existing in the said address and made an endorsement to his office stating that 'No such number in this beat and above said address does not contains cross road, main roads etc., and it is an incomplete address". PW34 Nagaraj, Postaman has stated in his evidence that, he made enquiry with address Shabir Khan, Proprietor M/s Shabir Furnitures Works sl.no.3 at no.5, Aga Abbas Ali Road, Bangalore42 and he revealed that S.A.Basith (A2) a building contractor was residing with his family in the said property and no M/s Shabir Furnitures Works shop was existing in the said address and made an endorsement as 'Left'. PW36 N.Venkatesh, postman has stated in his evidence that, there was no crusher by name Bangalore Granites sl.no.1, which is now stopped functioning. It was functioning before 34 years.

57. PW39 K.Suresh, Sorting Postman has stated in his evidence that, during the course of investigation he 54 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) was confronted with three RPAD letters 1) addressed to Proprietor, M/s Navin Timbers sl.no.6, 2) K.Abdul Basheer, Proprietor of M/s Diamond Furnitures sl.no.10 and 3) Ziauddin Ahmed of M/s Goodwill Furniture Factory sl.no.10. He made enquiry with regard to Letter no.1 addressed to M/s Navin Timbers and could not find the existence of said M/s Navin Timbers and in the said address Cane Furnitures shop was doing it's business in the name of 'Bright Shop and address mentioned in the RPAD cover relating to M/s Navin Timbers was found to be incorrect, hence he returned the letter with an endorsement 'insufficient address, not known". With regard to RPAD cover letter no.2 addressed to M/s Diamond Furnitures he made enquiry about M/s Diamond Furnitures sl.no.10 in the said address and the said unit was not doing any business, but one wine shop was running in the name of Naidu Wine shop along with its residential address. He returned the letter with an endorsement "insufficient address, not known". With regard to third letter pertaining to Ziauddin Ahmed of M/s Goodwill Furnitures sl.no.13, he made an endorsement that there was no shop by name M/s Goodwill Furnitures Factory was existing therein.

58. PW45 G.Surendra, Postman has stated in his evidence that, he returned two letters addressed to 1) 55 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Proprietor of M/s Ravi Industries sl.no.11 and 2) Navil Thomas, Proprietor of M/s Ravi Industries with an endorsement that 'no industries or person was functioning or existing in the said address'. PW46 M.Venkatesh has stated in his evidence that, 'no person called Navil Thomas was residing in 4th Cross, Hennur Road, Behind BTS Bus Depot at Hennur Road, Bengaluru'. PW48 S.Devanboo, Postman has stated in his evidence that, he returned RPAD cover Pocket addressed at 4th Cross, Banasawadi Main Road, falling in his beat no.1 because no such person named Lakshi, proprietor of M/s Myfair Furniture Works was existing therein with an endorsement 'No such person is residing therein".

59. All these post mails/letters delivery postmans working under different beats within the limits of the address of the above said firms, which had given address to bank to avail loan through A1 have returned unserved with endorsement as "No such address exists, 'no such person residing and no firm found', "left address", 'no such nature of business was done and some other person is residing therein', original address did not inform' 'Left' etc.

60. So, the evidence of above said witnesses PW1, PW2, PW7 to PW10, PW12 to PW16, PW19 to PW24, PW26, PW31 to PW34, PW36, PW39, PW45, PW46 and PW48 makes it clear that the above said 22 small scale 56 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) industrial units were not running business in their unit by way of manufacturing goods running as small scale industry.

61. So, it can be easily said that A2 and A3, who were claiming to be the proprietors of SSI units sl.no.1 to 8 and 9 to 22 respectively have given false addresses of their industrial units and fake registration documents pertaining to address in order to avail loan of Rs.One lakh to each industrial unit run in the name of 22 units as Bangalore Granites, M/s Royal Interiors, M/s Shabbir Furniture Works etc., etc.

62. So, in order to prove that these SSI 22 units never existed nor they were registered in the Industrial Department by obtaining license to run the industries, IO has examined Assistant Director, Bengaluru Urban South Industries Circle like PW5 G.Chandrashekar, who has stated that out of 22 units falling within his jurisdiction, none of these units were registered in their office for grant of license to run SSI. In this regard, he has issued a record as per Ex.P52. So also IO has examined PW28 D.Narayanappa, Assistant Director, BUNIC. He has stated that he has furnished the statement after verifying office records that out of particulars stated in 17 firms, 16 firms were not registered in their office of BUNIC and he has also stated that M/s Sandeep Furnitures sl.no.9 is also not 57 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) registered in their office for grant of license. In this regard he has issued documents at Ex.P101 and 102.

63. Further he has examined PW38 K.N.Rajanna, Senior Geologist, who has stated that they maintained register about the existence of granites or stone quarries industries obtaining authorized license. Accordingly, A2 was issued quarry license of stone with condition to pay royalty at the rate of 2500 per acre per annum of Rs.5 for metric ton, which license expired on 7.2.1990. Same was not renewed and license issued earlier marked at Ex.P103. He has also examined PW37 Narayanappa, Village Assistant to prove that whether crusher industry was run in sy. no.50 of Hosur Bande of Kannur Village in Bengaluru he has stated that it was stopped about 12 years back.

64. PW17 D.L.Chandrashekar, Assistant Revenue Officer is examined by IO to prove that whether the properties were having katha extract or not. He has stated in his evidence that under the instruction of superiors he verified the records like katha extract, demand collection balance by visiting spot and he has submitted detail report of inspection with regard to existing affairs of the industries in the properties as per Ex.P55.

Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)

65. IO has examined PW29 B.N.Sudha, Assistant Revenue Officer, Cox Town Range, Bengaluru to report the tenamental position of nine addresses of borrowers of the firms like Smt.Lakshmi, M/s Royal Interiors sl.no.2, S.A.Basith, A2 and his family etc., has stated that he visited the property and found to be a vacant site as per records and the address given by these proprietors was not in existence practically and some other persons were there other than the address given given like Rajarathna, Puillai etc.

66. Further to prove that these firms were not registered, IO has recorded the statement of PW30 A.M.Balakrishna, Assistant Revenue Officer. He has stated in his evidence that he was asked by CBI Authorities to furnish details of ownership and other records pertaining to M/s Woodsack Furnitures sl.no.15, M/s Myfair Furitures Works sl.no.14. He verified the records and submitted a report stating that said address does not exist in the record maintained at their office and M/s Woodsadk Furnitures is existing and used both for residential and commercial purposes.

67. Further IO examined PW49 G/Rabinathan, Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Investigation in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore) to prove that the said 59 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) firms were not registered in the Commercial Tax office and has stated that in this regard that he addressed a letters at Ex.P106, P107 and P108 pertaining to these 22 industrial units conducting their business and enquiry was conducted and assessed the nature of work the firms were carrying on whether they are functioning or closed. According to their report, except M/s Karnataka Engineering Works sl.no.12, other SSI units were not functioning in the name of the firms out of 1 to 22 mentioned in the charge sheet.

68. Now IO to prove that accused no.2 and 3 were not running the business in the said addresses has examined PW18 L.S.Surendra, who has stated in his evidence that Ziauddin Ahmed, proprietor of one of the firms was not existing in the said address at Railway Parallel Road, Nehru Nagar, Bengaluru in whose name A2 availed loan and PW27 Dr.K.Mailan, Chief Medical Officer has stated that being owner of the premises in Viveknagar, Bengaluru was not let out to M/s Parvin Industries sl.no.21 in whose name A2 availed loan.

69. In order to prove the collateral security given by A2 and A3 relating to sy.no.129/5, he examined the owner of property PW41 Smt.Gowramma. She has stated in her evidence that said property was inherited by her from her ancestors and she wanted to sell the property in 60 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) 1990 to one Yusuf Shariff and advance amount of Rs.One lakh was paid out of Rs.7,20,000/. Yusuf Shariff wanted to execute GPA in his favour. Accordingly she executed a registered GPA and later he did not turn up and GPA, tax paid receipt of the property are marked at Ex.P104. Evidence of PW41 makes it clear that she had executed a registered GPA in respect of sy.no.129/5 and IO had examined this witness to show that said document was given as a collateral security for the purpose of availing loan from A1 in the name of firms.

70. IO has examined PW40 Lakshme Gowda, Manager of Naidu Wines who stated that he is running a business of wine store.

71. Further IO examined PW47 Mujeeb Khan in order to prove that accused no.1 granted loan and had taken certain signature on loan applications pertaining to M/s A.K.Fabricators sl.no.17 at Ex.P82 including agreement form.

72. Close assessment and evaluation of the evidence of these witnesses with sensitive approach it is emerged now that A2 and A3 have availed loan from SBT, Pillanna Garden Branch, Bengaluru by approaching A1 by furnishing these documents to proof of address and SSI units being run therein in different 22 names and availed 61 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) loan in respect of all these 22 units of Rs.One lakh each by making false representation and inducement to A1 and with regard to considering the evidence of the above said witnesses to prove the guilt of cheating U/Sec.420 IPC is to be considered in furtherance of criminal conspiracy U/Sec.120B IPC is to be considered along with Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as against A1.

73. With regard to proving of the offence of cheating against A1 Bank Manager of SBT in furtherance of criminal conspiracy between A2 and A3, court need not have to consider and appreciate the evidence discussed so far because case against A2 as stood abated as he has expired in the course of trial and as against A3, he is convicted for invoking plea bargaining doctrine U/Sec.265 Cr.P.C. and he was sentenced for imprisonment for one day to be in the court hall till raising of the court and imprisonment for fine with default clause.

74. Now, court has to consider the available evidence in respect of A1, who was a public servant at that relevant time that whether he has committed criminal misconduct as a public servant working as Manager of State Bank of Travencore by accepting any gratification other than legal renumeration or reward, consideration, dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates any property 62 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) entrusted to him under his control or under his control as a public servant or if by corrupt or illegal means obtains valuable thing or by abusing his position as public servant obtains pecuniary advantage and holding as a public servant obtains pecuniary advantage without any public interest.

75. In order to prove the basic charge made against accused that A1 having entered into criminal conspiracy with A2 and A3 claiming to the proprietors of sl.no.1 to 22 units alleged to have been involved in production of materials in the name of small scale industries having obtained permission from the competent authorities committed fraud to the institution of bank by availing loan of Rs.1 lakh on each occasion and A1 in collusion with A2 and A3 with an intention to commit the offence of cheating released loan without following the required mandatory procedures of the bank.

76. By close scrutiny of all the above evidence available before the court, now court has to find out that A1 being a public servant Manager of State Bank of Travencore, Pillanna Garden Branch, Bengaluru has committed criminal misconduct as a public servant by accepting above pecuniary illegal gratification for granting these loans to 22 firms stated to have been availed loan for promoting small scale industrial units.

Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)

77. In this regard, learned counsel for defence has argued that, A1 has not committed any criminal misconduct as a public servant by receiving any illegal gratification or fraudulently misappropriated the property entrusted to him by corrupt means or received any pecuniary advantage by abusing his position. If the evidence made available by prosecution that of PW4, Chief Manager and PW6 G.Satish Babu, Branch Manager, who have spoken about accused no.1 working as branch manager and granting loan under SSI Scheme to 22 firms running small scale industries by A2 and A3, none of these witnesses have spoken about A1 receiving any illegal gratification or pecuniary advantage working as a public servant from A2, A3 or third person, so also the evidence of PW42 to PW44 bank employees have deposed about clearing of loan applications of firms belonging to A2 and A3 hurriedly or by skipping the procedure of bank norms provided in Bank Manual only relates to dereliction of duty as bank official, does not violate Sec.420 IPC r/w Sec.120B r/w Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

78. So, in order to prove the guilt against accused no.2 and 3 for the offence P/U/Sec.420 IPC in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with public servant A1 bank 64 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Manager, prosecution has relied on the evidence of several witnesses as referred above.

79. Before proceeding further, this court is inclined to find out from evidence that, A1 cannot be held to have committed the offence U/Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 of criminal misconduct unless he is proved to have entered criminal conspiracy with A2 and A3 for granting loan to each firms for which A2 and A3 proprietors on the basis of false records and caused loss to the banking institution. In this regard, this court is inclined to refer the definition of cheating.

80. Offence of cheating u/s 420 IPC is punishable up to seven years. Whereas definition of cheating is provided Sec.415 IPC, which reads as under:

The section requires: (1) Deception of any person.

(2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person

(i) to deliver any property to any person; or

(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or

(b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is 65 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

81. So, close perusal of Section setforth separate two clauses of acts, which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first place he must be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person; secondly second Clause of act setforth in this section of doing anything which a person deceived would not do or omit to do. In the second clause of acts inducing must be intentional, but not fraudulent or dishonest.

82. Further cheating is committed by like cheating with and extortion, breach of contract and cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal misappropriation and in many other criminal activity ways and this inducement act must result in damage, harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

83. Further it is observed in para24 of Criminal Appeal No:475/2004 C/W Criminal Appeal No:490/2004 (Ismail Khan Shah @ J.K.Shad & another Vs CBI, wherein it is held as under:

"In order to attract Section 420 of the IPC., it is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to establish that the accused had deceived the bank while taking loan or that 66 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) they had acted dishonestly or fraudulently. When the trial court itself did not find any convincing material being placed by the prosecution to show that the accused had either given wrong addresses or that the units inquestion were not in existence, the question of the appellants deceiving the bank when they made the applications for cash credit facility, therefore, does not arise. The intention on the part of the appellants to cheat the bank had to be established and the prosecution fails in its attempt to prove this and consequently, as rightly argued by learned senior counsel C.V.Nagesh, mere non payment of the loan amount itself cannot be construed as satisfying the ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC".

84. Now, the basic requirement of section are applied to the allegations made as against A1, who was bank manager a public servant from the available evidence of PW4, PW6, PW42, PW43, PW44 bank employees and the IO PW51, it is not clear from their evidence that A1 induced A2 and A3 to make false application to the bank with fraudulent and false records 67 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) of nonexisting firms alleged to have been manufacturing industrial goods in the name of small scale industries.

85. On the contrary, if the evidence discussed above relating to bank officials like PW4, PW6, PW42, PW43, PW44 and others and the concerned Government officials, who have issued industrial license and who have stated that no industrial license was issued to A2 and A3 and their firms named in the charge sheet were not registered with the authorities concerned is clear. If evidence is comprehensively considered, court can infer which cannot be ruled out that it would have possibly happened that A2 and A3 induced A1 fraudulently with dishonest intention and dishonestly delivered property such as grant loan on the basis of false and fraudulent records created by A2 and A3 relating to nonexistence of industrial firms 1 to 22 with adequate records and moreover even if this offence of cheating coupled with Sec.120B IPC is existing against accused, but they stand existing only against A2 and A3. Case against A2 is abated and A3 pleaded guilty by invoking Sec.265 Cr.P.C. like plea bargaining doctrine .

86. It is Sec.120B IPC criminal conspiracy, which binds all the accused for conviction for substantive offence. Sec.120A IPC definition of criminal conspiracy: (1) an illegal act, or 68 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:

Sec.120B IPC Punishment of criminal conspiracy: (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months or with fine or with both.

87. Sec.120B IPC provides for punishment to accused if involved in criminal conspiracy for committing the main substantive offence. In the instant case, the main substantive offence corresponding to Sec.120B IPC, Sec.420 cheating alleged to have been committed by A1 manager, A2 and A3 private persons. When this court has 69 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) observed that no direct material allegations are seen in evidence against accused no.1 for allegedly inducing or being induced any third person with dishonest intention so deceived to deliver any property to do some act.

88. As discussed above, no material is seen in the evidence produced by prosecution that A1 induced A2 and A3 as a manager of the bank that, he will make arrangement for grant of loan to these 22 units even if they produce fraudulent documents of registration of firm, industry etc.

89. Now, restricting to A1, court has to consider whether A1 has committed offence U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sec.13(1)

(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 dealing with criminal misconduct of public servant is worded as under:

Criminal misconduct by a public servant. (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,

(d) if he,

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other 70 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest;

90. Bare perusal of Sec.13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 makes it clear that a public servant in order to be held guilty for committing offence of criminal misconduct, following requirements are to be established by prosecution such as;

(a) if a public servant habitually accepts, obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to accept by himself or through some third person any gratification other than legal remuneration, mentioned in Sec.7.

91. Section.7 deals with public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of any official act and further provides that any public servant accepts or obtains from any person any gratification other than legal remuneration to do official act or to do any official favour with regard to his exercising his power as a public servant to any person with power vested with him either under Central Government or State Government.

Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)

92. Further Sec.13(1)(c)(d) provides that, "a public servant dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or"

(d) if he,

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant obtains valuable things or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) provides for public servant while holding such office obtains for any person a pecuniary advantage without any public interest.

93. So, Sec.13(1)(a) and Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are read rejointly, what is required to be understood is a public servant must receive gratification other than legal remuneration to show some official favour with exercising of his official function. So,

(a) receiving of illegal gratification by public servant other than legal remuneration as a reward is a must and further 72 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)

(b) demand of illegal remuneration by public servant should be related to do any official act or favour in exercise of his official function.

94. Prosecution in order to prove that, A1 working as Manager of SBT, Pillanna Garden Branch, Bengaluru has examined PW4, PW6, PW42, PW43, PW46. These witnesses as discussed above have spoken elaborately about functions of A1 as a manger and nature of duty he was required to attend and relating to these clearing of loans in respect of 22 firms alleged to have been managed by A2 and A3 stating to be registered under the concerned authorities to run industries under Small Scale Industry Scheme and further it is clear from their evidence that A1 has skipped some of the banking rules to be followed such as :

(a)granted loan to these 22 firms of A2 and A3 under SSI Scheme without loan application of A2 and A3 filled properly and incomplete loan applications are filed;

(b) A1 has taken false collateral security;

(c) A1 has taken undue advantage of his position as a manager and imposed obligation on several staff like PW42, PW43, PW44, so that all the loan applications 73 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) pending in favour of A2 and A3 cleared by issuing cheques through them by committing irregularity, illegality by violating banking rules. Assuming if A1 has violated banking rules and regulations, it is sufficiently brought on record to show that A1 bank manager was found guilty by conducting separate departmental enquiry apart from registering this case and he was dismissed from service.

Whether nonfollowing of stringent and mandatory required rules of banks before granting loans to applicants like A2 and A3 would amount to criminal misconduct by public servant is not clear.

95. Further close perusal of the material placed by the IO while recording the evidence of PW4, PW6, PW42, PW43, PW44 and also other evidence available before the court does not disclose anything with regard to A1 dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriating any property entrusted to him through other person, obtaining valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means and further receiving any pecuniary advantage as public servant, or obtaining for himself by abusing his position as public servant and further public servant like A1 obtaining 74 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) pecuniary advantage while holding office without any public interest.

96. So, after considering all these aspects, what can be made out from the evidence available before the court is that, A1 J.J.Mathew did not receive any illegal gratification dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated by converting the property into his own entrusted to him as a public servant or by corrupt or illegal means he obtains pecuniary advantage or by abusing his position obtains pecuniary advantage etc.

97. Basic requirement relating to A1 as a public servant receiving illegal gratification as a public servant with his official position by abusing or misappropriating fraudulently any public property entrusted to him is not clear from the available evidence.

98. From the evidence of all the witnesses, it is not clear that A2 and A3 in order to get the loan sanctioned from A1 holding official position as Manager of SBT, Pillanna Garden Branch, Bengaluru, paid him illegal gratification for securing Rs.1 lakh loan on each application to 22 firms, for which A2 and A3 are the proprietors to secure loan from A1.

99. So, payment of gratification/obtaining of gratification or obtaining pecuniary advantage by A1 is 75 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) missing from the available records. In the connected case Spl.C.C.No:150/1994, my predecessor in office while discharging other accused has observed clearly that it is not clear from the prosecution papers that borrowers paid illegal gratification to A1 and he received the same to do them official favour by granting loan.

100. Further more after close assessment of the evidence led by prosecution examined so far like PW4, PW6, PW42, PW43, PW44 and the examination of postal authority employees and the officers of head of department of registration of firms, court is not made clear about the criminal intention of A1 and what is the wrongful gain obtained by this manager like A1 to attract Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 particularly when A1 is not charged with offence U/Sec.409 IPC dealing with criminal breach of trust and further more the assessment of evidence does not makes it conveniently clear that whether sufficient evidence is placed before the court to attract the offence U/Sec.420 IPC when customers like A2 and A3 were constantly transacting with the bank for repayment of their loan and subsequently clearing the entire loan due to the bank and further more in order to attract the offence U/Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, dishonest intention or obtaining 76 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) undue advantage has to be assessed from the evidence placed before the court. If the criminal dishonest intention is absent, it is difficult to visualize how a public servant is involved in committing offence of criminal misconduct and particularly when he has not received pecuniary advantage by any corrupt or illegal means and also by abusing his position and court is unable to find that this accused no.1 obtained any amount by corrupt or illegal means which is sinaqunon, evidence of obtaining any amount by corrupt or illegal means is glaringly missing in the evidence collected by IO and even the presumption U/Sec.7 and 13(1)(a)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 except word 'accepts' or 'obtains' play an important role in constituting offence U/Sec.13(1)(a)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in order to bring home guilt against accused, who is a public servant.

101. Further more from the records available it is clear that, all these loans granted by A1 in favour of A2 and A3 in respect of 22 firms were found to be fully secured loans by taking collateral security. So, dishonest intention to cheat bank by A1 cannot be inferred without assigning or considering strong reasons against the accused. Whether obtaining wrongful gain by a public servant is a sinequnon by exercising criminal dishonest intention by committing the act of cheating to the bank is 77 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) a matter of concern. In this regard, my attention is drawn to the citations relied by defence:

"2009 AIR SCW 4165" (S.V.L.Murthy v. State, Rep. By CBI, Hyderabad with P.Jaya Kumar V. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By CBI with Venugopal Loya & Ors, V. State of A.P.) wherein it is as follows:

"Causing wrongful loss to Bank - Grant of cheque discounting facility by Bank

- No evidence to show that accused A4, Branch Manager for some time and accused, A5, Accountant in Bank entered into conspiracy with others to cheat Bank - In fact A4 stopped said facility and only at instance of Regional Manager it was restored - Prosecution failed to bring on record any evidence of wrongful gain by officers to as to attract Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or otherwise - Even accused, customers not shown to have wrongful intention when contract as to facility was initiated - Offence, if any, was committed under S.409 for which accused persons were not charged - Conviction and sentence of accused - Liable to be set aside."

Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) "Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 420 -

Cheating - Grant of cheque discounting facility by Bank - Alleged wrongful loss caused by accused customers, and Bank Officers - Allegation against accused customers that their cheques were discounted after purchasing them - Cheques were deposited after gap of 1 to 4 days - Only later the amounts were deposited in the account - Said circumstances are not sufficient to hold accused persons guilty for commission of offence under S.420 as all actions of Bank Officers were in consonance with long standing banking practice".

102. Further in the body of the judgement it is observed that;

"the prosecution apart from the fact that it had utterly failed to bring on record any evidence of conspiracy must also be held to have failed to bring on record any evidence of wrongful gain so as to attract the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or otherwise".

Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)

103. Whether a public servant alleged to have committed criminal misconduct U/Sec.13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with dishonest intention to obtain undue pecuniary advantage and in the absence of receiving pecuniary advantage and initiated with criminal prosecution against a public servant/accused is justified and whether receiving or obtaining undue pecuniary advantage by a public servant is a must while doing official favour to other. In this regard, my attention is drawn to the ruling reported in '(2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 205' C.K.Jaffer Sharief Vs State (Through CBI), wherein it is observed that;

"Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -

       S. 13(2) r/w S. 13(1)(d) - Dishonest
       intention     to      obtain     undue      pecuniary
       advantage      -      Absence     of    -    Criminal
       prosecution        initiated    against     appellant

accused public servant, hence quashed".

'It is difficult to visualise as to how in the light of the above facts, demonstrated by the materials revealed in the course of investigation, the appellant can be construed to have adopted corrupt or illegal means or to have abused his position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or 80 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) pecuniary advantage either for himself or for any of the aforesaid four persons'.

'No question of obtaining any pecuniary advantage by any corrupt or illegal means or by abuse of the position of the appellant as a public servant can arise'.

'On consideration of totality of materials on record, there is no reason to allow prosecution to continue against appellant as ingredient of dishonest intention was absent - Hence, proceedings registered against appellant quashed - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,S. 161'.

104. Further my attention is drawn to the authority reported in "AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 2169" (Subash Parbat Sonvane Vs State of Gujarat), wherein it is observed as follows:

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S. 13(1)(d)(i) - Criminal misconduct by public servant - Bribe taking -

Mere acceptance of money - Not sufficient for convicting accused under S.13(1)(d)(i) - There must be evidence on record that accused 'obtained' any amount by corrupt or illegal means - Complainant not supporting 81 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) prosecution case on the points of demand and acceptance - From evidence of panch witness it was not clear that there was any demand by accused and amount was paid to him by complainant - Accused acquitted".

In Ss. 7 and 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, the Legislature has specifically used the word 'accepts' or 'obtains'. As against this, there is departure in the language used in Clause (1)(d) of S.13 and it has omitted the word 'accepts' and has emphasized the word 'obtains'. Further, the ingredient of subclause

(i) is that by corrupt and illegal means, a public servant obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, under Clause (ii) he obtains such thing by abusing his position as a public servant, he obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. Therefore, for convicting the person under S.13(1)(d), there must be evidence on record that accused; obtained; for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by either corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant or he 82 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) obtained for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest".

In Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, the Legislature has specifically used the word 'accepts' or 'obtains'. As against this, there is departure in the language used in clause (1)(d) of Section 13 and it has omitted the word 'accepts' and has emphasized the word 'obtains'. Further, the ingredient of subclause (i) is that by corrupt or illegal means, a public servant obtains any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; under clause (ii), he obtains such thing by abusing his position as public servant; and subclause

(iii) contemplates that while holding office as the public servant, he obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. Therefore, for convicting the person under Section 13(1)

(d), there must be evidence on record that accused 'obtained' for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by either corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant or he obtained for any person any valuable 83 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest".

105. Further my attention is drawn to the authority reported in "2011 CRI.L.J. 2801" (Rajeevan Aswathy, Pattathanam Kadappakada, Quilon V Superintendent of Police), briefly stated the facts of the case are that, A1 was manager of Punjab National Bank (PNB) who is alleged to have entered into criminal conspiracy with accused no.2, proprietor of Aswathi Wood Industries to cheat PNB. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, accused no.2 borrower submitted a false loan application before PNB, in which A1 was working as Manager for grant of loan for running a sawmill to the extent of Ex.1,50,000/ and also for construction of said sawmill enclosed with false quotation from M/s Deepak Industries, Kadappakkada, Quilon for supply of machinery costing etc and false quotation of PWD contractor for construction of sawmill shed and A1 Manager sanctioned loan knowing fully well that loan application was enclosed with false and fabricated documents like quotation and related documents. In spite of that loan was sanctioned to accused no.2 by issuing cheque to the supplier of the machinery M/s Deepak Industries and PWD contractor C.K.Prasad, which was part of loan sanctioned to A2. Subsequently it was noticed that the contractor did not 84 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) construct the sawmill shed and accused no.2 borrower proprietor of Aswathi Wood Industries appropriated the entire amount with the assistance of contractor of shed and supplier of machinery and entire loan was obtained from the bank with the help of manager A1 by submitting false and fabricated documents and subsequently it was noticed by the banking authorities and complaint was lodged and investigation was conducted and A1 Manager was charged for the offences. A1 being public servant by practicing or illegal means or otherwise abusing his position had obtained for A2 pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/ by sanctioning loan on loan application enclosed with false quotations and related documents though knowing that proprietor of sawmill was not existing and the construction of sawmill did not take place. Lower court convicted the accused and the appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala wherein their Lordship Justice V.Ramkumar reversed the conviction order observing that; "all the loans were granted on the strength of collateral security after taking into account the valuation made by the valuers namely one Asokan and one Subrahmania Iyer (both of whom were not examined) and also on the strength of confidential reports which were suppressed. A1 had sanctioned the loans acting on the recommendations of PW.23, the Senior Manager who had conducted the pre 85 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) sanction inspection and who had not made any report to the effect that any of the firms including Distributors Quilon was fictitious. If so, A1 the Branch Manager cannot be blamed at all in sanctioning the loans. The Court below was not right in accepting the prosecution case in this behalf".

106. Thus, without examining the appropriate persons concerned and without adducing reliable evidence the prosecution could not have canvassed for the position that K.S. Agencies was a fictitious and non existing firm. When the loan was sanctioned on the strength of adequate collateral security and after conducting proper enquiries and presanction inspection and on the strength of Crs, legal opinion etc., and on the recommendation of PW.23, it was not open to the prosecution to contend that A1 was sanctioning the loan dishonestly and without proper verification.

107. Even in the instant case IO had examined the recorded statements of postmen who visited the fictitious addresses given by borrower A2 of their sawmill and examined him as a witness and also the bank officials and related witnesses. But however the court was pleased to observed that manager like A1 cannot be held liable for offences U/Sec. 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly when the loans were granted 86 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) on the strength of collateral security and the related documents like valuation report, CRs. After granting of loan for a prolonged period, no objection has been raised by the higher authorities of the bank like RO office, which periodically conducted internal audit or quarterly audit, it cannot be said that A1 had committed the offence of cheating with dishonest intention to cheat the bank.

108. Further it is observed in the authority reported in "2011 CRI.L.J. 2801" (Rajeevan Aswathy, Pattathanam Kadappakada, Quilon V Superintendent of Police) as follows:

"(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss.

420, 468, 120B Cheating - Conspiracy - Accused, a bank manager competent to sanction loan - Allegedly obtained pecuniary advantage for coaccused by sanctioning loans on false application and false quotations - Loans, however found to be fully secured by collateral security - Thus, intention to cheat bank cannot be inferred - Senior officer of bank who had conducted presanction inspection and recommended to sanction loans was exonerated by investigating officer - Accused bank manager who sanctioned loans on such 87 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) recommendation and after conducting proper enquiries and presanction inspection and on strength of CRs, legal opinion. Cannot be said to have sanctioned loans dishonestly and without proper verification - Amounts involved were also not large enough to justify investigation and prosecution - Trial Court also had not followed certain requirements of law - Accused, held, entitled to acquittal".

109. Further, in the body of the judgement it is observed that;

'all the loans were granted on the strength of collateral security after taking into account the valuation made by the valuers namely one Asokan and one Subrahmania Iyer (both of whom were not examined) and also on the strength of confidential reports which were suppressed. A1 had sanctioned the loans acting on the recommendations of PW.23, the Senior Manager who had conducted the pre sanction inspection and who had not made any report to the effect that any of the firms including Distributors Quilon was fictitious. If so,A1 the Branch Manager cannot be blamed at all in sanctioning the loans. The 88 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Court below was not right in accepting the prosecution case in this behalf".

110. After evaluation of all the evidence discussed above, court is of the view that evidence adduced by the prosecution PW4, PW6, PW42 to PW44 and other related witnesses like officers of Commercial Tax office, Registration Office, who have deposed to the fact that such 22 firms so mentioned in whose names loan was raised were never registered or obtained license and so also examination of postmen, who have reported that 'no industries are running in such addresses or addresses has left the address or some other person is residing in the address etc., court has failed to arrive at a conclusion that A1 by sanctioning the above said loans to the firms of A2 and A3 after receiving adequate collateral security cananot be held liable for alleged commission of offence U/Sec.420 IPC and U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for committing the offence of cheating entering into criminal conspiracy with A2 and A3.

111. From the evidence of all these witnesses placed by prosecution, it cannot be made out that A1 received or obtained any illegal gain or undue advantage for granting loan by abusing his position as a public servant.

Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)

112. Though IO has made effort to prove by examining series of postmen by giving them RPAD Covers to serve the addresses of borrowers firms alleged in the charge sheet which have returned unserved as 'addressee not residing in the said address, left the address, or some other person is residing in the said address etc., has taken place after long gap of taking loan. One of the possibility that addressee must have changed the address in between 1990 to 1993 cannot be overruled. Be it as it may further IO who has collected and seized the loan documents alleged to have been formed and fabricated one by the borrowers like A2 and A3, proprietors have not been subjected to examination by forensic expert/hand writing expert nor any attempt is made to take a specimen signature of A2 and A3 to compare them with the signature on loan documents which are alleged to have been fabricated and false.

113. Further more with regard to the absconding of accused for prolong period in the course of investigation from the date of investigation where the alleged act of cheating has taken place in 199091 by A1 Manger by entering into criminal conspiracy with A2 and A3 and FIR was registered in 1991 and investigation was taken up in 1993 and charge sheet was submitted in the year 1997. In between this period, departmental enquiry was held 90 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) against A1 and he was dismissed from service. So, FIR is registered on 31.12.1991 and charge sheet is submitted in 1994. In between these period, he must have left India without the knowledge of case being registered against him.

114. In this regard, defence counsel has relied on an authority reported in 2013(4) SCC 422 where it is observed that;

"E. Criminal Trial - Conduct of accused, complainant, witnesses, etc. Abscondence - Inference to be drawn from - Held, absconding by itself does not prove guilt of a person since a person may run away due to fear of false implication or arrest - Hence, argument that the accused were absconding and, therefore, adverse inference needs to be drawn against them rejected".

115. Reading of the said authority makes it clear that merely because accused was absconding for a prolong period needs to be drawn against absconding accused person was rejected as per Sec.172 of IPC.

116. In view of the elaborate discussion made above, after evaluation of the evidence placed by the IO to prove that A1 Manager/public servant entered into 91 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) criminal conspiracy with A2 and A3 and sanctioned loan to 22 firms on the basis of false and fabricated records of the firms is not established for the reasons that A1 has only committed procedural irregularities in sanctioning loan to the firms of A2 and A3 and he has overruled some of the provisions or precautions that he would have taken to grant loan has been considered by the bank higher authorities and departmental enquiry was held against him and he was dismissed from service. But, however to bring his liability under criminal law within the mandate of Sec.13(1)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sufficient evidence is not seen by the court from assessed evidence placed before the court and court has examined 51 witnesses and produced Ex.P1 to P.114 documents that A1 received illegal gratification or obtained any undue advantage by exceeding power of his authority as a manager and illegally abusing position as a public servant/manager of the bank and further more the loss caused to the bank has been made good by A3, who has pleaded guilty by invoking plea bargaining doctrine u/s 265 Cr.P.C. and case against A2 is abated and further more when loan was granted by A1 after receiving loan applications and considering the authenticity of documents and taking collateral security and considering the documents furnished by the proprietors of firms, who are borrowers and sanction of loan being informed to 92 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) higher authorities periodically and no objection has been raised by the banking authorities even after conducting monthly internal audit and quarterly audit by RO office. In such circumstances, Manager cannot be blamed in sanctioning loans. At the most he could be held liable for committing dereliction of duty as a public servant governed by Banking Service Rules and Manual and in this regard, A1 has been sufficiently punished by the department by dismissing him from service after holding departmental enquiry.

117. So, to sumup, court is not convinced to hold that accused is involved in offence of cheating because the basic ingredients of cheating defined U/Sec. 415 IPC like fraudulently or dishonestly inducing a person to deliver property or intentionally inducing a person to do or omit to do any act etc., is not clear.

118. On the contrary, court finds that why inference should not be drawn that proprietors of 22 firms A2 and A3 fraudulently and falsely induced A1 by producing fraudulent documents to grant loan under SSI scheme that they are running industrial units and the address mentioned in the loan applications and further more from the assessment of the evidence of PW4, PW6, PW42 to PW44, it cannot be said that A1 being public servant dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated or converted 93 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) the property entrusted to him, which was under his control as public servant or allowed other person to do so by corrupt or illegal means and further obtaining himself pecuniary advantage or valuable things by abusing his position obtains pecuniary advantage etc.

119. So, U/Sec.13(1)(a) and 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a public servant must receive gratification other than legal remuneration to show some official favour or receive reward is not established. Further more alleged fabricated documents seized by the IO were not subjected for hand writing expert or forensic expert and the examination of postmen, who have endorsed that no such 22 firms are functioning in the said address furnished in the loan application alone itself will not establish the offence of cheating against A1 and also sufficient evidence is not placed to prove the offence of criminal conspiracy P/U/Sec.120B IPC to attract the main substance offence u/s 420 IPC and further Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further accused had remained absconding for prolonged period cannot be taken as fatal to the innocence of the accused and no adverse inference can be drawn against him.

120. After considering elaborate evidence placed by the prosecution and the documents produced therein, 94 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) court is constrained to hold that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt with regard to offence P/U/Sec. 120B IPC r/w 420 IPC and U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and deserves to be given benefit of doubt. In the result, the above points 1 to 3 for consideration are answered in the negative.

Point No.4:

121. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER Acting U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused John Joshua Mathew @ J.J.Mathew is acquitted of the offences P/U/Sec.420 r/w 120B IPC and U/Sec..13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accused is set at liberty.

Accused is in judicial custody.

Jail authorities are directed to release accused John Joshua Mathew @ J.J.Mathew if he is not required in any other case.

(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcription computerised, then corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 4th day of November 2019) 95 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) (Rajashekar Venkanagouda Patil), XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge & Prl.Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.

ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:

 PW.No.              Name of the witnesses
PW1       S.Ponnuswamy
PW2       Abdul Jabbar Azeez
PW3       Vaikunth Shanbhag
PW4       Anathanram Krishnan
PW5       G. Chandrashekar
PW6       G.Sathish Babu
PW7       Krishnappa
PW8       S.Palani
PW9       Nagaraj
PW10      B.Anantharam
PW11      Jayadeva Ballal
PW12      R.Rajashekhar
PW13      K.V.Lakshminarayana Murthy
PW14      Syed Hafeez
PW15      Smt.G.Kokila
PW16      P.Dayalanan
PW17      D.L.Chandrashekhar
PW18      L.S.Surendra
                        96
                                Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)

PW19   Raja Manickam
PW20   J.James
PW21   R.Gopinath
PW22   Smt.Mary Stella
PW23   Jayaram
PW24   D.Ramaiah
PW25   L.S.Srinivasaiah
PW26   Gopala
PW27   Dr.K.Mailan
PW28   D.Narayanapppa
PW29   Smt.Sudha.B.M.
PW30   A.M.Bala Krishna
PW31   K.Srinivas
PW32   Ashwathnarayana Sharma
PW33   C.Joy
PW34   Nagaraj
PW35   R.Chandrashekhar
PW36   N.Venkatesh
PW37   Narayanappa
PW38   K.N.Rajanna
PW39   K.Suresh
PW40   Lakshmegowda
PW41   Smt.Gowramma
PW42   K.Muniyappa
PW43   N.S.Gopinath
PW44   Smt.Margaret B.Mutunayagam
PW45   G.Surendra
PW46   M.Venkatesh
                              97
                                         Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)

PW47          Mujeeb Khan
PW48          S.Devanboo
PW49          G.Rabinathan
PW50          K.T.Mathew
PW51          K.Y.Guruprasad

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE DEFENCE:

NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PROSECUTION:

Exhibit                            Description
Number
Ex.P.1            Undelivered RP Envelop             bearing
                  No.R.L.7897.
Ex.P.1(a)         Endorsement of PW.2
Ex.P.1 (b)        Endorsement of PW.7
Ex.P.2            Search list dated 08.05.1992
Ex.P.2(a)         Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.2(b)         Signature of CW.2
Ex.P.3            Stock Statement file of M/s Diamond
                  Furniture Works
Ex.P.4            Stock Statement file of M/s Myfair
                  Furniture Works
Ex.P.5            Stock Statement file of M/s Parveen
                  Industries
Ex.P.6            Stock Statement file of M/s Sabir
                     98
                               Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)

          Furniture Works
Ex.P.7    Stock Statement file of M/s Alwin
          Furniture Works
Ex.P.8    Stock Statement file of M/s Woodsack
          Furnitures
Ex.P.9    Stock Statement file of M/s Naveen
          Timbers

Ex.P.10 Stock Statement file of M/s Hitech Electronics Ex.P.11 Stock Statement file of M/s COSMO Builders Ex.P.12 Stock Statement file of M/s Dunhill Machine Tools Ex.P.13 Stock Statement file of M/s Sundeep Furnitures Ex.P.14 Stock Statement file of M/s A.K Fabricators Ex.P.15 Stock Statement file of M/s Moti Garment Factory Ex.P.16 Stock Statement file of M/s Bangalore Timbers Ex.P.17 Stock Statement file of M/s Goodwill Furnitures Factory Ex.P.18 Stock Statement file of M/s Bangalore Granites Ex.P.19 Stock Statement file of M/s Royal Interiors Ex.P.20 SBT Passbook A/c No.CC 138, Pertaining to M/s Royal Interiors Ex.P.21 SBT Passbook A/c No.CC.141, pertaining to M/s Naveen Timbers Ex.P.22 SBT Passbook A/c No.CC.142, pertaining to M/s Bangalore Timbers 99 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Ex.P.23 SBT Passbook A/c No.CC.135, pertaining to M/s Bangalore Granites Ex.P.24 SBT Passbook A/c No.CC.137, pertaining to M/s Sabir Furniture Works Ex.P.25 SBT Passbook A/c No.CA.309, Pertaining to M/s Bangalore Granites Ex.P.26 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Bangalore Granites Ex.P.27 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Bangalore Granites Ex.P.28 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Bangalore Granites Ex.P.29 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Bangalore Granites Ex.P.30 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Bangalore Granites Ex.P.31 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Bangalore Granites Ex.P.32 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Royal Interiors and M/s Sabir Granites Ex.P.33 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Navin Timbers Ex.P.34 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Bangalore Granites Ex.P.35 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Karnataka Engineering Ex.P.36 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Diamond Furniture Works Ex.P.37 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Moti Garment Factory Ex.P.38 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Hitec Electronics Ex.P.39 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s A.K 100 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Fabricators Ex.P.40 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Dunhill Machine Tools Ex.P.41 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Wood Shock Furnitures Ex.P.42 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Goodwill Furniture Factory Ex.P.43 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Sundeep Furnitures Ex.P.44 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Myfair Furniture Works Ex.P.45 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Parveen Industries Ex.P.46 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Alwin Furniture Works Ex.P.47 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s COSMO Builders Ex.P.48 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Popular Electronics Ex.P.49 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Ravi Engineering (Industries) Ex.P.50 Accounts Book pertaining to M/s Ajantha Furniture Works Ex.P.51 Copy of letter dated 05.05.1992 of Sri. S.A Basith to the Manager S.B.T Ex.P.51(a) Initial Signature of PW.3 Ex.P.52 Letter dated 01.10.1993 of PW.5 to CBI Ex.P.52 (a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.53 Undelivered RP Envelop bearing No.R.L.9327.

Ex.P.53(a)    Endorsement of PW.12
Ex.P.54       Undelivered     RP     Envelop     bearing
              No.R.L.7884.
                         101
                                  Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J)

Ex.P.54(a)    Endorsement of PW.12
Ex.P.55       Letter dated 24.11.1993 along with its
              annexures.
Ex.P.55(a)    Signature of Mohammed Ismail
Ex.P.56         C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of
                M/s Diamond Furnitures, bearing
                No.1/90 with c/c of Ledger Extract,

Statement of Accounts, 7 cheques and 20 pay in slips (D110 to 139) Ex.P56(a)to (f) Cheques Ex.P.57 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.1/90 of Diamond Furnitures Ex.P.58 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.176 of Karnataka Engineering Works.

Ex.P58(a)     Signature of PW 42
Ex.P.59        C/c of Ledger Extract, bearing No.176
               of M/s Karnataka Engineering Works

with Statement of Accounts, 9 cheques and 27 pay in slips (D.141 to 178) Ex.P59(a)to(c) Cheques Ex.P.60 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.137 of M/s Shabir Furniture Works Ex.P.61 C/c of Ledger Extract, bearing No.137 of M/s Shabir Furniture Works with Statement of Accounts, 5 cheques and 29 pay in slips (D.180 to 218) Ex.P61(a)to(c) Cheques Ex.P.62 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.23/90 Ex.P.63 C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of M/s AjantaFurniture Works, bearing No.23/90 with c/c of Ledger Extract, Statement of Accounts, 7 cheques and 1 102 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) pay in slip (D220 to 230) Ex.P63(a)to(c) Cheques Ex.P.64 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.3/90 Ex.P.65 C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of M/s Hi tech Electronics, bearing No.3/90 with c/c of Ledger Extract, Statement of Accounts, 12 cheques and 28 pay in slips (D232 to 274) Ex.P.65(a)to(f) Cheques Ex.P.66 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.135 Ex.P.67 C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of M/s Bangalore Granites, bearing No.135 with c/c of Ledger Extract, Statement of Accounts, 17 cheques, 3 transfer Vouchers and 26 pay in slips (D.276 to D.324) Ex.P.67(a)to(j) Cheques Ex.P.68 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.138 Ex.P.69 C/c of Ledger Extract, bearing No.138 of M/s Royal Interiors with Statement of Accounts, 9 cheques, 2 transfer credit vouchers and 33 pay in slips (D.326 to 371 ) Ex.P.69(a) to Cheques

(f) Ex.P.70 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.141 Ex.P.71 C/c of Ledger Extract, bearing No.141 of M/s Navin Timbers with Statement of Accounts, 15 cheques, 1 transfer credit voucher and 27 pay in slips (D.373 to

417) 103 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Ex.P.71(a) Cheque No.184228 for Rs.2,100/ Ex.P71(a1) Initials of PW43 Ex.P.72 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.2/90 Ex.P.73 C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of M/s Moti Garments Factory, bearing No.2/90 with c/c of Ledger Extract, Statement of Accounts, 11 cheques and 27 pay in slips (D.419 to D.459) Ex.P.74 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.22/90 Ex.P.75 C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of M/s Bombay Furnitures, bearing No.2290 with c/c of Ledger Extract, Statement of Accounts, 7 cheques and 1 pay in slip (D.461 to D.471) Ex.P.76 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.142 Ex.P.77 C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of M/s Bangalore Timbers, bearing No.142 with c/c of Ledger Extract, Statement of Accounts, 11 cheques and 24 pay in slips (D.473 to D.510) Ex.P.77(a) Cheque No.184251 for Rs.95,000/ Ex.P.77(a1) Initials of PW43 Ex.P.78 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.7/90 Ex.P.79 C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of M/s Woodsack Furnitures, bearing No.7/90 with c/c of Ledger Extract, Statement of Accounts, 10 cheques and 26 pay in slips (D.512 to 552) Ex.P.80 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.6/90 Ex.P.80(a) Signature of PW 42 104 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Ex.P.81 C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of M/s Dunhill Machine Tools, bearing No.6/90 with c/c of Ledger Extract, Statement of Accounts, 7 cheques and 19 pay in slips (D.554 to D.582) Ex.P.81(a) Cheque for Rs.50,000/ Ex.P.81(a1) Initials of PW43 Ex.P.81(b) Cheque for Rs.45,000/ Ex.P.81(b1) Initials of PW43 Ex.P.82 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.4/90 Ex.P.82(a) Signature of PW 47 Ex.P.83 C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of M/s A.K. Fabricators, bearing No.4/90 with c/c of Ledger Extract, Statement of Accounts, 12 cheques, 2 transfer Vouchers and 25 pay in slips (D.584 to D.625) Ex.P.84 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.21/90 Ex.P.85 C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of M/s Popular Electronics, bearing No.21/90 with c/c of Ledger Extract, Statement of Accounts, 5 cheques (D.627 to 634) Ex.P.86 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.16/90 Ex.P.87 C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of M/s COSMOS Builders, bearing No.16/90 with c/c of Ledger Extract, Statement of Accounts, 11 cheques and 24 pay in slips (D.636 to 672 and 672 A) Ex.P.88 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.15/90 105 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Ex.P.89 C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of M/s Alwin Furniture Works, bearing No.15/90 with c/c of Ledger Extract, Statement of Accounts, 10 cheques and 27 pay in slips (D.674 to 713) Ex.P.90 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.14/90 Ex.P.90(a) Signature of PW 42 Ex.P.91 C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of M/s Parvin Industries, bearing No.14/90 with c/c of Ledger Extract, Statement of Accounts, 12 cheques and 14 pay in slips (D.715 to 743) Ex.P.92 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.10/90 Ex.P.93 C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of M/s Myfair Furniture Works, bearing No.10/90 with c/c of Ledger Extract, Statement of Accounts, 8 cheques and 19 pay in slips (D.745 to 774) Ex.P.94 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.9/90 Ex.P.95 C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of M/s Sundeep Furnitures, bearing No.9/90 with c/c of Ledger Extract, Statement of Accounts, 11 cheques and 26 pay in slips (D.776 to 816) Ex.P.96 Loan Security documents file pertaining to CC.No.8/90 Ex.P.97 C.C A/c Opening Form in the name of M/s Goodwill Furniture Factory bearing No.8/90 with c/c of Ledger Extract, Statement of Accounts, 12 cheques and 27 pay in slips (D.818 to 859) Ex.P.98 Loan Security documents file pertaining 106 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) to CC.No.175 Ex.P.98(a) Signature of PW 42 Ex.P.99 C/c of Ledger Extract, bearing No.175 of M/s Ravi Industries with Statement of Accounts, 7 cheques and 23 pay in slips (D.77 to 108) Ex.P.100 Letter dated 26.12.1991 of Sri. Vinod George to Sri. Yousuff Shariff Ex.P.101 Letter dt.4.10.1993 of Asst.Director, BUNIC to CBI Ex.P.101(a) Signature of PW 28 Ex.P.102 Letter dt.13.12.1993 of Asst.Director, BUNIC to CBI Ex.P.102(a) Signature of PW 28 Ex.P.103 Quarrying Lease bearing Reg.No:4474 favouring S.A.Basikh Ex.P.104 One bunch contains copies of GPA, gift deed, tax paid receipt, valuation reports etc. in respect of property no.129/5, Domalur, BLR (25 sheets) Ex.P.105 KEB letter dt.24.5.1994 addressed to CBI Ex.P.106 Letter dt.9.3.1994 of PW49 to CBI Ex.P.106(a) Signature of PW 49 Ex.P.107 AnnexureI to Ex.P.106 Ex.P.107(a) Signature of PW 49 Ex.P.108 AnnexureI(a) to Ex.P.106 Ex.P.108(a) Signature of PW 49 Ex.P.109 Letter dt.19.3.1994 of PW.49 to CBI with enclosures (4 sheets) Ex.P.110 Copy of FIR Ex.P.111 Letter dt.7.4.1994 of Asst.Director BUSIC, Dept. of Industries & Commerce, BLR 107 Spl.C.C.No:80/2018(J) Ex.P.112 True copy of page no.32 and 33 of Book No.25 of PCR Register Ex.P.113 Copy of staff circular no.24/94, dt:5.3.1994 regarding dismissal order of A1 Ex.P.114 Letter of undertaking given by S.A.Basith (A2) dt:8.6.1991 List of documents marked by the defence: NIL (Rajashekar Venkanagouda Patil), XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge & Prl.Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bangalore District Court

Cbi/Acb vs No.1 Sri.John Joshua Mathew S/O John on 4 November, 2019