Delhi District Court
Raj Kumar Sharma vs The State on 24 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMAI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 (NORTHEAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 44275/2016
(in FIR No. 153/2003, PS New Usmanpur)
Raj Kumar Sharma ...... Revisionist
Versus
The State ...... Respondent
O R D E R :
The present revision is directed against the impugned order of Shri MP Singh Ld. MM (NorthEast District) dated 17.11.2012, vide which charge was framed against the revisionist for the offences punishable under Section 420/468/471/120B IPC.
2. I have heard Shri Sanjay Gupta Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist and Shri Sukhbeer Singh - Ld. Addl. PP for the State and have carefully gone through the Trial Court Record.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that in the year 1993, the revisionist was working as Chief Manager with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kabool Nagar Branch , Shahdara Delhi, and he sanctioned a cash credit limit of Rs.6 lacs to one Chetan Prakash (coaccused) under his signatures and later said Chetan became defaulter and it was revealed that the Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. State 1 of 6 Crl. Revision No. 44275/2016 papers of the property submitted by said Chetan Prakash as collateral security were forged and the valuation report was also given by a non panelist valuer.
4. The impugned order has been challenged by the revisionist mainly on the ground that the revisionist has been roped in this case only on the basis of Section 120B IPC and that the disclosure statement made by co accused Chetan Prakash and Rameshwar Dayal - Architect, are not admissible against the revisionist who had no role in verification and valuation of the property.
5. It is an admitted fact on record that the revisionist was working as Chief Manager of the Bank at the relevant time. The impugned order has been passed as against the present revisionist on the premise that he had appointed a person namely Rameshwar Dayal as a valuer despite the fact that he was not on the penal of the Bank nor was a govt. approved valuer. A perusal of the charge sheet shows that the name of the present revisionist has come in the confessional statements of the coaccused Chetan Prakash and Rameshwar Dayal. Those confessional statements are inadmissible in evidence as against the revisionist and it has been rightly held so by the Ld. Trial Court.
6. A close scrutiny of the entire charge sheet would show that there is no oral or documentary evidence on record to show that Rameshwar Dayal was appointed by the present revisionist. It appears that the Ld. Trial Court has ignored the statement of PW SK Duggal, recorded U/S 161 Cr. PC. The said witness was working in the Loan Department of the Bank at the relevant time and he has stated in detail the procedure adopted by the Bank in Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. State 2 of 6 Crl. Revision No. 44275/2016 sanctioning loan to a person . The documents on record show that one Smt. Usha Vohra was working as Manager in the Loan Department. According to him, coaccused Chetan Prakash had submitted his loan application with the Loan Department and thereafter, on the directions of the Branch Manager, Advocate Shri Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary, who was on panel of the Bank , verified those documents from the office of the SubRegistrar. He further stated that the Branch Manager himself had directed for the valuation of the house/property proposed to be mortgaged by said Chetan Prakash and suggested the name of Rameshwar Dayal and who filed his report and submitted before the Branch Manager which was then forwarded to the Manager, Loan Department. He himself stated that at the relevant time he was posted as Sr. Manager in the Loan Department and that he and Shri SP Gulati had visited the factory of accused Chetan Prakash at Chhajupur but did not visit the property which was mortgaged by him. He further stated on the directions of the Branch Manager, he submitted the Unit Visit Report to Smt. Usha Vohra - the then Manager, Loan Department, and she had prepared the process note and submitted the recommendation to the Branch Manager with the terms and condition and sanction letter for his approval. It was only thereafter the revisionist sanctioned the loan .
7. It is very clear from the statement of this witness that neither the revisionist deputed or appointed Rameshwar Dayal as the valuer nor himself visited the mortgaged property but had acted in good faith only on the recommendation made by the senior officials of the Bank namely Smt. Usha Vohra - Manager, Loan Department and this witness, i.e. Shri SK Duggal, Sr. Manager, Loan Department. However, despite that the said Smt. Usha Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. State 3 of 6 Crl. Revision No. 44275/2016 Vohra or PW Shri SK Duggal were not made an accused and the latter has been cited as a witness whereas the revisionist who had acted on the report filed by them, has been arrayed as an accused in this case. The statement of this witness, as discussed above, would also show that accused Chetan Prakash never had any dealing with the revisionist during the whole process of sanctioning of the loan .
8. It is also a matter of record that the revisionist had sanctioned a loan of Rs. Five Lacs as against a recommended amount of Rs. Six Lacs and the remainder Rs. One Lac was disbursed under the orders of Shri SK Duggal on 11.3.1994 after obtaining a fresh valuation report from Shri VP Aneja - a panel valuer of the Bank who again gave a report confirming the ownership of accused Chetan Prakash in respect of the mortgaged property alongwith its value. This again shows that the revisionist had not committed any offence on his own or in conspiracy of any of the accused.
9. As per the procedure of the Bank , a valuation report can be called from any govt. approved valuer if no panel valuer is available. There is a letter on record issued by the Registrar, Council of Architecture, a statutory body constituted by the Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India under the Architect's Act, 1972, confirming the fact that Rameshwar Dayal was registered with them as an Architect/Valuer vide registration number CA/87/10693. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist provided copy of a letter written by the Dy. General Manager (Credit) dt. 04.10.1995, which suggests that there was no panel of valuer at the relevant time.
10. Apart from the aforesaid, the revisionist was a public servant Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. State 4 of 6 Crl. Revision No. 44275/2016 within the meaning of Section 21 IPC at the relevant time and as such sanction U/S 197 Cr. PC was required for his prosecution even after his retirement, as argued by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and rightly so, since the offences as alleged even if taken on the face value and if committed by the revisionist were so committed in discharge of his official duties. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment delivered in State Vs. Seetala Sahai & ors. 2009 (3) RCR (Cr.) 835 SC. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment that "whereas in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it would not be necessary to obtain sanction in respect of those who had ceased to be a public servant, but Section 197 Cr. PC requires sanction for those who were or are public servant".
Similarly, in State of Punjab Vs. Labh Singh 2015 (1) RCR (Crl.) 287 SC, it was held that "sanction for prosecution required even if the public servant had retired for offences under IPC. However, no sanction was required if the offence was under the Prevention of Corruption Act".
Similar view was echoed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghunath Anand Govilkar Vs. State of Maharastra 2008 (10 RCR (Crl.) 1043 SC, wherein again it was held that "if offence was committed by a public sservant during discharge of his official duty, sanction U/S 197 Cr. PC is mandatory for his prosecution and very cognizance is barred. The complaint cannot be taken notice of". It was further held that "such sanction is required even if he had retired from service".
11. Hence, in view of the above discussion , the charge ought not to Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. State 5 of 6 Crl. Revision No. 44275/2016 have been framed against the present revisionist either as per the evidence collected during the investigation or even legally and as such the impugned order on charge dt. 17.11.2012 directing framing of charge against revisionist Raj Kumar Sharma for the offence punishable under Section 420/468/471/120B IPC cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, revisionist Raj Kumar Sharma stands discharged in case FIR No. 153/2003 of PS New Usmanpur and shall be set at liberty. His personal bond and surety bond are also discharged.
12. It is made clear that the observations made herein above are confined only to the present revision and as against the present revisionist and shall not tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or as against any other accused of this case.
Trial Court Record be returned back to the concerned Court alongwith a copy of this Order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24th day of November 2016 (Sanjay SharmaI) Addl. Sessions Judge01 North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. State 6 of 6 Crl. Revision No. 44275/2016