Bangalore District Court
Cbi Acb Bangalore vs Rajesh Kumar Madhav on 13 February, 2026
KABC010020232015
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE
FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU [CCH-4]
PRESENT: SRI.MANJUNATH SANGRESHI
B.A.LL.B [HONS.]
XXI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge and
Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases
[CCH-4] Bengaluru.
DATED THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
Spl.C.C.No.38/2015
Complainant : The State by CBI/ACB,
Bengaluru.
[By Public Prosecutor]
V/S.
Accused 1 : Sri. RAJESH KUMAR MADHAV
S/o.M.M. Shenoy,
Aged about 53 years,
Dy. General Manager (P&D)
United Bank of India,
Head Office,
Kolkata (West Bengal)
R/o. Flat No.2-B,
Bishnu Niwas,
220, NSC Bose Road,
Kolkata - 57 (WB)
Also at, 'Madhuram', Thevally,
Kollam, Kerala - 691 009 and
'Nandika', Cutchery Ward,
2 Spl.CC.38/2015
Quilon, Wayanad,
Kerala.
2: Sri. PRANAB KUMAR ROY
S/o. Late Sri.Banindra Kumar
Roy, Aged about 63 years
Retd. General Manager
United Bank of India,
Head Office,
Kolkata (West Bengal),
Permanent R/o.P-66,
Lake Town, Block-B,
Podder Prem, First Floor,
Near Monsha Monor
Kolkata-700089.
Sahisherpur Village,
Sahapara District,
Murshidabad, West Bengal.
3: Sri. D. RAVI KUMAR,
S/o Sri. K. Doraiswamy,
Aged about 47 years,
Private Person (C&MD)
M/s. Acropetal Tech Ltd.,
N.S.Palya, Bengaluru.
No.E-1201, Mantri Elegance
Apartments, N.S. Palya,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore-560 076.
[Accused No.1 by Sri.Praveen Hegde;
Accused No.2 by Sri.Gururaj Joshi
Adv.; and Accused No.3 by Sri.
S.H.Mane Adv.]
3 Spl.CC.38/2015
Particulars regarding date of commission of offence, report
of offence, arrest of accused & Etc,.
Date of commission of During the year 2009-2013.
offence [As per FIR]
Date of report of offence 13.12.2013.
Date of arrest of accused Not arrested.
Date of release of accused --
on bail
Total period of custody --
Name of the complainant Sri. D. Sinha,
Chief Regional Manager,
United Bank of India,
Regional Office, Bengaluru
Date of commencement of 01.07.2015
recording evidence
Date of closing of evidence 30.08.2019
Charge-sheeted offences Section 120-B r/w. 420 of
Indian Penal Code and
U/Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)
(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
Opinion of the Judge As per Final Order
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation ['CBI' in short], Anti Corruption Branch ['ACB' in short] Bengaluru, has submitted a charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 alleging the commission of offences punishable U/Sec.120-B and 420 of Indian Penal Code ['IPC' in short] and U/Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1) 4 Spl.CC.38/2015
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act-1988 ['PC Act' in short].
The Facts of Prosecution Case:
2. It is the prosecution case that, one Sri.D.Sinha, Chief Regional Manager, United Bank of India, Regional Office, Bengaluru submitted a written complaint before the CBI/ACB, Bengaluru, alleging the fraud committed in credit facilities pertaining to the account of M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd, maintained with United Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, Brigade Road, Bengaluru. The said complaint was registered as RC 16(A)/2013 on 13.12.2013 by the CBI/ACB Bengaluru, against accused No.1 to 3 and Unknown Others. After completion of investigation, the I.O. has submitted a charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 only, for the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B and 420 of IPC and U/Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of PC Act.
3. It is the further case of prosecution that, the Accused No.1-Sri.Rajesh Kumar Madhav was the Branch Head of United Bank of India at Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru from May-2009 to July-2010; the accused
5 Spl.CC.38/2015 No.2-Sri. Pranab Kumar Roy was the Chief Regional Manager, United Bank of India, Southern Regional Office, Chennai from April-2008 to April-2010; and accused No.3-Sri. D.Ravi Kumar is the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd. Said D.Ravi Kumar-accused No.3 submitted a credit proposal for Rs.20 Crores before United Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru on 15.06.2009 and accused No.1, being the Branch Head has forwarded said proposal to Regional Office without any documents relating to mortgage properties, the valuation reports and legal scrutiny reports. That there were number of parameters to be observed during the course of pre-sanction inspection which accused No.1 and 2 did not observe. That accused No.3-D.Ravi Kumar was not holding any operative account with the Branch as on 02.06.2009 [the date of pre-sanction inspection] or on 15.06.2009 [the date of credit proposal]; however, said accused had opened a current account in the Bank in the name of M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd on 29.06.2009.
6 Spl.CC.38/2015
4. It is the further case of prosecution that, the accused No.3-D.Ravi Kumar was not actual owner of those secured properties at the relevant point of time and even at the time of sanctioning the term loan on 06.07.2009. The secured properties were registered in his name on 08.07.2009. Thus, accused No.1, 2 and 3 had direct contact with each other, which leads to illegal act in sanctioning the term loan to accused No.3. After sanction of the loan, accused No.1 disbursed the term loan in 3 instances, Rs.8,14,66,878/- on 10.7.2009; Rs.8,22,58,061/- on 16.07.2009 and Rs.3,62,75,061/- on 14.08.2009 without collecting of the invoices/ proforma invoices. Further, the invoices collected from the Branch revealed that, software (Framins) package has 7 modules. The disbursement made on 10.07.2007 was related to module 1 and 2; disbursement made on 16.07.2009 was related to module 3 and 4; and disbursement made on 14.08.2009 for module 5. The remaining accounts for purchase of software package i.e., module 6 and 7 i.e., Rs.8.20 Crores should be borne by accused No.3 as margin money, but accused No.3 made 7 Spl.CC.38/2015 payment of Rs.4,36,73,643/- on 18.08.2009 and not paid the remaining amount to the Bank as per the sanction conditions. That accused No.1 also not ensured the payment of the entire margin money which shows the conspiracy between accused No.1 and 3 and criminal intention to cheat the public money.
5. It is the further case of prosecution that, accused No.1 received the valuation reports of said mortgage properties from the valuer engaged by accused No.3 on 25.06.2009 and from penal valuer on 26.06.2009. Similarly, the accused No.1 received legal opinion of said property from Advocate engaged by accused No.3 on 26.06.2009 and from the penal advocate on 29.06.2009. That prior to registration of the property in the name of accused No.3, the valuations and legal opinions obtained by accused No.1 and 2, sanctioned the term loan of Rs.20 Crores on 06.07.2009. That, accused No.1 did not insist the valuers to produce land identification documents, mortgage value or guideline value applicable to that area and the advocates for the correctness in the schedule of property, title of ownership 8 Spl.CC.38/2015 with the sequence of property transactions at least for 15 to 20 years, genuineness in search of title deeds etc., Thus, it is evident that, accused No.3 in connivance with accused No.1 had submitted the inflated valuation of property and invalid title of the ownership of the properties.
6. It is the further case of prosecution that, the accused No.2 also sanctioned the high value loan without any queries or observations. That the property documents pertaining to Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli Village, Beguru Hobli submitted by accused No.3 to the accused No.1 at the time of documentation revealed that, the sale consideration of the property was Rs.1.20 Crores and the estimated mortgage value furnished by Sub- Registrar Office, Beguru on 08.07.2009 was Rs.4,11,65,000/-. That Prior to registration of this property, in the name of accused No.3, he submitted valuation report to accused No.1 for more than Rs.10 crores. The accused No.1 having possession of those related documents, not verified the genuineness of the valuation or not judged the valuation. Further, the 9 Spl.CC.38/2015 Encumbrance Certificate dated:11.06.2009 pertaining to aforesaid property does not show the property transactions i.e. the execution of registered GPD by Sri. Ga.Da. Chowrappa S/o. Late. Chowrappa @ Rayappa in favour of Sri.C.H.Subbaji Rao on 09.08.1995 and the Sale Deed registered on 24.03.2004 between Sri. Chowrappa, represented by his GPA Sri.C.H.Subbaji Rao and Sri.D.Balakrishna Naidu and the Sale Deeds registered between Sri.N.Balakrishna Naidu and 14 others in the year 2004. Thus, accused No.3 with criminal intention to cheat the Bank submitted the false and invalid documents and accused No.1 and 2 admitted the same without verifying the genuineness of validity of title and valuation recommended and thereby sanctioned the high value loan to accused No.3.
7. It is the further case of prosecution that, accused No.3-D.Ravi Kumar has not properly utilized the software package for which the Bank had sanctioned a term loan of Rs.20 Crores. That he had not physically imported the software package from M/s.Regency Technologies INC, Texas, USA and downloaded the same 10 Spl.CC.38/2015 through online development and the said software was incomplete. He has completed ¼ of the development work and rest of the work got pending even today. That the public money to the extent of Rs.20 crores is unutilized and it is because of non-evaluating the technical and economic feasibility of the software product by accused No.1 and 2, but had conducted the pre-sanction inspection and recommended the proposal. That the above said acts of accused No.1, 2 and 3 constitute criminal conspiracy and cheating; and criminal misconduct by accused No.1 and 2, who are the public servants with criminal intention to cheat the United Bank of India. That the accused have caused a wrongful loss to United Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru to the tune of Rs.14.99 Crores as on 30.09.2012 and corresponding gain to accused No.3-Sri.D.Ravi Kumar. Thus, the accused No.1 to 3 have thereby committed the offences punishable U/Sec. 120-B and 420 of IPC and accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable U/Sec. 13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
11 Spl.CC.38/2015
8. After submitting Charge-Sheet, this court took the cognizance of the offences against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B and Sec.420 of IPC and cognizance is also taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of PC Act, as against accused Nos.1 and 2. Summons were issued to the accused. After service of summons, accused No.1 to 3 appeared before the court through their respective counsels and they were enlarged on bail. The copy of Charge-Sheet and other materials have been provided to the accused as required U/Sect. 207 of Cr.P.C.
9. After hearing both side regarding framing of charge, the charges were framed against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences U/Sec.120-B and 420 of IPC and offence U/Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)d) of PC Act was framed against accused No.1 and 2. After hearing the charges, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. In order to prove the case against accused persons, the prosecution has examined 50 witnesses as per PW.1 to PW.50 and also got marked documents as 12 Spl.CC.38/2015 per Ex.P1 to P.392 and also Ex.D1 to D.15 on behalf of the accused. After closing the prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused was recorded as provided under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused have denied the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution evidence. After recording the statement of accused, the accused have filed written statement U/Sec.313(5) of Cr.P.C.
11. When the matter was posted for judgment, this court finds that the charges against accused No.3 have not been properly framed. As charge for the offence U/Sec.120-B r/w. Sec.420 of IPC against accused No.3 was only framed; hence, on 20.01.2026, acting U/Sec.216 of Cr.P.C., the alteration of charges was done and accordingly, separate charges U/Sec.120-B and 420 of IPC are framed against accused No.3.
12. The Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following case authorities.
1. State of MP Vs. Ram Singh [(2000) 5 SCC 88].
13 Spl.CC.38/2015
2. State of Maharashtra through CBI and the Corruption Branch Mumbai vs. Balakrishna Dattatreya Kumar [2012 (12) SCC 384].
3. Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2003(4) SCC 731.
4. Sharadchandra Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622.
13. The learned counsel for accused No.3 has relied upon the following case authorities.
1. Sunil Bharti Mittal V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2015) 4 SCC 609 (para 44, & 45)]
2. Anil Khandelwal Vs. Phoenix India and another [(2025 SCC Online SC 1883)]
3. Aneeta Hada V/s. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited [(2012) 5 SCC 661)]
4. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd., and Anr [(2006) 6 SCC 736]
5. S.W.Palnitkar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another [(2002) 1 SCC 241]
6. Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and another [(2019) 9 SCC 148]
7. State of Karnataka Vs. Devendrappa [(2002) 3 SCC 89] 14 Spl.CC.38/2015
8. Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.
[(2007) 12 SCC 1]
9. Binod Kumar and Another Vs. State of Bihar [(2014) 10 SCC 663]
10. Sarbajith Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and another [(2023) 3 SCC 423]
11. Deepak Gaba and Others Vs. State of U.P and another [(2023) 3 SCC 423]
12. Anukul Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another [2025 SCC Online SC 2060]
13. M/s.Alia infrastructure and Development Company Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State by CBI - WP No.12325/2020 in the High Court of Karnataka.
14. 2011 SCC online Kar 3899 - Ismail Khan Shah and Other Vs. State by CBI.
14. Heard both side. Perused all the records.
15. For disposal of instant case, the points that would arise for my consideration are as under;
1. Whether the sanction obtained U/Sec.19 of PC Act to prosecute the accused No.1 for the alleged offences, is valid one and in accordance with law ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, Accused No.1- Rajesh Kumar Madhav, being the Branch Manager and AGM of United Bank of 15 Spl.CC.38/2015 India, Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru and accused No.2-Pranab Kumar Roy, being the Chief Regional Manager, UBI, Southern Regional Office, Chennai, at relevants points of time had entered into criminal conspiracy with Accused No.3-D. Ravi Kumar, who had submitted credit proposal for Rs.20 crores on behalf of his company-M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., and accused No.1 forwarded the same to Accused No.2 without verifying the title deeds of mortgaged property; and though the accused No.3 was not owner of the property which was offered as collateral security bearing Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli village and further, the accused No.1 and 2 had not verified the actual value of said property though its actual value is at Rs.4,11,65,000/-;
whereas the property was shown at inflated value of Rs.10 crores and thereby accused No.1 recommended for term loan of Rs.20 crores to M/s.
Acropetal Technology Ltd., for which, the accused No.3-D.Ravikumar is the Chairman and Managing Director and not verified whether said term loan was 16 Spl.CC.38/2015 properly utilized by accused No.3; and thereby accused No.1 to 3 illegally entered into agreement with each other and thereby they committed the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable U/Sec.120-B of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, Accused No.1- Rajesh Kumar Madhav, being the Branch Head, Cantonment Branch, United Bank of India, Bengaluru has recommended for credit term loan of Rs.20 crores to the Regional Office and accused No.2, being the Chief Regional Manager, UBI, Southern Regional Office, Chennai, has sanctioned term loan of Rs.20 crores to the company of accused No.3-D. Ravi Kumar i.e. M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., without verifying the title deeds of the collateral security and without ensuring the margin amount and without obtaining the proforma invoice while releasing the amount in 3 installments for purchasing software by name 'Framins' package by accused No.3 from M/s.
Regency Technologies Inc., Texas USA and sanctioned term loan of Rs.20 crores 17 Spl.CC.38/2015 and accused No.1 also did not recover the said loan amount though an amount of Rs.41,34,29,400/- was laying in the current account of M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., and thereby allowed accused No.3 to induce the Bank dishonestly to part with the loan amount of Rs.20 crores and thereby you accused No.1 and 2 caused wrongful loss to United Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, Bangalore to the tune of Rs.14.99 crores as on 30.9.2012 and corresponding gain to accused No.3-D. Ravi Kumar and thereby they committed the offence of cheating punishable U/Sec.420 r/w. 120-B of IPC ?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused No.3-D. Ravi Kumar, being the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., submitted credit proposal of Rs.20 crores on 06.07.2009 before accused No.1, who the Branch Manager of Cantonment Branch, United Bank of India, by offering the property bearing Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli Village as a collateral security though he 18 Spl.CC.38/2015 was not owner of said property as on 06.07.2009 and got registered said property on 08.07.2009 and inflated the value of said property as more than Rs.10 crores though its actual valuation was Rs.4,11,65,000/- and had also not utilized the said term loan of Rs.20 crores for purchasing the software technology called as 'Framins' from Regency Technology Inc. Texas, USA and got downloaded the same through online without completing the development on the said software and only 1/4th of the development work was done and thereby misutilized the fund of Bank and dishonestly induced United Bank of India, Cantonment Branch to part with the term loan of Rs.20 crores and caused wrongful loss to the United Bank of India, cantonment Branch, Bengaluru to the tune of Rs.14.99 crores as on 30.9.2012 and corresponding gain to himslef and thereby the accused No.3 committed criminal conspiracy and cheating punishable U/Sec.420 r/w. 120-B of IPC ?
19 Spl.CC.38/2015
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, Accused No.1, being the Branch Manager, UBI, Cantonment Branch, has recommended for the loan to M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., without following the procedure and norms of the bank by corrupt or illegal means and obtained pecuniary advantage from accused No.3 by abusing his position as a public servant and committed criminal misconduct and thereby offence punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused No.2 being the Chief Regional Manager, SRO, Chennai has sanctioned term loan of Rs.20 crores to M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., without following the procedure and norms of the bank and had also obtained Rs.2 Lakh through RTGS on 10.7.2009 from current account of accused No.3 bearing CA No.67042921027 and another Rs.5 Lakh through RTGS made to Baba Sathyanarayana & Co., through RTGS on 20 Spl.CC.38/2015 9.10.2009 as quid pro quo for sanction of term loan of Rs.20 crores and thereby accused No.2 by corrupt or illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.7 Lakh from accused No.3 by abusing your position as a public servant for sanction of term loan of Rs.20 cores to the company of accused No.3 and thereby he committed the offence of criminal misconduct punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?
7. What order ?
16. My findings to the above stated points are as 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 : In the Negative Point No.6 : In the Negative Point No.7 : As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
17. Point No.1: This point is with regard to the sanction granted to prosecute the accused No.1-Rajesh 21 Spl.CC.38/2015 Kumar Madhav. The accused No.1 was a public servant worked as Assistant General Manager & Branch Manager in United Bank of India, at Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru, during the time of commission of charge sheeted offences; hence, in order to prosecute him for the charge-sheeted offences, it is necessary for the prosecution to obtain sanction from the concerned competent authority as provided U/Sec.19 of PC Act. That under Section 19 of PC Act, Sanction is to be given by the Government or the authority which would be competent to remove the public servant from his office.
18. Admittedly, the accused No.1-Rajesh Kumar Madhav, during the significant point of time between 2009 and 2010, i.e. from May 2009 to July 2010 worked as Assistant General Manager & Branch Manager in United Bank of India, at Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru. As per evidence on record, the designation and employment of accused No.1 in the United Bank of India are not in dispute. As such, the accused No.1, being a public servant, during the relevant period of time, as defined U/Sec.2 of the PC Act, falls under the ambit of 22 Spl.CC.38/2015 Section 19 of the PC Act. Thus, a valid sanction is pre- requisite to launch prosecution against him, for the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B and 420 of IPC and U/Sec.13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
19. In the case on hand, the sanction order has been marked as per Ex.P371. That Ex.P371 has been granted by one Sri.Deepak Narang, then Executive Director of United Bank of India, who served for the period from 01.03.2012 to 31.03.2015. He has been examined in the case as PW.42. It is undisputed fact that, during the significant point of time i.e. from May 2009 to July 2010, the accused No.1-Rajesh Kumar Madhav was working as Assistant General Manager & Branch Manager in Union Bank of India, at Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru; therefore, PW.42-Sri.Deepak Narang, who being the competent authority to remove accused No.1 from his service, accordingly he has accorded sanction against accused No.1.
20. At this juncture, it is apt to appreciate the evidence of PW.42 and the contents of Ex.P371-Sanction order, in order to know whether PW.42 had applied his 23 Spl.CC.38/2015 mind to the material or documents placed before him or not, while granting the sanction to prosecute the accused No.1. In his evidence, PW.42 has deposed that, he had worked as Executive Director of United Bank of India from 01.03.2012 to 31.03.2015 and he was disciplinary authority up to the level of DGM of United Bank of India. He has further deposed that, as per the provisions of Discipline and Appeal Regulations, the Executive Director is the Disciplinary Authority for conducting enquiry and has power to impose minor and major punishments including removal and discharge. Further, it is his evidence that, the Vigilance Department of United Bank of India had placed before him investigation report, complaint submitted to CBI, statement of witnesses, internal documents of Bank for according sanction for sanction for prosecution of accused No.1-Rajesh Kumar Madhav and after perusal of the records placed before him, he found credit related fraud discernible from the records against accused No.1 and others; therefore, he thought it fit to accord sanction for prosecution of accused No.1 so that he can face the criminal trial. This 24 Spl.CC.38/2015 witness has identified his sanction order marked at Ex.P371. He also identified his signature found in Ex.P371 as per Ex.P371(a).
21. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 has cross examined this witness. In his cross examination, PW.42 stated that, all the records pertaining to loan transaction were placed before him before according sanction. He denied a suggestion to the effect that, based only on the recommendation of Vigilance Officer and without applying his mind, he has accorded sanction. Thus, nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of PW.42, so as to show that his sanction is not in accordance with law.
22. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 has argued that sanction order issued by PW.42 under Section 19 of the PC Act is not a valid sanction and it is not in accordance with law. However, except arguing that sanction order is not in accordance with law, the learned counsel has not demonstrated before this court as to how the sanction order is not valid one and not in accordance with law.
25 Spl.CC.38/2015
23. In case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "The grant of sanction is an executive act and validity thereof cannot be decided in the light principles applied to quasi judicial order. There are four tests to be applied while dealing with validity of sanction order; firstly, the sanction order has been passed by competent authority; Secondly, all the relevant evidence, both against and in favour of the accused, should be placed before sanctioning authority; Thirdly, Sanctioning Authority should have applied its mind to conclude that the accused should be prosecuted; Fourthly, the application of mind should be objective and impartial and not at the behest of any other authority. In case, after going through all the relevant evidence, a prima facie case is made out against the accused, the sanctioning authority can grant sanction."
24. Further, in the case of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal reported in 2014 (84) ACC 252 [Crl.A.No.1838/2013], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, 26 Spl.CC.38/2015 "...........Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same. If the sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR, disclose statements, recovery memos and other material on record were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is further discernible from the recital of sanction order that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."
25. Furthermore, in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Mahesh G. Jain, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 119, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that;
"Grant of sanction U/Sec.19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act-1988 for prosecution is administrative function and only prima facie satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is needed".
27 Spl.CC.38/2015
26. In the background of principles laid down in the above cited decisions, when we examine the prosecution case on the point of sanction, it would go to show that, the prosecution has satisfied this court by leading evidence on sanction order that PW.42 is the competent authority to accord sanction and said sanctioning authority had applied its mind on the materials produced by the CBI/prosecution. That PW.42, who is author of Ex.P371-Sanction Order, has specifically deposed that after perusal of the records placed before him, he found credit related fraud discernible from the records against accused No.1 and others; therefore, he thought it fit to accord sanction for prosecution of accused No.1 so that he can face the criminal trial. Thus, it is clear that, PW.42 has gone through all the records placed before him and thereby he had applied his mind to the materials produced by the CBI/prosecution. Further, on perusal of contents of Ex.P371 i.e. sanction order, it is seen that, PW.42 has gone through all the records and recorded his reasons for according the sanction for prosecuting the accused No.1. In his sanction order 28 Spl.CC.38/2015 marked at Ex.P371, he has taken into consideration of contents of FIR, Charge and the statement of witnesses, along-with all other records and finally came to the conclusion that prima-facie, the accused No.1 has committed the alleged offences; accordingly, he has accorded the sanction order.
27. Thus, on mindful reading of evidence of PW.42 and contents of Sanction order marked at Ex.P371, it is very clear that the sanctioning authority has considered all the relevant materials and after having satisfied as to prima-facie case made out against the accused No.1 for prosecuting him; accordingly, PW.42 has issued sanction order marked at Ex.P371. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved that sanction accorded by the PW.42 to prosecute accused No.1 with regard to the offences charged against him, is valid one and in accordance with law. Accordingly, I answered the Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
28. Sanction in respect of Accused No.2:- The accused No.2-Sri.Pranab Kumar Roy, the then Chief Regional Manager, Southern Regional office, United Bank 29 Spl.CC.38/2015 of India, Chennai, who worked at relevant point of time in the United Bank of India, was retired from service on 31.10.2011; hence, no sanction for prosecution is required U/Sec.19 of PC Act, 1988, as per dictum laid down in the case of State of Kerala Vs. V.Padmanabham Nair (1999) 5 SCC 690, wherein it is held that, 'a person who ceased to be a public servant on the date when the court took cognizance, no sanction under section 19 of PC Act is required'.
29. Points No.2 to 6: As these points are interconnected and inter-related; hence, they are taken together for common discussion in order avoid repetition of facts.
30. It bears a heavy burden on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1-Rajesh Kumar Madhav, being then Assistant General Manager & Branch Manager of United Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru and accused No.2- Pranab Kumar Roy, being then Chief Regional Manager, United Bank of India, Southern Regional Office, Chennai, at relevant of period of time, had entered into a criminal 30 Spl.CC.38/2015 conspiracy with accused No.3-D.Ravi Kumar, who had submitted a credit proposal of Rs.20 Crores with United Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru, on behalf of M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., being its Chairman and Managing Director, for the purpose of procuring software product from an overseas vendor; and accused No.1 submitted said credit facility proposal to Regional Office, Chennai without conducting due diligence; without obtaining Techno-Economic Feasibility Report; without verifying the title deeds of mortgaged properties; and not verifying the actual value of the collateral properties; and accused No.2 has sanctioned the term loan of Rs.20 Crores to M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., represented by accused No.3-D.Ravi Kumar, without following the procedure and norms of the Bank and in this regard, accused No.2 obtained Rs.2 lakhs through RTGS on 10.07.2009 from current account No.67042921027 of accused No.3 and another Rs.5 lakhs through RTGS made to M/s. Baba Sathyanarayana and Co. Bardwan, West Bengal on 09.10.2009 as quid pro quo for sanction of term loan of Rs.20 Crores and thereby 31 Spl.CC.38/2015 accused No.2, by corrupt or illegal means has obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.7 lakhs by abusing his position as public servant for sanction of term loan of Rs.20 lakhs to accused No.3. That after sanction of loan, the accused No.1, being the Branch Manager, without ensuring the margin amount and without obtaining proforma invoice has released the loan amount in 3 installments for purchasing software produce by name 'Framins' package by accused No.3 from M/s.Regency Technologies Inc, Texas, USA, and thereby released entire term loan of Rs.20 Crores and further, the accused No.1 did not recover the said loan amount though an amount of Rs.41,34,29,400/- was laying in the current account of M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., and thereby by corrupt or illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage from accused No.3 by abusing his position as a public servant and thereby accused have caused wrongful loss to United Bank of India cantonment Branch, Bengaluru to the tune of Rs.14.99 Crores as on 30.9.2012 and corresponding gain to accused No.3-D.Ravi Kumar. Further, accused No.3-D.Ravi Kumar in conspiracy with 32 Spl.CC.38/2015 accused No.1 and 2, with intention to cheat United Bank of India, got sanctioned loan of Rs.20 Crores in favour of M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., by offering a property bearing Sy.No.89 of Kamanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South as collateral security though he was not owner of said property as on 06.07.2009 but got registered said property on 08.07.2009 by inflating the value of said property more than Rs.10 Crores though its actual valuation was Rs.4,11,65,000/- and further, accused No.3 did not utilize said term loan of Rs.20 Crores for purchasing software product 'Framins' from M/s. Regency Technology Inc., Texas, USA, but he downloaded it through on-line without completing on said software and only 1/4th of development was done and thereby misutilized the loan amount and thereby dishonestly induced United Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru to part with a Term Loan of Rs.20 Crores, subsequently defaulted with said loan and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.14.99 Crores as on 30.09.2012 and corresponding gain to himself and thereby, accused No.3 committed the 33 Spl.CC.38/2015 offences of criminal conspiracy and cheating & dishonestly inducing delivery of property punishable U/Sec.120-B and 420 of IPC; and accused No.1 and 2 have also committed offences punishable U/Sec.120-B and 420 of IPC and U/Sec.13(2) read with Sec.13(1)(d) of PC Act.
31. Now, let me appreciate the prosecution evidence, both oral as well documentary, in order to come to conclusion whether the accused No.1 to 3 have committed the criminal conspiracy colluding with each other, punishable U/Sec.120-B of IPC; cheating & dishonestly inducing to delivery of property punishable U/Sec.420 of IPC and whether the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence of criminal misconduct punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of PC Act.
32. The prosecution records disclose that, CW.2- Sri.D.Sinha, then Chief Regional Manager, United Bank of India, Regional Office, Bengaluru has submitted a written complaint before the CBI/ACB, Bengaluru on 02.12.2013, alleging the fraud committed in credit facilities pertaining to the account of M/s. Acropetal 34 Spl.CC.38/2015 Technologies Ltd., maintained with United Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, Brigade Road, Bengaluru. In this case, said CW.2-D.Sinha is examined as PW.1. His complaint is marked at Ex.P1. On the basis of said complaint, a FIR was registered as RC No.16(S)/2013 on 13.12.2013, which is marked in the case on hand, as per Ex.P386.
33. As per evidence of PW.1-D.Sinha, the accused No.3-D.Ravikumar on behalf of M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., as its Chairman & Managing Director, submitted a credit proposal for Rs.20 Crores with United Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru. Said proposal was recommended by then Branch Manager i.e. accused No.1 and it was approved/sanctioned by accused No.2-Pranab Kumar Roy, who was the sanctioning authority. The said account became NPA on 30.09.2012 and at that time, the total outstanding loan was Rs14.99 Crores. According to this witness, an internal investigation was conducted and given finding stating that the value of properties was inflated many fold and their ownership was also doubtful. This witness has 35 Spl.CC.38/2015 further deposed that, according to said report, the recommending and sanctioning authorities have sanctioned the credit facility without ensuring the absolute marketability and genuineness of the guaranteed property and credit worthiness of the Borrower. His evidence further discloses that, the internal investigation also shows that the company [i.e. M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd.] has submitted fabricated documents for the purpose of defrauding the bank and thereby availed huge credit of Rs.20 Crores.
34. Further, the prosecution has examined PW.3- Dibakar Bhattacharjee, who conducted the internal investigation in respect of irregularities committed in the account of M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd. He was working in the Vigilance Department of United Bank of India at Head Office, Kolkata, at relevant point of time. As per his evidence, he conducted an internal investigation in respect of irregularity in the account of M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., along with one Sri.B.Krishna Mohan. The internal investigation reports of this witness and of Sri.B.Krishna Mohan have been marked in the case as 36 Spl.CC.38/2015 per Ex.P8 and P9. This witness has also identified another report dated:25.06.2013 submitted by him and Sri.P.Krishna Mohan and the same has been marked as per Ex.P13. As per his evidence, Ex.P13 is pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the advance of M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., and other borrowers. According to this witness, the loan of Rs.20 Crores was sanctioned in the month of July, 2009 to M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., for procuring software package namely 'Framins' from an overseas vendor M/s. Regency Technologies Inc, Texas, USA and the loan was secured by primary security of hypothecation of software package to be procured by the borrower. Further, according to this witness, during their investigation, they found that the properties that were offered as mortgage situated at the Kammanahalli Village were purchased at much lower price and the same were valued at an exorbitant rate of Rs.10 Crores each approximately, by two different valuers. Subsequently, in October-2012, fresh valuation taken on the same properties which revealed that they were valued at much lesser value approximately at Rs.5 Crores each. Further, 37 Spl.CC.38/2015 as pr evidence of this witness, the mortgage of one property at Sompura Village was not registered with Registrar of Companies. The foreign remittance that were made by the Branch was not supported by proper sanction from the appropriate authority at the Regional Office. During the evidence of this witness, a Copy of Circular No.CROPS/EMP/03/25/2025 dated:12.04.2005 is marked as per Ex.P10; a Copy of Manual of Instructions Part-IV Volume 1 is marked as per Ex.P3; and Copy of lending policy of the Bank is marked as per Ex.P2.
35. Thus, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 in their respective examinations-in-chief and the contents of Ex.P1, Ex.P8, P9 and P13 disclose that, the term loan of Rs.20 Crores was granted to M/s.Acropetal Technologies Lt.d, and said loan was to be secured by way of primary and additional securities. The primary security comprised exclusive hypothecation charge over software package 'Framins' worth of Rs.28.20 Crores and additional security comprised of two landed properties viz., one land bearing Sy.No.89 of Kamanahalli Village measuring 38 Spl.CC.38/2015 91476 Sq.Ft., which is shown to be valued at Rs.10.06 Crores; another land in Sy.No.20/7 of Kamanahalli Village measuring 87120 Sq.Ft., which is shown to be valued at Rs.9.58 Crores. Subsequently, the sanctioning authority permitted substitution of property at Sy.No.20/7 of Kammanahalli Village with property bearing No.14/1 of Somapura Village measuring 36123 Sq.Ft., which is shown to be valued at Rs.10.33 Crores. However, it is the prosecution version that, the purchase consideration of property at Sy.No.89 of Kamanahalli village was Rs.1.20 Crore and the purchase consideration of property at Sy.No.14/1 of Somapura village was Rs.3.50 Crore. But, the same property at Sy.No.89 of Kamanahalli village was valued on 22.10.2012 by S & V Engineering Enterprises at Rs.5.49 Crores and same property at Sy.No.14/1 of Somapura village was valued on 19.10.2012 by S & V Engineering Enterprises at Rs.5.42 Crores. Thus, it is the very prosecution case against accused No.3-D.Ravikumar that, he has submitted inflated properties as collateral security while 39 Spl.CC.38/2015 obtaining loan for his company-M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., in order to cheat the Bank.
36. Further, it is also the prosecution case that, the accused No.3 had submitted not only the inflated properties as additional security by way of equitable mortgage but the ownership of said properties was also doubtful as no charge was created with ROC. At this stage, it is necessary to examine whether accused No.3 was having valid and marketable title in respect of property bearing Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli Village and property bearing Sy.No.14/1 of Somapura Village, to create equitable mortgage in favour of United Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru for the purpose of borrowing loan in favour of Company-M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., or not. Further, it is also important to examine whether there was a suppression of material facts with regard to properties submitted as collateral security and whether there was a criminal conspiracy or mala-fide intention on the part of accused No.3 while borrowing huge sum of loan for his Company, by 40 Spl.CC.38/2015 submitting inflated properties as alleged by the prosecution.
37. The evidence of PW.19-Sri. M. Mohamed Ibrahim, a Penal Advocate for United Bank of India, shows that as per instruction of Manager, United Bank of India, Cantonment Branch i.e. accused No.1-Rajesh Kumar, he gave legal opinion to the Bank as per Ex.P309 in respect of property bearing Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli Village; another legal opinion in respect of property at Sy.No.20/7 of Kammanahalli Village as per Ex.P310; another legal opinion in respect of property at Sy.No.14/1 of Somapura Village, as per Ex.P311; and yet another legal opinion in respect of property at Sy.No.14/1 of Somapura Village, as per Ex.P236 based on the documents of said properties. As per Ex.P309 and P310, this witness has opined that, upon purchase of properties at Sy.No.89 and Sy.No.20/7 of Kammanahalli village by the accused No.3-D.Ravikumar, he can acquire a valid title over said properties and can create a valid mortgage of said properties in favour of Bank. Further, as per Ex.P311, this witness has opined that, accused No.3- 41 Spl.CC.38/2015 D.Ravikumar has purchased the property bearing Sy.No.14/1 measuring 36122 Sq.Ft., from L. Shivananda and others, has acquired a valid title to the property and he can create valid mortgage in favour of Bank. Further, as per Ex.P236, this witness has opined that, the converted land in Sy.No.14/1 of Somapura Village measuring 53630 Sq.Ft., is owned by accused No.3- D.Ravikumar and has acquired a valid title of the said property and he is competent to create mortgage.
38. Further, PW.20-S.K.Sridhara and PW.21- G.Narashimha Maiya, who are not the Panel Advocates of United Bank of India, at the request of accused No.3, have given their legal opinions in respect of properties bearing Sy.No.14/1 of Somapura village and Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli village as per Ex.P233 and P308, respectively. Thus, as per legal opinions marked at Ex.P309, P310, P311 and P236, the PW.19, who is Panel Advocate for United Bank of India, has opined that there is valid and marketable title in respect of properties bearing Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli village and 42 Spl.CC.38/2015 Sy.No.14/1 of Somapura village to create equitable mortgage in favour of United Bank of India.
39. Further, PW.18-M.Sreekrishna, claims that he was one of the penal valuers of United Bank of India. This witness has valued the property bearing Sy.No.14/1 of Somapura Village measuring 36123 Sq.Ft., and he valued said property at Rs.10.25 Crores. He gave report to that effect as per Ex.P232. Further, he valued the property bearing Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli Village measuring 91476 Sq.Ft., at Rs.10.98 Crores and gave his report as per Ex.P306.
40. Further, PW.22-K.Nataraj, a Valuer has valued the property bearing Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli Village measuring 91476 Sq.Ft. at the request of accused No.3- D.Ravi Kumar and he valued said property at Rs.10,06,24,000/-.
41. Further, PW.23-Sri.Venkatesh Shanbhag, a Chartered Engineer and approved valuer, on the request of one Sri.Suresh Naik of Company-M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., has valued the property bearing Sy.No.14/1 of Somapura Village, measuring 36,123 43 Spl.CC.38/2015 Sq.Ft., and he valued said property at Rs.10,33,00,000/- and he has given his report as per Ex.P231.
42. It is significant to note here that, when the account of Company of accused No.3 became NPA due to non-payment of loan, the Bank has conducted valuation of properties submitted as collateral security, through another Bank Paneled Valuer PW.34-Sri.K.S.Venkata Krishnan. His evidence goes to show that, as per request of Cantonment Branch of United Bank of India, he visited the property bearing Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli Village measuring 91476 Sq.Ft., on 18.10.2012 and submitted his valuation report as per Ex.P304 on 22.10.2012; and valued said property at the rate of 600 Per Sq.Ft, total amounting to Rs.5,48,85,600/-. Further, he also valued property bearing Sy.No.14/1 of Somapura Village measuring 36122 Sq.Ft., at Rs.1500 Per Sq.Ft., total amounting to Rs.5,41,83,000/-. In that regard, he has given his report as per Ex.P307.
43. Further, the Bank has also conducted valuation of said properties again through PW.35-L.S.Narayanan, a Chartered Engineer and Panel valuer of the Bank; whose 44 Spl.CC.38/2015 evidence goes to show that, at the request of Regional office, United Bank of India, Bengaluru, he valued the property bearing Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli Village and Sy.No.14/1 of Sompaura Village. As per his report marked at Ex.P324, he valued the market value of bearing Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli at Rs.10,57,58,100/- and as per his another report marked at Ex.P325, he valued the market value of property Sy.No.14/1 of Sompaura Village, at Rs.9,93,35,500/-.
44. Further, the prosecution has examined PW.6, PW.7 and PW.10, who are the Sub-Registrars, in order to show that accused No.3 has managed to get overvaluation for his properties submitted as collateral security, though said properties are having lesser value in reality. That during the evidence of PW.6-Sri.B.Guru Raghavendra, the Senior Sub-Registrar, Ex.P43-Sale Deed in respect of property in Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli, has been marked and as per evidence of PW.6, the guidance value is shown as Rs.4,11,66,000/- and stamp duty of Rs.27,91,000/- was paid; however, the sale consideration of the said land is shown at 45 Spl.CC.38/2015 Rs.1,20,00,000/- in the sale deed. Further, as per evidence of this witness, as per Ex.P57 which is sale deed dated:24.03.2004 in respect of property in Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli village, the guidance value [actually that is sale consideration] is shown at Rs.24,00,000/- and accordingly, stamp duty is paid.
45. Further, as per evidence of PW.10- G.S.Nagendra, a Senior Sub-Registrar, Ex.P343 is sale deed dated:08.02.2008 and Ex.P344 is another sale deed dated:24.08.2009 executed in respect of property bearing Sy.No.14/1 of Somapura Village. As per Ex.P343, accused No.3-D.Ravikumar has purchased property in Sy.No.14/1 of Somapura Village form L.Shivananda and others, for the sale consideration of Rs.3,50,00,000/-; and as per Ex.P344, accused No.3-D.Ravikumar has sold the said property to M/s.Vault Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd., for the sale consideration of Rs.1,22,56,000/-.
46. Further, in order to prove that, title over the collateral properties submitted by the accused No.3 is not clear, the prosecution has examined PW.11, 12, 13, 15, 17 and PW.24. The evidence of PW.13-Chowrappa goes to 46 Spl.CC.38/2015 show that, his family had been inherited three and half acres of land in Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli village, he had executed a lease agreement in favour of Ravikumar [i.e. accused No.3] for cultivation of land in Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli village; and he had been to Sub-registrar office for execution of lease agreement in favour of Ravikumar but he never executed sale deed in respect of land in Sy.No.89 in favour of anybody. Further, the evidence of PW.11-C.H.Subboji Rao goes to show that, PW.13-Chowrappa had executed a GPA in favour of this witness for conversion of land bearing Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli Village. Thereafter, this witness had executed a sale deed dated:24.03.2004 in respect of land in Sy.No.89 in favour of N.Balakrishna Naidu-PW.12. Further, the evidence of PW.12-N.Balakrshna Naidu goes to show that, he has developed the land in Sy.No.89 and formed a layout of 25 Plots and sold to different persons and subsequently, he came to know that, original owner Chowrappa-PW.13 had executed sale deed as per Ex.P302 in respect of Sy.No.89 in the year 2009 in favour of Ravikumar [i.e. accused No.3].
47 Spl.CC.38/2015
47. Further, the evidence of PW.15-L.Shivananda goes to show that, he is the owner of property bearing Sy.No.14/1 of Somapura Village. He knows accused No.3-Ravikumar and he approached him with a proposal of joint venture in the ratio of 55:45 for construction of flats. Said Ravikumar asked this witness to execute sale deed in his name; accordingly, this witness has executed sale deed as per Ex.P303 in respect of land in Sy.No.14/1 for the sale consideration of Rs.3,50,00,000/-. But this witness further deposed that, himself and his brothers have not received any consideration amount under sale deed-Ex.P303 and property is still in their possession. However, in his cross examination, this witness has stated that he has not filed a suit against accused No.3 seeking cancellation of sale deed marked at Ex.P303 and not filed a suit for recovery of consideration amount nor filed a suit against accused No.3 for specific performance of contract as per joint venture agreement. Further, this witness has admitted that himself and his brother together have executed sale deed-Ex.P303 on 08.02.2008 in favour of accused No.3-Ravi Kumar.
48 Spl.CC.38/2015
48. Though there is much difference is seen in respect of value of the properties submitted as collateral security by the accused No.3, and though there is cloud on the very title of the properties; but it is relevant to note here that, the valuation reports of PW.18 submitted as per Ex.P232 & P306, conducted in respect of properties situated at Sy.No.14/1 of Somapura Village and Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli Village respectively, have been accepted by the Bank and the same have been forwarded along with loan proposal to Regional Office, Chennai. Further, the legal opinion of PW.19 in respect of collateral properties, has also been given due consideration by the Bank. It is to be noted here that, PW.18 is an approved valuer and Panel valuer of United Bank of India and PW.19 is Panel Advocate of the Bank. Generally, the Bank would rely upon the valuation reports and legal opinions of Panel Valuers and Panel Advocates in respect of loan proposals. It may be true that, as per documents marked at Ex.P43, P57, P343 and P344, the properties in Sy.No.14/1 of Somapura Village and in Sy.No.89 of Kammanahalli village were purchased 49 Spl.CC.38/2015 for lesser sale consideration; but it is not demonstrated by the prosecution that accused No.3 by colluding with PW.18 has got overvalued his above said two properties or PW.18 has deposed that he has overvalued the properties as per whims and wishes of accused No.3. Rather, PW.18 has stated that based on relevant records and market value and guidance value, he accordingly valued the properties. So also with legal opinions of PW.19. In his cross examination by the counsel for the accused No.3, PW.19 has admitted that, he has given his legal opinion on the basis of documents provided by the Bank. Further, he has specifically admitted that, as per his legal opinions marked at Ex.P309, P310, P311 and P236, the properties had marketable titles.
49. It is the further case of prosecution against accused No.3 that, the accused No.3 or his company-M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., has not utilised the loan amount for the purpose for which it has been sanctioned. However, in this regard, there is no cogent evidence produced by the prosecution. That the prosecution has not produced any incriminating evidence 50 Spl.CC.38/2015 either direct or circumstantial to show any mis-utilisation of loan proceeds or diversion of funds by the accused No.3. Contrary, in his cross examination, PW.1 has admitted that, to purchase software package, the payment (loan amount) was directly made to M/s. Regency Technologies Ltd., USA and it is also admitted that, no part of term loan has gone to borrower company- M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., or to accused No.3. Further, the evidence of PW.50-Investigating Officer also discloses that, there is no fraud in the matter of availing, disbursement and utilisation of said loan proceeds. Hence, there is no evidence to show that the accused No.3 or his company has utilised the loan amount for any other purpose.
50. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the accused No.3 that, even though the allegations made against accused No.3 in respect of mortgaged properties, if presumed as true for the sake of argument; for which, the accused No.3 cannot be punished. It is because, he argued that, the evidence recorded and documents marked by the prosecution in the present 51 Spl.CC.38/2015 case does not provide any material against accused No.3 in alleging criminal conspiracy in the matter of availing credit facility for M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd. He further argued that, in the instant case, borrower is M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., which is company registered under the Companies Act and said company is not an accused in the present case; therefore, in the absence of borrower company as accused, the accused No.3, who being a Director of said company, cannot be prosecuted vicariously for the charge sheeted offences as there is no concept of vicarious liability in the criminal jurisprudence.
51. The learned counsel further argued that, the loan was granted to borrower company-M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., and on behalf of company, the accused No.3 individually had given collateral security to mortgage his personal properties as additional security to the loan availed by the borrower company, but on this pretext, the CBI has implicated accused No.3 as accused in the present case which is against the settled principles of law.
52 Spl.CC.38/2015
52. It is further argued that, the very evidence of prosecution witnesses, more particularly Bank Officers, Bank Panel advocate [PW.19] and Bank Panel Valuer [PW.18] reveals the the correctness of collateral security offered by the accused No.3 as a guarantor. PW.19, who gave his legal opinion as per Ex.P309 and P311 has accepted the collateral security and recommended for mortgage to the Bank as a matter of due diligence; similarly, PW.18-Bank Panel Valuer has also visited the collateral properties and assessed the property value and gave his valuation reports at Ex.P232 and P306, in accordance with law. Such being the case, the allegation of criminal conspiracy by accused No.3 with accused No.1 and 2 in any manner for availment of credit facility availing by the borrower company is unsustainable.
53. Thus, it is the first and foremost argument of learned counsel for the accused No.3 that, in the instant case, the loan has been granted to M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., which is a company registered under the Companies Act and said company is not made as an accused in the present case. The accused No.3 is one of 53 Spl.CC.38/2015 its Directors. Therefore, in the absence of borrower company as accused, the accused No.3-Director cannot be prosecuted vicariously for the charge sheeted offences, as there is no concept of vicarious liability in criminal law in attributing and imputing the Director of the company for the criminal acts done by the company. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the cases of Sunil Bharti Mittal V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation; Anil Khandelwal Vs. Phoenix India and another; and Aneeta Hada V/s. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited.
54. On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that, the Director or Chairman of the company can be made an accused and prosecuted without arraigning the company as accused if said Director or chairman has actively participated in the affairs of the company. In the present case, accused No.3-Ravi Kumar is Managing Director and Chairman of borrower company namely M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., and loan has been granted to said company by the 54 Spl.CC.38/2015 United Bank of India and accused No.3, being an authorized person for availing loan, has submitted loan proposal to the Bank, submitted his own properties [inflated and uncleared] as collateral security and thereby played an active role in obtaining the loan to the his company with dishonest intention. The learned Public Prosecutor further argued that it is apparent on record that, the accused No.3 has cheated the United Bank of India and caused huge loss to the bank in conspiracy with accused No.1 and 2. Therefore, merely on the ground that the company is not made as an accused, it is not proper to absolve the criminality of the accused No.3 in getting loan by cheating. Accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for accused No.3 are not applicable to the case on hand, in view of clear case against accused No.3.
55. It is well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that, there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provide so. It is well recognised principle of law that company does not act of its own but 55 Spl.CC.38/2015 through its Directors/Officers and when such Directors/Officers act on behalf of company, the company is also held liable for those acts. Thus, the position of law is that, there is no such vicarious liability in criminal law unless something is imputed or there is a specific statutory provision creating criminal vicarious liability. In the case on hand, the borrower company- M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., is not arraigned as accused in whose name the loan has been availed; therefore, its Director i.e. accused No.3 cannot be vicariously held liable. Moreover, the Indian Penal Code 1860 does not contemplates any vicarious liability on the part of a person on behalf of his company or entity.
56. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Sunil Mittal V/s Central Bureau of Investigation [(2015) 4 SCC 609], throws a light on this aspect. It has been held in the said judgment at Paragraphs No.40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 54, as under:
"40. It is abundantly clear from the above that the principle which is laid down is to the effect that the criminal intent of the "alter ego" of the company, that is the personal group of persons that guide the 56 Spl.CC.38/2015 business of the company, would be imputed to the company/corporation. The legal proposition that is laid down in the aforesaid judgment in Iridium India case is that if the person or group of persons who control the affairs of the company commit an offence with a criminal intent, their criminality can be imputed to the company as well as they are "alter ego" of the company.
41. In the present case, however, this principle is applied in an exactly reverse scenario. Here, company is the accused person and the learned Special magistrate has observed in the impugned order that since the appellants represent the directing mind and will of each company, their state of mind is the state of mind of the company and, therefore, on the premise, acts of the company are attributed and imputed to the appellants. It is difficult to accept it as the correct principle of law. As demonstrated hereinafter, this proposition would run contrary to the principle of vicarious liability detailing the circumstances under which a Director of a company can be held liable.
42. No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through is officers, directors, Managing Director, Chairman, etc. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that individual who would act on behalf of the company. It would be more so, when the criminal act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same time it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so.
43. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on
57 Spl.CC.38/2015 behalf of a company can be made an accused, along with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. Second situation in which he can be implicated is in those cases where the statutory regime itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, by specifically incorporating such a provision.
44. When the company is the offender, vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed automatically in the absence of any statutory provision to this effect. One such example is Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In Aneeta Hada the Court noted that if a group of persons that guide the business of the company have the criminal intent, that would be imputed to the body corporate and it is in this backdrop, Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be understood. Such a position is, therefore, because of statutory intendment making it a deeming fiction. Here also, the principle of "alter ego" was applied only in one direction namely, where a group of persons that guide the business had criminal intent, that is to be imputed to the body corporate and not the vide versa. Otherwise, there has to be a specific act attributed to the Director or any other person allegedly in control and management of the company, to the effect that such a person was responsible for the acts committed by or on behalf of the company.
54. However, there has to be a proper satisfaction in this behalf which should be duly recorded by the Special Judge on the basis of material on record. No such exercise is done. In this scenario, having regard to the aforesaid aspects coupled with the legal position explained above, it is difficult to sustain the impugned order dated 19.03.2013 58 Spl.CC.38/2015 in its present form insofar as it relates to implicating the appellants and summoning them as accused persons."
57. In the above cited case, company was made as an accused but its Chairman or Directors were not. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of summoning of Chairman and Directors of said company passed by the learned Magistrate. However, in the present case, it is reverse scenario. In the case on hand, the Director of M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., i.e. accused No.3 is made as an accused but not the company. Therefore, the principles held in the above cited case would well applicable to the case on hand.
58. Further, in case of Anil Khandelwal Etc., Vs Phoenix India and Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1883], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held in Paragraphs No.16, 17, 18, 20 and 24, as under:
"16. The bank is a body corporate. The appellants herein, being the Chairman and Managing Director as well as other Officers of the Bank, were arraigned as accused on the principle of vicarious liability being the persons responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Bank. However, the Bank itself, on whose behalf the alleged defamatory notice had bee issued, was not arraigned as an accused in the complaint. It is a
59 Spl.CC.38/2015 settled position of law that without impleading the company itself, the prosecution against directors or officers alone is impermissible.
17. In this regard, we are benefited of the judgment of this court in the case of Aneeta Hada V/s Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Ltd. Company cane be maintained only when the company itself is arraigned as an accused and additionally, the directors or officers must have acted in a manner that directly connects his/her conduct to the company's liability. In the absence of the company being impleaded as an accused, its directors or officers cannot be fastened with vicarious liability for offences attributable to the company.
18. Thus, the prosecution of the appellants, without impleading the Bank as an accused in the proceedings, is ex-facie impermissible and cannot be sustained.
20. Suffice it to say that the appellants have been summoned in capacity of the officers of the Bank for the offences punishable under the IPC. However, there is no concept of vicarious liability of the officers of directors for the offences under the IPC as is provided under special Penal Statutes such as The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, etc. which specifically creates such liability.
24. Hence, in the absence of any specific statutory provision under the IPC creating vicarious liability, coupled with the lack of concrete allegations or material demonstrating the individual role or culpability of the appellants for the alleged defamatory notice, their prosecution cannot be sustained. To permit continuation of criminal proceedings merely on the basis of their official designation in the Bank would amount to a misuse of judicial process, contrary to the settled principles laid down by this Court. Accordingly, the appellants have been wrongly impleaded, and the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed".
60 Spl.CC.38/2015
59. Further, in the case of Keki Hormusji Gharda Vs. Mehervan Rustum Irani [(2009) 6 SCC 475], at Paragraph No.17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"17. The Penal Code, 1860 save and except in some matters does not contemplate any vicarious liability on the part of a person. Commission of an offence by raising a legal fiction or by creating a vicarious liability in terms of the provisions of statute must be expressly stated. The Managing Director or the Directors of the Company, thus, cannot be said to have committed an offence only because they are holders of office. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, therefore, in our opinion, was not correct in issuing summons without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter."
60. Thus, from the above decisions, it is very clear that, in the absence of company as accused, its Directors or Chairman, cannot be vicariously held liable for the acts done by the company. In the case on hand, as borrower company-M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., is not made as an accused; hence, accused No.3-Ravi Kumar is not vicariously held liable and certainly, he would be entitled the benefit of principles laid down in the above referred decisions.
61 Spl.CC.38/2015
61. Now coming to the prosecution case against accused No.1-Rejesh Kumar Madhav, it is one of the allegations against him that he recommended the loan proposal without verifying the genuineness of properties offered as security and not followed the Banking Norms. On perusal of prosecution evidence both oral as well as documentary, it appears that, the accused No.1 has acted on the valuation reports of properties submitted by Panel Valuers and legal opinions of Panel Advocates.
62. Moreover, PW.30-C.Balachandran, who worked as Asst. General Manager in United Bank of India at Regional Office, Bengaluru, has stated in his cross examination that, he did not notice any irregularities in the proposal while recommending the loan proposal to General Manager for sanction. Further, PW.31- K.R.Tamilselvan, then Chief Manager, Southern Regional Office, Chennai, in his cross examination, has admitted that, all the papers furnished by the Branch were in accordance with Banking Norms. Further more, PW.32- T.S.Sudarshan, then Senior Manager, Southern Regional Office, Chennai, has admitted in his cross examination 62 Spl.CC.38/2015 that all the compliances required to be followed as per Banking Norms have been strictly followed in this proposal. Thus, the prosecution version that accused No.1 has not followed banking norms while forwarding the loan proposal to Regional Office, is not established.
63. So far as failure to obtain Techno Economic Viability Report is concerned, the prosecution has not produced specific document which mandates the Techno Economic Viability Report even in cases of loan for software products. The prosecution has produced Ex.P4, which is an attested copy of Manual of Instructions, Part- 4 and Volume-I, issued by United Bank of India regarding obtaining the Techno Economic Viability Report but on perusal of Sub-Paragraph No.7 of Paragraph No.4.11 of Manual of Instructions, though there is a reference as to Techno Economic Viability Report under the heading 'Borrower Standard and Minimum Criteria For New Proposals'; but it is not specifically states it is for even software products. It is an important aspect which needs to be considered is that, whether Techno Economic Viability Report is necessary or not, in respect of nature 63 Spl.CC.38/2015 of loan sought by the Company of accused No.3 namely M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd. Admittedly, nature of loan sought by the Company of accused No.3 is not either for Industrial Projects or for any infrastructural industry; but it is for purchase of IT Software product from an overseas vendor.
64. It is true that PW.28-Sri.Tapan Kumar Patra, worked as AGM of the Branch, has deposed in his examination-in-chief that, if a term loan beyond Rs.10 Crore is to be sanctioned a Techno Economic Viability Study Report has to be obtained. It is important to note here that, though in Ex.P2-Lending Policy of United Bank of India, a reference can be found as to Techno-Economic Viability Report, but it is with respect to 'Project Financing' and said 'Project Financing' includes Long Term Infrastructure, Industrial Projects and Public Services; but not necessarily for finance to Information Technology and Software industry. Therefore, there is no specific and cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that the Techno-Economic Viability Report is must for even loan to Software Industries. Accordingly, 64 Spl.CC.38/2015 the allegation that accused No.1 has cheated the United Bank of India and thereby committed misconduct by conspiring and colluding with accused No.3 by not obtaining the Techno-Economic Viability Report, is not established.
65. So far as allegation as to Due diligence report on the overseas vendor and its credibility was not obtained as required under Bank's circular, is concerned; though, in his chief examination, PW.3 has deposed that in the case on hand no due diligence report about overseas vendor was obtained; but during his cross- examination done by accused No.3, PW.3 has stated that, he is not aware of whether two times due diligence report of overseas vendor was obtained from Dun and Brad Street Agency by the Bank. Further, PW.30-Sri. C.Balachandran, then Assistant General Manager, United Bank of India, Regional Office, Chennai deposed that, he has recommended the loan proposal submitted by Branch Head, Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru in respect of M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., for the purpose of sanction to the General Manager. According to this 65 Spl.CC.38/2015 witness, as per lending policy of the bank, the software loan was to be fully covered by the collateral security and at the time of recommendation of the proposal and on going through the records, he found that the loan was fully secured. He further stated that he did not notice any irregularities in the proposal while recommending the proposal to the General Manager for sanction.
66. Further, PW.31-K.R.Tamil Selvan, during his cross examination, has admitted that, he has taken all due diligence to prepare and furnish the process note and all the papers furnished by the Branch were in accordance with banking norms. Thus, it is clear from the very evidence of prosecution witnesses that as per lending policy of the bank, the software loan was fully secured and the officers at Credit Committee of the Regional Office, did not notice any irregularities in the proposal while recommending the proposal to the General Manager for sanction and all the papers furnished by the Branch were in accordance with banking norms. Therefore, there is no cogent evidence to prove the allegation that due diligence was not conducted by the 66 Spl.CC.38/2015 accused No.1, while forwarding the loan proposal to Regional Office.
67. Further, it is another allegation against accused No.1 that, he has disbursed the entire loan amount ignoring the terms of Sanction. However, Ex.P99, which is Staff Accountability Report with regard to the alleged irregularities in the account of M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., discloses that, PW.28, who has prepared said report, has answered positively as 'Yes' as to 'Disbursement have been made as per terms of sanction and in accordance with guidelines'; and also PW.28 has answered in his said report as 'Yes' as to 'Whether proper post disbursement monitoring done or not'. Further, as per contents of Ex.P1-complaint, after execution of loan documents on 09.07.2009, at the request of the company, the Branch had disbursed the Term Loan during the period from 10.07.2009 to 14.08.2009 through foreign remittances, favouring M/s.Regency Technology and the end use of funds released under the limit was ensured by obtaining a certificate from K.Gopalkrishna & Co., the Chartered Accountants. Such 67 Spl.CC.38/2015 being the case, there is no base in alleging that the disbursement of loan amount was not done in accordance with terms of sanction.
68. Thus, from the above evidence of prosecution, it is seen that, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against accused No.1 that he had criminal conspiracy with accused No.3 and cheated United Bank of India by recommending and forwarding the loan proposal of company of accused No.3 by corrupt or illegal means by obtaining pecuniary advantage from accused No.3 by abusing his position as a public servant and thereby caused loss to the Bank.
69. Now, coming to the prosecution case against accused No.2, it is alleged that, the accused No.2- Sri.Pranab Kumar Roy, being then Chief Regional Manager, United Bank of India, Southern Regional Office, Chennai, at relevant of period of time, had entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused No.3-D.Ravi Kumar, the Chairman and Managing of M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., has sanctioned the term loan of Rs.20 Crores to M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., without 68 Spl.CC.38/2015 following the procedure and norms of the Bank and in this regard, accused No.2 obtained Rs.2 lakhs through RTGS on 10.07.2009 from current account No.67042921027 of accused No.3 and another Rs.5 lakhs through RTGS made to M/s. Baba Sathyanarayana and Co. Bardwan, West Bengal on 09.10.2009 as quid pro quo for sanction of term loan of Rs.20 Crores and thereby accused No.2, by corrupt or illegal means has obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.7 lakhs by abusing his position as public servant for sanction of term loan of Rs.20 lakhs to accused No.3 and thereby, he committed the offences of criminal conspiracy and cheating as punishable U/Sec.120-B and 420 of IPC; and committed criminal misconduct punishable U/Sec.13(2) read with Sec.13(1)(d) of PC Act.
70. The learned counsel for accused No.2 has vehemently argued that, accused No.2 has only issued sanction order as per approval of Credit Committee and recommendation made by the Recommending Committee. That absolutely there is no evidence at all to connect the accused No.2 either with the offence punishable 69 Spl.CC.38/2015 U/Sec.120-B read with Sec.420 of IPC or with offence punishable U/Sec.13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. That the Branch has forwarded the loan proposal, Credit committee gave approval and recommending committee has recommended the loan proposal of company; thus, only on the basis of recommendation of Credit Committee and Recommending Committee, the accused No.2 has sanctioned the loan. But without there being any incriminating material against this accused No.2, he has been falsely implicated in the case by the Investigating Officer.
71. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the accused No.2 has highlighted the evidence of PW.1, PW.3, PW.30, PW.31, PW.32, PW.33, and PW.50 in order to show that accused No.2 has acted in good-faith while sanctioning the loan to Company-M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., and he has not committed any irregularities in sanctioning the loan. Further, the learned counsel has also highlighted the evidence of PW.44, PW.45, PW.46 and PW.50 in order to 70 Spl.CC.38/2015 establish the innocence of accused No.2 with regard to the allegation of bribe of Rs.7 Lakhs made against him.
72. The learned counsel further argued that, as per the evidence of above said prosecution witnesses, except sanctioning the loan, the accused No.2 has not done anything which is illegal. Admittedly, the accused No.2 was not a member of Recommending Committee, which has examined all the loan papers forwarded by the Branch and upon finding them as proper and free from any irregularity, then only the committee has recommended for the loan. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused No.2 has conspired with accused No.1 and 3 and thereby committed cheating and fraud against the United Bank of India.
73. With regard to allegation of acceptance of Rs.7 Lakhs as pecuniary advantage from accused No.3 by the accused No.2, it is argued by the learned counsel that, there is no iota of evidence to show demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused No.2 as alleged by the prosecution. He argued that, PW.44, PW.45 and PW.46 who are said to have given their statements before 71 Spl.CC.38/2015 Magistrate U/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., have all turned hostile and not deposed positively in their oral testimony in respect of payment of Rs.5 Lakh and Rs.2 Lakh to accused No.2 on two occasions through the account of M/s.Baba Sathyanarayana & Co., which is belonging to PW.46. Even in their respective cross examinations done by the prosecution also, nothing was elicited to establish the allegation of bribe. Thus, the learned counsel contended that, there is no evidentiary value attached to the Sec.164 Statements of PW.44, PW.46 and PW.47 in the absence of positive oral evidence to prove the contents of said statements.
74. Lastly, it is argued that, as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges of Criminal Conspiracy, Cheating & Fraud and Criminal Misconduct punishable U/Secs.120-B and 420 of IPC and U/Sec.13(2) of PC Act, against accused No.2. Accordingly, it is prayed to acquit the accused No.2.
75. It is the prosecution case that, the accused No.2, being the sanctioning authority, has violated the banking procedure while sanctioning the loan of Rs.20 72 Spl.CC.38/2015 Crores to company of accused No.3. However, PW.30- C.Balachandran, in his cross has admitted that, upon his recommendation, the General Manager [i.e. accused No.2] has sanctioned the loan proposal. Further, according to this witness, the loan proposal was received in the Regional Office, it was referred to initiating authority and after perusal of records, the proposal was placed before the AGM for recommendation, then AGM after satisfying himself with the proposal, placed it before the Regional Credit Committee and after approval by the Regional Credit Committee, the General Manager sanctioned the loan. He further stated in his cross-examination that, Initiating Authority and Regional Credit Committee have not found any defects in the loan proposal and he also admitted that, the loan proposal was verified at every level.
76. Further, PW.31-Sri. K.R.Tamil Selvan, who has worked as General Manager at United Bank of India in Southern Regional Office, Chennai and also worked as Senior Manager, has deposed that, as a Processing Officer in the Regional Office, he has processed the loan 73 Spl.CC.38/2015 proposal of M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd. After processing the loan proposal, he has placed it before the Assistant General Manager for recommendation. PW.32- Sri.T.S.Sudarshan, who worked as Senior Manager in United Bank of India at Southern Regional Office, Chennai, has deposed that, when the loan proposal of M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., was received in the Regional Office, the General Manager has entrusted the proposal to him and to the General Manager to initiate the proposal. In his cross-examination by accused No.3, this witness has admitted that all the compliances required to be followed as per banking norms have been strictly followed in this proposal.
77. PW.33-Sri.M.K.Raman has worked as Senior Manager [Inspection] in United Bank of India, at Regional Office, Chennai. According to this witness, he was the member of Regional Credit Committee. He deposed regarding the procedure to be followed in the process of loan proposal. He stated that, when the loan proposal was received in the Regional Office from the Branch, it will be entrusted to the initiating authority for 74 Spl.CC.38/2015 processing. After processing note was prepared, it will be placed before the Assistant General Manager of the Regional Office for recommendation. After the proposal is recommended by the Assistant General Manager, it will be placed before the Regional Credit Committee for approval and thereafter, members of the Regional Credit Committee will go through the process note prepared by the initiating authority recommended by the Assistant General Manager to find out whether various parameters for the proposal have been complied with. After satisfying that all the parameters are complied with in respect of said proposal, members of Regional Credit Committee will approve the said process note and thereafter, it will be placed before the General Manager for sanction by the Credit Department.
78. During his cross-examination by the accused No.1, PW.33 has stated that, when the process note recommended by Assistant General Manager is placed before Regional Credit Committee, the members of the Regional Credit Committee will ensure whether all the benchmark as per lending policy have been complied with 75 Spl.CC.38/2015 or not by verifying the process note. He further stated that, the Regional Credit Committee did not find any irregularities in the process note prepared by the Regional Office. Further, PW.50-Investigating officer, in his cross examination, has stated that, accused No.2 has sanctioned the loan on the basis of report of Credit Committee and he also admitted that, accused No.2 has sanctioned the loan as per the banking circulars and lending policy prevailing at the time of granting the loan.
79. Thus, the plain reading of testimony of PW.30, PW.31, PW.32, PW.33 and PW.50 would go to suggest that, except sanctioning the loan of Rs.20 Crores to the company of accused No.3 namely M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., the accused No.2 did not play any vital role in sanctioning the loan to the company of accused No.3 illegally in order to cheat United Bank of India in conspiracy with accused No.1 and 3. The very evidence of officers of United Bank of India, goes to show that, the Branch has forwarded the loan proposal, Credit committee gave approval and recommending committee has recommended the loan proposal of company; thus, 76 Spl.CC.38/2015 only on the basis of recommendation of Credit Committee and Recommending Committee, the accused No.2 has sanctioned the loan. None of the prosecution witnesses above named, have deposed that while forwarding the loan proposal of Company of accused No.3 or approving it or recommending it to the Regional office for sanction, the accused No.2 has not swayed them away.
80. So far as allegation against accused No.2- Pranab Kumar Roy that, he has accepted Rs.7 Lakh as pecuniary advantage from accused No.3 as a reward for sanctioning the loan to M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd, is concerned, it is the very case of the prosecution that the bribe amount of Rs.7 lakhs was paid to accused No.2- Sri.Pranab Kumar Roy by accused No.3-Sri.D.Ravi Kumar, through middlemen viz., PW.44-Sri.Debasis Das PW.45-Gaurav Pradan and PW.46-Sri.Arup Kumar Bose. However, in this regard, there is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that accused No.2 has demanded bribe from accused No.3 and accepted Rs.7 Lakh. But the prosecution has relied upon the statements of PW.44 to PW.46 recorded by the Magistrate 77 Spl.CC.38/2015 U/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., in order to prove the acceptance of Rs.7 Lakh as bribe or reward by the accused No.3.
81. Now, let me appreciate oral evidence of PW.44 to PW.46, in order to know how far said witnesses have supported the prosecution in respect of acceptance of Rs.7 Lakhs as bribe by the accused No.2 from accused No.3. The evidence of PW.44-Sri.Debasis Das, in his examination-in-chief, goes to show that, he knows accused No.2 and during 2008, this witness was working under his son-Suman Kumar Roy. Sometimes even accused No.2 was also instructing him to do some private work. This witness has further deposed that, the CBI officers have not asked him about the particular incident that happened in 2009 and further deposed that CBI officers have asked him about collecting of parcel nearby the place of Head Office, United Bank of India, Kolkata; but he did not tell anything to the CBI officers. As this witness has not supported the prosecution case, therefore, he has been cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor by treating him as hostile. During his cross- examination by the prosecution, this witness has denied 78 Spl.CC.38/2015 the portions of his statement made before CBI as per Ex.P372 and P373. But he admitted that he has given his voluntary statement before learned XVII Magistrate, Bengaluru on 26.11.2014. The said statement has been marked as Ex.P374 in the instant case.
82. However, during his cross-examination done by the accused No.2, PW.44 has stated that, at the time of recording his voluntary statement before learned XVII Magistrate, Bengaluru, the Police had earlier told him to say the same words before the Magistrate as they told him; therefore, being afraid of the Police, he has given his statement before the Magistrate. Further, during his cross examination done by the accused No.3, this witness has stated that, the CBI officers have asked him about receipt of parcel of accused No.2 but he pleaded his ignorance; at that time, the CBI police have told him that if he gives statement before the Magistrate he will be set at free, therefore, being afraid of CBI Police, he has given statement before the Magistrate. Thus, this way, this witness has retracted from his statement U/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., in his oral evidence.
79 Spl.CC.38/2015
83. The evidence of PW.45-Gaurav Pradhan goes to show that, he knows accused No.2-Sri.Pranab Kumar Roy and also knows CW.50-Arup Kumar Bose, who is his family friend. During 2009, CW.50-Arup Kumar Bose asked him that, he is in need of a building for hire. As he wanted to shift his office; therefore, he told CW.50 that he is ready to give his existing office on rent deposit of Rs.7 Lakh. Accordingly, CW.50-Arup Kumar Bose gave Rs.7 Lakh as rent deposit in two installments i.e. once Rs.5 Lakh and second time Rs.2 Lakh. However, CW.50- Arup Kumar Bose told him that he does not want to occupy the office premises and asked him to return Rs.7 Lakh to him; accordingly, this witness has kept ready the amount of Rs.7 Lakh in a cover, thereafter CW.50 came to his office and this witness has shown the cover stating that he has kept ready of Rs.7 Lakh in a cover. The evidence of this witness further goes to show that, CW.50 asked him to accompany him for handing over the money to some other person; accordingly, he accompanied said Sri.Arup Kumar Bose to Dalhousie, Kolkata and on reaching the spot; where one person came there and 80 Spl.CC.38/2015 CW.50-Arup Kumar Bose handed over the amount of Rs.7 lakhs to said person.
84. Further, the evidence of PW.46-Arup Kumar Bose, in his examination-in-chief, goes to show that, he runs Potato Business under the name and style of M/s.Baba Satyanarayana and Co. He knows accused No.2-Sri.Pranab Kumar Roy as he was Manager of United Bank of India Main Branch, Kolkata during 2005. He had obtained loan for his cold storage business from United Bank of India; at that time, he came to contact with accused No.2. It is his further evidence that, during July 2009, accused No.2 had telephoned him and asked him for a building premises on rent for his friend for business. That after 8 to 10 days, he received a phone call from a person claimed himself as friend of accused No.2 by name Ravi Kumar and he also told him that accused No.2 has given his number and enquired him about vacant building for establishment of his office at Kolkata. It is the further evidence of PW.46 that, after one week, he called said Ravi Kumar and asked him to give at least Rs.2 Lakh towards rent advance and sent his 81 Spl.CC.38/2015 account details to said Ravi Kumar. That during July- 2009, said Ravikumar deposited Rs.2 Lakh to his account. Thereafter, he met PW.45-Gaurav Pradhan, who agreed to let out his office premises on rent and demanded Rs.7 Lakh as rent advance. Therefore, he informed the same to said Ravi Kumar over telephone; and again, during September-2009, said Ravikumar deposited Rs.5 Lakh to his account. Thereafter, he handed over said Rs.7 Lakh to PW.45 towards rent advance. Further, after 4 to 5 days, he again received a call from Ravi Kumar stating that, he is not interested in occupying the said office building and requested him to return said Rs.7 Lakh. Accordingly, this witness requested PW.45 to return said Rs.7 Lakh advance rent given to him. After two days, again he received phone call from said Ravi Kumar stating that he has given his phone number to a person who will call him and also told him to hand over said Rs.7 Lakh to said person near the Head Office of United Bank of India. Accordingly, this witness and PW.45 went near the Head Office, United Bank of India, Kolkata; where one parson came there, this 82 Spl.CC.38/2015 witness asked said person to talk with Ravi Kumar to confirm of handing over the money to right person, accordingly, said person talked with Ravi Kumar and after that confirmation, he has handed over Rs.7 Lakh to said person. This witness has further deposed that, he has not stated before the CBI officer that accused No.2 asked him over telephone and asked him to search for an office building on hire at Kolkata and he has also not stated before the CBI Officer that accused No.2 has talked over telephone to hand over the said Rs.7 Lakh to a person on behalf of Ravi Kumar. As this witness has not supported the prosecution case therefore, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile. During his cross-examination by the prosecution, this witness has denied the portions of his statement made before CBI as per Ex.P375, P376 and P377. Further, this witness admitted that he has given his statement before learned XVII ACMM, Bengaluru. The said statement has been marked as Ex.P378 in this case. However, the witness has denied a portion of his statement made before learned XVII ACMM, 83 Spl.CC.38/2015 Bengaluru. Said portion of his statement made before Magistrate is marked as Ex.P378(a).
85. Thus, on perusal of entire evidence of PW.44 to PW.46, there is no any piece of evidence which would suggest that the amount of Rs.7 Lakh has been given to accused No.2 through the account of PW.46-Arup Kumar Bose, as a reward for sanctioning the loan to accused the Company M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd. In fact, the very evidence of PW.44 to PW.46 goes to show that, the alleged Rs.7 Lakh has been transferred to the account of PW.46 as a rent advance for purpose of office premises.
86. It is the contention of learned Public Prosecutor that, PW.44, PW.45 and PW.46 have specifically stated in their respective statements recorded before the learned Magistrate U/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., regarding payment of Rs.5 Lakhs and Rs.2 Lakhs to the account of M/s. Baba Sathynarayana & Co., on two occasions through RTGS; and the said amount of Rs.7 Lakhs was handed over to the wife of accused No.2. It is his further contention that, though PW.44, PW.45 and PW.46 have been retracted from their respective 84 Spl.CC.38/2015 statements recorded U/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., but their statements have to be appreciated in view of Sec.157 of Indian Evidence Act. As per Sec.157 of Indian Evidence Act, a statement U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C. could be used for both corroboration and contradiction and it could also be used to corroborate the testimonies of other witnesses. The circumstances found in the evidence of PW.44, PW.45 and PW.46 clearly goes to show that, the bribe amount was received by the accused No.2 as a reward for sanctioning the loan in favour of accused No.3-Company M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd.
87. It is true that statements recorded by the Magistrate U/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., stand on different footage compared to statements recorded U/Sec.161 and 162 of Cr.P.C., recorded by the police. However, the relevancy, admissibility and reliability of statements recorded U/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. are depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that, a statement U/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., could be used for both corroboration and contradiction and also to corroborate the testimonies of other witnesses.
85 Spl.CC.38/2015
88. Though PW.44 to PW.46 are said to have given their respective statements U/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate regarding the bribe amount of Rs.7 Lakh; however, in their respective oral evidence, they have denied material part of their respective Sec.164 statements and thereby, they retracted from their statements. It is important to note here that, in catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has time and again held that, the statement recorded U/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., is not considered as a substantive piece of evidence on its own feet, but oral evidence of that particular witness deposed before the court and subjected to cross examination, then it can be a substantive piece of evidence.
89. In the case of VIJAYA SINGH & ANR. VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [2024 INSC 905], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraph No.27 & 28 that,
27. The jurisprudence concerning a statement under Section 164 CrPC is fairly clear. Such a statement is not considered as a substantive piece of evidence, as substantive oral evidence is one which is deposed before the Court and is subjected to cross 86 Spl.CC.38/2015 examination. However, Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that a statement under Section 164 CrPC could be used for both corroboration and contradiction. It could be used to corroborate the testimonies of other witnesses. In R. Shaji v. State of Kerala, this Court discussed the two-fold objective of a statement under Section 164 CrPC as:
"15. So far as the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164 is concerned, the object is two fold; in the first place, to deter the witness from changing his stand by denying the contents of his previously recorded statement, and secondly, to tide over immunity from prosecution by the witness under Section 164. A proposition to the effect that if a statement of a witness is recorded under Section 164, his evidence in Court should be discarded, is not at all warranted ..."
The Court also recognized that the need for recording the statement of a witness under Section 164 CrPC arises when the witness appears to be connected to the accused and is prone to changing his version at a later stage due to influence. The relevant para reads thus:
"16. ... During the investigation, the Police Officer may sometimes feel that it is expedient to record the statement of a witness under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. This usually happens when the witnesses to a crime are clearly connected to the accused, or
87 Spl.CC.38/2015 where the accused is very influential, owing to which the witnesses may be influenced ..."
28. Considering the conceptual requirement of recording a statement before a Judicial Magistrate during the course of investigation and the utility thereof, as prescribed in Section 157 of Evidence Act, it could be observed that a statement under Section 164, although not a substantive piece of evidence, not only meets the test of relevancy but could also be used for the purposes of contradiction and corroboration. A statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC serves a special purpose in a criminal investigation as a greater amount of credibility is attached to it for being recorded by a Judicial Magistrate and not by the Investigating Officer. A statement under Section 164 CrPC is not subjected to the constraints attached with a statement under Section 161 CrPC and the vigour of Section 162 CrPC does not apply to a statement under Section 164 CrPC. Therefore, it must be considered on a better footing. However, relevancy, admissibility and reliability are distinct concepts in the realm of the law of evidence. Thus, the weight to be attached to such a statement (reliability thereof) is to be determined by the Court on a case-to-case basis and the same would depend to some extent upon whether the witness has remained true to the statement or has resiled from it, but it would not be a conclusive factor. For, even if a witness has 88 Spl.CC.38/2015 retracted from a statement, such retraction could be a result of manipulation and the Court has to examine the circumstances in which the statement was recorded, the reasons stated by the witness for retracting from the statement etc. Ultimately, what counts is whether the Court believes a statement to be true, and the ultimate test of reliability happens during the trial upon a calculated balancing of conflicting versions in light of the other evidence on record.
90. Further, in the case of T.Diwakara and Others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4632, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that, "The statement recorded under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code does not have any better legal status than the one recorded under Section 161(3) of the Code. At the most, if the deponent whose statement is recorded under Section 164 of the Code turns hostile, he/she could be prosecuted for perjury but on the strength of such statement no conviction can be placed".
91. As held in the above cited judgments, a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., although not a 89 Spl.CC.38/2015 substantive piece of evidence, not only meets the test of relevancy but could also be used for the purposes of contradiction and corroboration. However, considering the evidence on record and facts and circumstances of the case on hand, even there is no material evidence brought out by the prosecution so as to contradict or corroborate with the statements of PW.44 to PW.46 recorded under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. Except PW.44 to PW.46, none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed regarding alleged bribe of Rs.7 Lakh.
92. It is further argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that, though there is no direct evidence to establish that accused No.1 has obtained the bribe of Rs.7 Lakhs as reward for sanctioning of loan to the company of accused No.3, but there is reliable circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution to connect the accused No.2 with acceptance of bribe. In this regard, the learned Public Prosecutor has again relied upon the statements of PW.44 and PW.46 recorded before Magistrate U/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. Further, in support of his contention, the learned Public Prosecutor 90 Spl.CC.38/2015 has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, [ (1984) 4 SCC 116].
93. That the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 166, while dealing with circumstantial evidence has held that, the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured by a false defense of plea. The condition precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence must be fully established and they are;
1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established;
2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 91 Spl.CC.38/2015
5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the - innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
94. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gagan Kanojia and another Vs. State of Punjab [(2006) 13 Supreme Court cases 516], has laid down the principle of law that when a prosecution case is solely based on a circumstantial evidence how to appreciate the evidence. In the said case at Paragraph No.9, it was held that:
"9. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. Indisputably, charges can be proved on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, when direct evidence is not available. It is well-settled that in a case based on a circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove that within all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused. It is, however, necessary for the courts to remember that there is a long gap between 'may be true' and 'must be true'. Prosecution case is required to be covered by leading cogent, believable and credible 92 Spl.CC.38/2015 evidence. Whereas the court must raise a presumption that the accused is innocent and in the event two views are possible, one indicating to his guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the defence available to the accused should be accepted, but at the same time, the court must not reject the evidence of the prosecution, proceeding on the basis that they are false, not trustworthy, unreliable and made on flimsy grounds or only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The prosecution case, thus, must be judged in its entirety having regard to the totality of the circumstances. The approach of the court should be an integrated one and not truncated or isolated. The court should use the yardstick of probability and appreciate the intrinsic value of the evidence brought on records and analyze and assess the same objectively."
95. It is no doubt true that, a conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of reliable circumstantial evidence. However, as held in the above cited decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a case based on a circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove that within all human probabilities, the act must have been 93 Spl.CC.38/2015 done by the accused. In the case on hand, except the unreliable evidence of PW.44 to PW.46, there is no cogent evidence to show that the amount of Rs.7 Lakh which was referred in the evidence of PW.44 to PW.46, was the bribe amount obtained by accused No.2 as quid pro quo, from accused No.3 for sanction of loan for his company M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd. When we apply the five principles laid down in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra to the facts of case on hand, it is very difficult to accept that merely on relying the statements of PW.44 to 46 recorded U/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 could be convicted for the alleged charge of bribe. It is because, the facts, circumstances and evidence relied upon by the prosecution, in the case on hand, is not sufficient enough to establish the guilt of the accused No.2 in stating unequivocally that accused No.2 has obtained Rs.7 Lakh as bribe. The prosecution has failed in showing that the circumstances found in the prosecution evidence should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, in directing the 94 Spl.CC.38/2015 accused No.2 is guilty of receiving bribe amount of Rs.7 Lakh. Even there is no chain of evidence which connect the accused No.2 in accepting the bribe amount of Rs.7 Lakh as alleged by the prosecution. On appreciating of entire of evidence of prosecution and on examining the circumstances upon which the prosecution has relied, it cannot be said that the prosecution has shown that in all human probability, the bribe amount of Rs.7 Lakh must have been received by the accused No.2. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that, the prosecution has miserably failed in proving that accused no.2 has obtained Rs.7 Lakh as bribe or reward from accused No.3 for sanctioning loan to his Company, beyond reasonable doubt.
96. It is the first and foremost burden on the prosecution that, accused No.2, being a Public Servant, has demanded or requested accused No.3 a pecuniary advantage for sanctioning of loan to the company of accused No.3 and thereafter, he has obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.7 Lakhs as bribe by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his position as loan sanctioning 95 Spl.CC.38/2015 authority. In the case of A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2009 Cr.L.J.3450, it is held that:
"The legal position is no more res integra that primary requisite of an offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is proof of demand or request for valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant. In other words, in the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the offence under Section 13 (1)
(d) cannot be held to be established."
97. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with provision under Sec.5(1)(d) of PC Act, 1947 [akin to Sec.13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988] in the case of S.P.Bhatnagar and another vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1979 SC 826, held as under:
"The abuse of position in order to come within the mischief of S.5 (1)(d) must necessarily be dishonest so that it may be proved that the Accused caused deliberate loss to the department. It is for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the Accused by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his 96 Spl.CC.38/2015 position obtained any pecuniary advantage for some other person".
98. However, in the case on hand, as already discussed above, the prosecution has failed in establishing that accused No.2, being a public servant, with dishonest intention, has conspired with accused No.1 and 3 and thereby sanctioned loan to the company of accused No.3 by accepting inflated properties as collateral security and not following banking procedure prevailed at that time and also accepted Rs.7 Lakh as reward/pecuniary advantage from accused No.3 for sanction of loan to the company of accused No.3 and caused loss to United Bank of India and thereby committed criminal misconduct punishable U/Sec.13(1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. As already discussed at aforesaid paragraphs, the very prosecution material witnesses themselves have specifically deposed that, there is no any irregularity committed by accused No.1 in sanctioning the loan and the very evidence of prosecution, both oral as well as documentary, show that accused No.1, then Branch Manager of Cantonment 97 Spl.CC.38/2015 Branch, United Bank of India, Bengaluru has forwarded the loan proposal of company of accused No.3 to Regional office; PW.31-Sri. K. R. Tamil Selvan and PW.32-Sri. T. S. Sudarshan attached to Regional Office, have initiated the proposal; PW.3-Sri.C.Balachandran, then AGM has recommended the loan proposal; and PW.36- Sri.M.K.Raman, Senior Manager, who is the member of Credit Committee, along with othere members has approved the proposal; and thereafter, accused No.2 being the sanctioning authority, has accorded his sanction for the loan proposal of the company of accused No.3. Therefore, the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the charges levelled against accused No.2.
99. Thus, from the above evidence of prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against accused No.2 that he had criminal conspiracy with accused No.3 and thereby cheated United Bank of India by sanctioning credit facility to the tune of Rs.20 Crores to the Company of accused No.3, illegally and against the rules and 98 Spl.CC.38/2015 regulations of the Bank and thereby caused loss to the Bank.
100. In order to attract an offence U/Sec.420 of IPC, the dishonest intention must be established at the very beginning of loan transaction. There is no case made out by the prosecution in order to show that, there was dishonest inducement on the part of accused No.3 to deceive the bank to sanction the loan to the company of accused No.3. It is well founded principles of law that, the intention to cheat must have existed at the very inception of loan agreement.
101. It is on record that, the loan amount has been credited directly to the account of overseas vendor, in respect of Software product. There is no material produced by the prosecution to show contrary that, the company of accused No.3 has diverted the loan amount to any other purpose. None of the prosecution witnesses including investigating officer, has deposed that there is diversion of funds by accused No.3 or by his Company after disbursement of loan amount by the Bank. Even there is no any documentary evidence, in that regard.
99 Spl.CC.38/2015 The evidence of prosecution itself discloses that loan amount was released to overseas vendor. It is important to note here that, there is no evidence to suggest that whether Investigating Officer had been to Texas, USA to collect materials to whether loan amount was actually received by M/s.Regency Technologies Inc., Texas, USA for supply of software product namely 'Framins'. Such being the case, there is no material at all to suggest that accused No.1 and 2 have cheated the Bank, in conspiracy with accused No.3.
102. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that accused No.1 and 2 in conspiracy with accused No.3 have cheated the United Bank of India to the tune of Rs.14.99 Crores and also obtained pecuniary advantage from him as quid pro quo for recommending and sanctioning the loan of Rs.20 Crores to the company of accused No.3. Further, as Borrower Company-M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., is not made as an accused in the case on hand; therefore, accused No.3-Ravi Kumar is not vicariously held liable and he would entitle the benefit of principles laid down in 100 Spl.CC.38/2015 the cases of Sunil Bharti Mittal V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation; Anil Khandelwal Vs. Phoenix India and another; and Aneeta Hada V/s. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited. Thus, this court is of the considered view that, the prosecution has not proved the charges leveled against accused No.1 to 3, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answered the Points No.2 to 6 in the Negative.
103. Point No.7: In the light of above discussion, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B and Sec.420 r/w Sec.120-B of Indian Penal Code.
Further, acting U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Accused No.1 to 3 are set at liberty. The Bail and Surety Bonds of Accused No.1 to 3 shall continue as contemplated 101 Spl.CC.38/2015 U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C., for a period of 6 months.
[Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 13th day of February 2026].
[Manjunath Sangreshi] XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge & Prl.Special Judge for CBI Cases Bengaluru [CCH-4].
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW-1: Sri. D.Sinha PW-2: Sri. Shyamal Kumar Mondal PW-3: Sri. Dibakar Bhattacharjee PW-4: Sri. C.G.Raikar PW-5: Smt. Madhumalathi PW-6: Sri. B.Gururaghavendra PW-7: Sri. D.R.Rizwan PW-8: Sri. N.Rajanna PW-9: Sri. V.V.V.Sathyanarayana PW-10: Sri. G.S.Nagendra PW-11: Sri. C.H.Subboji Rao PW-12: Sri. N.Balakrishna Naidu PW-13: Sri. Chowrappa PW-14: Sri. M.Sri Hari PW-15: Sri. L.Shivananda PW-16: Sri. Srirama PW-17: Sri. A.Anthonyraj PW-18: Sri. M.Srikrishna PW-19: Sri. M.Mohammed Ibrahim
102 Spl.CC.38/2015 PW-20: Sri. S.K.Sridhara PW-21: Sri. G.Narasimha Maiya PW-22: Sri. K.Nataraj PW-23: Sri. Venkatesh Shanbhag PW-24: Sri. H.V.Shivshankar PW-25: Sri. P.Venkat Rao PW-26: Sri. O. Chengalvarayan PW-27: Miss. Vijayashree Prabhu B PW-28: Sri. Tapan Kumar Patra PW-29: Sri. J. Ramesh PW-30: Sri. C.Balachandran PW-31: Sri. K.R.Tamil Selvan PW-32: Sri. T.S.Sudarsan PW-33: Sri. M.K.Raman PW-34: Sri. K.S.Venkatakrishnan PW-35: Sri. L.S.Narayanan PW-36: Sri. G.Raghunath PW-37: Sri. K.Gopalakrishnan PW-38: Sri. Srihari S.P. PW-39: Sri. Sudhir Sivadas PW-40: Sri. M. Prashanth Kumar PW-41: Sri. K.Doraiswamy PW-42: Sri. Deepak Narang PW-43: Sri. Shashikanth Hiremath PW-44: Sri. Debasis Das PW-45: Sri. Gaurav Pradhan PW-46: Sri. Arup Kumar Bose PW-47: Sri. Dhiraj Pandey PW-48: Smt. Nabnita Roy PW-49: Sri. N.Mukherjee PW-50: Sri. A.Inbazhagan LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED BY THE PROSECUTION:
Exhibit No. Description Ex.P.1 Original Complaint dated 02.12.2013 of United Bank of India to the CBI. (6 sheets)
103 Spl.CC.38/2015 Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2 A booklet on "Lending Policy" circulated vide letter dated 6.5.2009. 127 sheets.
Ex.P.3 Copy of extract of manual of instruction Part-
IV Volume I (2 sheets) Ex.P.4 Attested copies of extract of manual of instruction containing chapter IV, XIII and XVII (in total 29 sheets) Ex.P5 True copy of circular dated 8.4.2009 regarding guidelines for obtaining valuation and non- encumbrance certificate (1 sheet) Ex.P6 True copy of circular dt.21.5.2008 of United Bank of India regarding substitution of securities (1sheet) Ex.P7 True copy of United Bank circular dated 11.10.2006 for creation of equitable mortgage by deposit of Title Deeds (22 sheets) Ex.P8 Original internal investigation report 05.03.2013 (5 sheets) Ex.P8(a) Signature of PW.3 Ex.P8(b) Signature of B.Krishnamohan.
Ex.P9 Original Further Internal Investigation Report
(2 sheets)
Ex.P9(a) Signature of B.Krishna Mohan
Ex.P9(b) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P10 Circular dated 12.04.2005
Ex.P11 Receipt Memo dt.5.8.2014
Ex.P11(a) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P12 Attested copy of circular dated 2.7.2005 reg.
advance remittance against import of goods (3 sheets) Ex.P13 Attested copy of staff accountability report of United Bank of India (vigilance department) (8 sheets) 104 Spl.CC.38/2015 Ex.P14 Attested copy of office note regarding Noting of Credit Proposals to discretionary power of United Bank (2 sheets) Ex.P15 Receipt Memo dt.26.2.2014 Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW.4 Ex.P15(b) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P16 Certified copy of "10-A Certificate Register" for the period 12.12.2008 to 28.09.2009 (14 sheets) Ex.P16 Relevant entries at page 13.
(a,b) Ex.P17 Receipt Memo dt.13.03.2014 Ex.P17(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P17(b) Signature of PW.50.
Ex.P18 Certified copy of extract of 'A' Register (3 sheets) Ex.P19 Certified copy of Remittance Challan (1 sheet) Ex.P20 Certified copy of Reconciliation Statement for the month of July 2009 (1 sheet) Ex.P21 Copy of the circular dt.13.04.2004 (4 sheets) Ex.P22 Copy of circular dt.21.10.2011 (4 sheets) Ex.P23 Original Hypothecation Agreement dt.09.07.2009 (6 sheets) Ex.P23(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P24 Original term loan agreement dt.09.07.2009 (7 sheets) Ex.P24(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P25 Original portion of deposit of title deeds (4 sheets) Ex.P25(a) Signature of PW.26 Ex.P25(b) Signature of accused No.1 Ex.P26 Letter of Guarantee dt.09.07.2009 (4 sheets) Ex.P26(a) Signature of PW.5 105 Spl.CC.38/2015 Ex.P.27 Original Letter of lien dt.09.07.2009 (2 sheets) Ex.P27(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P28 to LeCertified copy of Sale Deeds executed by N. P.40 Balakrishna Naidu (13 Sale Deeds) 6 sheets.
Ex.P41 Receipt Memo dt.1.3.2014 Ex.P41(a) Signature of PW.6 Ex.P41(b) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P42 Certified copy of Sale Deed executed in favour of accused No.3 dt.8.7.2009 (11 sheets) Ex.P43 Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.8.7.2009 executed in favour of A.3 (12 sheets) Ex.P44 E.C. in Form No.15 from 1.4.2005 to 28.2.2014 in respect of Sy.No.20/7 (2 sheets) Ex.P45 Certified copy of "Nominal Index" in Form No.16 (9 sheets) Ex.P46 Certified copy of "Descriptive Index" in Form No.17 (2 sheets) Ex.P47 E.C. in respect of Sy.No.89 from 1.4.2005 to 28.2.2014 (2 sheets) Ex.P48 Certified copy of combination-cum-Ratification Deed (11 sheets) Ex.P49 Certified copy of Cancellation Deed dt.20.07.2009 (8 sheets) Ex.P50 Letter dt. 7.3.2014 of Sub-Registrar, Bommanahalli Branch (1 sheet) Ex.P51 E.C. for 1.4.1990 to 31.3.94 in respect of Sy.No.89.
Ex.P52 Certified copy of GPA dt 9.8.1995 (10 sheets) Ex.P53 EC in respect of Sy.No.20/7 from 1.4.94 to 31.3.2004.
Ex.P54 EC in respect of Sy.No.2-/7 for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2008 (1 Sheet) Ex.P55 EC in respect of Sy.No.89 for the period 106 Spl.CC.38/2015 1.4.1994 to 31.3.2004 Ex.P56 EC in respect of Sy.No.89, Site No.47 for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2008 (3 sheets) Ex.P57 Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.24.03.2004 executed in favour of Balakrishna Naidu (10 sheets) Ex.P58 Receipt Memo dated 24.1.2014 (2 sheets) Ex.P58(a) Signature of PW8 Ex.P59 Receipt Memo dt.10.6.2014 (1 sheet) Ex.P59(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P59(b) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P60 Receipt Memo dt.2.7.2014 (1 sheet) Ex.P60(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P60(b) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P61 Receipt Memo dt. 16.7.2014 (3 sheets) Ex.P61(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P61(b) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P62 Receipt Memo dt 18.7.2014 (2 sheets) Ex.P62(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P62(b) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P63 Receipt Memo dt 19.7.2014 (1 sheet) Ex.P63(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P63(b) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P64 Receipt Memo dt 6.8.2014 (1 sheet) Ex.P64(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P65 Receipt Memo dt. 13.8.2014 (1 sheet) Ex.P65(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P65(b) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P66 Receipt Memo dt. 21.8.2014 (1 sheet) Ex.P66(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P66(b) Signature of PW.50 107 Spl.CC.38/2015 Ex.P67 Letter dt.15.06.2009 along with synopsis of M/s. Acropetal Technologies (18 sheets) Ex.P67(a) Letter dt.15.06.2009 of M/s. Acropetal to accused No.2 (1 sheet) Ex.P67(b) Synopsis enclosed in Ex.P.67 (17 sheets) Ex.P68 Letter dt. 22.06.2009 from United Bank of India to DGM and CRM enclosed with CMA Data (15 sheets) Ex.P68(a) CMA Data Ex.P69 Attested copy of Auditor's Report (17 sheets) for the year 2008 Ex.P70 Attested copy of Auditor's Report (15 sheets) for the year 2007.
Ex.P71 Attested copy of Auditor's Report with Balance Sheet for 2006 (14 sheets) Ex.P72 Letter dt.23.6.2009 of M/s. Acropetal to A.2 with enclosures (36 sheets) Ex.P73 Attested copy of United Bank of India proposal for review cum enhancement of Loan Limit (33 sheets) Ex.P74 Request Letter dt 7.9.2010 of M/s. Acropetal to AGM, United Bank of India for S.T.Loan of 20 Crores (1 sheet) Ex.P75 Original account opening form of M/s.
Acropetal with enclosures (33 sheets) Ex.P76 Certified true copy of Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of M/s. Acropetal (35 sheets) Ex.P77 Original Demand Promissory Note dt 9.7.2009 for 20 Crores executed by M/s. Acropetal (1 sheet) Ex.P78 Original Declaration Letter dt 9.7.2009 of M/s.
Acropetal (5 sheets) Ex.P79 Original Demand Promissory Note dt.
23.9.2010 for Rs.39 Crores along with 108 Spl.CC.38/2015 extension of equitable Mortgage, Hypothecation against DPN dt 5.9.2012 against for term loan (21 sheets) Ex.P79(a) Signature of A.3
(b) Ex.P80 Letter dt 22.6.2009 of AGM (A1) to Regional Office, Chennai (1 sheet) Ex.P81 Letter dt.24.6.2009 of DGM & CRM, Chennai to AGM, UBI Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru (1 sheet) Ex.P81(a) Signature of A2 Ex.P82 Search Report (GAR-7) in respect of M/s.
Acropetal submitted by Mr. Prasanna Kumar (5 sheets) Ex.P83 Letter dt.3.9.2009 of Mr.K.Prasanna Kumar to AGM United Bank of India, Bengaluru with enclosures (9 sheets) Ex.P83(a) Enclosure to the Letter dt.3.9.2009 Ex.P84 Letter dt.11.11.2011 of AGM United Bank of India Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru to M/s. Acropetal (1 sheet) Ex.P84(a) Signature of Changal Rayavan (AGM) Ex.P85 Letter dt.31.3.2012 of DGM (Credit) HO, United Bank of India to DGM & CRM, R.O. Bengaluru (2 Sheets) Ex.P86 Notice dt.26.10.2012 issued U/Sec. SURFAESI Act (4 sheets) Ex.P87 Acknowledgment (1 Sheet) Ex.P88 Letter dt.12.12.2012 of A.3 to AGM, United Bank of India, (1 sheet) Ex.P89 Letter dt.17.02.2012 of M/s. Acropetal to AGM, United Bank of India (1 sheet) Ex.P90 Letter dt.24.12.2012 of AGM, United Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru to A.3 (1 sheet) 109 Spl.CC.38/2015 Ex.P91 Letter dt.27.12.2012 of A.3 to AGM, United Bank of India for extension of time (1 sheet) Ex.P92 Possession Notice dt.7.1.2013 of United Bank of India issued to A.3 (2 sheets) Ex.P92(a) Signature of PW.28 Ex.P93 Acknowledgment (1 sheet) Ex.P94 Original recommendation letter fixing up of reserve price of 10.90 crores (2 sheets) Ex.P95 United Bank of India Sale Notice dt.5.3.2013 (3 Sheets) Ex.P95(a) Signature of PW.28 Ex.P96 Letter dt.19.3.2013 of M/s. Acropetal addressed to Sri.D.Narang, Ex.Director, United Bank of India HO Kolkata (3 sheets) Ex.P97 United Bank of India Certificate dt 9.10.2013 communicating non-availability of TEN Report. Ex.P97(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P98 Letter dt.18.11.2013 of M/s. Acropetal signed by A.3 to United Bank of India regarding termination of employment of Mr.Subbu Iyer (2 sheets) Ex.P99 Staff Accountability report (3 sheets) Ex.P99(a) Signature of PW.28 Ex.P100 Letter of dt.9.12.2013 regarding furnishing "Latest Search/ Status Report-AIL" with enclosures (27 sheets) Ex.P101 Letter from Chief Manager, United Bank of India, Cantonment Branch dt.23.9.2010 to DGM & CRM, Southern Region, United Bank of India, Chennai (4 sheets) Ex.P101(a) Signature of PW.25 Ex.P102 "Synopsis and Corporate presentation" of M/s.
Acropetal (54 sheets) Ex.P103 A/c opening form and enclosures of "Ecologix 110 Spl.CC.38/2015 Knowledge Solutions Pvt. Ltd.," (51 sheets) Ex.P104 Specimen signature card (1 sheet) Ex.P105 Original account opening form and enclosures of Smt. Malini Reddy (29 sheets) Ex.P106 End Use Certificate dt 31.8.2009 with enclosures (4 sheets) Ex.P106(a) Signature of PW.35 Ex.P107 Copy of circular dt.11.10.2006 of United Bank of India in respect of creation of Equitable Mortgage along with specimen form (22 sheets) Ex.P108 Certified copies of "Possession Notice" and "Sale Notice" published in news papers (6 sheets) Ex.P109 Letter dt. 7.7.2009 of United Bank of India regarding seeking credit information from AXIS Bank and state Bank of Travancore (7 sheets) Ex.P110 Letter dt.17.10.2013 of M/s. Acropetal to Chief Regional Manager, United Bank of India, R.O. Bengaluru (4 sheets) Ex.P111 Letter dt.06.11.2013 from DGM & CRM to the A.3 (1 sheet) Ex.P112 Attested copy of letter dt 29.7.2013 with copies of Legal Notices (76 sheets) Ex.P113 Original cheque No.216891 for One Crore in favour of Prashanth Kumar Ex.P114 Original cheque No.216896 for Rs.50 lakhs in favour of Prashanth Kumar Ex.P115 Original cheque No.216894 for Rs.50 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar Ex.P116 Original cheque No.216895 favouring Prashanth Kumar for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P117 Cheque No.216893 for Rs.50 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar Ex.P118 Cheque No.216900 for Rs.50 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar.
111 Spl.CC.38/2015 Ex.P119 Cheque No.216899 for Rs.50 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar Ex.P120 Cheque No.217278 for Rs.50 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar Ex.P121 Cheque No.217277 for Rs.50 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar Ex.P122 Cheque No.217276 for Rs.50 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar Ex.P123 Cheque No.217279 for 4 lakhs favouring ourselves Ex.P124 Cheque No.217280 for Rs.40 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar.
Ex.P125 Cheque No.217283 for Rs.55 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar.
Ex.P126 Cheque No.217282 for Rs.55 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar Ex.P127 Cheque No.217284 for Rs.55 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar Ex.P128 Cheque No.217285 for One lakh favouring ourselves.
Ex.P129 Cheque No.217281 for Rs.45 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar.
Ex.P130 United Bank of India cheque No.217285 for Rs.50 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar Ex.P131 United Bank of India cheque No.217287 for Rs.50 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar. Ex.P132 United Bank of India Cheque No.217290 for Rs.55 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar. Ex.P133 United Bank of India cheque No.217291 for Rs.50 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar Ex.P134 United Bank of India cheque No.217292 for Rs.50 lakhs favouring Prashanth Kumar Ex.P135 United Bank of India cheque No.215923 for Rs.1 crore favouring Equastone Properties.
112 Spl.CC.38/2015 Ex.P136 United Bank of India cheque No.215960 for Rs.10 lakhs in favour of Equastone Properties. Ex.P137 United Bank of India cheque No.215963 for Rs.10 lakhs favouring Equastone Properties. Ex.P138 United Bank of India cheque No.215923 for Rs.1 crore favouring Equastone Properties. Ex.P139 United Bank of India cheque No.215979 for Rs.50 lakhs favouring Equastone Properties. Ex.P140 Cheque No.215980 (United Bank of India) for Rs.50 lakhs favouring Equastone Properties. Ex.P141 United Bank of India cheque No.224702 for Rs.20 lakhs favouring Equastone Properties. Ex.P142 Cheque No.224740 for Rs.9 lakhs in favour of Equastone Properties.
Ex.P143 Cheque No.224741 for Rs.9 lakhs in respect of Equastone Properties.
Ex.P144 Cheque No.233455 for Rs.8 lakhs favouring Equastone Properties.
Ex.P145 Cheque No.233456 for Rs.8 lakhs favouring Equastone Properties.
Ex.P146 Cheque No.233457 for Rs.8 lakhs in favour of Equastone Properties.
Ex.P147 Cheque No.239010 for Rs.7.50 lakhs in favour of Binary Spectrum Ex.P148 Cheque No.215924 for Rs.50,12,500/- for pay order.
Ex.P149 Cheque No.216876 for Rs.6,04,024/- favouring Budhaditya Chattopadhyaya Ex.P150 Cheque No.215931 for Rs.10 lakhs favouring Suhas Printers Ex.P151 Cheque No.215942 for Rs.10 lakhs in favour of Narasimha Maiya Ex.P152 Cheque No.215943 for Rs.10 lakhs in favour of SKL Agencies.
113 Spl.CC.38/2015 Ex.P153 Cheque No.215921 for Rs.8 lakhs in favour of Malini Reddy.
Ex.P154 Cheque No.215922 for Rs.36,98,000/- in favour of accused No.3 Ex.P155 Cheque No.215944 for Rs.10 lakhs in favour of SKL Agencies.
Ex.P156 Ourselves cheque for Rs.8 lakhs No.215945 Ex.P157 Ourselves cheque No.215946 for Rs.8 lakhs. Ex.P158 Ourselves cheque No.215950 for Rs.9 lakhs Ex.P159 Cheque No.215953 for Rs.50 lakhs for Pay Order Ex.P160 Ourselves cheque No.215955 for Rs.8,40,000/- Ex.P161 Self cheque for Rs.8 lakhs No.215957 Ex.P162 Ourselves cheque for Rs.1,40,000/- No.215959 Ex.P163 Cheque No.215962 for Rs.10 lakhs in favour of yourselves.
Ex.P164 Ourselves cheque No.215961 for Rs.90,000/- Ex.P165 United Bank of India cheque No.224707 for Rs.7 lakhs favouring Suhas Printers. Ex.P166 United Bank of India cheqe No.215947 for Rs.11 lakhs in favour of Code Theatre Infotech Ex.P167 Ourselves cheque No.224708 for Rs.5 lakhs Ex.P168 United Bank of India cheque No.233459 for Rs.2,02,575/- in favour of Vijay Power Control Systems.
Ex.P169 Ourselves cheque No.216878 for Rs.9.50 lakhs Ex.P170 United Bank of India cheque No.216883 for Rs.2 lakhs in favour of Altaf Hussain. Ex.P171 United Bank of India self cheque No.216886 for Rs.4 lakhs.
Ex.P172 United Bank of India self cheque No.216888 for Rs.3 lakhs Ex.P173 United Bank of India self cheque No.216887 for 114 Spl.CC.38/2015 Rs.50,000/-
Ex.P174 United Bank of India ourselves cheque No.216889 for Rs.7.50 lakhs Ex.P175 United Bank of India ourselves cheque No.216897 for Rs.7.50 lakhs Ex.P176 to Debit Vouchers 186 Ex.P187 to Original Credit Vouchers 195 Ex.P196, United Bank of India Pay order credit voucher 197 Ex.P198 Letter of M/s. Acropetal dt.20.1.2010 for cancellation of pay orders Ex.P199 United Bank of India cancelled pay order for Rs.2 lakhs Ex.P200 Credit voucher dt.20.01.2010 of United Bank of India in respect of cancellation of DD. Ex.P201 United Bank of India pay order voucher dt.21.1.2010 for Rs.1 Crore.
Ex.P202 United Bank of India cheque No.215953 for Rs.1.25 Crore for issue of P.O. Ex.P203 United Bank of India cancelled pay order dt.21.1.2010 for Rs.25 lakhs.
Ex.P204 Letter dt.22.1.2010 of M/s. Acropetal for cancellation of pay order.
Ex.P205 United Bank of India cheque No.239048 for Rs.1.50 crores in favour of Acropetal. Ex.P206 United Bank of India ourselves cheque No.224773 for Rs.2 lakhs.
Ex.P207 to United Bank of India debit vouchers. P214 Ex.P215 to United Bank of India credit vouchers in respect P221 of Loan A/c. of M/s. Acropetal Ex.P222 United Bank of India or voucher for DD of Rs.1 115 Spl.CC.38/2015 Crore dt.29.9.2010 Ex.P223 United Bank of India or voucher dt.29.9.2010 for Rs.5,79,075/-
Ex.P224 United Bank of India or voucher dt.29.9.2010 for Rs.11,250/- service charges.
Ex.P225 United Bank of India debit voucher dt.4.10.2010 for foreign transaction for Rs.4,45,06,425/-
Ex.P226 United Bank of India or voucher dt.4.10.2010 for Rs.4,44,50,250/-
Ex.P227 Receipt Memo dt.7.3.2014 (1 sheet) Ex.P227(a) Signature of PW9 Ex.P227(b) Signature of PW50 Ex.P228 Receipt Memo dt.24.06.2014 Ex.P228(a) Signature of PW.9 Ex.P228(b) Signature of PW.9 Ex.P229 Inspection Report dt.2.6.2009 (2 sheets) Ex.P230 Credit Disbursement Monitoring Sheet (3 sheets) Ex.P231 Valuation Report dt 11.8.2009 in respect of property No.14/1 Ex.P232 Valuation Report dt. 11.8.2009 submitted by Sri.M.Krishna.
Ex.P233 Legal Report dt 11.8.2009 given by S.K.Sridhar, Advocate (6 sheets) Ex.P233(a) Signature of PW.18 Ex.P234 Letter dt.19.8.2009 of AGM, United Bank of India to G.M.Southern Region, Chennai (1 sheet) Ex.P235 Letter dt.18.8.2009 of M/s. Acropetal to AGM, United Bank of India (1 sheet) Ex.P236 Legal Opinion dt.6.8.2009 submitted by M.Mohd. Ibrahim (5 sheets) 116 Spl.CC.38/2015 Ex.P236(a) Signature of PW.19 Ex.P237 Note dt.25.8.2009 of United Bank of India to G.M. Southern Region (2 sheets) Ex.P237(a) Signature of PW.31 Ex.P238 Letter dt.26.8.2009 from R.O. Chennai to Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P239 Letter dt. 7.7.2009 of M/s. Acropetal to A.2 (6 sheets) Ex.P240 Letter dt. 16.7.2010 of AGM, United Bank of India Bengaluru to DGM, Southern Region, Chennai (1 sheet) Ex.P241 Letter dt.3.3.2010 from United Bank of India R.O. to United Bank of India Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru (5 sheets) Ex.P242 A Booklet captioned as "Acropetal Health Care Strategy"
Ex.P243 Attested copy of "Revision in Lending Powers of the executives" (9 sheets) Ex.P244 Letter dt.24.06.209 of DGM, SRO, Chennai to AGM, United Bank of India Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru. (1 Sheet) Ex.P245 Letter dt.31.7.2010 of DGM (cr) H.O. Kolkata to DGM, SRO, Chennai (1 sheet) Ex.P246 Letter dt.28.7.2010 of United Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru to DGM SRO Chennai with enclosures 42 pages. Ex.P247 Letter dt.4.8.2010 from GM, SRO, Chennai to AGM, United Bank of India Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru (1 sheet) Ex.P248 Letter dt.6.9.2010 from DGM (Cr) HO, Kolkata to R.O. Chennai, (1 sheet) Ex.P249 Letter dt.7.9.2010 of United Bank of India, SRO, Chennai to DGM (Cr) HO (2 sheets) Ex.P250 Copy of letter dt.7.9.2010 from Acropetal to AGM, Cantonment Branch (4 sheets) for short
117 Spl.CC.38/2015 term or facility.
Ex.P251 Letter dt.14.9.2010 from United Bank of India HO to United Bank of India, RO. (3 sheets) Ex.P252 Letter dt.28.9.2010 of DGM, Credit, United Bank of India, H.O. Kolkata to DGM, R.O. Chennai (1 sheet) Ex.P253 Letter dt.28.12.2011 of M/s. Acropetal to DGM and CRM, United Bank of India Bengaluru with enclosures (3 sheets) Ex.P254 Letter dt.25.7.2012 of United Bank of India, R.O. Bengaluru to GM (Cr) Ho.O. United Bank of India with enclosures (17 sheets) Ex.P255 Letter dt.11.11.2011 of AGM, United Bank of India Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru to M/s. Acropetal (1 sheet) Ex.P256 United Bank of India cheque dt.28.2.2011 for Rs.1,40,000/-
Ex.P256(a) Signature of A.3 Ex.P257 United Bank of India Credit Slip dt.16.3.2011 for Rs.2 lakhs.
Ex.P258 United Bank of India cheque dt.16.3.2011 for Rs.2 lakhs Ex.P258(a) Signature of A.3 Ex.P259 United Bank of India Credit Slip for Rs.2.50 crores.
Ex.P260 United Bank of India cheque for Rs.2.50 crores in favour of virtus Tech Pvt. Ltd., Ex.P260(a) Signature of A.3 Ex.P261 United Bank of India credit slip dt.22.4.2011 for Rs.15 lakhs.
Ex.P262 United Bank of India cheque dt.22.4.2011 for Rs.15 lakhs in favour of M/s Aarm Finser India Pvt. Ltd., Ex.P262(a) Signature of A.3 118 Spl.CC.38/2015 Ex.P263 United Bank of India credit slip dt.26.4.2011 for Rs.8 lakhs Ex.P264 United Bank of India cheque dt.26.4.2011 for Rs.8 lakhs in favour of Ecologix Knowledge Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ex.P264(a) Signature of A.3 Ex.P265 United Bank of India credit slip dt.2.5.2011 for Rs.20 lakhs.
Ex.P266 United Bank of India cheque dt.30.4.2011 for Rs.20 lakhs in favour of M/s. Acropetal Tech Ltd., Ex.P267 United Bank of India credit slip dt.31.5.2011 for Rs.43 lakhs.
Ex.P268 United Bank of India cheque dt.30.5.2011 for Rs.43 lakhs favouring Acropetal Company. Ex.P268(a) Signature of A.3 Ex.P269 United Bank of India credit slip dt.7.3.2011 for Rs.5 lakhs.
Ex.P270 United Bank of India cheque for Rs.5 lakhs favouring Acropetal Ex.P270(a) Signature of A.3 Ex.P271 United Bank of India credit slip dt.31.12.2011 for Rs.15 lakhs.
Ex.P272 United Bank of India cheque dt.31.12.2011 for Rs.15 lakhs favouring Acropetal Technologies. Ex.P273 United Bank of India credit slip dt.30.12.2011 for Rs.10 lakhs.
Ex.P274 United Bank of India cheque dt.30.12.2011 for Rs.10 lakhs favouring Acropetal Technologies. Ex.P275 United Bank of India credit slip for Rs.50 lakhs.
Ex.P276 United Bank of India cheque dt.29.12.2011 for
Rs.25 lakhs in favour of Acropetal
Technologies.
Ex.P277 United Bank of India cheque dt.29.12.2011 for
119 Spl.CC.38/2015
Rs.25 lakhs favouring M/s. Acropetal
Technologies.
Ex.P278 United Bank of India credit slip dt.30.12.2011 for Rs.30 lakhs.
Ex.P279 United Bank of India cheque dt.30.12.2011 for Rs.30 lakhs favouring Acropetal Technologies Ex.P280 United Bank of India credit slip dt.29.3.2012 for Rs.1,16,00,000/-
Ex.P281 United Bank of India cheque dt.29.3.2012 for Rs.1,16,00,000/-
Ex.P282 United Bank of India credit slip dt.30.6.2012 for Rs.50 lakhs Ex.P283 United Bank of India cheque dt.29.6.2012 for Rs.50 lakhs favouring Acropetal Technologies Ex.P284 13 United Bank of India cheques issued by M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., favouring various companies persons.
Ex.P285 38 Nos. of debit and credit slips of United Bank of India with M/s. Acropetal Technologies letter dt.15.5.2012.
Ex.P286 6 Nos. of United Bank of India credit slips Ex.P287 7 Nos. of United Bank of India debit slips. Ex.P288 United Bank of India cheque No.30.3.2012 for Rs.13 lakhs in favour of "Yourselves RTGS"
Ex.P289 Acropetal Technologies Ltd., dt.30.3.2012 addressed to DGM United Bank of India. Ex.P290 11 Nos. of original FDRs of United Bank of India.
Ex.P291 Letter dt.2.2.2012 of AGM United Bank of India.
Ex.P292 M/s. Acropetal Letter dt.31.10.2011 to the AGM, United Bank of India Cantonment Branch.
Ex.P293 Two original FD Receipts of United Bank of India in the name of M/s. Acropetal 120 Spl.CC.38/2015 Technologies Ex.P294 M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., letterdt.19.4.2011 to the Chief Manager, United Bank of India Cantonment Branch. Ex.P295 United Bank of India credit voucher for Rs.10.10,01,293/- dt.27.4.2011. Ex.P296 Original FD Receipt in the name of M/s.
Acropetal dt.10.3.2011.
Ex.P297 M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., Letter dt.19.4.2011 to the Chief Manager United Bank of India Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru. Ex.P298 One file containing letters of M/s. Acropetal Technologies to United Bank of India requesting RTGS (outward) transactions etc., (54 sheets) Ex.P299 Covering Letter dt.7.8.2014 enclosed with the list of inward remittance of ATL for the period January-2009 to December 2-0 (4 sheets) Ex.P300 Attested copy of onsite credit Audit Report dt.5.3.2010 conducted by United Bank of India. (12 sheets) Ex.P301 Certified extract copy of "securing Register" (5 sheets) Ex.P301(a) Relevant entry at page 4 Ex.P302 Original Sale Deed dated 8.7.2009 in respect of Sy.No.89 Kammanahally village executed in favour of D.Ravi Kumar along with related documents 45 sheets.
Ex.P303 Original Sale Deed dt.8.2.2008 favouring (A3) D. Ravi Kumar pertaining to property Sy.No.14/1 Sonpura, Kengeri, Bengaluru with related documents (35 sheets) Ex.P303(a) Partition deed between L. Shivanand and Others.
Ex.P303(b) Signature of PW.34 121 Spl.CC.38/2015 Ex.P304 Original Valuation Report in respect of properties at Sy.No.89 Kammanahally, Begur given by M/s. S&V Engineerig Ent. Ex.P304(a) Signature of PW.34 Ex.P305 Original valuation report given by K. Nataraj approved valuer in respect of property at Sy.No.89 Kammanahally Begur, Bengaluru. Ex.P305(a) Signature of PW.22.
Ex.P306 Original valuation report of Sri. M. Srikrishna, Valuer, pertaining to properties at Sy.No.89, Kammanahally, Begur, Bengaluru dt.26.6.2009 Ex.P306(a) Signature of PW.18.
Ex.P307 Original valuation report dt.22.10.2012 given by M/s. S &V Engg. Enterprises in respect of properties at Sy.No.M/s. Sompura Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru.
Ex.P307(a) Signature of PW.34 Ex.P308 Legal opinion dt.26.6.2009 given by Sri.G.N.Maiya, Panel Advocate, pertaining to property at Sy.No.89 of Kammanahally( 3 sheets) Ex.P308(a) Signature of PW.21 Ex.P309 Original Legal Report dt.29.6.2009 given by M. Mohd. Ibrahim Advocate in respect of property at Sy.No.89, Kammanahally (5 sheets) Ex.P309(a) Signature of PW.19 Ex.P310 Attested copy of Legal opinion dt.29.6.2009 given by Sri.M.Mohd. Ibrahim pertaining to property at Sy.No.20/7, Kammanahally, Begur, Bengaluru.
Ex.P310(a) Signature of PW.19 Ex.P311 Legal Opinion dt.25.8.2009 given by Mohd.
Ibrahim Advocate in respect of property at Sy.No.14/1 Sompura, Kengeri, Bengaluru Ex.P311(a) Signature of PW.19 122 Spl.CC.38/2015 Ex.P312 Letter dt.7.7.2009 of United Bank of India to M/s. ATL Communication Sanction of Rs.20 Crores loan with sanction terms and conditions (5 sheets) Ex.P313 (4) debit vouchers and (6) credit vouchers of United Bank of India total (10) slips. Ex.P314 Computer generated Foreign Telegraphic Transfer Statement with Certificates (5 sheets) Ex.P314(a) Certificate U/Sec. 65B of Banker's books evidence Act Ex.P314(b) Signature of PW.8 on 314(a) Ex.P314(c) Certificate U/Sec. 2-A of Banker's books evidence Act Ex.P314(d) Signature of PW.8 on Ex.P314(c) Ex.P315 Statement of accused pertaining to T/L A/c. Of M/s. Acropetal Technologies with certificate Ex.P315(a) Certificate U/Sec. 2-A of Banker's books evidence Act Ex.P315(b) Signature of PW.8 on Ex.P315(a) Ex.P316 Statement of account of current account of M/s. Acropetal Technologies from 29.6.2009 to 6.1.2014 with certificate 37 pages. Ex.P316(a) Certificate (2-A) Ex.P316(b) Signature of PW.8 on Ex.P316(a) Ex.P317 Original Report on Mortgaged Property dt.22.8.2009 given by accused No.1 (3 sheets) Ex.P317(a) Signature of A.1 Ex.P318 Original "Unit Visit Report" of Sri.P.Venkata Rao, Branch Manager United Bank of India. Ex.P318(a) Signature of Sri.P.Venkata Rao. Ex.P318(b) Signature of Ganesh P.K Ex.P319 Original "Unit Inspection Report" dt.28.12.2011 Ex.P319(a) Signature of PW.26 123 Spl.CC.38/2015 Ex.P320 Original Inspection Report dt.9.8.2012 of United Bank of India (2 sheets) Ex.P321 "Report on Inspection of Mortgaged Property"
dt.19.10.2012 in respect of property at Sl.No.89 of Kammanahally Village (1 sheet) Ex.P322 "Report on Inspection of Mortgaged Property" dt 19.10.2012 in respect of property Sy.No.14/1 of Sompura Village (1 sheet) Ex.P323 Letter dt.18.8.2009 of M/s. Acropetal to AGM, United Bank of India for replacement of security (6 sheets) Ex.P324 Valuation Report dt.28.7.2014 given by Sri.L.S.Narayan, Valuer in respect of property at Sy.No.89, Kammanahally Village, Begur Hobli (5 sheets) Ex.P324(a) Signature of PW.35 Ex.P325 Valuation Report dt.28.7.2014 given by Sri.L.S.Narayana, Valuer in respect of property Sy.No.14/1 Sompura Village (5 sheets) Ex.P325(a) Signature of PW.35 Ex.P326 Proforma invoice dt.18.6.2009 of M/s. Regency Technologies with 4 invoices (5 sheets) Ex.P327 Extract of order book of M/s.Acropetal (3 sheets) Ex.P328 Certified copy of the certificate of M/s.
Acropetal showing list of Directors. Ex.P329 Certified copy of Term Loan application dt.27.7.2009 of M/s. Vault IT Pvt Ltd., for 5 crores with certified copy of sale agreement dt.24.7.2009 and certified copy of Sale Deed dt.24.8.2009 (18 sheets) Ex.P330 Current Account Opening Form of M/s. Aarm Finserv India Ltd., with enclosures maintained in United Bank of India Cantonment Branch, (24 sheets) Ex.P331 Statement of account pertaining to current 124 Spl.CC.38/2015 account of M/s. Aarm Finserv from 9.3.2011 to 5.8.2014 with certificate (3 sheets) Ex.P331(a) Certificate U/Sec. 2-A of Banker's books evidence Act Ex.P331(b) Signature of PW.8 on Ex.P331 Ex.P332 Statement of account pertaining to current account of M/s. Ecologix for the period 19.11.2009 to 23.7.2014 with certificate (6 sheets) Ex.P332(a) Certificate U/Sec. 2-A Banker's books evidence Act Ex.P332(b) Signature of PW.8 on Ex.P332(a) Ex.P333 Certified copy of Letter dt.12.8.2009 of United Bank of India to Ms. Malini Reddy reg. sanction of housing loan with terms and conditions etc., (19 sheets) Ex.P334 Statement of A/c. Pertaining to housing loan A/c of Ms. Malini Reddy with United Bank of India for the period 14.8.2009 to 23.7.2014 with certificate.
Ex.P334(a) Certificate U/Sec. 2-A Ex.P334(b) Signature of P334(a) Ex.P335 Certified copy of "Foreign Telegraphic Transfer"
message showing the transactions of M/s. Acropetal along with certificate. Ex.P335(a) Certificate U/Sec. 2-a Banker's books evidence Act Ex.P336 Certified copy of business information report pertaining to M/s. Regency Technologies (3 sheets) Ex.P337 Certified copy of United Bank of India circular dated 15.9.2008 regarding "Modified guidelines on United demand loan scheme" 2 sheets. Ex.P.338 One file containing documents enhancement of credit limit sanctioned to M/s. Acropetal from 125 Spl.CC.38/2015
20 crres to 39 crores (97 sheets) Ex.P339 Receipt Memo dt.1.3.2014 Ex.P339(a) Signature of PW.10.
Ex.P339(b) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P340 Certified extract of "Nominal Index" in Form No.16 (2 sheets) Ex.P340(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P341 Certified extract of "Descriptive Index" in respect of property bearing Sy.No.14/1 Sompura Village, Kengeri Hobli (3 sheets) Ex.P341(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P342 Certified Extract of E.C. in respect of property Sy.No.14/1 (4 sheets) Ex.P342(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P343 Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.8.2.2008 favouring D. Ravi Kumar (6 sheets) in respect of Sy.No.14/1 Sompura Village, Kengeri Hobli. Ex.P343(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P344 Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.24.8.2009 from D.Ravi Kumar in favour of M/s. Vault Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ex.P344(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P345 Receipt Memo dt.13.3.2014 Ex.P345(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P345(b) Signature of PW50 Ex.P346 Certified copy of partition deed dt.26.11.2004 between L. Shivanand and Others (45 sheets) Ex.P346(a) Signature of PW.14 Ex.P347 Certified copy of E.C. in respect of property Sy.No.14/1 Sompura Village (7 sheets) Ex.P347(a) Signature of PW.14 Ex.P348 Certified copy of "Descriptive Index" (Form No.17) in respect of Sy.No.14/1, Sompura 126 Spl.CC.38/2015 Village (38 sheets) Ex.P348(a) Signature of PW.14.
Ex.P349 Letter dt.22.7.2014 of Spl. Tahasildar Bengaluru South, Bengaluru.
Ex.P350 One bunch containing certified copy of Mutation, Khata, RTC, Conversion orders etc., (33 sheets) in respect of property Sy.No.89 Kammanahally, Beguru Hobli.
Ex.P351 One bunch containing certified copy of khata RTC Mutation, conversion orders etc., in respect of property Sy.No.14/1 Sompura Village (27 sheets) Ex.P352 Statement of account along with 2-A certificate in respect of M. Mohd. Ibrahim at United Bank of India Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru (6 sheets) Ex.P353 United Bank of India credit and debit vouchers both dt.1.10.2010 for Rs.50,000/- (2 vouchers) Ex.P354 Annual Review Report in respect of M/s.
Acropetal (9 sheets)
Ex.P354(a) Signature of PW.26
Ex.P355 Account opening form of M/s. Acropetal
Technologies
Ex.P356 Statement of account
Ex.P357 Statement of account No.67042921027 M/s.
Acropetal Technologies Ltd.,
Ex.P358 RTGS to account of Baba Sathyanarayana
Ex.P359 Assets and Liabilities of Dr. Malini Reddy of
Doriswamy K.
Ex.P360 Auditor Report prepared by Gopal Krishna.
Ex.P361 Evaluation of the software package by their
technical Team
Ex.P362 Relevant Portion of 169 statement of PW.34.
Ex.P363 Ledger account of M/s. Regency Technologies
127 Spl.CC.38/2015
inc (7 sheets)
Ex.P364 One bunch of papers consisting property
documents held in the name of M/s. Acropetal Technologies (87 sheets) Ex.P365 One bunch of 47 pages (46 sheets) contains visiting cards, letter of United Bank of India, P & L Statement, Balance Sheet pertaining to M/s. Acropetal.
Ex.P366 Original minutes of extraordinary general meeting/ meeting of board of directors of M/s. Acropetal Technologies for the year 2010 (11 sheets) Ex.P367 Original Minutes of Extraordinary General Meeting/ Meeting of Board of Directors of M/s. Acropetal Technologies for the year 2009 (21 sheets) Ex.P368 Original Exclusive Licence Agreement between M/s. Regency Technologies INC and M/s. Acropetal Technologies for purchase of software "FRAMINS" dt.6.7.2009 (45 sheets) Ex.P369 Original search list dt.31.12.2013 (2 sheets) in respect of M/s. Acropetal Ex.P369(a) Signature of PW.36 Ex.P369(b) Signature of PW.41 Ex.P369(c) Signature of Arjun Kuriappan Ex.P369(d) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P370 Relevant Portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.37/ CW.43 Ex.P371 Original sanction order issued against accused No.1 with copy of schedule of powers Ex.P371(a) Signature of PW40 Ex.P372 & Relevant portions of 161 statements of 373 PW.44/CW.49 Ex.P374 Certified copy of 164 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.44 128 Spl.CC.38/2015 Ex.P375 to Relevant portions of 161 Cr.P.C., statements of 377 PW.46/CW.50 Ex.P378 Certified copy of 164 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.46 given before 17th ACMM.
Ex.P378(a) Relevant portion of 164 statement of PW.46 in Ex.P.378 Ex.P379 Certified copy of production-cum-receipt memo dt.23.12.2014 (1 sheet) Ex.P379(a) Signature of PW.47 Ex.P380 Certified copy of A/c. Opening Form with KYC documents of M/s. Baba Sathyanarayana Trading Company (9 sheets) Ex.P381 Certified copy of statement of A/c for the period 10.7.2009 to 7.10.2008 (A/c No....006056) of M/s. Baba Sathyanarayana Trading company along with (2 certificates) (3 sheets) Ex.P381(a) Relevant entry dt.10.7.2009 for Rs.2 lakhs Ex.P381(b) Relevant entry dt.9.10.2009 Ex.P382 Relevant portion in certified copy of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Smt. Nabnitha Roy Ex.P383 Copy of A/c opening Form along with KYC documents in respect of M/s. Baba Sathyanarayana and Co. (10 sheets) Ex.P384 Statement of A/c in respect of M/s. Baba Sathyanarayana & Co. + Certificates (3 sheets) (copies) Ex.P385 Copy of Receipt Memo dt.23.12.2014 (1 sheet) Ex.P385(a) Signature of PW.49 Ex.P386 FIR Ex.P387 A file containing documents relating to FTT transfer of amount to chase Bank, Dallas, USA by M/s. Acropetal from the proceeds of the loan.
Ex.P388 Receipt Memo dt.25.7.2014 129 Spl.CC.38/2015 Ex.P388(a) Signature of PW.50 Ex.P389 Certified copy of 164 statement of PW.45 Ex.P390 File submitted by U.S. Department of Justice dt.14.9.2016.
Ex.P391 Copy of transaction statement, payment statements etc., in respect of Regency Technologies Inc Texas maintained with J.P. Morgan, Chase Bank on volumes.
Ex.392 A file submitted by U.S. Department of Justice dt. 4.1.2017 containing Report and documents. LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Exhibit No. Description Ex.D1 Certified copy of written statement filed by
PW.11 in O.S.No.1310/2013 pending before Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Bengaluru (R) (9 sheets) Ex.D2 Certified copy of the vakalath filed in O.S.No.1310/2013 of PW.11 Ex.D3 Certified copy of the vakalath filed in O.S.No.1310/2013 in respect of PW.12 Ex.D4 Certified copy of the written statement filed by PW.12 in O.S.No.1310/2013 (10 sheets) Ex.D5 Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.90/15 on the file of Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Bengaluru (R) (4 sheets) Ex.D6 Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.90/15 on the file of Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Bengaluru (R) (6 sheets) Ex.D7 Certified copy of deposition of PW.44 in Spl.CC.37/15 Ex.D8 Certified copy of deposition of PW.45 in Spl.CC.37/15 Ex.D9 Certified copy of deposition of PW.46 in Spl.CC.37/15 130 Spl.CC.38/2015 Ex.D10 Copy of Bridge Loan repaid statement (2 sheets) Ex.D11 Sanction letter dated 3.8.2006 with its enclosures (6 sheets) Ex.D12 Housing Loan repaid statement (8 sheets) Ex.D13 Copy of order sheet in RC 15(A)/2013 with Final Report (1 sheet) + (5 sheets) Ex.D14 Certified copy of Final Report in RC No.14(A)/ 2023 (22 sheets) Ex.D15 Certified copy of Final Report U/Sec. 173(8) Cr.P.C., in RC No.14(A)/2013 (5 sheets) [Manjunath Sangreshi] XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge & Prl.Special Judge for CBI Cases Bengaluru.
**** MANJUNATH SANGRESHI Digitally signed by MANJUNATH SANGRESHI Date: 2026.02.19 10:57:46 +0530