Bombay High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 17 September, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 44-wp-614-17j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 614 OF 2017
Court on its own Motion . . . PETITIONER
...V E R S U S..
1. Central Bureau of Investigation through
its Director, having its Headquarter
at New Delhi.
2. Central Bureau of Investigation through
its Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Nagpur.
3. Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Wardha.
4. Reserve Bank of India through
its Chief General Manager,
Having its office at 6, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi. . . . RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Rajnish R. Vyas, Amicus Curiae.
Mrs. Mugdha R. Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Shri S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for respondent nos. 3/State.
Shri S. V. Manohar, Senior Advocate a/b. Shri S. N. Kumar, Advocate
for respondent no. 4.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 17.09.2021
JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-
1. Heard.
2 44-wp-614-17j.odt
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
3. This petition is registered as Suo-motu in view of the order
passed by this Court in Criminal Application (ABA) No. 263/2017 on
07.07.2017. This matter pertains to the investigation of fraud to the
tune of 25 crores while disbursing the amount of loan by the officials
of UCO Bank. This Court was of the prima facie opinion that the Bank
officials of UCO Bank are involved in the fraud and therefore, present
petition came to be registered as Suo-motu Criminal Writ Petition.
4. This Court appointed Shri Rajnish R. Vyas, Advocate as
Amicus Curiae and after the memo of petition was prepared by the
learned Amicus Curiae, notices were issued to respondents.
5. This Court supervised the investigation into alleged
financial fraud committed by UCO Bank officials. The respondent nos.
1 and 2 carried out the investigation in relation to the allegations of
illegal disbursement of loan without adhering to Know Your Customer
(KYC) norms by preparing bogus employees. This Court by order dated
14.10.2019 directed respondent no. 2 to place all papers of the case
before the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, who
was directed to examine all papers and file affidavit before this Court.
3 44-wp-614-17j.odt
6. Accordingly, the investigation was carried out by the
respondent no. 2 and charge-sheet was filed against seven bank
officials of UCO Bank against whom the respondent no. 2 found prima
facie material. The proposal for prosecuting the employees of UCO
Bank was forwarded to the Competent Authority for grant of sanction.
The Competent Authority granted sanction for prosecution of Shri H. D.
Meshram, Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Wardha Branch, Shri V. V. S.
Murthy, Senior Manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank, Nagpur, Shri V.
Ramanandham Garre, DGM, UCO Bank, Nagpur in RC 5(A)2017 and
against Shri H. D. Meshram, Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Wardha
Bank, Shri V. V. S. Murthy, Senior Manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank,
Nagpur, Shri S. J. Khapekar, Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Hinganghat
Branch and Shri V. Ramanandham Garre, DGM, UCO Bank, Nagpur in
RC 6(A) 2017.
7. However, the Competent Authority refused sanction for
three public servants. Therefore, this Court by order dated 08.09.2021
directed learned Amicus Curiae to examine the issue of refusal of
sanction in relation to three officials and was directed to make proper
submissions on the next date. Accordingly, today learned Amicus
Curiae submitted that on prima facie consideration of the material, he
is satisfied that the Competent Authority was justified in refusing
sanction against three officials and therefore, the petition can be
4 44-wp-614-17j.odt
disposed of. He however submitted that during the course of inquiry or
trial, if the Special Judge before whom the trial is pending, is of the
opinion that there is some evidence pointing out complicity of some
other persons, the Special Court may be directed to invoke powers
under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to pass
appropriate orders.
8. Having carefully considered the material on record, we
accept the suggestion of learned Amicus Curiae and pass the following
order:-
The Additional Sessions Judge, Hinganghat / Special
Court, Wardha before whom the proceedings bearing RC 5(A) 2017
and RC 6(A) 2017 are pending may exercise powers under Section 319
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if he finds that there appears to be
some evidence pointing out complicity of some other persons.
9. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of.
10. Pending application, if any, disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
RR Jaiswal
