Karnataka High Court
Vikranth S/O Vijaykumar Desunagi vs The State And Anr on 1 December, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200133/2020
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201635/2019
CRL.P.NO.200133/2020
BETWEEN:
K. MANJUNATH S/O K GOPALRAO
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE OF SBI
(FIELD OFFICER)
R/O PURUSHOTTAM APARTMENT
LADYHILL MANGALORE
DIST. MANGALORE-575008
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH
AFZALPUR POLICE STATION
DIST. KALABURAGI
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585107
2. SBI BANK MANAGER
MANNUR BRANCH, TQ. AFZALPUR
DIST.KALABURAGI-585246
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, AFZALPUR BY ITS
JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.2018 IN C.C.NO.259/2014, AND
FURTHER THE SAME BEING CONFIRMED BY THE III
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE AT GULBARGA, IN CRL.REV.PETITION
NO.115/2019 DATED 30.10.2019, AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
CRL.P. NO.201635/2019
BETWEEN:
VIKRANTH S/O VIJAYKUMAR DESUNAGI
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: NOW EMPLOYEE SBI
WORKING AT UTTAR KANNADA
R/O HOSUR, TQ. AFZALPUR
DIST: KALABURAGI-585302.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH
AFZALPUR POLICE STATION
DIST. KALABURAGI
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585107
2. THE MANAGER, SBI BANK
MANNUR BRANCH, TQ: AFZALPUR
DIST: KALABURAGI-585246.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT AFZALPUR BY ITS
JUDGMENT DATED: 09TH APRIL 2018 IN C.C.NO.259/2014, AND
FURTHER THE SAME BEING CONFIRMED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT GULBARGA, IN CRL.
TH
REVISION PETITION NO.103/2019 DATED 14 OCTOBER-2019,
AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These petitions are filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.259/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 419, 420 read with section 149 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
4
3. The factual matrix of the case is that these two petitioners are bank officials and working as Field Officers in the SBI bank in which the accused Nos.1 to 3 have availed the loan. The allegation against these petitioners is that even though they were working as Field Officers, joined hands with the accused Nos.1 to 3 and committed cheating without visiting the spot, without verifying the pahani extracts and without verifying the original documents recommended the bank to sanction the loan. Hence, complaint is given and police have investigated the matter and filed the chargesheet. The petitioners have approached the trial Court by making an application under section 239 of Cr.P.C., to discharge them from the charges leveled against them and the trial Court dismissed the application by coming to the conclusion that the chargesheet allegation is specific that these accused persons hand in glove with accused Nos.1 to 3 have recommended for sanction of loan without visiting the field and without verifying the records. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the application, Criminal Revision Petitions 5 Nos.115/2019 and 103/2019 were filed by the petitioners herein and the revisional Court also reconsidering the order passed by the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners being Field Officers at relevant point of time, have not verified the documents as well as the land which was sought to be mortgaged and recommended for sanctioning of the loan and hence, the Court cannot invoke section 239 of Cr.P.C., to discharge the accused. Hence, the present petitions are filed by accused Nos.4 and 5.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that absolutely there is no cogent or reliable material to connect these petitioners and mere negligence cannot be a ground to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the petitioners also would vehemently contend that Departmental Enquiry was conducted wherein these petitioners were censured. The learned counsel in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tiwari 6 vs. the Deputy Superintendent of Police EOW, CBI and Another reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.13 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court discussing other judgments came to the conclusion that if allegations in the departmental enquiry could not be proved on merit and the person is held to be innocent, the criminal prosecution on the said facts cannot be permitted to be continued on the underlying principle of criminal trial needing higher standard of poof. Exoneration of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry is not on technicalities but on merits as there was no evidence against the petitioner to drive home the charge. Therefore, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, in my considered view, the chances of the prosecution succeeding in the criminal trial being bleak, this Court cannot permit continuance of such criminal trial any further. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that once the petitioners were ordered to be censured, there cannot be any criminal prosecution against them. 7
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected material for having recommended for sanction of the loan by these petitioners and both the Courts have taken note of the said fact and rightly rejected the applications filed under section 239 of Cr.P.C., as the scope of section 239 of Cr.P.C., is very limited.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that documents relied upon by the Investigating Officer while filing the chargesheet is in respect of recommendation made for sanction and they being the responsible officers of the bank as Field Officers, it is their duty to go and inspect the spot and submit the report and the very designation of their jobs is to visit the spot and verify as to whether the said lands are in existence or not and then recommend for sanction of the loan. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the signature of these petitioners are 8 available on the particular records and recommended for sanction and hence, question of invoking section 239 of Cr.P.C., does not arise.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2, this Court has to consider the impugned orders. Having considered the impugned orders, the trial Court while exercising the power under section 239 of Cr.P.C., taken note of the charges leveled against the petitioners herein. The charges leveled against them are that though they were working as Field Officers of the bank, it is their duty to verify the original documents and to visit the land and examine the crop and also the extent of land the borrowers were holding but they did not do the same. In this regard in paragraphs-18 and 20 of the judgment of the Trial Court, the trial Court discussed in detail and came to the conclusion that it is not a fit case to exercise power under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and also in paragraph-22, 9 the trial Court discussed particularly about accused Nos.4 and 5 in detail. The revisional Court also on reconsideration of the material available on record in detail discussed the charges leveled against the petitioners herein. The fact that these petitioners were working as Field Officers at the relevant point of time when they recommended for sanction of loan is not in dispute. The very allegation against them is that they have not conducted any spot inspection and not verified the original documents and recommended for sanction of loan. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that from 1993 onwards, the extent of land in respect of accused Nos. 1 to 3 is shown as 4 acres hence, they cannot find fault with these petitioners and all these arguments cannot be accepted at the stage of filing the application for discharge and scope of discharge under section 239 of Cr.P.C., is very limited. The Court cannot hold a mini trial while considering the application and only look into the documents which have been filed along with 10 the chargesheet. The defence cannot be raised in discharge application.
8. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that these petitioners have recommended for sanction of loan and the specific allegation is that they did not visit the spot and did not verify the records and the extent of land they were in possession and without inspecting the spot, they have recommended for sanction of the loan. When such being the case and allegations are made and these are the disputed facts cannot be decided in a proceeding under section 482 of Cr.P.C., and I have already pointed out that scope of section 239 of Cr.P.C., is very limited. In a case where material is not collected, then Court can discharge the accused, if allegation made in the chargesheet is groundless, then the Court can exercise power under section 239 of Cr.P.C. Hence, I do not find any merit to exercise the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
11
ORDER The petitions are rejected. In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021 in Crl.P.No.200133/2020 for stay does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNR