Kerala High Court
Bishwanath Sinha vs The State Of Kerala on 4 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943
OP(CRL.) NO.165 OF 2021
CRIME NO.2/2012 OF VACB, ERNAKULAM, Ernakulam
AGAINST ORDER DATED 09.11.2020 IN V.C.NO.02/12/CRE OF EC &
SJ (VIGILANCE MUVATTUPUZHA)
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
BISHWANATH SINHA
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. LATE PRABHU DEV NARAYAN SINHA, RESIDING AT
GOVERNMENT QUARTER NO.1, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.
BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SR.ADV
ADV DEEPU LAL MOHAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & INVESTIGATING OFFICER:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031., (VC2/2012/CRE,
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, CENTRAL
RANGE, ERNAKULAM).
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, CENTRAL
RANGE, ERNAKULAM - 682 017.
BY SRI.A.RAJESH, SPL.PP, VACB
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2021, THE COURT ON 04.08.2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
2
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
**********************
O.P.(Crl).No.165 of 2021
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2021
-------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the first accused in the case registered as
VC.02/2012/CRE by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau
(VACB), Central Range, Ernakulam.
2. There are 12 accused in the aforesaid case. The
offences alleged against the accused in the case are punishable
under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and also under Section
120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. On the basis of a letter sent by the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies to the Government of Kerala, alleging
irregularities in sanctioning of loans by the Kerala State
Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'), a
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
preliminary enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the facts
revealed in the preliminary enquiry, Ext.P1 First Information
Report (F.I.R) was registered against the accused for the offences
mentioned above.
4. The first accused was the Managing Director and the
second accused was the General Manager of the Bank during the
period 2002-2003. Accused 5 to 12 were the members of the
Executive Committee of the Bank. The third and the fourth
accused were the partners of the firm M/s.Geofranc Enterprises
at Ernakulam.
5. The allegation in Ext.P1 F.I.R against the accused is
that, accused 1, 2 and 5 to 12 entered into a criminal conspiracy
with accused 3 and 4 and pursuant to such conspiracy, by
misusing their official positions and public office and diluting the
routine procedure, accused 1 and 2 and 5 to 12 granted a loan of
350 lakhs rupees to the third and the fourth accused and thereby
allowed them to obtain undue pecuniary gain and corresponding
loss to the Bank.
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
6. After conducting investigation of the case, the VACB
filed final report in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and
Special Judge, Thrissur for dropping further action in the matter
on the ground that there was no scope for a successful
prosecution of the accused in the case.
7. The Special Court did not accept the aforesaid final
report filed by the investigating officer. As per Ext.P26 order
dated 19.05.2015, the Special Court rejected the final report and
remitted the matter to the investigating officer for conducting
further investigation.
8. After conducting further investigation in the case, the
the investigating officer of the VACB again filed Ext.P2 final
report in the Special Court, stating as follows:
"From the above circumstances prosecution
may not be recommended as there is no
sufficient evidence to prove that A1 had acted
with mala fide intention. MD presented all the
facts before the EC and it was the EC which has
taken a decision and amended its own circular
issued vide ILD/9/2001-2002 dated 06-8-2001
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
and sanctioned the loan. However Departmental
action is recommended against A1 for not
verifying the documents submitted as collateral
security against the loan by A3 and A4 and
disbursed the loan which has resulted in litigation
before the Hon'ble High Court and created
difficulties for the recovery of loans.
As in the absence of evidentiary material
available to prove that the accused
Sri.Bishwanath Sinha IAS, former MD, Kerala
State Co-operative Bank Head Office, Trivandrum
acted with mala fide intention and in violation of
rules to sanction the loan in question so as to
bring undue gain to A3 and A4 and hence
recommended to final report the case before the
Hon'ble Court of Enquiry Commissioner and
Special Judge, Muvattupuzha as further action
dropped and recommended a departmental
action against A1. Copy of the letter No.E9
(VC.2/12/CRE)12535/12 dtd. 04.06.18 of the
Director, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram is enclosed.
The Final Report may kindly be accepted
and final orders of the Hon'ble Court may kindly
be issued in this case."
9. The Special Court did not accept Ext.P2 final report
filed by the investigating officer. As per Ext.P3 order dated
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
09.11.2020, the Special Court found that the final report cannot
be accepted and it has to be returned to the investigating officer
for conducting further investigation. Accordingly, the Special
Court returned Ext.P2 final report to the investigating officer for
conducting further investigation, after getting approval of the
competent authority under Section 17A of the Act.
10. This original petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India by the first accused seeking the following
reliefs:
"(i) To set aside the Exhibit-P3 order of
the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special
Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha and accept
Ext.P2 final report and close all further
proceedings against the petitioner in
VC 02/12/CRE registered by the Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Central Range,
Ernakulam.
(ii) To issue such other and further reliefs
as may be prayed for from time to time."
11. Heard the learned senior counsel who appeared for the
petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
Perused the case diary produced by the learned Public Prosecutor.
12. Before examining the merits of the matter, the basic
facts relating to the transaction which led to the registration of
Ext.P1 F.I.R may be noticed.
13. The firm Geofranc Enterprises, of which the third and
the fourth accused were partners, forwarded a request to the
Bank on 21.06.2002 for granting credit facility of 450 lakhs
rupees. As per the letter dated 02.07.2002 sent from the Bank,
the firm was informed that the Bank was not in a position to
consider the request as no application for loan and other financial
particulars were furnished by the firm.
14. Thereafter, on 29.07.2002, the firm Geofranc
Enterprises sent an application for a term loan of 350 lakhs
rupees to the Managing Director of the Bank. On 08.08.2002,
the Executive Committee of the Bank took a decision to sanction
a term loan of 350 lakhs rupees to the firm, out of which 250
lakhs rupees was for reimbursement of the loan of the firm
outstanding with other financial institutions and 100 lakhs rupees
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
as working capital. The loan granted was subject to certain
terms and conditions. One of the main conditions to be satisfied
was getting clearance from the National Bank for Agriculture and
Rural Development (NABARD) and the Reserve Bank of India
(RBI).
15. As per the letter dated 06.09.2002, NABARD informed
the Bank that no productive purpose was involved in granting
term loan for liquidation of existing unsecured loan and that
clearing external borrowings was not an approved procedure of
granting of loans. The Bank was also informed that granting of
term loan for working capital requirements is an undesirable
practice.
16. However, the Executive Committee of the Bank took a
decision on 19.09.2002 to grant a term loan of 350 lakhs rupees
to the company M/s.Geofranc Private Limited, instead of granting
the loan to the firm M/s.Geofranc Enterprises.
17. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited
attention of this Court to the various documents produced by the
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
VACB along with the final report filed by it in the Special Court
and made an attempt to establish that, the petitioner, as the
Managing Director of the Bank, had brought to the notice of the
Executive Committee all aspects relating to the application for
loan made by the firm. Learned senior counsel also contended
that it was the decision of the Executive Committee of the Bank
to grant the loan and it was not the decision of the petitioner.
Learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner had not
made any positive recommendation to the Executive Committee
for granting loan either to the firm or the company. Learned
senior counsel further submitted that the loan amount was
disbursed after complying with all necessary formalities.
18. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, invited
the attention of this Court to the various documents contained in
the case diary and submitted that, there was not even an
application obtained from the company to which the loan was
granted by the Bank. Learned Public Prosecutor also invited the
attention of this Court to the letters sent by the petitioner to the
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
Senior Manager of the Bank insisting on the disbursement of the
loan amount even without complying with the necessary
formalities and even threatening disciplinary action against the
Senior Manager.
19. It is true that the petitioner had brought to the notice
of the Executive Committee of the Bank all important aspects
with regard to granting of loan to the firm Geofranc Enterprises,
before the Committee took its decision on 08.08.2002 to sanction
the loan to the firm. Ext.P12 memorandum submitted by the
petitioner to the Executive Committee of the Bank would
substantiate the contention of the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner in this regard.
20. Ext.P13 decision taken by the Executive Committee of
the Bank on 08.08.2002 to sanction the loan to the firm was
subject to certain conditions. As already noticed, getting
clearance from the NABARD was one of those conditions. The
opinion given by NABARD has already been referred to.
Thereafter, the entire circumstances regarding the procedure
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
adopted which culminated in the decision (Ext.P7) of the
Executive Committee of the Bank on 19.09.2002 for granting the
loan to the company instead of the firm are suspicious and
shrouded in mystery.
21. The following circumstances are very significant.
(1) The loan was sanctioned to the company M/s.Geofranc
Private Limited even without an application submitted by the
company (the application for term loan was submitted by the firm
Geofranc Enterprises and not by the company). (2) The valuation
of the properties offered as security for the loan, as per the
officials of the Bank, was 210.12 lakhs rupees. But this valuation
was ignored and valuation report of a private valuer engaged by
the third and the fourth accused was accepted. (3) Even when
the Manager of the Bank at the branch level had pointed out the
infirmities which had to be rectified before disbursing the loan
amount, the petitioner had insisted that the Manager shall
disburse the loan amount and the petitioner had even threatened
him of disciplinary action. (4) The opinion given by the NABARD,
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
as to the undesirable practice of granting term loan for liquidation
of existing loans and for providing working capital requirements,
was totally ignored.
22. As per Ext.P26 order dated 19.05.2015, the Special
Court had found that, there were clear materials to assume
hatching of criminal conspiracy between the petitioner and the
third and the fourth accused but no meaningful investigation was
conducted into that area. The final report filed then was rejected
by the Special Court for this reason and further investigation was
ordered.
23. It was pursuant to Ext.P26 order that the VACB
conducted further investigation and filed Ext.P2 final report
before the Special Court. A perusal of Ext.P2 final report would
show that, inspite of the direction given by the Special Court in
Ext.P26 order, no meaningful investigation was conducted with
regard to the conspiracy alleged to have been hatched between
the petitioner and the third and the fourth accused. Ext.P2
report only contains the factual details of the transaction which
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
ultimately led to the sanctioning of the loan by the Bank to the
company instead of the firm.
24. The sum and substance of the findings made by the
Special Court in Ext.P3 order, by which it rejected Ext.P2 final
report, is that the VACB did not conduct any investigation with
regard to the conspiracy hatched among the accused. This finding
cannot be considered as one made by the Special Court without
any basis.
25 At this juncture, the limitations in exercising the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
have to be kept in mind. Even if another view than the one expressed
by the lower court is possible, this Court cannot, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, substitute it in place
of the view taken by the lower court.
26. It is well-settled that the power of superintendence
available to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is extremely vast but at the same time the Court cannot
exercise that power on the drop of a hat. In addition, in exercise
of its power of superintendence, the High Court cannot correct
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
mere errors of law or fact merely because another view is
possible. This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227
of the Constitution is to be exercised most sparingly and only in
appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within
the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.
In the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, it is not open to this Court to review or re-
assess the facts and materials and reach another possible
conclusion.
27. When a report made under Section 173(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') comes up for
consideration by the Magistrate, one of the two different
situations may arise. The report may conclude that an offence
appears to have been committed by a particular person or
persons and in such a case, the Magistrate may do one of the
three things : (1) he may accept the report and take cognizance
of the offence and issue process or (2) he may disagree with the
report and drop the proceeding or (3) he may direct further
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
investigation under sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code
and require the police to make a further report. The report under
Section 173(2) of the Code may on the other hand state that, in
the opinion of the police, no offence appears to have been
committed and where such a report has been made, the
Magistrate again has an option to adopt one of the three
courses : (1) he may accept the report and drop the proceeding
or (2) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance
of the offence and issue process or (3) he may direct further
investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of
Section 156 of the Code (See Bhagwant Singh v.
Commissioner of Police : AIR 1985 SC 1285).
28. In the instant case, Ext.P2 report under Section
173(2) of the Code was filed by the VACB, stating that
commission of any offence by the accused was not made out. On
consideration of such report, the Special Court found that further
investigation was required in the matter. The Special Court has
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
also given reasons for ordering such further investigation. On
factual grounds, I find no sufficient ground to interfere with
Ext.P3 order passed by the Special Court.
29. Now, the legal points raised by the petitioner to
challenge Ext.P3 order shall be examined.
30. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Anil Kumar v.
M.K.Aiyappa : (2013) 10 SCC 705 and L.Narayana Swamy
v. State of Karnataka : AIR 2016 SC 4125 to contend that the
Special Court had no power to order further investigation without
sanction granted by the competent authority under Section 19 of
the Act.
31. The dictum laid down in Anil Kumar (supra) is that, in
the absence of sanction under Section 19(1) of the Act given by
the competent authority, a complaint filed against a public
servant alleging commission of an offence specified in Section
19(1) of the Act cannot be forwarded by the Special Court under
Section 156(3) of the Code for investigation.
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
32. One of the questions of law that arose for consideration
in Narayana Swamy (supra) was whether an order directing
further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code can be
passed in relation to public servant in the absence of valid
sanction granted under Section 19(1) of the Act. Following Anil
Kumar (supra), it was held that an order directing further
investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code cannot be passed
in the absence of valid sanction.
33. In Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora : (2018) 5 SCC 557,
the question that was considered was whether prior sanction for
prosecution against a public servant was required before setting
in motion even the investigative process under Section 156(3) of
the Code. The Apex Court referred the question to be decided by
a Larger Bench.
34. The decisions in Anil Kumar (supra) and Narayana
Swamy (supra) have been rendered by the Apex Court in the
context of ordering investigation under Section 156(3) of the
Code in respect of private complaints filed in the court. The
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
dictum laid down in these decisions does not apply to a report
filed by the investigating officer under Section 173(2) of the
Code.
35. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
contended that it was not open to the Special Court to order
further investigation for a second time after rejecting the closure
report. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex
Court in Vasanti Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh : (2012)
2 SCC 731 in support of this contention.
36. On a perusal of the decision in Vasanti Dubey
(supra), I cannot find any dictum laid down by the Apex Court to the
effect that further investigation cannot be ordered by the Special Court
on a second time after rejecting the second closure report. In Vasanti
Dubey (supra), the Apex Court has held that the order passed by
the Special Judge directing the investigating agency to file a
charge-sheet was illegal. It is to be noted that it was a case
where the complainant had alleged in the complaint given to the
police that the accused demanded bribe from him but he gave
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
statement to the police during the investigation that he had made
a false complaint at the instance of another person.
37. The discussion above leads to the conclusion that
Ext.P3 order passed by the Special Court, directing further
investigation in the matter, is not liable to be set aside by this
Court by invoking the power under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
38. Learned Special Judge has directed that further
investigation shall be conducted by the VACB only after obtaining
approval under Section 17A of the Act.
39. Section 17A was introduced in the Act by way of
amendment, as per Act 16 of 2018, with effect from 26.07.2018.
The bar under Section 17A of the Act operates against a police
officer. It prohibits a police officer from conducting any enquiry or
inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been
committed by a public servant under the Act without the previous
approval of the prescribed authority. The bar under the provision
operates or applies only when the offence allegedly committed by
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
a public servant under the Act relates to any recommendation
made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his
official functions or duties.
40. The amendments made to the Act, by Act 16 of 2018,
are prospective. The provisions of the Act, as amended, have no
application to cases registered prior to amendment and pending
under various stages of investigation and to cases in which
investigation has been completed and are pending trial (See
Ramesh v. C.B.I : 2020 (4) KHC 220). Therefore, Section 17A
of the Act has no application to the further investigation ordered
to be conducted in the present case.
41. Further investigation means continuation of the
investigation already conducted and not fresh investigation. The
investigation in the present case, having commenced prior to the
date of introduction of Section 17A in the Act, no question of
obtaining 'prior approval' for such investigation arises.
42. Since it is a matter which affects the career of the
petitioner, the further investigation in the case has to be
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
expedited. At the same time, as the petitioner had sought and
obtained an interim stay of all proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3
order, it is not proper to give a direction to complete the
investigation in a hasty manner. Having regard to the
circumstances of the case, I find that a direction can be given to
the investigating officer to complete the further investigation of
the case within a period of three months from today.
43. Consequently, the prayer for setting aside Ext.P3 order
is rejected. The investigating officer is directed to conduct the
further investigation of the case, without waiting for any approval
of the competent authority under Section 17A of the Act and to
complete such investigation within a period of three months from
today. The original petition is disposed of accordingly.
44. All pending interlocutory applications are closed. The
case diary produced by the learned Public Prosecutor shall be
returned forthwith.
(sd/-) R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE
jsr
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 165/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT DATED 08.05.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIGILANCE AND ANTI - CORRUPTION BUREAU,
CENTRAL RANGE, ERNAKULAM IN
VC2/2012/CRE.
EXHIBIT P2 THE PHOTOCOPY OF FINAL REPORT NO.10/2018
DATED 14.09.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P3 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
09.11.2020 OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE
(VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF RECORDS
OF LOAN CASE FILE OF THE BANK BEARING
PAGE NUMBERS 265 AND 273 DATED
16.09.2002 AND 17.09.2002.
EXHIBIT P5 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.AP PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
DATED 18.09.2002.
EXHIBIT P6 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.AK PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
DATED 11.02.2002.
EXHIBIT P7 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.AA PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
DATED 19.09.2002.
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
EXHIBIT P8 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.W PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P9 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.P PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
DATED 10.09.2002.
EXHIBIT P10 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.AG PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
DATED 11.12.2002.
EXHIBIT P11 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.AF PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
DATED 13.12.2002.
EXHIBIT P12 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.G PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P13 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.H PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
DATED 08.08.2002.
EXHIBIT P14 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.R PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
DATED 19.09.2002.
EXHIBIT P15 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.V PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
DATED 25.09.2002.
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
EXHIBIT P16 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.AB PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
DATED 03.10.2002.
EXHIBIT P17 THE TRUE PRINTOUT OF THE RELEVANT PAGE
OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBPAGE OF
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS (MOCA),
GOVERNMENT OF INIDA.
EXHIBIT P18 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.X PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
DATED 28.09.2002.
EXHIBIT P19 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.AC PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
DATED 22.10.2002.
EXHIBIT P20 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.AD PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P21 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF
RECORDS OF LOAN CASE FILE OF THE BANK
BEARING PAGE NUMBER 399 DATED
26.10.2002.
EXHIBIT P22 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.AE PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
DATED 28.10.2002.
EXHIBIT P23 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.Y PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA.
O.P.(Crl) No.165/2021
EXHIBIT P24 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXT.E PRODUCED
ALONG WITH EXT.P2 FINAL REPORT BEFORE
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
DATED 07.01.2017.
EXHIBIT P25 THE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.104/25/2020-
AVD.IA DATED 23-06-2021 ISSUED BY UNDER
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P26 THE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 19.05.2015
OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), THRISSUR IN
VC 02/12/CRE.
EXHIBIT P27 THE PHOTOCOPY OF PAGE NUMBER 271 OF LOAN
FILE OF THE BANK.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
NIL
TRUE COPY
PS TO JUDGE
