Karnataka High Court
Mr K Sankaran vs State By Central Bureau Of ... on 23 September, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.461/2013
BETWEEN:
MR. K.SANKARAN
S/O V.KALYANAM IYER
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
NO.302, LS GROOVE APARTMENT
ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE STREET
BYRASANDRA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 93. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.N.HEGDE, ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI C H JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE)
THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W
401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2013
PASSED BY XLVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. & SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES, BANGALORE CITY IN SPL.C.C.NO.33/2011 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER
UNDER SECTION 227 Cr.P.C. & ETC.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in Special C.C.No.33/2011, pending trial for offences punishable under sections 120B, 409, 419, 420, 468 & 471 IPC and also for an offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). The petitioner pleaded for discharge. The learned Special Judge on examination of investigation records and on hearing learned counsel for parties has held that there are grounds to presume that petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable under section 420 IPC and also for an offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act.
2. I have heard Sri P.N.Hegde, learned counsel for petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that there is no prima facie material to frame charges against petitioner for an offence punishable under section 420 IPC 3 and also for an offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that entire investigation records accepted on their face value do not reveal that petitioner has committed an offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act. The allegations made against petitioner do not attract an offence punishable under section 420 IPC.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that bank authorities have taken a decision not to initiate disciplinary inquiry against petitioner because of absence of prima facie material against petitioner. In the circumstances, the learned Special Judge was not justified in holding that there are grounds to presume that petitioner has committed an offence punishable under section 420 IPC and also for an offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act.
4
6. I have gone through investigation records and the order of learned Special Judge.
7. It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that at the relevant time, petitioner was working as Technical Officer in Union Bank of India. The petitioner had a duty to inspect plant and submit a report regarding progress of installation of plant and manufacturing process. The investigation records would reveal that petitioner had submitted his reports on 09.06.2005 (D.29), 16.08.2005 (D-62), 04.11.2005 (D-63) and 13.03.2006 (D-70). In these reports, petitioner has not mentioned that accused 2 & 3 the Managing Director and Director of M/s.Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. had taken electric connection to their plant. Thus, petitioner has misguided Union Bank of India to release loan amount. The petitioner has submitted inspection reports and mislead Union Bank of India in order to help M/s.Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. The investigation records would reveal that M/s.Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. had installed second hand machinery and bills of purchase are fraudulent 5 documents. The petitioner had inspected the plaint. On several occasions. The petitioner had noticed that M/s.Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. had installed second hand machinery. The petitioner has failed to bring these facts to the notice of Union Bank of India. The petitioner was working as Technical Officer in Union Bank of India, Nodal Regional Office. The petitioner is a B.E.graduate and a technical person. The petitioner should have informed the Union Bank of India that machinery installed by M/s.Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. is second hand machinery.
8. In the report submitted on 09.06.2005, petitioner had stated that M/s.Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. have applied for 1,000 KVA power connection and company will have DC generator sets (3 nos. of 25 KWA, 32 KWA, 62 KWA) to meet the requirement of power at times of power cut. In the report dated 16.08.2005, petitioner has submitted that M/s.Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. informed that they are going to apply for 500 KVA power connection and they have 6 DC generator sets stated above to meet the requirement of power at times of power cut and plant will be running 24 hours in three shifts and plant can be run with the help of generators even if power supply is delayed. The petitioner in his report dated 09.06.2005 has stated that the company had applied for 1000 KVA power connection and it will be sufficient to meet their requirement, but in the report dated 16.08.2005, it is stated that company had applied for 500 KVA connection and that, even if power connection is delayed, plant can be run all 24 hours in a day in three shift with the help of three generators. In the report dated 04.11.2005, petitioner has reiterated the same. In the report dated 30.03.2006, petitioner has stated that plant has not obtained power connection and production activities are going on by using diesel generators. Thus, petitioner has submitted false reports regarding machinery installed by M/s.Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Even regarding power supply, petitioner has submitted misleading and false reports. The trial court on consideration of above documents 7 has held that reports given by petitioner are mutually contradictory. Even regarding instalment of ground hopper of 40T, two nos. and cooling tower, there has been wrong representation by petitioner. The learned Special Judge having considered all these documents has held that there are grounds to presume that petitioner has committed an offence punishable under section 420 IPC and also of an offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was not the person entirely responsible for inspection of plant and machinery installed by M/s.Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and Union Bank of India had engaged the services of M/s.Dynamic Consultancy Services cannot be accepted.
9. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the report of M/s.Dynamic Consultancy Services. The investigation records do not reveal that Union Bank of India had engaged the services of M/s.Dynamic Consultancy Services to release loan amount to M/s.Innovative Ventures 8 Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner was the Technical Officer in Nodal Regional Office of Union Bank of India. The petitioner has made periodical inspections and Union Bank of India had relied on reports submitted by petitioner.
11. In the ultimate analysis, it was found that as on 13.03.2010, the outstanding loan was a sum of Rs.15,23,07,184/-. M/s.Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. had not started production and loan availed by it has become non-performing asset. The entire loan paid to M/s.Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. for installation of plant and also towards capital amount has become non-performing asset, causing huge loss of Rs.15,23,07,184/- to the Bank.
12. On reconsideration of the matter, I find there are reasonable grounds to presume that petitioner has committed an offence punishable under section 420 IPC and also for an offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act.
9
13. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that learned Special Judge during subsequent stages of the case shall not be influenced by the observations made herein.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN