Bangalore District Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Sri.S.R Pathak on 4 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE (CCH.34)
Dated This the 4th day of March, 2017
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri.Pradeep S. Balikai, B.Com., LL.B (Spl.).,
XXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore.
Spl.C.C.No.46/2004
COMPLAINANT:- Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Branch, Bangalore.
(Rep. By Spl. Public Prosecutor)
-Vs-
ACCUSED:- 1. Sri.S.R Pathak,
S/o.S.R Gopala Pathak,
HIG, No.980, 9th A Main, I Cross,
Vivekanandanagar, Mysore.
-Also Officer, Main Branch, Bank of India,
K.G.Road, Bangalore.
2. Sri.R.S.Murali,
S/o.R.Srinivasa Iyengar,
No.370, Chellaramba Agrahara,
Besides Kaveri Lodge,
Mysore.
-Also Officer, Richmond Town Branch,
Bank of India, Bangalore.
3. Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah,
S/o.Late S.A.Gangappa,
No.205, 25th Cross, III Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore.
4. Lalithamma, W/o.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah,
(Since dead - Proceedings abated vide
Order Dt.30.7.2012)
2 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004
5. Smt.Manjula S.Karadagi,
W/o.Shivakumar K.V.,
No.671, 17th 'C" Main, 6th Block,
Koramangala, Bangalore.
(A.1 & A.2 - By Sri.B.J.Prakash Singh, Adv.)
(A.3 & A.5 -By Sri.K.B.Shiva Kumar, Adv.)
Date of commission of the : During 1996-97
offence/s
Date & time of Report of : 26.09.1998 at 14.45 Hrs.
the offence/s RC No.27(A)/1998
Offences charged : U/sec.120(B) r/w.Secs.420, 468
& 471 of I.P.C. and u/sec.13(2)
r/w. Sec. 13(1)(d) of the
P.C.Act, 1988
Name of the Complainant : -Source Information.
Date of arrest of the : Accused are on Bail.
accused
Period undergone in J.C. : --
by the Accused
Date of commencement of : 09.11.2009
the evidence
Date of closure of the : 20.03.2015
evidence
Final Verdict : All the accused acquitted.
(Pradeep.S.Balikai)
XXXII Addl.City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge for
CBI cases, Bangalore.
3 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/BNG., has filed this Charge Sheet against the accused alleging that they have committed the offences punishable u/sec.120(B) r/w.Secs.420, 468 & 471 of I.P.C. and Sec.13(2) r/w.Sec.13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Succinctly stated the prosecution case is:-
Based on credible information received from a reliable source, the CBI/SPE/BNG registered RC.No.27(A)/1998 Dt.25.9.1998 against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and one Sri.S.S.K.Aradhya, Staff Officer, Bank of India, Mysore Br., Mysore. It is alleged that during the period between 1996-97 these accused entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves and some private persons to cheat the Bank of India, Mysore Br., Mysore in the matter of sanctioning and availing certain credit facilities from the said Bank. Accused Nos.3 to 5 are the Partners of Akshaya Graphics, Mysore. Akshaya Graphics is engaged in manufacturing of printed Circuit Boards and Capacitors. A.1/Sri.S.R.Pathak and A.2/Sri.R.S.Murali while functioning as Public Servants in 4 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 their capacities as Manager and Dy.Manager (Cr), Bank of India, Mysore Br., Mysore, in conspiracy with the Borrower/A.3 - Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah - a Partner of Akshaya Graphics, Mysore, conspiring with other Partners of the Firm cheated the Bank in the matter of sanctioning and disbursing Term Loan and Cash Credit Loan amounting to Rs.24.80 lakhs. In furtherance of criminal conspiracy, A.1 by abusing his official position, dishonestly, by violating the Bank's prescribed guidelines, sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.11.80 lakhs to Akshaya Graphics for the purpose of purchase of machinery and for expanding the Factory Building; apart from sanctioning a Cash Credit facility of Rs.13 lakhs. Further, at the time of sanction of loans, the Partners of Akshaya Graphics/A.3 to A.5 jointly executed a 'Declaration' Dt.31.7.1996 to Bank of India, Mysore Br., Mysore stating that neither they individually nor jointly have any liability from any other Bank or financial institutions in the name of Akshaya Graphics. A.1 & A.2 without verifying the genuineness of the 'Declaration' submitted by the Partners of Akshaya Graphics disbursed the loan as sought. Investigation revealed that Akshaya Graphics had already 5 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 obtained certain loans in the year 1995 from one Sri.Ganashamdas Shamlal (P.W.7) and from a Firm - M/s.Munish Investment to the tune of Rs.2.93 lakhs. Investigation conducted also disclosed that as Akshaya Graphics was unable to pay back the debts, civil suits were filed against the Firm in this connection before the City Civil Court, Bangalore. Investigation also disclosed that A.1 & A.2 approved the Quotation of M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation, Bangalore which was projected as the supplier of machineries to Akshaya Graphics. The Proprietrix of M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation is none other than A.4 herself and it was disclosed that M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation was having an A/c. with Indian Overseas Bank, Shanthinagar Br., Bangalore. In the investigation it was found that a D.D towards the cost of machineries for Rs.7,15,200/- was deposited at the said Bank and subsequently, the amount was withdrawn. It was also found that M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation was neither engaged in the manufacture of the machineries nor it supplied any machinery to Akshaya Graphics, Mysore. A D.D for Rs.1 lakh obtained from Bank of India, Mysore Br., Mysore 6 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 which was meant towards installation charges of the machineries at Akshaya Graphics in favour of M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation has been deposited on 24.10.1996 in the A/c. of M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation at State Bank of Mysore, Kanakapura Road Br., Bangalore. It was also found during investigation that A.5 had availed certain loan from State Bank of Mysore, Kanakapura Br., Bangalore vide loan A/c.No.SIB-61 and the same was closed with the funds obtained from the Term Loan and Cash Credit Account of Akshaya Graphics sanctioned from Bank of India, Mysore Br., Mysore. Further, A.1 & A.2 did not ensure the arrival of machineries and deliberately concealed the fictitious nature of M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation. In the investigation it was found that A.3/Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah is the GPA holder of M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation. A.3/Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah was the Proprietor of M/s.Shiva Constructions, Mysore. Further, in the investigation it was found that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy an amount of Rs.5,16,074/- was paid to M/s.Shiva Constructions, Mysore, from the Term Loan Account of Akshaya Graphics, towards construction of additional 7 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 building. It was also found that M/s.Shiva Constructions is a non existing firm which has siphoned off the entire amount by just opening a new Current A/c. at State Bank of Mysore, Brindavan Extension Branch, Mysore. The Public Servants/A.1 & A.2, conspiring with the other accused allowed to obtain a D.D for Rs.2,50,000/- on 23.10.1996 in favour of M/s.PAN Electronics. M/s.PAN Electronics had opened an A/c. at State Bank of Mysore, Kanakapura Road Br., Bangalore in the name of A.3/Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah and after depositing the D.D in this A/c., the entire amount has been withdrawn by Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah/A.3 only. The Bank officers/A.1 & A.2 utterly failed to protect the interest of Bank and did not ensure the end use of the money out of the loan account. They suppressed the facts during their joint Sanction Inspection Reports Dt.20.11.1996 & 28.2.1997 (Exs.P.37 & P.38) about the machineries and the stage of the building. Further, A.1 violated Bank's prescribed guidelines and did not get the Viability Report from the Technical Industrial Consultancy Division (TICD) of Bank of India before sanctioning loan for the said Unit. Thus, the act committed by the accused here has caused a wrongful loss to the tune 8 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 of Rs.24.80 lakhs plus interest to the Bank of India, Mysore Br., Mysore and corresponding wrongful gain for themselves. As such, prosecution alleges that all the accused have committed the offences u/sec.120(B) r/w.Secs.420, 468 & 471 of I.P.C., and Sec.13(2) r/w.Sec.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The I.O has laid the Charge Sheet for the offences levelled against the accused on 20.12.1999 before the III Addl. Dist. and Sessions Court, Mysore (designated court to try PC cases) and it is numbered as Spl.C.C.No.3/2000. The Charge Sheet discloses that as the investigation carried by the I.O did not reveal complicity of Sri.S.S.K.Aradhya, S/o.Somaradhya in committing the offences, he has not been sent for trial. After filing the Charge Sheet, summons were sent for the appearance of accused and in response to the summons, all the accused have entered appearance before the court through their counsel. Copies of the Charge Sheet papers were furnished to the accused as contemplated u/sec.207 of Cr.P.C. As required u/sec.19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the I.O has produced the 9 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 required Sanction Orders in Ex.P.159 to prosecute A.1/Sri.S.R.Pathak and in Ex.P.160 to prosecute A.2/Sri.R.S.Murali, both Sanction Orders Dt.16.12.1999. P.W.16 is the Sanctioning Authority to prosecute the Public Servants/A.1 and A.2.
4. Subsequent to filing of the Charge Sheet before the designated court, in view of the Notification No.RSB.183/2003 Dt.22.9.2003 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, this case was transferred to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysore for disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter, in view of the Notification No.HD 209.PCR.2003 Dt.1.12.2003 of the Karnataka Government Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha and the Office Order No.ADMN/A/11808/2003 Dt.22.12.2003 of the Prl.Dist & Sessions Judge, Mysore, the said case stood transferred to this court for disposal in accordance with law. The parties were directed to appear before this court without further notice on 20.2.2004.
5. Upon transfer of this case, the said case is renumbered as Spl.C.C.No.46/2004. All the accused have 10 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 advanced arguments praying for their discharge from the case and the prayer for discharge was negatived by this court vide Order Dt.26.8.2009. The matter was taken up before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 by preferring Crl.Rev.petition Nos.5878/2009 & 5295/2009 and the Hon'ble High Court, vide its Order Dt.1.8.2013 has proceeded to dispose off the Criminal Petitions declining to set aside the charges framed by this court as well as the prayer made to quash the proceedings initiated by the complainant.
6. The entire case levelled against the accused has been denied in toto on Charges being framed by this court and the accused have claimed to be tried for the offences. Thereafter, prosecution was called upon to prove the case levelled against the accused.
7. To prove the offences levelled against the accused, prosecution has got examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and relied on the documents marked in Exs.P.1 to P.161. Subsequently, Statement of the accused is recorded by the court as 11 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 provided u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. No defence evidence is led by the accused and no documents are marked for the accused.
8. A.4/C.Lalithamma W/o.Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah is reported to have died on 15.5.2012 and this proceeding against her is abated vide Order Dt.30.7.2012.
9. Heard arguments at length.
10. The points that arise for my consideration in the case are :-
1) Whether Prosecution proves that the Sanction Orders in Exs.P.159 & P.160 issued by the Sanctioning Authority for the prosecution of A.1 & A.2 are valid & legal one?
2) Whether Prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that during the period between 1996-97, A.1 being the Br.Manager & A.2 being the Dy.Manager (Cr), BOI, Br. Mysore, entered into criminal conspiracy among themselves & 12 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 with A.3 to A.5; with dishonest & fraudulent intention to cheat the Bank, in the matter of sanctioning and availing Term Loan & Cash Credit limits, with an intention to cause wrongful gain to A.3 to A.5 and corresponding loss to the Bank & A.3 to A.5 jointly executed a "Declaration" to the Bank stating that neither of them individually nor jointly have any liability from any other Bank/Financial Institutions in the name of Akshaya Graphics and further, A.1 & A.2 by abusing their official position, dishonestly by violating Bank's prescribed guidelines sanctioned the loan sought without verifying the genuineness of the "Declaration" and without verifying the fact about Akshaya Graphics having obtained loan from private person/P.W.7 and a Firm M/s.Munish Investment and for having failed to pay back the debts, 13 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 though knowing that civil suits are pending for recovery of the loan amount, released the loan and thereby cheated the Bank and committed the offences u/sec.120(B) r/w.sec.420 of I.P.C?
3) Whether Prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that A.1 & A.2 by abusing their official position, entered into criminal conspiracy among themselves & with A.3 to A.5 and in furtherance of conspiracy A.1 & A.2 approved the Quotation of M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corpn., projected as the supplier of machineries to Akshaya Graphics, knowing well that A.4 is the Proprietrix of M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corpn. and A.3 is her GPA and further, M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corpn. is neither a manufacturer nor supplier of the machineries, allowed 14 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 them to withdraw the loan amount/s sanctioned by the Bank, by which amount A.5 closed the loan A/c. obtained earlier from the SBM, Kanakapura Br. Bangalore and both the Public Servants even didn't ensure the arrival of machineries in the Firm and deliberately concealed the fictitious nature of - M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corpn. and further, the Public Servants allowed A.3 to obtain a sum of Rs.5,16,074/- towards payment to M/s.Shiva Constructions from the Term Loan A/c. whose Proprietor is none other than A.3 and knowing that it was a non existing Firm and further they even allowed A.3 to obtain a DD for Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of M/s.PAN Electronics whose Proprietor is none other than A.3 only and they didn't ensure the end use of the loan amount sanctioned and both the Public Servants 15 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 violated the Bank's prescribed guidelines, even without getting the Viability Report from the TICD of the Bank before the sanction of the loan and thereby they committed the offences u/sec.120(B) r/w.secs.468 & 471 of I.P.C.?
4) Whether Prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that during the period between 1996-97 A.1 being the Br.Manager & A.2 being the Dy.Manager (Cr), BOI, Br. Mysore, by use of corrupt or illegal means or by using their position as Public Servants, obtained for A.3 to A.5 pecuniary advantage comprising of granting of Term Loan of Rs.11.80 lakhs and also Cash Credit facility of Rs.13 lakhs violating Bank's prescribed guidelines and without obtaining the Viability Report from TICD of the Bank and thereby committed the offence 16 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 u/sec.13(2) r/w.sec.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
5) What Order?
11. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the 'Affirmative'.
Point No.2 : In the 'Negative' Point No.3 : In the 'Negative' Point No.4 : In the 'Negative' Point No.5 : 'As per final Order' for the following:-
REASONS
12. Point No.1:- Learned Counsel representing A.1 & A.2 contends that prosecution has miserably failed to prove that there is valid Sanction Order accorded by the competent authority to prosecute these accused for the offences levelled. It is his further contention that the Sanction Orders obtained by the Prosecution, produced at Ex.P.159 & P.160 are not valid Sanction Orders as provided u/sec.19 of the P.C.Act and the same does not empower this court to take cognizance and prosecute A.1 & A.2 - the 17 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Public Servants, for the offences charged. It is true that an order of Sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner. But, it is also well settled that the purpose for which an order of Sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind. Ordinarily, the Sanctioning Authority is the best person to judge as to whether the Public Servant concerned should receive the protection under the Act by refusing to accord sanction for his prosecution or not. For this purpose, indisputably, application of mind on the part of the Sanctioning Authority is imperative. The Order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the Sanctioning Authority.
13. Here P.W.16/Sri.K.Nagaraju has granted the requisite Sanction Orders to prosecute the Bank officers. It is not in dispute here that P.W.16 was working as the Chief Regional Manager of Bank of India, Bangalore from the years 1999-2000. P.W.16 has stated in his evidence that he knows A.1 & A.2 who were working as the Br., Manager and the Dy.Manager(Credit) at Mysore Br., of Bank of India. At the 18 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 relevant period he was the competent person to remove these Bank officers from service. During the year 1999 he was requested by the CBI to accord Sanction Orders to prosecute A.1 & A.2. He was furnished with copies of the FIR, Statement of the witnesses as well as investigation report. He went through the same and having applied his mind he accorded the Sanction Orders to prosecute A.1 & A.2 for the offences charged. He identifies that Ex.P.159 is the Sanction Order to prosecute A.1 and Ex.P.160 is the Sanction Order to prosecute A.2, both Dt.16.12.1999. Ex.P.159(a) and Ex.P.160(a) are the signatures of the witness.
14. The prosecution has also examined P.W.13 as an additional witness who is the Chief Manager, Zonal Office, Bank of India, Bangalore. Through him, the prosecution has got marked copy of Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 in Ex.P.154. Ex.P.153 is the Certificate u/sec.65 of the Evidence Act. Ex.P.152 is the Letter of BOI Dt.7.8.2014 addressed to the court. The relevant portion in the document marked in 19 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Ex.P.154 showing the Disciplinary Authorities mentioned at Sl.No.2 of the document is marked as Ex.P.154(a).
15. Learned counsel representing A.1 & A.2, drawing my attention to the oral evidence of both PWs.13 & 16 and referring to the Sanction Orders placed before the court marked in Ex.P.159 & P.160 contends that there is no application of mind before according the requisite Sanction Orders to prosecute A.1 & A.2 and there is hardly anything brought out before the court to show that before according the requisite Sanction Orders there is application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority to prosecute the Public Servants/A.1 & A.2. Reliance is placed by the counsel representing A.1 & A.2 on the below mentioned decisions.
(i) 1982 Crl.L.J. P.720 (Deewan Chand Vs. State)
(ii) 2007 SAR (Crl)(SC) P.845 (State of Karnataka Vs. Ameer Jan)
(iii) 2000(5) Kar.L.J P.17 (J.S.Sathyanarayana (Deceased by LRs & Anr. Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Madikere.
(iv) 1985 Crl.L.J. P.1971 (Ori) (Md.Tafazul Rahman Vs. State of Orissa)
(v) 2010(2) KCCR P.1010 (Babappa Vs. State by Lokayuktha Police, Gulbarga).20 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004
(vi) 2000(3) Crimes (AP) P.555 (Mohd.Jaffrullah Khan & Anr. Vs.State Inspector of Police, ACB Range, Hyderabad.
(vii) 2015 SAR (Crl) P.939 SC (Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka) I have perused the principle enunciated in the aforesaid decisions. Point of law laid down in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the accused cannot be disputed here.
16. It is the contention of learned counsel for A.1 & A.2 that the Sanction Orders in Ex.P.159 & 160 does not contain the names of the prosecution witnesses and the documents relied upon and considered by the Sanctioning Authority at the time of according sanction to prosecute A.1 & A.2. It is also contended that the statements of none of the witnesses cited by the Prosecution and the documents placed before the court were considered by the Sanctioning Authority and totally there is no application of mind in according the Sanction Orders. The Prosecution ought to have examined the Sanctioning Authority and asked to produce the original Sanction File. The original Sanction File has not been produced before this court and as such, adverse 21 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 inference has to be drawn against the Prosecution. On cumulative consideration of the oral evidence of P.W.13 & P.W.16 it can be very well concluded that the Sanctioning Authority was not furnished with any materials in the case and the Sanction Orders in Ex.P.159 & 160 are issued in a mechanical manner without application of mind. My attention is drawn to the principle laid down in the decision of Ameer Jan (supra) in respect of non production of the entire record containing the materials collected against the accused before according the Sanction Orders.
17. P.W.16 has categorically stated in his evidence that he went through the Statements of the witnesses, FIR and other investigating materials placed before him and accorded the Sanction Orders as requested by the CBI. In para No.8 of his evidence, on page No.4, he denies a suggestion that Ex.P.159 & P.160 were furnished to him just to incorporate his name & designation on the dotted lines and he blindly signed on the Sanction Orders in a mechanical manner. P.W.13 has categorically stated in his evidence that the Disciplinary Authority is also vested with powers to 22 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 remove the Officers in Scale III of the Bank, mentioned at Ex.P.154(a).
18. I have gone through the evidence of P.W.13 and P.W.16. I have also perused the Sanction Orders in Ex.P.159 and P.160. I have perused the document produced by the prosecution at Ex.P.154. Though P.W.16 has stated in his cross-examination, in para No.5 that the Board is competent to appoint the Officers and the Manager of the Bank, Sec.19(1)(c) of the P.C.Act contemplates that previous sanction of the Authority competent to remove such person from the office is essential to prosecute a Public Servant. It is specifically deposed by P.W.16 in his evidence that at the relevant point of time he being the Chief Regional Manager, Bank of India, Bangalore, he was competent person to remove A.1 & A.2/the Bank Officers from service. Added to it, as rightly pointed out by the learned Spl.P.P and as held in the decision on which reliance is placed reported in AIR 1979 SC P.677 (Mohd.Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of A.P) proving of a valid Sanction Order to prosecute a public servant can be done in two ways; (i) either by producing the 23 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 original Sanction Order which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction or
(ii) by producing evidence aliunde to show that the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. In the case on hand, the Prosecution apart from placing the original Sanction Orders in Ex.P.159 & 160 which itself contains the facts constituting the offences alleged and the grounds of satisfaction, has also adduced the oral evidence of the Sanctioning Authority/P.W.16, apart from examining P.W.13 also.
19. Suggestion directed to P.W.16 contending that he has not at all applied his mind before according Sanction Orders and the same have been furnished in a mechanical manner by filling in his name and designation is firmly denied by the witness. P.W.13 has stated in clear terms in his evidence that Ex.P.154 was prevailing during the years 1997 to 2004 in Bank of India. On careful analysis of the evidence of the Sanctioning Authority - P.W.16 coupled with the evidence of P.W.13 along with the documents relied on by the prosecution in Ex.P.159, P.160 & P.154, I am of the firm 24 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 view that P.W.16 is the competent Authority to accord Sanction Orders for the prosecution of the Bank officers/A.1 & A.2. There is nothing elicited in the cross-examination of either P.W.16 or P.W.13 to suggest that either P.W.16 lacked competence or failed to apply his mind to enter satisfaction about the existence of prima facie case for according Sanction for the prosecution of the Bank Officers. Mere suggestions directed to the Sanctioning Authority stating that without proper application of mind, the Sanction Orders were issued in the case in a mechanical manner is not sufficient, in my view.
20. On evaluation of the evidence of P.W.16 and on careful perusal of the Sanction Orders in Ex.P.159 & P.160, I am of the considered opinion, that the prosecution has ably proved that the Sanction Orders obtained to prosecute A.1 & A.2/the then Br. Manager & the Dy.Manager(Credit) of Bank of India, Branch Mysore, Mysore are valid and legal Sanction Orders under law. As such, I hold the point for consideration in the 'Affirmative'.
25 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004
21. Point No.2 to 4 :- To prove the offences levelled against the accused, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 18 and relied on the documents marked in Exs.P.1 to P.161. During 1996-97 A.1/Sri.S.R.Pathak was the Br. Manager and A.2/Sri.R.S.Murali was the Dy.Manager (Cr.) of Bank of India, Mysore Br., Mysore. P.W.1 was the Advocate before whom the General Power of Attorney in Ex.P.1 Dt.3.4.1980 was executed by A.4/late C.Lalithamma, w/o.
Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah, P.W.2 was the Chief Officer (Cr.) of Bank of India, Zonal office, Bangalore, P.W.3 was the chief Manager (Investigation) of Bank of India, Zonal Office, Chennai, PWs.4 to 6 & 12 were the Clerks at the relevant period working at Bank of India, Mysore Br., Mysore, P.W.7 has extended certain loan to A.3/Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah, P.W.8 has given a shed to A.3/Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah situate near Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore for rent in the year 1998-99, P.W.9 was a Postman attached to the Post Office, Jayanagar III Block, Bangalore, P.W.10 was the Br. Manager, SBM, Kanakapura Br., Bangalore, P.W.11 was the Br. Manager of SBM, Brindavan Extn. Br., Mysore, P.W.14 is said to be a resident of Mysore City knowing Tallur Mutt Street, P.W.15 26 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 was the Assistant Manager of IOB, Shanthinagar Br., Bangalore and P.Ws.17 & 18 are the I.Os who have investigated and charge sheeted the accused for the offences alleged.
22. P.W.1 has deposed in his evidence that he is a practicing Advocate since the year 1962. By seeing the GPA Dt.3.4.1980 he states that the said GPA has been executed by A.4/late C.Lalithamma in favour of A.3/Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah in his presence before the Notary Public. The GPA executed is identified by the witness which is marked as Ex.P.1 and the signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P.1(a). He also identifies the signature of late C.Lalithamma which is marked as Ex.P.1(b).
23. P.W.2/The Chief Officer (Cr.) Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bangalore has deposed in his evidence that he has been enquired by the CBI in the case. He was asked about the procedure regarding financing of Term Loan and Working Capital in general, of the Bank of India. Term Loan granted by the Bank is a loan sanctioned for the purposes of fixed assets like land, building, machinery. A person seeking Term 27 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Loan shall have to file an Application for the loan in the Bank. He is required to submit quotations and the details of the fixed asset held by him. The Branch Manager of the concerned Bank verifies all the details furnished by the borrower and after satisfying the genuineness of the information furnished to the Bank, the Bank conducts a Pre- Loan Sanction Inspection. After satisfying the correctness of the quotation and verifying that the quotation given by the borrower was by a proper person and after also satisfying the rates mentioned in the quotation are correct or not, the Bank proceeds further. If the loan sought by the borrower is within the powers of the Branch Manager, he proceeds to sanction the loan and if not, he will send the proposal for sanction of the loan sought by the borrower along with his recommendation and the documents furnished by the borrower to his higher officers. The loan disbursement should be according to the sanctioned quotations only and the payments should be made either by D.D or through Cheque to the person who has issued the quotation. Cash Credit for Working Capital means the loan sought by the borrower for the purchase of raw materials and other 28 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 running costs. A person who intends to avail such type of loan has to make an Application requesting for such loan. The borrower has to issue cheques to the persons from whom he has purchased the raw materials which could be honoured by the Bank. Such type of loan is sought after installation of the Firm. The Branch Manager conducts inspection regarding the purchase of raw materials. The witness further states that when the particulars of the loan A/c. of Akshaya Graphics in this case was shown to him, he noticed that the Term loan sanctioned to the borrower was not properly disbursed, inspection of machinery was not conducted and even machinery was not received in the Unit. The existing building of the Unit was shown to have been constructed by utilizing the Term loan amount.
24. P.W.3/The Chief Manager (Investigation), Zonal Office, Bank of India, Chennai has stated in his evidence that Bank of India, Mysore Br. was coming under their jurisdiction. In the year 1997 he conducted preliminary investigation against the accounts of Akshaya Graphics held at the Bank of India, Mysore Br. He paid visit to Bank of 29 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 India, Mysore Br. and conducted the preliminary investigation and submitted a detailed Report to the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Chennai on 2.2.1998.
25. P.W.4 has stated in his evidence that he was working as a clerk in Bank of India, Mysore Br., and he knows the 1st accused in the case. He has seen his hand writing and signatures and he has also seen the handwriting and signatures of Sri.S.S.K.Aradhya & A.2/Sri.R.S.Murali. As such, he could very well identify their handwritings & signatures. Akshaya Graphics was holding an A/c. in Bank of India, Mysore Br., Mysore regarding Term loan as well as Cash Credit. The Project Report of Akshaya Graphics is marked as Ex.P.2, Quotations (in all 8) submitted are marked as Exs.P.3 to P.10, the Purchase Order is marked as Ex.P.11, Statement of Orders on Hand of Akshaya Graphics is marked as Ex.P.12, Loan Application of Akshaya Graphics is marked as Ex.P.13, Application for credit facilities is marked as Ex.P.14, Agreement Dt.1.7.1996 is marked as Ex.P.15, Sketch is marked as Ex.P.16, On Demand Promissory note Dt.31.7.1996 is marked as Ex.P.17, Continuing Security Bond 30 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 is marked as Ex.P.18, Letter of Lien & Set off is marked as Ex.P.19, Hypothecation Agreement is marked as Ex.P.20, Charge & Hypothecation of book debts is marked as Ex.P.21, Letter of Acceptance is marked as Ex.P.22, Declaration Letter of the borrower is marked as Ex.P.23, Letter of Confirmation is marked as Ex.P.24, Declaration letter of the borrower is marked as Ex.P.25, Letter of Guarantee is marked as Ex.P.26, Term Loan Agreement is marked as Ex.P.27, Agreement of Term loan and Hypothecation Agreement is marked as Ex.P.28, Continuity Security letter is marked as Ex.P.29, Acceptance Letter is marked as Ex.P.30, Letter of Guarantee is marked as Ex.P.31, a copy of the Partnership Deed Dt.19.5.1995 is marked as Ex.P.32, Advance Letter is marked as Ex.P.33, two receipts passed by M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation are marked as Exs.P.34 & 35, Pre-sanction Inspection Report is marked as Ex.P.36, signature of Sri.S.S.K.Aradhya is marked as Ex.P.36(a) and two Stock Inspection Reports are marked as Exs.P.37 and P.38. Exs.P.37(a) & P.38(a) are the signatures of A.1 and Exs.P.37(b) & P.38(b) are the signatures of A.2. The Letter issued by Akshaya Graphics is marked as Ex.P.39, 31 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Receipt passed by M/s.Shiva Constructions is marked as Ex.P.40, a Letter of Akshaya Graphics is marked as Ex.P.41, three receipts passed by M/s.Shiva Constructions are marked as Exs.P.42 to P.44, one receipt passed by M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation is marked as Ex.P.45, another Letter of Akshaya Graphics is marked as Ex.P.46, two other Letters of Akshaya Graphics are marked as Exs.P.47 & P.48, a Receipt passed by M/s.Shiva Constructions is marked as Ex.P.49, Statement of A/c. of Akshaya Graphics is marked as Ex.P.50, three Demand Drafts are marked as Exs.P.51 to P.53, Statement of A/c. of Akshaya Graphics is marked as Ex.P.54, four copies of Credit & Debit Vouchers are marked as Exs.P.55 to P.58, copy of the Pay Order is marked as Ex.P.59, four copies of Credit & Debit Vouchers are marked as Exs.P.60 to P.63, copy of the Pay Order is marked as Ex.P.64, two copies of Debit & Credit Vouchers are marked as Exs.P.65 & P.66, copy of the Pay Order is marked as Ex.P.67, two copies of Credit & Debit Vouchers are marked as Exs.P.68 & P.69, copy of the Pay Order is marked as Ex.P.70, two copies of Debit & Credit Vouchers are marked as Exs.P.71 & P.72, copy of the Pay Order is marked as 32 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Ex.P.73 and 45 copies of the cheques are marked as Exs.P.74 to P.116. Another copy of Debit & Credit voucher is marked as Ex.P.117 and six original Pay Orders are marked as Exs.P.118 to P.123. By seeing the originals of Exs.P.68,69, 71 & 72 the witness states that the said documents are in his hand writings which were prepared at the direction of A.1/Sri.S.R.Pathak.
26. P.W.5 has deposed in her evidence that she was working as the Clerk cum Cashier in the Bank of India, Mysore Br., Mysore between 1982 to 2000 and she knows A.1 as well as Sri.S.S.K.Aradhya who were serving in the said Branch. She has seen their hand writings as well as their signatures and as such, she is capable of identifying their hand writings and signatures. She identifies the copies of the Credit & Debit Vouchers in Ex.P.55 & P.56 for a sum of Rs.7,15,200/-. So also, she identifies the copies of the Credit & Debit Vouchers in Exs.P.62 & P.63 which is for a sum of Rs.73,884/-. She states that the said documents are in her hand writing only and they are prepared by her at the instruction of A.1.
33 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004
27. P.W.6 has deposed in her evidence that she was working as a Clerk between 1985 to 2005 in Bank of India, Mysore Br., Mysore. She identifies the three D.Ds marked in Ex.P.51 for Rs.7,15,200/-, Ex.P.52 for Rs.1 lakh and Ex.P.53 for Rs.2,50,000/-. She states that all these three D.Ds were prepared by her only and they are in her hand writings prepared on the basis of the Vouchers. She identifies the six Pay Orders marked in Exs.P.118 to P.123. She states that the said Pay Orders for a sum of Rs.52,000/-, Rs.73,884/-, Rs.93,230/-, Rs.1,17,060/-, Rs.88,000/- and Rs.91,900/- respectively were all prepared by her only on the basis of the challans submitted by the customer.
28. P.W.12 has deposed in his evidence that from 19.4.1982 to 2000 he has worked as a Clerk in Bank of India, Mysore Br., Mysore. He knows A.1 & A.2 in the case and he is capable of identifying their hand writings, signatures and initials. He also knows A.3/the Borrower. During the year 1999, the CBI Officer had visited their Branch and asked him to identify the signatures of the officials and the borrower in the case. He identifies the Letter in Ex.P.41 Dt.23.10.1996 34 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 submitted to the Bank for issuing a Pay Order by M/s.Shiva Constructions. The Pay Order Vouchers were prepared by him only and given to the Branch Manager/A.1 for his signatures. He identifies another Letter of Akshaya Graphics marked in Ex.P.46 Dt.25.11.1996. He prepared the Voucher for preparation of the Pay Order and handed over to the Branch Manager/A.1 for his signature. He also identifies another Letter in Ex.P.48 Dt.12.12.1996 and he states that he only prepared the voucher for preparation of the Pay Order and handed over to A.2/Sri.R.S.Murali for his signature.
29. P.W.7 has deposed in his evidence that he knows A.3/Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah since past 18 years. A.3 used to avail loan from him. He is having a Current A/c. in Indian Overseas Bank, Shanthinagar Br., Bangalore. He was asked to introduce A.4/C.Lalithamma(late) to open an A/c. at Indian Overseas Bank, Shanthinagar Br., Bangalore. Through him the A/c. Opening Form submitted by the customer is marked as Ex.P.124 & his signature as the introducer of the customer is marked as Ex.P.124(a). He states that when the 35 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 CBI Officer enquired him and recorded his statement, A.3/Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah was due a sum of Rs.3 lakhs to him and he had filed a suit for the same against him.
30. P.W.8 has stated in his evidence that in the year 1998-99 he was running Granite business in Sy.No.79 at Kothanur village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South near Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore. The land in Sy.No.79 belongs to him wherein he had constructed 3 sheds. He knows the 3rd accused. He had taken one shed on rent in the year 1998-99 and he used to pay a rent of Rs.800/- p.m to run printing press therein in the name of Akshaya Graphics. A.3/Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah was there in the shed for a period of six months and he was in possession of the said shed for about 1½ years. As accused No.3 did not pay the rent amount of the shed he got him vacated from the shed. The witness states that he has been enquired in the case by the CBI police and they have recorded his statement also.
31. P.W.9 has stated in his evidence that from the years 1992-2000 he worked as a Postman at the Post Office, Jayanagar, III Block, Bangalore. He used to deliver posts to 36 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 the address - No.2502 and No.205, 25th Cross, 5th Main, Jayanagar, Bangalore. He used to deliver posts in the names of - (i) Akshaya Graphics, (ii) Greenfield Engineering Corporation and (iii) Maruthi Employment Service. One Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah used to reside in the said addresses and he used to collect the posts. He identifies A.3/Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah in the case. He too states that he has been enquired in the case by the CBI police and his statement has been recorded by them.
32. P.W.10 has deposed in his evidence that from May 1997 to June 2000 he worked as the Br. Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Kanakapura Road Br., Bangalore. The witness states that a D.D for Rs.2,50,000/- was credited in the A/c. of M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation from M/s.PAN Electronics and subsequently, the said A/c was closed. The witness states that one Sri.G.V.Ajith Prasad was his Predecessor-in-office and he can identify his signatures. The A/c. Opening Form submitted by the customer in the name of M/s.PAN Electronics to the then Br. Manager/Sri.G.V.Ajith Prasad is marked as Ex.P.125. The signature of the then Br. 37 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Manager/Sri.G.V.Ajith Prasad is identified by the witness which is marked as Ex.P.125(a). The copy of the Statement of A/c. pertaining to M/s.PAN Electronics (in 3 sheets) is marked as Ex.P.126. The relevant entry pertaining to transfer of Rs.2 lakhs by M/s.PAN Electronics to M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation Dt.25.10.1996 is marked as Ex.P.126(a). The Ledger Extracts pertaining to M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation (in 14 sheets) is marked as Ex.P.127.
33. P.W.11 has stated in his evidence that he has worked as the Br. Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Brindavan Extension Br., Mysore between 1994-97. He knows A.3/Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah. The said customer had opened a Current A/c. in their branch. In the year 1996, A.3 had tendered certain Pay Orders issued from Bank of India and deposited the same to his Current A/c. which were in the name of M/s.Shiva Constructions. The Statement of A/c. pertaining to M/s.Shiva Constructions for the period from 25.10.1996 to 27.1.1999 maintained in the Bank is marked as Ex.P.128. He identifies the documents marked in Exs.P.57, 38 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 P.65 to 69, P.71 to 73 and P.123. He identifies the 17 cheques marked in Ex.P.129 to P.145 also. The signatures of A.3 found on the cheques are marked in Ex.P.129(a) to P.145(a). The six Pay-in-slips which were deposited to the A/c. of M/s.Shiva Constructions are marked through the witness in Exs.P.146 to P.151. The witness states that A.3 has signed on these documents in Exs.P.146(a) to P.151(a).
34. P.W.14 has stated in his evidence that he is a native of Mysore City since his birth. Tallur Mutt street is not there in Agrahara, Mysore. There are two Agraharas in the city. The CBI Officer has not enquired him at any point of time about the existence of Tallur Mutt street in Mysore city.
35. P.W.15 has stated in his evidence that he has worked as the Assistant Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Shanthinagar Br., Bangalore during the year 1998 to 2000. One Sri.M.Ulaganathan was the Br. Manager in the Bank and he can identify his signature and hand writing. At the direction of the CBI he has produced certain documents pertaining to this case. In fact he was asked by his superior 39 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 to produce those documents before the CBI vide a Letter Dt.24.7.1999. The said Letter of the Bank is marked as Ex.P.155 and the initials of the witness is marked as Ex.P.155(a). A Credit Challan in respect of M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation is marked as Ex.P.156. A copy of the Statement of A/c. for the period from 1.7.1996 to 31.12.1996 of M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation is marked through the witness as Ex.P.157. Signatures of the witness found on these documents are marked as Exs.P.157(a) & (b). Specimen Signature Card maintained in the Bank of the customer is marked as Ex.P.158.
36. P.W.18 has deposed in his evidence that when he was working as the Police Inspector, CBI/ACB/BNG, based on Source Information, on 25.9.1998 he registered RC.No.27(A)/1998 against A.1 to A.3 in the case and one Sri.S.S.K.Aradhya. The FIR registered in the case by the I.O Dt.25.9.1998 is marked as Ex.P.161 & the signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P.161(a). The witness states that subsequently, on the following day he conducted search in the house of A.3/Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah and seized certain 40 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 documents from the house pertaining to the case. On 16.3.1999 he has handed over further investigation of the case to P.W.17.
37. P.W.17 has stated in his evidence that from March 1999 to June 2003 he has worked as the Police Inspector, CBI/ACB/BNG. On 17.3.1999 he took up further investigation of this case from P.W.18. On 14.6.1999 he has examined P.W.3 and recorded his statement. On 26.7.1999 he has seized certain documents from the house of A.3/Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah under a Seizure Mahazar. On the very day he has recorded the statement of P.W.8. On 18.8.1999 he has examined P.W.4 and recorded his statement. On the same day he has collected Exs.P.54 & P.55 from the Manager, Bank of India, Mysore Br., Mysore and included the same in the investigation papers. On 19.8.1999 he has examined P.W.7, CWs.9 & 11 and recorded their statements. On the very day he has recorded further statement of P.W.8, on 20.8.1999 he has examined P.W.9 and recorded his statement. On 25.8.1999 he collected the documents in Exs.P.152 to P.154 and included the same in 41 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 the investigation papers. On 30.8.1999 he has received Exs.P.51 to P.53 from the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Bangalore and included the same in the investigation papers. On 31.8.1999 he has examined C.W.8 & C.W.13 and recorded their statements. On the same day he has received Exs.P.129 to P.151 from the Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Brindavan Extension Br., Mysore and included the same in the investigation papers. On 2.9.1999 he has examined PWs.5, 6, 10 & 11 and recorded their statements. On 9.9.1999 he has examined P.W.12 and recorded his statement. On 10.9.1999 he has examined C.W.17 and recorded his statement. On 29.9.1999 he has examined P.W.13, CWs.18 & 19 and recorded their statements. On 21st, 22nd & 23rd of October, 1999 he has examined and recorded the statement and further statement of P.W.2. Thereafter, after receiving the Sanction Orders from the competent authority to prosecute the Public Servants/A.1 & A.2 in the case, by concluding investigation he laid Charge Sheet against the accused before the court. 42 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004
38. During the years 1996-97 A.1 was the Manager and A.2 was the Dy. Manager (Cr.) respectively of Bank of India, Mysore Br., Mysore. Prosecution alleges that both these Public Servants had entered into a criminal conspiracy with rest of the accused in the matter of sanctioning and disbursing Term Loan and Cash Credit facility amounting to Rs.24.80 lakhs in favour of Askhaya Graphics. Prosecution further alleges that A.3 to A.5 with an intention to cheat the Bank had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the Bank officials and had executed various loan documents in the name of Akshaya Graphics. The 1st accused by using his official position, by violating Bank's prescribed guidelines, sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.11.80 Lakhs for the purpose of purchase of machinery and also for expanding the Factory building and a Cash Credit facility of Rs.13 lakhs. M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation, Bangalore was shown as the supplier of machinery. M/s. Greenfield Engineering Corporation is a Proprietory Firm belonging to A.4 herself. Accused No.3 is the G.P.A holder of A.4. Investigation revealed that M/s. Greenfield Engineering Corporation is neither the manufacturer nor supplier of any 43 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 machinery as contended. In furtherance of the conspiracy A.3 to A.5 had floated a Firm by name M/s.Shiva Constructions, Mysore whose proprietor is none other than A-3 alleged to be in the construction of building work. Investigation disclosed that M/s.Shiva Constructions is a non- existing Firm which was siphoned off just for sanction of the loans and its utilization.
39. The first limb of arguments of the learned counsels representing the accused is that the CBI police are empowered to conduct investigation of the cases in the State only after obtaining the requisite consent of the State Government of Karnataka. Inviting my attention to the cross- examination tendered to P.W.18/the I.O it is said that the Investigating Officer admits in his evidence that the consent of the State Government is must for investigation in the cases registered by the CBI of this nature and the CBI has not obtained consent of the State Government in this case. However, the I.O states that the State Government has given General Sanction in investigating this case. My attention is drawn to the copy of the Notification issued by the State 44 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Government Dt.20.11.1992 wherein the State Government has given blanket consent to initiate proceedings registered by the CBI.
40. Learned counsels representing the accused contend that the blanket consent of the State Government which pertains to the year 1992 was withdrawn in the year 1998 itself. It is his say that in the absence of any convincing evidence put forth by the prosecution, to substantiate that the blanket consent is in existence at the time of initiation of the proceedings and filing of the charge sheet, investigation carried and charge sheet filed by the CBI is illegal and accused cannot be held guilty for the offences levelled. My attention is drawn by the learned counsels representing the accused to Secs. 5 & 6 of The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ('in short' DSPE Act).
41. Admittedly in the case on hand the CBI has registered a First Information Report as per Ex.P.161 on 25.9.1998. It is much prior to the withdrawal of this General consent which is of the year 1998. Learned Spl.P.P has produced copy of the Notification issued by the Government 45 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 of Karnataka Dt.20.11.1992. The Notification issued u/sec.6 of the DSPE Act by the State Government according blanket consent runs thus :-
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA No.HD 184 PCR 92 Karnataka Government Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, Dated 20th Nov. 1992.
NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act No.25 of 1946) and in super session of the previous orders/Notifications the State of Karnataka hereby accords consent under the said Section for the exercise of powers and jurisdiction by the Members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment within the State of Karnataka for the investigation of all types of criminal cases under different State and Central Acts.
By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka, Sd/-
(R.P.Krishnamurthy), Joint Secretary to Government, Home Department.
42. The P.C.Act intends to achieve solitary object of preventing corruption. However, the special provisions contained in DSPE Act relating to investigation by the CBI bear upon the procedural requirements as provided u/secs.5 & 6 of the DSPE Act. Whether the compliance with the procedural requirements contained in Secs.5 & 6 of the DSPE 46 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Act would be a pre-requisite for the purpose of investigation and filing Charge Sheet in the case is a core issue that merits to be adjudicated in the context of the claim for acquittal of the accused here. Learned Spl.P.P has placed reliance on the decision reported in 2008(2) KLJ P.656 (CBI Vs. C.H.Wadigere & Anr.). It is the contention of the Spl.P.P that the general consent of the State Government obtained here does not invalidate the investigation. Added to this, the FIR is registered against the accused here on 25.9.1998, much prior to the alleged withdrawal of the general consent in the year 1998. While answering on Point No.1, it is held by the court that the requisite sanction to prosecute the Public Servants as required u/sec.19 of the P.C.Act is a valid Sanction Order obtained from the competent Authority. A perusal of the provision of Sec.6 of DSPE Act reveals that there is no specific mention of the prior consent for the members of the Delhi Special Police to exercise powers and jurisdiction to commence the investigation u/sec.6 of the DSPE Act as it could reveal that, the section enables the Delhi Special Police to exercise their powers under the Act, 47 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 but the exercise of the power or the jurisdiction has to be with the consent of the State Government.
43. The Notification issued by the State Government referred to above Dt.20.11.1992 authorises the CBI to investigate and Charge Sheet the accused, in my view.
Added to this the FIR is registered on 25.9.1998. Contention of the accused that the blanket consent of the State Government pertaining to the year 1992 was withdrawn subsequently by the Government in the year 1998 is without any convincing evidence placed before the court. The Hon'ble High Court in the decision of C.H.Wadigere & Anr. (supra) has held that the consent of the State is a procedural requirement, which does not vitiate the investigation, and at the most, it is an irregularity which can be cured, if the consent is obtained at a later stage. There is general consent to investigate and Charge Sheet the accused obtained by the CBI, in view of the Notification of the State Government referred to above. For these reasons, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel representing accused that for investigation and filing Charge 48 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Sheet it is pre-requisite that consent of the State Government separately needs to be obtained.
44. Learned Spl.P.P taking me to the evidence led before the court by the prosecution states that A.1 was the Manager of the Bank and A.2 was the Dy.Manager (Cr.) during the relevant period. A.3 is one of the Partner of Akshaya Graphics. A.4(late) was the wife of A.3 and A.5 is the daughter of A.3. A.3 to A.5 are the Partners of Akshaya Graphics. The borrower/A.3 approached the BOI, Mysore Br., on 27.7.1996 seeking a Term Loan of Rs.11.80 lakhs for Akshaya Graphics with a Project Report (as per Ex.P.2) for the purchase of machinery and also for expanding the Factory building. The borrower had also sought for a Cash Credit facility towards the working capital to the tune of Rs.13 lakhs. A.3 had projected that he is running a factory presently at Bangalore and he is having experience in the field of printing press for over 40 years. As per the Project Report in Ex.P.2, M/s.Shiva Constructions situate at No.116/2, Tallur Mutt Street, Old Agrahara, Mysore would be the construction firm which takes up the construction work, 49 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 for which a quotation was also enclosed along with the Project Report.
45. M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation, Bangalore was shown to be the supplier of machinery required for the unit as projected by the borrower/A.3. A.3 to A.5 had enclosed a copy of the Partnership Deed as per Ex.P.32 Dt.19.5.1995 of the unit of Akshaya Graphics. Based on the Project Report submitted by A.3 to A.5 seeking for Term Loan & Cash Credit facility, the Br. Manager/A.1 got conducted a Pre-Sanction Inspection Report on 27.7.1996 as per Ex.P.36. Based on the said Inspection Report, A.1 & A.2 sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.11.80 lakhs & Cash Credit facility of Rs.13 lakhs. On 31.7.1996 a Pay Order for Rs.7,15,200/- has been credited to the A/c. of M/s.Green Field Engineering Corporation, Jayanagar, Bangalore, bearing Current A/c.No.1693 at Indian Overseas Bank, Shanthinagar Br., Bangalore. My attention is drawn to the evidence of P.W.15 who has produced the relevant documents in respect of the same. Ex.P.156 is a Credit Challan for Rs.7,15,200/-, Ex.P.157 is the copy of Statement of A/c. with the Bank and 50 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Ex.P.158 is the Specimen Signature Card of late C.Lalithamma.
46. My attention is also drawn to the document in Ex.P.58 which is a copy of the Credit & Debit Voucher. M/s.Shiva Constructions had an A/c. opened in State Bank of Mysore, Brindavan Extension Br., Mysore. It is stated that S.B A/c.No.420 was opened by M/s.Shiva Constructions with the said Branch and the A/c. Opening Form is affixed with the photograph of A.3/Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah. My attention is invited to the evidence of P.W.11. P.W.11 has deposed in his evidence that Ex.P.128 is the Statement of A/c. of M/s.Shiva Constructions for the period from 25.10.1996 to 27.1.1999. He states that Exs.P.57, 65 to 69, 71 to 73 and Ex.P.123 are the Pay Orders. The witness further states that Exs.P.129 to 145 are the cheques issued by M/s.Shiva Constructions which were in the hand writing of A.3. Even some of the amounts of the cheques were withdrawn by A.3. He states that Exs.P.146 to 151 are the Pay-in-slips deposited to the A/c. of M/s.Shiva Constructions which bear the signatures of A.3. A.3 is stated to be the sole proprietor of 51 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 M/s.Shiva Constructions who has acted on behalf of this Proprietorship concern.
47. Learned Spl.P.P inviting my attention to the evidence of P.W.14 states that there is no address existing bearing No.116/2, Tallur Mutt Street, Agrahara, Mysore. Inviting my attention to the Statement of A/c.No.L6/40 learned Spl.P.P states that a D.D for Rs.1 lakh was drawn in favour of M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation and subsequently, on 24.10.1996 the said D.D has been deposited into the Cash Credit Loan A/c.No.SIB-61 at State Bank of Mysore, Kanakapura Road Br., Jayanagar, Bangalore which was opened on 29.9.1994 by its' Proprietrix/ Smt.C.Lalithamma. Inviting to such evidence that has come on record it is contended that the margin money which the borrower ought to have invested from his own source, has been transferred from the Cash Credit A/c. into the Term Loan A/c. of Akshaya Graphics Cash Credit A/c. No.758. It is said that these Cash Credit A/c. transactions manifestly disclose that the Bank officers/A.1 & A.2 allowed the borrower/A.3 to transfer cash from Cash Credit A/c. into the 52 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Term Loan A/c. treating as the margin money towards construction of Factory building, which shows their dishonest intention. The Public Servants entered into criminal conspiracy with the private individuals/A.3 to A.5 in accommodating so. By the transaction in Cash Credit A/c.No.758 of Akshaya Graphics, it becomes clear that Rs.6,35,000/- was allowed by the Br. Manager/A.1 to encash by means of a self Cheque Dt.31.7.1996 bearing No.630801, on the very next day of sanction of loan.
48. It is contended that Cash Credit facility is basically working capital supposed to be disbursed by the Banker stage by stage, depending on the completion of work of construction of the Factory building, installation of machinery, etc. In this case, A.1 & A.2 allowed a huge cash of Rs.6,35,000/- to be withdrawn by the borrower without ensuring the end use of the same. No Bills have been collected. The payments should have been made directly to the supplier only which is not done here. Inviting my attention to the Statement of A/c. in Ex.P.50 of Akshaya Graphics bearing A/c.No.758 it is contended that the 53 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 transaction Dt.23.10.1996 for an amount of Rs.2,50,375/- was allowed to be drawn by way of a D.D in favour of M/s.PAN Electronics, Bangalore. The said D.D issued by BOI, Br., Mysore has been deposited into another A/c.No.SIB-351 in State Bank of Mysore, Kanakapura Road Br., Jayanagar, Bangalore in the name of M/s.PAN Electronics. Inviting my attention to various documentary evidence placed before the court, more particularly referring to the documents marked in Exs.P.124 to 128 it is contended that the Public Servants allowed the Cash Credit A/c. of Akshaya Graphics to be used to wipe off a loan of the very borrower incurred at State Bank of Mysore, Kanakapura Road Br., Jayanagar, Bangalore bearing No.SIB-61.
49. Learned Spl.P.P also states that the Public Servants did not bother to conduct Post Sanction Inspection immediately. It is stated in the Post Sanction Inspection Report that commercial production has not yet commenced and it is opined in the Report that the unit has geared up to start commercial production and the disbursement of the Term Loan A/c. has not yet completed. It is said that the 54 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Public Servants failed to bring it on record the actual stage of the construction of the Factory building, purchase of new machinery for which primarily the Term Loan and Cash Credit facility was extended by the Bank. Inviting my attention to the Stock Inspection Report Dt.28.2.1997 marked in Ex.P.38, it is said that the Term loan A/c. is out of order and the same is due to delay in commencing the commercial production. The borrower had assured to regularize the A/c. before the end of April, 1997. It is contended that in this Report also the Public Servants never mentioned about the approval of new machinery and they deliberately concealed this aspect in the Post Sanction Inspection Report. It is said that suppression of facts like stage of the building, purchase of new machinery, etc. are deliberate concealments of A.1 & A.2 to accommodate A.3 to A.5.
50. Learned Spl.P.P, inviting my attention to the evidence on record states that A.4/C.Lalithamma (late) being a Partner of M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation cannot be a supplier of machinery. The transactions in 55 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 between Akshaya Graphics and M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation are intra exchangeable one just to avail the loans and the evidence on record clearly demonstrate conspiracy amongst the accused in committing the offences. The evidence of P.W.9 is quite clear to show that M/s.Greenfield Engineering Corporation existed only in paper. Per contra, inviting my attention to the cross- examination tendered to the Bank employees, including the Bank officers (P.Ws.2 & 3) it is said that these witnesses have candidly admitted in their cross-examination that the loans sought by the borrower were disbursed as per the Banking norms and all the documents pertaining to the loan transactions were duly processed in the Bank as per the Banking norms. The evidence on record doesn't show anywhere that A.3 to A.5 forged any of the documents and/or used the forged documents for availing the loan from the Bank. Evidence produced before the court even doesn't show that the Public Servants accommodated the borrower to avail the loan based on any of the forged documents. 56 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004
51. The I.Os examined in the case/P.Ws.17 & 18 never state that any of the documents were forged by the accused for the purpose of availing the loans. In fact, P.W.17, in para No.5 of his cross-examination, state that the Pre- Sanction Inspection Report in Ex.P.36 Dt.27.7.1996 reveal that Sri.S.S.K.Aradhya had made visit to the spot and had prepared the Report. Page No.2 of the Report in Ex.P.36 manifestly shows that the borrower had offered equitable mortgage of the Factory premises for the loan sought. In para No.6, at the very beginning the I.O admits that before the disbursement of the loans sought by the borrowers, they had executed all the documents in favour of the Bank. Nowhere it has come in the evidence of I.O/P.W.17 that the accused for the purpose of availing the loans had forged and/or used the forged documents for the purpose of cheating the Bank and thus, obtained undue pecuniary advantage.
52. Prosecution alleges offences u/secs.420, 468 & 471 r/w.sec.120(B) of IPC against the accused. Sec.415 defines 'cheating'. Sec.420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly 57 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 inducing delivery of property and the punishment prescribed for the said offence. 'Mens rea' is the important ingredient of the offence of cheating. The word 'dishonestly' implies a deliberate intention to cause wrongful gain, or wrongful loss, and when this is coupled with cheating and delivery of property the offence is punishable u/sec.420 IPC. The dishonest intention must either precede or accompany the act of dishonesty. The question whether the evidence adduced before the court discloses only a breach of civil liability or criminal offence u/sec.420 IPC depends upon whether the Bank, in parting the loan amount as sought here by the borrower, acted on his representation and in belief of the truth thereof and whether those representations were in fact false to the knowledge of the borrower and whether he had a dishonest intention from the outset. To establish a charge of 'conspiracy' as alleged here, knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means of the accused is necessary.
53. Existence of civil right to recover the balance due does not debar one from instituting the criminal case for 58 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 cheating when intention to cheat is clear from the inception of transaction bolstered by subsequent conduct of the borrower/s - the accused. Admittedly O.A.No.31/1999 was filed by the Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore for recovery of Rs.32,38,493/- against Akshaya Graphics and its Partners. As rightly pointed out, mere pendency of a civil suit for recovery of an amount received by the accused is no ground to bar proceedings in the criminal court in respect of such cheating. The consequences are different. The criminal court can only punish the offender/s for the wrong committed and it is civil court that can compensate the wrong. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the accused to secure a conviction against the accused on the charge of cheating, it is necessary to establish that there was deception at the time of taking the loan and that at that time the accused had not intended to repay it. The non payment of any of the instalments or interest at the agreed rate does not amount to criminal offence u/sec.420 of IPC as it doesn't carry element of deception.
59 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004
54. Learned counsel for the accused, taking me to the evidence adduced before the court states that the borrower had given an undertaking letter to the BOI which was signed by all the Partners of Akshaya Graphics stating that they will hand over the Lease cum Sale Deed of the industrial property existing at No.231/A, DIC Layout, Hebbal Industrial Area, Mysore as soon as the same is executed by the KIADB. While availing the Term Loan and the Cash Credit limit the borrowers had executed Term Loan Agreement, Agreement of Term Loan and Hypothecation of movables such as Plant & Machinery, Letter of Lien & set off, Debit Authority Letter, Declarations, etc. Sri.Uday Kumar, S/o. Sri.R.G. Mallikarjunaiah was the Guarantor for the loans availed by the borrower and he had executed the requisite documents. The Pre-Sanction Inspection Report Dt.27.7.1996 in Ex.P.36 conducted by Sri.S.S.K.Aradhya, the Officer of BOI reveal that to avail the loans, the borrower had offered as collateral security the Equitable Mortgage of the existing Factory land and Building valued at Rs.13.58 lakhs by the Bank's Approved Valuer as per the valuation. Ex.P.36 further reveal that the Legal Opinion obtained from the 60 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Panel Advocate of the Bank Dt.26.7.1996 shows that the title of the property offered by the borrower is clear and marketable. Learned counsel appearing for the accused, inviting my attention to the Stock Inspection Reports in Exs.P.37 & 38 states that the Bank officers when inspected the premises found that the Factory building is valuing Rs.9 lakhs, Plant & machinery values at Rs.5 lakhs and Stocks in the Building is valuing at Rs.10 lakhs.
55. FIR is registered based on Source Information and there is no written complaint lodged from the higher officers of the Bank with regard to the irregularities in the sanction/disbursement of the loans advanced to the borrower. Here though Sri.S.S.K.Aradhya, an Officer of BOI, Mysore Br., at the relevant period has prepared the Pre- Sanction Inspection Report as per Ex.P.36 Dt.27.7.1996, he has not been arraigned as an accused in the case. Though prosecution alleges that the loan sanctioned by the Bank was not used for its end use, there is no convincing evidence to substantiate this aspect. The offence of 'Forgery' is defined in Secs.463 and 464 of IPC. Both these sections are required 61 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 to be read together, as such. To hold the accused guilty of the offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating, the prosecution is required to prove - (i) that the document is a forgery, (ii) that the accused forged the document and (iii) that he did so intending that the forged document would be used for the purpose of cheating. To hold the accused guilty of the offence u/sec.471/using as genuine a forged document, prosecution is required to prove - (i) fraudulent or dishonest use of a document as genuine and (ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of the person using the document that it is a forged one. Thus, to bring home Sec.471 IPC user of a forged document as genuine, inter alia, must be made fraudulently and dishonestly.
56. Learned counsel for the accused states that for default in repayment of the loan made by the borrowers, the Bank had initiated OA.No.31/1999 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore for recovery of Rs.32,38,493/-. Thereafter, matter was settled between the borrower and the Bank and upon filing a Memo by the Bank Dt.10.6.2005 the DRT, vide its Order Dt.10.6.2005 had proceeded to 62 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 dismiss OA.No.31/1999 observing that since the settlement amount of Rs.28,68,212.32 ps has been received by the Bank as full & final settlement, nothing survives in the matter and accordingly, the O.A is dismissed as withdrawn and settled out of court. However, it is contended on behalf of the prosecution that repayment of loan under settlement cannot exempt the accused from criminal proceedings and civil & criminal proceedings can be proceeded simultaneously. Settlement by borrower with the Bank does not bring a criminal case to an end and compromise or arrangement for payment of the amount borrowed does not automatically result in compounding of the offence/s. Spl.P.P has placed reliance on the below mentioned decisions in support of this.
(i) (2009) 6 SCC P.351 (CBI Vs. A.Ravishankar Prasad & Ors.)
(ii) (2013) 10 SCC P.686 (CBI Vs. Jagjit Singh)
(iii) AIR 2014 SCW P.5567 (CBI Vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi & Ors.)
(iv) Spl.Leave Petition (Cri) No.8989/2010 Dt.24.9.2012 (SC)(Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.)(unreported)
(v) (2009) 6 SCC P.364 (Smt.Rumidhar Vs. State of W.B & Anr.)
(vi) 2015 Crl.L.J P.4767 (SC) (State Vs. Vasanthi Stanley & Anr.) 63 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004
(vii) ILR 2004 Karnataka P.969 (Ramesh Babulal Baheti & Ors. Vs. CBI & Anr.)
(viii) 2011 AIR SCW P.2909 (Sushil Suri Vs. CBI & Anr.)
(ix) (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) P.164 (R.Venkatkrishnan Vs. CBI) I have perused the principle enunciated in these decisions. The principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions cannot have any dispute, in my considered view.
57. Here the evidence on record reveal that the loan sanctioned to Akshaya Graphics by the Bank was within the powers of A.1 & A.2. In sanctioning the loan, the Public Servants have not exceeded their limits as could be disclosed from the evidence. They have not deviated any of the norms also. Prior to sanction of the loan, Pre-Inspection Report is submitted to the Bank by the Bank officer/Sri.S.S.K.Aradhya on 27.7.1996 as per Ex.P.36. A.1 & A.2 have conducted Stock Inspection Reports as per Exs.P.37 & 38 Dt.20.11.1996 & 28.2.1997 respectively. The Bank officers have physically inspected the stock available at the Factory building. The Bank officials and other witnesses examined by the prosecution have admitted in their evidence that all the Banking norms were followed before the disbursement of the 64 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 loan amount and all the documents pertaining to the loan transactions were duly processed in the Bank as per the Banking norms. Before sanction of the loan, Legal Opinion from the Panel Advocate was obtained by the Br.Manager and the Dy.Manager. Before sanction of the loan there was Pre-Inspection Report also carried by the Bank officials as per Ex.P.36.
58. The evidence of P.W.1/a practicing Advocate before whom the GPA is executed as per Ex.P.1, P.W.2/the Chief Officer who states about the procedure for sanctioning the Term Loan and working capital in general, P.W.3/the Chief Manager (Investigation) at the Zonal Office of the Bank and the evidence of the clerical staff of the Bank - PWs.4 to 6 & 12 is of no use to the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused alleged here. Like so, the evidence of P.W.7 who is said to have extended some loan at some point to A.3/Sri.R.G.Mallikarjunaiah, P.W.8/the owner of the shed wherein A.3 is said to have conducted his business, P.W.9/the Postman & P.W.14/the witness examined to speak about Tallur Mutt Street, Old Agrahara, Mysore also does not help the prosecution to prove the offences levelled against 65 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 the accused, in my view. What remained is the evidence of P.W.10 the Br.Manager of State Bank of Mysore, Kanakapura Road Br., Jayanagar, Bangalore, PW.11/the then Br.Manager of SBM, Brindavan Extension Br., Mysore and P.W.15/the then Asst.Manager of IOB, Shanthinagar Br., Bangalore. Their evidence also does not help the prosecution to prove the case against accused as levelled here. P.W.16 is the Sanctioning authority & P.W.13 is the additional witness who is examined to substantiate the documents produced in the case relating to competency of the sanctioning authority in according Sanction against the Public Servants. P.W.17 & 18 are the Investigating Officers. Thus, the evidence of the above witnesses would not help the prosecution to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences levelled. The evidence on record does not reveal that the existence of the unit/Akshaya Graphics is fictitious. There is no clinching evidence placed by the prosecution to show that the accused had the intention to cheat the Bank when the borrower made an Application for Term Loan & Cash Credit facility. Merely because the borrower was not able to repay the loan as agreed, that itself would not bring the case within the 66 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 ambit of Sec.420 of IPC, as the ingredients of the intention to cheat is found absent here.
59. In order to attract Sec.420 of IPC, it is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to establish that the accused had deceived the Bank while taking loan or that they had acted dishonestly or fraudulently. As held in the decision reported in 2012(2) KCCR P.1513 (Ismail Khan Shah @ I.K.Shah & Ors. Vs. CBI) merely because the accused had not repaid the loan amount, it cannot be construed as satisfying the ingredients of Sec.420 of IPC. It is essential on the part of the prosecution to establish that the accused had deceived the Bank while taking loan or that they had acted dishonestly or fraudulently. There is no iota of evidence to hold the accused guilty of the offences of cheating or forgery as alleged. There are no forged documents of the accused found during investigation. The evidence tendered by the prosecution is unconvincing to hold the accused guilty of the offences levelled. As such, in my view, it is incongruous to convict the accused for any of the offences alleged by the prosecution.
67 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004
60. On evaluation of the evidence on record produced by the prosecution I am of the view, that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond shadow of doubt. In my view, there is no violation of Sec.13(1)(d) r/w.sec.13(2) of the P.C.Act. The prosecution is not able to prove that the Public Servants/A.1 & A.2 by use of corrupt or illegal means or by abusing their position as Public Servants, obtained for A.3, A.4(late) & A.5 pecuniary advantage comprising of granting of Term Loan/Cash Credit limit as alleged. As such, accused are required to be acquitted of the charges levelled. Hence, I hold these points for consideration in the 'Negative'.
61. Point No.5 :- For the discussions made above and in view of my findings on the aforesaid points, I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER Acting U/Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C., all the accused are acquitted of the offences punishable U/Sec.120(B) r/w. Secs.420, 468 & 68 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 471 of I.P.C and Sec.13(2) r/w.Sec.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and they are set at liberty forth with.
Bail Bonds of the accused and the sureties stand cancelled.
--
(Dictated to the Judgment-Writer, transcribed and computerized by her and then corrected signed by me and pronounced in open Court on this the 4th day of March, 2017).
--
--
(Pradeep.S.Balikai) XXXII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore.
69 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : V.S.Subbanarasu, Adv.
P.W.2 : G.H.Shanbhag
P.W.3 : A.Pugalenthy
P.W.4 : R.Ganeshan
P.W.5 : Smt.Sheela.B.Narayan
P.W.6 : Ms.Cleeta Noronha
P.W.7 : Ganasham Das Shamlal
P.W.8 : S.R.Subbaraju
P.W.9 : K.Srinivas
P.W.10 : M.S.Shashikumar
P.W.11 : Parashivappa
P.W.12 : Nagaraju.N.
P.W.13 (Addl. : N.Chandrashekara
Witness)
P.W.14 : M.N.Mahesh Kumar
P.W.15 : N.Vasanth
P.W.16 : K.Nagaraju
P.W.17 : Sri.M.Giridhar Rao, I.O
P.W.18 : Sri.B.Panner Selvam, I.O
70 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P.1 : General Power of Attorney Dt.3.4.1980 executed by A.4/C.Lalithamma in favour of A.3/R.G.Mallikarjunaiah Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of C.Lalithamma/A.4 Ex.P.2 : Project Report (in 18 sheets) Ex.P.3 to 10 : Quotations (Total 8) Ex.P.11 : Purchase Order Ex.P.12 : Statement of Orders on Hand of Akshaya Graphics Ex.P.13 : Loan Application of Akshaya Graphics (in 30 sheets) Ex.P.14 : Application for Credit Facilities Dt.27.7.1996 Ex.P.15 : Agreement Dt.1.7.1996 (in 16 sheets) Ex.P.16 : Sketch Ex.P.17 : On Demand Promissory Note Dt.31.7.1996 Ex.P.18 : Continuing Security Bond Ex.P.19 : Letter of Lien & set-off Ex.P.20 : Hypothecation Agreement (in 5 sheets) Ex.P.21 : Charge & Hypothecation of Book Debts Ex.P.22 : Letter of Acceptance Ex.P.23 : Declaration Letter of the Borrower 71 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Ex.P.24 : Letter of confirmation Ex.P.25 : Declaration Letter of the Borrower Ex.P.26 : Letter of Guarantee (in 6 sheets) Ex.P.27 : Term Loan Agreement(in 5 sheets) Ex.P.28 : Agreement of Term Loan & Hypothecation Agreement (in 10 sheets) Ex.P.29 : Continuity Security Letter Ex.P.30 : Acceptance Letter Ex.P.31 : Letter of Guarantee (in 6 sheets) Ex.P.32 : Copy of Partnership Deed Dt.19.5.1995 (in 6 sheets) Ex.P.33 : Advance Letter Dt.31.7.1996 Ex.P.34 & 35 : Receipts passed by Greenfield Engineering Corporation (2) Ex.P.36 : Pre-Sanction Inspection Report Dt.27.7.1996 Ex.P.36(a) : Signature of Sri.S.S.K.Aradhya Ex.P.37 &38 : Stock Inspection Reports Dt.20.11.1996 & 28.02.1997 respectively Ex.P.37(a) & : Signatures of A.1 38(a) Ex.P.37(b) & : Signatures of A.2 38(b) Ex.P.39 : Letter issued by Akshaya Graphics Dt.14.11.1996 Ex.P.40 : Receipt passed by Shiva Constructions Dt.14.11.1996 72 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Ex.P.41 : A Letter of Akshaya Graphics Dt.23.10.1996 requesting to release funds Ex.P.42 to : Receipts passed by Shiva Constructions (3) 44 Ex.P.45 : A receipt passed by Green Fields Engineering Corporation Dt.25.10.1996.
Ex.P.46 : A Letter of Akshaya Graphics Dt.25.11.1996 requesting to release funds Ex.P.47 & 48 : Two letters of Akshaya Graphics Ex.P.49 : Receipt passed by Shiva Constructions Dt.6.12.1996 Ex.P.50 : Statement of A/c. of Akshaya Graphics Ex.P.51 to : Demand Drafts (3) 53 Ex.P.54 : Statement of A/c of Akshaya Graphics (in 15 sheets) Ex.P.55 to : Copies of Credit & Debit Vouchers (4) 58 Ex.P.59 : Copy of pay order Ex.P.60 to 63 : Copies of Credit & Debit Vouchers (4) Ex.P.64 : Copy of Pay order Ex.P.65 & 66 : Copies of Credit & Debit Vouchers (2) Ex.P.67 : Copy of Pay Order Ex.P.68 & 69 : Copies of Credit & Debit Vouchers (2) Ex.P.70 : Copy of Pay Order Ex.P.71 & 72 : Copies of Credit & Debit Vouchers (2) Ex.P.73 : Copy of Pay Order 73 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Ex.P.74 to : Copies of cheques (45) 116 Ex.P.117 : Copy of Credit Voucher Ex.P.118 to : Original Pay Orders (6) 123 Ex.P.124 : Account Opening Form of Smt.C.Lalithamma with Indian Overseas Bank Ex.P.124(a) : Signature of Introducer/P.W.7 Ex.P.125 : Account Opening Form of A.3 with SBM Ex.P.125(a) : Signature of G.V.Ajith Prasad Ex.P.126 : Statement of Account with SBM Ex.P.126(a) : Relevant Entry Ex.P.127 : Ledger Extract of State Bank of Mysore Ex.P.128 : Statement of Account of SBM Ex.P.129 to : Original Cheques (17) 145 Ex.P.129(a) : Signatures of A.3 to 145(a) Ex.P.146 to : Original Pay in Slips (6) 151 Ex.P.146(a) : Signatures of A.3 to 151(a) Ex.P.152 : Covering letter of BOI Dt.7.8.2014 Ex.P.152(a) : Signature of P.W.13 Ex.P.153 : Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.153(a) : Signature of P.W.13 74 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004 Ex.P.154 : Copy of Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976( in 3 sheets) Ex.P.154(a) : A Portion of Ex.P.154 Ex.P.155 : Letter Dt.24.7.1999 of Indian Overseas Bank addressed to the CBI Ex.P.155(a) : Signature of PW.15 Ex.P.156 : Credit Challan Ex.P.157 : Copy of Statement of A/c.
with Indian Overseas Bank
Ex.P.157(a) : Signatures of PW.15
& (b)
Ex.158 : Specimen Signature card of
Smt.C.Lalithamma/A.4
Ex.P.159 : Sanction Order of A.1 Dt.16.12.1999
Ex.P.159(a) : Signature of PW.16
Ex.P.160 : Sanction order of A.2 Dt.16.12.1999
Ex.P.160(a) : Signature of PW.16
Ex.P.161 : FIR
Ex.P.161(a) : Signature of PW.18
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & DOCUMENTS
EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED :-
-NIL-
(Pradeep.S.Balikai)
XXXII Addl.City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge for
CBI cases, Bangalore.
75 Spl.C.C.No.46/2004