Jharkhand High Court
Subrato Sengupta vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 18 November, 2017
Author: Anant Bijay Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 2667 of 2017
Subrato Sengupta ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Superintendent of Police, EOWR., C.B.I.,Ranchi
...... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
For the Petitioner: Ms. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate
For the C.B.I : Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo, S.C
C.A.V on: 06/11/2017 Pronounced on: 18/11/2017
1. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C.
09(S) 2014EOWR for the offence initially registered under sections 120 (B),
r/w 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of complaint lodged
by Shri Neeraj Raja Singh, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch,
City Centre, SectorIV, Bokaro Steel City 827004 addressed to one S.K. Khare,
Superintendent of Police/ C.B.I, EOW, Ranchi alleging as follows:
(i.) That State Bank of India, SME Branch, Ranchi has given loan to M/s
Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd, located at Demotand, District Hazaribagh.
(ii) It is further alleged that the company was promoted by Sri Vivek
Pratap Singh, Sri Uday Pratap Singh and its its banking relationship with State
Bank of India started at Commercial Branch, Ranchi (SME Branch, Ranchi).
Subsequently, at the request of the borrower, the account was transfered to SME
Branch, Bokaro as such the present branch ie. SME Bokaro has filed the
complaint in this regard.
(iii) It is further alleged that the loan was sanctioned to the above named
unit but subsequently declared N.P.A on 28.11.2011 and since there was no
recovery in the loan account to the tune of Rs. 15.22 crores plus accrued interest
calculated till July, 2013 and as such the matter was transferred to Stresses
Assets Management Branch, Patna for hard recovery measures.
(iv) It is further alleged that the accounts of the Company having been
2
declared N.P.A and having been transferred to SAMB, Patna for hard recovery
SAMB, Patna proceeded further under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as under:
Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd--Present outstanding Rs. 15.22 crores. Notice
u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 27.12.2011 and possession
notice under section 13(4) was issued on 13.08.2012 and the same was
challenged by the unit for the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in S.A. No. 96 of
2012.
(v) It is further alleged that due to intervention of Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Ranchi in th above case recovery was not proceeded but in the
meantime, N.P.A. Resolution Agent M/s Vision had taken possession of the land
and properties of the Company which were mortgaged to the State Bank of
India, M/s Vision advised vide its letter NO. VFBS/38/201213 dated
07.03.2013that few properties of M/s Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd located at Demotand, District Hazaribagh mortgaged to the Bank vide sale deed Nos. 2327 dated 09.05.2009 and 2194 dated 04.03.2009 were found to be fake property and such could not be located and on such reporting by the agency M/s Vision, the matter was referred to by SAMB, Patna to local Head office, SBI, Patna for investigation. The DGM (Vigilance) ordered an investigation into the matter and they submitted their report on the mortgaged properties for M/s Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd. as under;
M/s Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd: The property of this unit was mortgaged to the Bank by deposit of following sale deeds: Sale Deed No. 2327 dated 09.03.2009 , Sale Deed No. 2194 of 04.03.2009 which represent fake property as per legal opinion dated 05.10.2013 of advocate Sri Rajendra Kumar Chopra and according to his opinion the mortgagor Sri Vivek Pratap Singh neither has possession nor ownership. The valuation report of the above mentioned property at the time of original sanction was given by Sri Dinesh Chand of 433 A.P. 3 Colony Gaya, the legal opinion for the same was given by Sri Pandey Ratneshwari Prasad of 146, A.P. Colony, Gaya, Sri Tarkeshwar Rana.
(vi) It is further alleged that the Investigating Officer of the Bank has pointed out certain doubts on the integrity of the above Panel Advocates those who have given their opinion and also on the Govt. approved Valuer who submitted the valuation report.
(vii) It is further alleged that it is apparent from the report that the property as mortgaged to the Bank against such public debt is fake and based on forged documents and as such big forgery has been committed by the Company and its promoters and a total amount of Rs. 15.52 crores plus interest has been misappropriated. On the basis. On the basis of these allegations the instant case has been instituted.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that that the petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. Further, it has been submitted that it the petitioner is a bank official and was then functioning as RMME (Relationship Manager Medium Enterprises) and the basic responsibility was to build good relationship with the borrowers so the business of the bank is enhanced. The role to be played as RMME was limited to marketing, appraisal and assessment jointly with CSO along with presentation before the sanctioning authority for the sanction of the proposal and after getting sanction signing the sanction letter prepared by the CSO and then allowing the disbursement when the same has been recommended by C.S,O.
3. It is further submitted that the allegation that the petitioner did not conduct the presanction survey is false and incorrect because as per the Bank extant rules and regulations no presanction is required for the promoter who has successful and satisfactorily running accounts at the relevant point of time. Further, presanction is not the sole responsibility of the petitioner who was 4 acting a RMME: instead the same is joint responsibility of the entire RMME:
team which has to be subsequently approved by the competent sanctioning authority. The role of RMMI, it is the duty to present proposals for sanction before the competent authority.
Petitioner is merely an officer who makes presentation before the competent sanctioning authority comprising of three officers of AGAM rank and the same is chaired by DGM.
It is after the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority that the subject loan is sanctioned and disbursed and as such the petitioner has not role in the same, expect presenting the same.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner violated the norms by preparing a favourable due diligence report on the basis of which loan accounts had been transferred from SBI, C.B. Ranchi to S.B.I, C.B Bokaro is incorrect and false as the same chargesheet substantiates that coaccused Murari Prasad Barnwal drafted the application in his handwriting for transfer of loan accounts of M/s Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd. from S.B.I, C.B. Ranchi to S.B.I C.B. Bokaro. This was done in order to favour the coaccused cum beneficiary Vivek Pratap Singh in connivance with Murari Prasad Baranwal as Murari Prasad was transferred from Ranchi to Bokaro Branch and so the act speaks for itself.
5. Further, it has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the allegation that the petition has made appraisal and assessment for the enhancement of the loan is incorrect as because petitioner is not the sanctioning authority and the proposals were moved as per the Banks extant formats filled in with relevant date and information which is to be sanctioned by the circle committee after full and proper satisfaction.
6. It is further submitted that the allegation that the petitioner did not verify the balance sheet and made appraisal on the basis of false reports is false 5 and incorrect because as per the banks extant rules the same was introduced and updated on 31.03.2012. The said rule dated 31.03.2012 provided for ABS to be verified by ROC, prior to that the guideline was clear that the balance sheet to be audited and hence the same was accepted as per the policy of the bank.
7. It is also submitted that that the petitioner had accepted inflated valuation reports as well as investigation reports in conspiracy with them is false and incorrect to the extent that the petitioner had no connection whatsoever with the valuer and valuation reports is the primary responsibility of the valuer who is the author of the aforesaid document. The valuer is a government approved valuer and the same is paneled in the list of bank. Further, valuation report is a part of documentation and again it is the responsibility of CSO as per the banks extant rules who has to make arrangement for the same.
8. It is further submitted that that since 2006 to 2009 every year the aforesaid loan accounts were audited and inspected and so all the files/documents/reports/bills/challans/notes/proposals were throughly audited and no adverse comments or remarks were received or made on any of the accounts. The foundation of C.B.I's chargesheet is unsustainable as gairmazarua khas land has been termed as government land, whereas it is supposed to be the then landlorad's property.
9. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been a victim of fraud committed by the loan beneficiaryVivek Pratap Singh and the sanctioning competent authority. The petitioner is merrely an agent in the entire process of sanction and disbursement of loan between the accused Vivek Pratap Singh who is the beneficiary and the competent sanctioning authorities. He acted in good faith and his reports were confined to what could be made out from the documents produced. He was never a party to any conspiracy or plan to defraud 6 the bank.
10. Further, it has been submitted that C.B.I after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet vide ChargeSheet No. 4/2015 under sections 120B read with section 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C and under section 12 & 13 (2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act and cognizance has been taken by the court of Sri Diwakar Pandey, Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi under the same sections, trial will take some time. Further, it has been submitted that during course of investigation the petitioner has fully cooperated the C.B.I and he has appeared before the C.B.I as and when required and his statement has been recorded. The petitioner has been never been arrested by the C.B.I. It is submitted that coaccusedVivek Pratap Singh seems to have defrauded the bank by obtaining loan for his different business entities, which have led to initiation of 5 criminal cases, including the present one. So, considering all these facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail.
11. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and referred to the materials collected by the C.B.I during course of investigation which are as follows:
Subrato Sengupta(petitioner) did not conduct the presanction in respect of land mentioned in Sale Deed No. 9286 dated 09.06.2006, on which factory of M/s Renuka Industries was constructed. He did not conduct the PSS of proposed mortgaged properties at the time of enhancement of cash credit limit and term loan.
The petitioner in connivance with Vivek Pratap Singh accepted the two fake collateral securities vide sale deed No.s 2194 dated 04.03.2009 and 2327 dated 09.03.2009 with the bank for enhancement of loan facilities, which were actual Government Land. As per bank's norm, the bank officer had to examine the suitability of the site selected with reference to the surrounding 7 topographical features, availability of powers, nearness of railhead etc. The petitionerSubrato Sengupta violated this rule by preparing favourable due diligence report on the basis of which loan accounts had been transferred from S.B.I C,B, Ranchi to S.B.I, C.B. Bokaro. He accepted and considered the w rong and enhanced balance sheet submitted by vivek Pratap Singh without verifying it in the office of ROC at the time of renewal/enhancement of the credit facilities. Subrato Sengupta without verifying balance sheet prepared appraisal/assessment report on the basis of which loan was enhanced. It is found during investigation that company was shown in loss in the balance sheet submitted in the bank. Subrato Sengupta did not conduct presanction inspectin of the security offered for mortgage beforre enhancement of loan. Subrato Sengupta in collusion with Vivek Pratap Singh, loan documents have been executed in his presence in which Kishore Kumar Mohapatra made signatures of Uday pratap Singh and Vivek Pratap Singh made signatures of Smt. Renuka Singh. Subrato Sengupta fraudulently and dishonestly and with ulterior motive did not collect the invoices of plant and machineries.
The petitioner did not ensure the end use of term loan amount since, he did not collect the invoices and fund have been diverted by Vivek Pratap Singh. Subrato Sengupta by abusing his official position favoured Vivek Pratap Singh in availing the loan facilities and in lieu of that obtained illegal gratification from Vivek Pratap Singh. He was knowing that Vivek Pratap Singh was maintaining parallel accounts of Axis Bank, inusind Bank and PNB, Hazaribag in the name of his company M/s Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd, but he did not take any action. He in connivance with Vivek Pratap Singh accepted higher value of collateral security for preparation of appraisal report in respect of collateral securities. He did not ensure the end use of Bank's fund.
The petitioner dishonestly and fraudulently accepted the false 8 money receipt/invoices submitted by Vivek Pratap Singh. He did not verify any money receipts, submitted by Vivek PratapSingh, all of which turned out to be fake. He dishonestly did not verify/collected the bills/invoice of plant and machinery, which resulted in diversion of loan amount. He disbursed the cash credit limit without making any project implementation report.
The petitioner dishonestly accepted the conditional Title Investigation Report dated 10.06.2009 of Pande Ratneshwari Prasad, Advocate in respect of two landed properties mentioned in sale deed nos. 2194 and 2327 which has been found to be Govt. land. He appraised the enhancement proposal although no sale proceeds has been routed in the account. He did not ensure the verification of collateral securities, before taking the valuation amount in the appraisal, although the format required to do so. He obtained illegal gratification from the promoter in his S/B/Account at Axis Bank Ltd, Hazaribagh. Therefore, Subrato Sengupta in criminal conspiracy with other accused persons, abused his official position as public servant and obtained illegal gratification for himself and cheated the Bank. Learned standing counsel for the C.B.I has submitted that quidproquo has been proved against the petitioner. So, considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.
12. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the C.B.I, material collected by the C.B.I against this petitioner, admittedly petitionerSubrato Sengupta being the bank official/public servant instead of protecting interest of the bank has conspired with accused Vivek Pratap Singh and further helped him to obtain bank loan which has become now Rs. 35 crores, evidence of quidproquo has been collected against this petitioner and further five cases has been instituted against this petitioner being, (i) 0932014S00011(S)/2014CBIEOWR (ii) RC0932014S0008(S)/2014 9 CBIEOWR (iii) R.C. 10(S) 2014EOWR (iv) R.C. 09(S) 2014EOWR (v) RC 12(S)/2014(EOWR) in which final form has been submitted, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to this petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/