Delhi High Court
R.K. Anand vs State (Through Cbi) on 16 March, 2007
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The present petition under Section 397 Cr. P.C. impugns an order on charge dated 22.3.2006, by the Special Judge in the course of the proceedings, upon an FIR alleging commission of offences under Section 120B read with Section 409/119/420/468/471 IPC and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The brief allegations against the petitioner, accused No. 7 are that he allowed credit facilities beyond his delegated power and accepted the collateral security contrary to procedures and requirement of the bank.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the basis of the impugned order on charge is entirely incorrect that as he was on leave w.e.f. 8.6.1998 when the processing note had been put up by one K.V. Bhaskaran. That note was eventually processed by other accused R.T. Nayak and the proposal was accepted. Counsel contended that the relevant documents such as the leave application and the investigation report by the bank though furnished to the CBI during the course of investigation were deliberately concealed from the court. He also submitted that K.V. Bhaskaran was not named as accused, but merely cited as witness.
4. Learned Counsel for the CBI opposed the petition. He submitted that the court considered the materials placed before it along with the charge sheet. It was submitted that as per the order the petitioner had played a prominent role in processing of the proposal dated 25.9.1998 and the statement of K.V. Bhaskaran was to the effect that he had been directed by the AGM, R.T. Nayak to prepare the office note since the proposal had been processed by the petitioner. Counsel also contended that in view of the judgment in State of Orissa v. Devender Padhi it is not open to the court to examine materials in defense at the stage of an order on charge.
5. The relevant portion of the impugned order concerning the petitioner reads as follows:
Statement of PW2 Krishna Rakshit, Senior Manager, Canara Bank is relevant; she has stated that the proposal put forward by A-1 signed by A-2 and A-3 had been processed by A-7 R.K. Anand, Manager on 29.5.1998, recommended by A- 6 G. Sampat Kumar, Senior Manager on the same date and sanctioned by A-5 R.T. Nayak, Asst. General Manager without date being mentioned therein; there is no record to show that any personal visit was made by these Bank Officers at this proposal stage to verify from where Rs. 89 lacs was arranged by which the stocks of the company were procured; credit limits were permitted by A-5 R.T. Nayak and in some cases beyond his powers and ratification note was sent later on and the record further showing no subsequent ratification note. PW 8 V.K. Goyal the Chartered Accountant has denied issuance of any certificate to M/s Juniper Jewellery. PW 14 Gyanendra Kumar, Chartered Accountant of M/s Juniper Jewellery speaks of the impersonation of the documents pertaining to the afore mentioned property E-39 Greater Kailash, Part II, New Delhi. PW 7 G.C. Chopra UDC in the office of the Sub Registrar has categorically stated that E-39, Greater Kailash II as per the record stands registered in the name of Rai Bahadur Chunni Lal.
6. The court considered the contention about the absence of the petitioner, that is his being on leave at the relevant time and the eventual processing of the application in the following terms:
The submission that A-7 R.K. Anand was on leave w.e.f. 8.6.1998 up to 15.6.1998 and processing note had infact been completed by K.V. Bhaskaran and in these circumstances nothing can be attributed to A-7 R.K. Anand is fallacious as PW K.V. Bhaskaran in this context has stated that when LBA Section Manager Mr. Anand was on leave, he has asked by AGM R.T. Nayak to prepare office note of credit facilities of Juniper Jewellery wherein he clearly stated that the regular proposal was being processed; the first proposal dated 29.5.1998 had been processed by R.K. Anand; the equitable mortgage was to be created by deposit of title deeds but the extract of the relevant register shows that R.K. Anand had signed as Manager in entry dated 18.5.1998 and 19.6.1998 but his signature on entry dated 10.6.1998 for title deed deposit had been left blank; he had also put up note dated 2.7.1998 for adhoc packing credit limit to the company.
7. I am of the opinion that at the stage of framing an order on charge, the court in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Padhi's case (supra) has to confine to its materials made available. In a given case it might well be an unfair investigation which, may not place necessary materials. The remedy however in such instances would be to use such materials in defense during the trial. It is however clear that the court cannot consider such materials which form part of the defense at the stage of framing of charge.
8. In the light of the law declared and having considered the reasoning of the trial court I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity with the order.
The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
