Vikranth S/O Vijaykumar Desunagi vs The State And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 5152 Kant

                           1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

        CRIMINAL PETITION No.200133/2020
                      C/W
        CRIMINAL PETITION No.201635/2019

CRL.P.NO.200133/2020

BETWEEN:

K. MANJUNATH S/O K GOPALRAO
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE OF SBI
(FIELD OFFICER)
R/O PURUSHOTTAM APARTMENT
LADYHILL MANGALORE
DIST. MANGALORE-575008
                                    ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE THROUGH
       AFZALPUR POLICE STATION
       DIST. KALABURAGI
       REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585107
2.     SBI BANK MANAGER
       MANNUR BRANCH, TQ. AFZALPUR
       DIST.KALABURAGI-585246
                                      ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                              2




     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, AFZALPUR BY ITS
JUDGMENT    DATED   09.04.2018   IN   C.C.NO.259/2014,    AND
FURTHER    THE   SAME   BEING    CONFIRMED     BY   THE    III
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE AT GULBARGA, IN CRL.REV.PETITION
NO.115/2019 DATED 30.10.2019, AGAINST THE PETITIONER.


CRL.P. NO.201635/2019


BETWEEN:

VIKRANTH S/O VIJAYKUMAR DESUNAGI
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: NOW EMPLOYEE SBI
WORKING AT UTTAR KANNADA
R/O HOSUR, TQ. AFZALPUR
DIST: KALABURAGI-585302.
                                             ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE THROUGH
       AFZALPUR POLICE STATION
       DIST. KALABURAGI
       REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585107

2.     THE MANAGER, SBI BANK
       MANNUR BRANCH, TQ: AFZALPUR
       DIST: KALABURAGI-585246.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
 SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                 3




    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT AFZALPUR BY ITS
JUDGMENT DATED: 09TH APRIL 2018 IN C.C.NO.259/2014, AND
FURTHER    THE   SAME    BEING      CONFIRMED    BY   THE    III
ADDITIONAL    SESSIONS    JUDGE     AT   GULBARGA,    IN    CRL.
                                           TH
REVISION PETITION NO.103/2019 DATED 14          OCTOBER-2019,
AGAINST THE PETITIONER.


      THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                         ORDER

These petitions are filed under section 482 of

Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the proceedings

initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.259/2014 for the

offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 419, 420

read with section 149 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the

State.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that these two

petitioners are bank officials and working as Field Officers

in the SBI bank in which the accused Nos.1 to 3 have

availed the loan. The allegation against these petitioners

is that even though they were working as Field Officers,

joined hands with the accused Nos.1 to 3 and committed

cheating without visiting the spot, without verifying the

pahani extracts and without verifying the original

documents recommended the bank to sanction the loan.

Hence, complaint is given and police have investigated the

matter and filed the chargesheet. The petitioners have

approached the trial Court by making an application under

section 239 of Cr.P.C., to discharge them from the charges

leveled against them and the trial Court dismissed the

application by coming to the conclusion that the

chargesheet allegation is specific that these accused

persons hand in glove with accused Nos.1 to 3 have

recommended for sanction of loan without visiting the field

and without verifying the records. Being aggrieved by the

dismissal of the application, Criminal Revision Petitions

Nos.115/2019 and 103/2019 were filed by the petitioners

herein and the revisional Court also reconsidering the

order passed by the trial Court came to the conclusion that

the petitioners being Field Officers at relevant point of

time, have not verified the documents as well as the land

which was sought to be mortgaged and recommended for

sanctioning of the loan and hence, the Court cannot invoke

section 239 of Cr.P.C., to discharge the accused. Hence,

the present petitions are filed by accused Nos.4 and 5.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that absolutely there is no cogent or reliable

material to connect these petitioners and mere negligence

cannot be a ground to continue the criminal proceedings

against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the

petitioners also would vehemently contend that

Departmental Enquiry was conducted wherein these

petitioners were censured. The learned counsel in support

of his argument, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tiwari

vs. the Deputy Superintendent of Police EOW, CBI

and Another reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636 and brought

to the notice of this Court paragraph No.13 wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court discussing other judgments came to

the conclusion that if allegations in the departmental

enquiry could not be proved on merit and the person is

held to be innocent, the criminal prosecution on the said

facts cannot be permitted to be continued on the

underlying principle of criminal trial needing higher

standard of poof. Exoneration of the petitioner in the

departmental enquiry is not on technicalities but on merits

as there was no evidence against the petitioner to drive

home the charge. Therefore, in terms of the law laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, in

my considered view, the chances of the prosecution

succeeding in the criminal trial being bleak, this Court

cannot permit continuance of such criminal trial any

further. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that

once the petitioners were ordered to be censured, there

cannot be any criminal prosecution against them.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader would submit that during the course of the

investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected

material for having recommended for sanction of the loan

by these petitioners and both the Courts have taken note

of the said fact and rightly rejected the applications filed

under section 239 of Cr.P.C., as the scope of section 239

of Cr.P.C., is very limited.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2

would submit that documents relied upon by the

Investigating Officer while filing the chargesheet is in

respect of recommendation made for sanction and they

being the responsible officers of the bank as Field Officers,

it is their duty to go and inspect the spot and submit the

report and the very designation of their jobs is to visit the

spot and verify as to whether the said lands are in

existence or not and then recommend for sanction of the

loan. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of

this Court that the signature of these petitioners are

available on the particular records and recommended for

sanction and hence, question of invoking section 239 of

Cr.P.C., does not arise.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned High Court Government

Pleader as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2,

this Court has to consider the impugned orders. Having

considered the impugned orders, the trial Court while

exercising the power under section 239 of Cr.P.C., taken

note of the charges leveled against the petitioners herein.

The charges leveled against them are that though they

were working as Field Officers of the bank, it is their duty

to verify the original documents and to visit the land and

examine the crop and also the extent of land the

borrowers were holding but they did not do the same. In

this regard in paragraphs-18 and 20 of the judgment of

the Trial Court, the trial Court discussed in detail and came

to the conclusion that it is not a fit case to exercise power

under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and also in paragraph-22,

the trial Court discussed particularly about accused Nos.4

and 5 in detail. The revisional Court also on

reconsideration of the material available on record in detail

discussed the charges leveled against the petitioners

herein. The fact that these petitioners were working as

Field Officers at the relevant point of time when they

recommended for sanction of loan is not in dispute. The

very allegation against them is that they have not

conducted any spot inspection and not verified the original

documents and recommended for sanction of loan. The

learned counsel appearing for the respondent would

submit that from 1993 onwards, the extent of land in

respect of accused Nos. 1 to 3 is shown as 4 acres hence,

they cannot find fault with these petitioners and all these

arguments cannot be accepted at the stage of filing the

application for discharge and scope of discharge under

section 239 of Cr.P.C., is very limited. The Court cannot

hold a mini trial while considering the application and only

look into the documents which have been filed along with

the chargesheet. The defence cannot be raised in

discharge application.

8. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that

these petitioners have recommended for sanction of loan

and the specific allegation is that they did not visit the spot

and did not verify the records and the extent of land they

were in possession and without inspecting the spot, they

have recommended for sanction of the loan. When such

being the case and allegations are made and these are the

disputed facts cannot be decided in a proceeding under

section 482 of Cr.P.C., and I have already pointed out that

scope of section 239 of Cr.P.C., is very limited. In a case

where material is not collected, then Court can discharge

the accused, if allegation made in the chargesheet is

groundless, then the Court can exercise power under

section 239 of Cr.P.C. Hence, I do not find any merit to

exercise the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

The petitions are rejected.

In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021

in Crl.P.No.200133/2020 for stay does not survive for

consideration and accordingly, it is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VNR