Karnataka High Court
T. Bhojraj S/O Timmarayappa vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 23 January, 2023
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201084/2022
BETWEEN:
T. BHOJRAJ S/O TIMMARAYAPPA
AGE: 49 YEARS,
OCC: BANK EMPLOYEE,
R/O BEHIND GOVT. PU COLLEGE,
CHITRADURGA,
TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ISHWARAJ S. CHOWDAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH NETAJI NAGAR
P. S. RAICHUR,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH -585107
2. G.R. DESHPANDE
MANAGER,
PRAGATI GRAMEEN BANK,
JAWAHAR NAGAR
RAICHUR,
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R. HCGP FOR R1; R-2 SERVED)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 22-7-2022 PASSED IN CRL. REV. PETITION
No.37/2018 PASSED BY II ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS
JUDGE, RAICHUR AND TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
CC No.303/2013 FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 406, 468,
477(A), 420 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE CJM Court,
RAICHUR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Ishwaraj S. Chowdapur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :-
"Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased set aside the order dated 22-7-2022 passed in Crl. Rev. Petition No.37/2018 passed by II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Raichur and to quash the 3 proceedings in CC No.303/2013 for the offences U/s 406, 468, 477(A), 420 R/w 34 of IPC pending before CJM Court, Raichur, in the interest of justice."
3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the petition are as under :
Upon a complaint lodged by Sri G.R.Deshpande, Manager of Pragati Gramin Bank (for short 'Bank') of Jawahar Nagar Branch, police have registered a criminal case in Crime No.83/2012 on 01.12.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 468, 477A, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that on 08.01.2010, the petitioner being the Manager of the Bank Jawahar Nagar Branch, lent a loan of Rs.41,00,000/- to one Ravindra Babu and the security given is the paddy bags to the tune of 4100 bags each weighing 75 kgs. However, on surprise inspection of the godown, it is noted that only 3250 paddy bags 4 were found and balance 850 paddy bags were missing and the each bag valued at Rs.1,100/- and for missing 850 paddy bags, there was a misrepresentation thereby Bank was put to loss of security to the extent of Rs.9.35/- lakhs. Then after preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was put under suspension and internal enquiry was conducted and found that there was a direct nexus between the petitioner and the missing bags. Immediately thereafter the police registered the case and conducted detailed investigation and filed charge sheet and case is now pending in C.C.No.303/2013.
5. In the meantime, petitioner filed an application for discharge which was allowed by the learned Magistrate. State challenged the same in Criminal Revision Petition No.37/2018 before the learned Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge after securing the necessary records, heard the parties in 5 detail and found that grounds urged for discharge were not made out and mere pendency of the civil suit would not be of much consequence insofar as criminality alleged against the petitioner herein and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate discharging the accused and accused petitioner was directed to face criminal proceedings.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court with the following grounds:
"That, looking to the entire charge sheet, the offences do not constitute U/s 406, 468, 477(A), 420 and 34 of IPC.
That, the continuance of the proceedings in CC No.303/2013 is improper and illegal. The same is liable to be quashed.
That, the proceedings initiated in criminal are not just and proper. It is purely civil in nature.6
That, the complainant bank has filed the case against the accused No. 1 in Debt Recovery Tribunal in O.A. No. 518/2013 for recovery of balance loan amount with interest.
That, after verifying the go-down stock, the complainant bank has filed the criminal complaint after two years of inspecting the stock.
That, the petitioner has sanctioned the loan amount after consultation with higher authority. He has not misused the position for personal use.
That, the case of the prosecution does not reveal that the petitioner has forged particular document. The ingredients of Section 468 IPC are absent.
That, there is no dishonest intention of the petitioner or intent to defraud the employer before sanction of the loan amount. Hence, question of attracting of Section 406 and 477(A) of IPC does not arise.7
That, the complainant bank never
contended before the D.R.T. that the
accused No. 1 Ravindra Babu has cheated the bank by giving a false declaration.
That, to prove Section 406 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that the complainant bank has entrusted the property with accused No.2/petitioner and he has dishonestly misappropriated the property in violation of any specific direction. The petitioner has sanctioned the loan on the documents given by accused No. 1. Hence looking to the allegation against the petitioner, charge U/s 406 of IPC is not attracted.
That, it is not the case of prosecution that the petitioner has used money or property for his personal use.
That, the IO has registered the case and filed the charge sheet against the petitioner with a malafide intention.
That, the complainant bank has filed the case before D.R.T. in O.A. No. 518/2013 8 against the accused No.1 for recovery of balance loan amount. The initiation of criminal proceedings in any manner will be abuse of process of the court. Hence the proceedings are liable to be quashed."
7. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Sri Ishwaraj S. Chowdapur, vehemently contended that petitioner is not responsible for missing bags and few of the bags were already sold for recovery of loan and therefore, in the absence of any clinching evidence showing that the petitioner had infact lent the loan without there being sufficient security obtained on behalf of the Bank, proceedings against the petitioner for the criminal action would result in affecting the rights of the petitioner and sought for allowing the petition.
8. He also pointed out that Bank has already filed necessary civil proceedings for recovery of the outstanding loan and continuation of the criminal case 9 would amount to parallel action and in order to coerce him to agree for illegal demand of the Bank, false criminal case has been foisted against the petitioner herein and sought for quashing of the criminal proceedings.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition grounds by contending that admittedly on surprise inspection, 850 paddy bags were missing in the godown. On documents, it is mentioned that 4100 paddy bags weighing each bag in 75kgs was taken as security for lending loan of Rs.41.00 lakhs. Petitioner being the Manager of the Bank, Jawahar Nagar Branch, Raichur District was directly responsible for keeping the proper security in proper form till the loan is repaid. However, during the course of surprise inspection, the petitioner as noted above, has been found guilty, prima facie, by the higher officials of the very same Bank and a discrete 10 enquiry has been conducted by the higher officials and the paddy bags were missing and therefore, sanction was given to prosecute the petitioner.
10. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge reversing the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate is predominantly justified and sought for dismissal of the petition.
11. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal, it is evident that learned Magistrate did not consider the case of the prosecution in proper perspective and discharged the accused from criminal charges.
13. However, learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No.37/2018 has clearly held that documents produced along with charge sheet and 11 the statements of CWs.1 to 20 on bare perusal would go to show that a sum of Rs.41.00 lakhs was lent by the petitioner to Sri Ravindra Babu on the existing scheme by taking the paddy bags as security.
14. Admittedly, it is a short term loan in order to facilitate the farmers to fetch the maximum price in the market, therefore, paddy in the raw form was taken as security. According to the loan documents, 4100 bags were to be kept as security with Bank Jawahar Nagar, Raichur in godown for lending the loan of Rs.41.00 lakhs. However, in the surprise inspection, higher officials of the Bank visited the godown and noticed that there was shortage of 850 bags.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that some of the bags were weighing less and some of the bags were sold by the Bank for recovery of the amount and therefore, petitioner is not responsible for shortage of 850 bags. 12 However, material on record in the form of charge sheet clearly shows that sale of the paddy bags have been taken place subsequent to the inspection and not earlier.
16. These aspects of the matter prima facie establish nexus between the petitioner and shortage of the bags and thereby, the petitioner has suffered for want of security to the tune of Rs.9.35 lakhs. Therefore, prima facie, material would indicate that there is criminality in the act committed by the petitioner which would warrant for the petitioner to face trial.
17. Further, very settlement of the civil dispute would not itself efface the criminality as is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.
13
18. Thus, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that no grounds are made out to quash the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge reversing the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate.
19. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER Criminal Petition is dismissed.
However, dismissal of this petition and the reasons assigned by this Court is only for the disposal of the present petition and shall not affect the rights of accused during trial.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNR