ORDER: Revision petitioner/2nd accused in C.C.177 of 1997 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge for C.B.I. cases at Chennai, has preferred the revision aggrieved against the order of dismissal dated 12.5.99 passed in Crl.M.P.No.162 of 1997 filed for discharge under Sec.239 of Criminal Procedure Code. After filing of the revision petition, the very same petitioner filed Crl.O.P.16750 of 1999 under Sec.482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.177 of 1997. 2. The case in brief for disposal of both cases is as follows: The revision petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.177 of 1997 and the respondent filed charge sheet against the petitioner and one R.B.Shenoy for offences under Secs.120-B, I.P.C. read with 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Sec.13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s.Sterling Electronics Private Limited, later became Sterling Computers Private Limited in 1988. R.B.Shenoy was the Deputy General Manager of the Commercial Branch, State Bank of India, Chennai from 1984 to November, 1988. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.5.1987, the petitioner applied for export packing credit limit for Rs.30.60 lakhs to State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Madras for executing an export order of Computer components to Moscow. The first accused prepared a proposal dated 20.5.1987. The export packing credit limit for Rs.30.60 lakhs was sanctioned to the Company by Thiru N.Sriram, then General Manager (Operations), State Bank of India under his financial powers on the same date. This amount was credited in the current account No.1924 of M/s.Sterling Electronics Private Limited. This amount was to be realised by State Bank of India from the company through the Export Bill received from Moscow against the export order. However, on 3.6.1987 this amount along with interest of Rs.7,629 was realised by the Bank from the Company’s Current Account and not by the Export Bill and, as such, the petitioner dishonestly misused the amount sanctioned for the export of computer components to Moscow. Moreover, the petitioner in conspiracy with the other accused misrepresented the facts in the proposals dated 6.6.1987, 13.8.1987 and 16.11.1987 to cause pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.11.40 crores. 3. Moreover, the petitioner in conspiracy with the other accused misrepresented the facts in the proposals dated 6.6.1987, 13.8.1987 and 16.11.1987 to cause pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.11.40 crores. 3. The petitioner after graduation in the Madras University, joined the Harvard University of Management and underwent Management Training in U.S.A. and acquired sound knowledge relating to computer industry. After returning to India in 1983, he acquired a controlling interest in the Company and within five years, he made it the fifth largest Information Technology Company in India. He offered the Personal Computer at the lowest price and marketed them under the brand name ‘Siva PC’. He is also the recipient of the National Award for his performance as an outstanding entrepreneur from the President of India for two years in 1987 and 1988. The four transactions which are the subject matter of the charge sheet are all routine and normal transactions done through the State Bank of India. Originally the Investigating Officer registered a suo motu first information report on 10.6.1993 with regard to the credit facility arranged by State Bank of India through Consortium of Banks for Printing and Publishing Telephone Directories for Mahanager Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi and Bombay. Further allegation was that the concerned officials of the State Bank of India dishonestly did not obtain any security for the said facility and the old securities of 1986 which were not enough to cover the further credit facility were extended. It is further stated that the State Bank of India Officers started covering up the operations for obtaining securities towards latest credit facility of Rs.14 crores. It is further alleged that the land measuring 45 acres belonging to the company valued at Rs.3 per ground which comes to less than Rs.2,000 was valued at Rs.16 crores and was dishonestly accepted by the concerned State Bank of India Officials. It was also alleged that the publishing and printing of the Telephone Directories was not one of the stated aims and objects of the company and they did not take permission from the Company Law Board for diversification to a different scheme and thereby contravening the provisions of Sec.17 of the Companies Act. The investigation commenced on 10.6.1993 and the charge sheet was filed on 22.2.1996. The investigation commenced on 10.6.1993 and the charge sheet was filed on 22.2.1996. The respondent gave up all the allegations mentioned in the first information report and the allegations mentioned in the first information report are not the subject matter of the charge sheet now laid before the Special Court. Normally, the case should have been closed by the investigation Officer. After Thiru R.B.Shenoy, there were three more Deputy General Managers of the Commercial Branch of State Bank of India. Thiru Shenoy was only a recommending authority with no power to sanction credit facilities. The power to sanction credit facilities upto Rs.3 crores was vested with the Chief General Manager and upto Rs.10 crores the power was vested with the Local Board, State Bank of India, Madras. Thiru Shenoy retired in November, 1988 and his successor Thiru Parija sent a proposal dated 18.11.1989 for allowing entire fund based facilities within the sanctioned limits. It was sanctioned by the Local Board. Thiru Parija also sent another proposal dated 8.2.1990 for sanctioned one time letter of credit for Rs.50 crores and it was also placed before the Local Board for sanction and granted on 17.2.1990. On 29.8.1990 Thiru Parija sent another proposal for renewal of the existing limits with the increase in non-fund based limits from Rs.3.75 crores to Rs.4.50 crores and it was also approved by the Board on the same date. Thiru Santhanakrishnan who succeeded Thiru Parija, also sent a proposal dated 22.1.1991 regarding the sanction of one time letter of credit for Rs.3 crores to this company. Hence, even after the retirement of Thiru Shenoy, his successors, who were satisfied with the performance and repayment capacity of the company had recommended various proposals for much higher amounts than the amounts that were recommended by Thiru Shenoy. All the outstandings had also been cleared by the petitioner company much prior to the filing of the charge sheet. 4. During 1993 Sterling Computers Limited has been named as accused in the first information report before this Court. The 3rd respondent in the said O.P. filed a detailed counter and stated that there is no basis for the allegation and the State Bank of India had followed the norms, guidelines and directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India while granting credit facilities to the company. The filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner is mala fide and motivated. The filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner is mala fide and motivated. The Investigation Officer has collected materials and filed them before the court with regard to the transactions which took place subsequent to the retirement of Shenoy in the bank. The other authorities who have recommended the loan after thiru Shenoy have not been made accused in the case, although they were concerned with the four transactions which are the subject matter of the charge sheet. The investigating Officer had taken up only four transactions for filing the charge sheet because Thiru Shenoy had by then retired and no sanction was necessary to prosecute him. Thiru Bhuneshwar Lal Chandha who worked as Chief General Manager had told the Investigation Officer that to his knowledge, he can say that all facilities granted to the petitioner company were also reported to R.B.I. for monitoring. But the Investigation Officer has not examined anyone from Reserve Bank of India nor had he taken trouble of obtaining the copies of those norms/ guidelines/ directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India governing the sanction/extension of the credit facilities such as fund based and non-fund based. The Investigation Officer had not examined the proper witnesses to speak about the four transactions. The witnesses gave statements without referring to documents and only from their memory. The Investigation Officer by exercising power under Sec.18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act had obtained certified copies of the documents from the State Bank of India; but they were seized only on 22.2.1996 and the charge sheet was also filed on the same date, thereby showing that at the time of examination of the witnesses, there was no occasion for them to see these documents. The Investigation Officer had also filed an affidavit before this Court in Crl.M.P.No.3211 of 1995 for extension of time, wherein it is stated that the verification of the records have taken considerable time and they have to collect from the Customs Office, Madras regarding the import/export of goods. The Investigation Officer was aware of the imports/exports which formed basis of the transactions and it is not known whether he had examined any one in the Customs Department and any documents were seized. 5. The Investigation Officer was aware of the imports/exports which formed basis of the transactions and it is not known whether he had examined any one in the Customs Department and any documents were seized. 5. The first transaction concerns providing the export packing credit limit of Rs.30.60 lakhs, and the documents filed before the court indicated that it was Menon Impex Private Limited which had account with Canara Bank, Mount Road was the exporter of the goods to Moscow. The petitioner company was only a supporting manufacturer i.e., it supplies goods to the actual exporter. The Investigation Officer should have verified either with Reserve Bank of India or with the Customs Department to find out whether a scheduled bank could sanction the export packing credit limit to a supporting manufacturer. The petitioner’s company in fact, entered into an agreement with Menon Impex Private Limited. The Canara Bank, Mount Road, Chennai issued an irrevocable letter of credit on 28.3.1987 in favour of Menon Impex Private Limited which was endorsed to the petitioner company. The petitioner company had the guarantee of payment for the goods supplied to M/ s.Menon Impex Private Limited from the Canara Bank. As a supporting manufacturer, the petitioner was entitled to have this export packing credit facility as per guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The goods were handed over to Air Cargo after inspection by the Customs Department and in all the documents, the petitioner company had been shown as a supporting manufacturer which was accepted by the Customs and Excise officials. After the goods were handed over to Air Cargo, letter of credit granted by Canara Bank was cleared by State Bank of India and the amount of Rs.30.60 lakhs sanctioned on 21.5.1987 was repaid on 3.6.1987 with interest and the account was closed. Similarly with regard to the proposal dated 13.8.1987 for letter of credit limit of Rs.1.35 crores and proposal dated 16.8.1987 for enhancement of facility from Rs.2.75 crores to Rs.9.75 crores though recommended by Thiru Shenoy, the authority which sanctioned by the Local Board on the basis of the memorandum signed by the Chief General Manager. General Manager (Operations) and General Manager (Planning). Though the Investigation Officer had seized several documents on 16.6.1993 from the premises belonging to the petitioner’s group companies in various place, they have not filed any of the documents seized before the Special Court. General Manager (Operations) and General Manager (Planning). Though the Investigation Officer had seized several documents on 16.6.1993 from the premises belonging to the petitioner’s group companies in various place, they have not filed any of the documents seized before the Special Court. It has been deliberately suppressed. The action of the Investigation Officer is motivated and with malaice. The Investigation Officer has admitted in the earlier proceedings that Srinivas Computers is a sister concern of Sterling Electronics Private Limited. The documents seized by the Investigation Officer will establish that actually the goods were supplied from the godown of Sterling Electronics to Srinivas Computers Limited who in turn supplied them to National Informatics Centre. With regard to the last allegation, it is not the case of the prosecution that State Bank of India had granted credit facility to the tune of Rs.43 crores. Even in the charge sheet, the Investigation Officer has not made any allegations with regard to the export order of Rs.13 crores only. There may be several reasons for not exporting goods to a particular country or company. The State Bank of India had provided packing credit facility only for Rs.2.50 crores. Though there are materials to drop the action, yet the Investigation Officer had purposely proceeded to file the charge sheet without proper and relevant documents. The successors to Thiru Shenoy had not been prosecuted for the simple reason that the State Bank of India will not grant sanction to prosecute them. The prosecution has field a letter dated 21.2.1995 from State Bank of India addressed to Investigation Officer stating that there are no dues from Sterling Computers Limited to State Bank of India. The proceedings in C.C.No.177 of 1997 amounts to an abuse of process of court and, as such, it has to be quashed in the interest of justice. Similarly, the dismissal of the discharge application by the trial court is also not proper and correct and the order dated 12.5.1999 is also liable to be set aside. 6. The respondent filed separate counters and contended that on 22.9.1986 a current account No.1924 was opened in the name of the petitioner company by the petitioner. On 10.6.1986 he opened another cash credit account in the said bank. 6. The respondent filed separate counters and contended that on 22.9.1986 a current account No.1924 was opened in the name of the petitioner company by the petitioner. On 10.6.1986 he opened another cash credit account in the said bank. On 20.5.1987 the petitioner applied for export packing credit limit for Rs.30.60 lakhs to State Bank of India, Madras for executing the export order of Computer components for Moscow. On the same day, Thiru Shenoy, Deputy General Manager of the bank prepared a proposal and the General Manager also sanctioned it on the same date. This amount was credited to the current account of the petitioner. But on 3.6.1987 this amount along with interest of Rs.7,629 was realised by the bank from the company’s current account and not by the export bills. The bank suffered the benefit of foreign exchange and the petitioner had dishonestly misutilised the amount otherwise. On 6.6.1987 the first accused dishonestly forwarded a proposal to Chief General Manager for various fund based and non-fund based facilities for Rs.2.75 crores to be sanctioned in favour in favour of the petitioner company. There was no request letter on behalf of the company for obtaining the huge loan. No such export contract was executed by the company. On the exaggerated proposal, facility of Rs.2.75 crores was approved by the Chief General Manager on 8.6.1987 on the recommendation of Thiru Shenoy. Further, without any request letter on behalf of the company, Thiru Shenoy dishonestly forwarded another proposal on 13.8.1997 on one time letter of credit of Rs.1.35 crores. Thiru Shenoy dishonestly mentioned that the company had received a firm order was received by the company from the Department of Electronics, Government of India, New Delhi. The future estimate of the company has also been shown by Thiru Shenoy from Rs.1,680 lakhs to Rs.2,400 lakhs in August’ 87 and this figure was also exaggerated. The fourth instance is that on 16.11.1987 Thiru Shenoy forwarded another proposal for enhancement on the fund based and non-fund based fallties from Rs.2.75 crores to Rs.9.75 crores to be sanctioned for the company. The investigation has disclosed that no export order worth Rs.30 crores for M/s.Kaytronics, Singapore was found in the record of SBI, Commercial Branch, Madras. Similarly there was no request letter on behalf of the company to the bank for enhancement of such facility. The investigation has disclosed that no export order worth Rs.30 crores for M/s.Kaytronics, Singapore was found in the record of SBI, Commercial Branch, Madras. Similarly there was no request letter on behalf of the company to the bank for enhancement of such facility. It was disclosed that the firm exported computer components for 1.03 crores and the company never informed the bank regarding the non-execution of the remaining orders worth Rs.29 crores. It was revealed during investigation that both of them misrepresented the facts to State Bank of India, Madras to cause undue pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.11.40 crores to the company and thereby he misused his official position as a public servant to obtain pecuniary advantage. These facts constitute the commission of offence referred to above. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed and it was also taken on file. Both accused appeared before the court and copies of the documents and statement of witnesses were also supplied. They also called for some documents from State Bank of India and Canara Bank. After hearing the arguments of both sides, and on perusal of the documents as well as the statements and as there was prima facie material, orders were passed dismissing the petition and aggrieved against this, the petitioner has come forward with a revision and also filed a separate quash petition. 7. It was alleged in the first information report that during 1986 certain officials of State Bank of India. Madras and Bombay entered into conspiracy with the petitioner with the object of obtaining various huge credit facilities by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing the official position as public servant and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, the concerned officials of the bank dishonestly or fraudulently caused undue pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.6.75 crores fund based and Rs.9 crores non-fund based without collateral security from the company. The bank officials dishonestly recommended to Letter of Credit facility for Rs.7 crores for printing and publishing telephone directories for MTNL Delhi and Mumbai and further authorised the Commercial Branch of State Bank of India to establish the said letter of credit in favour of company in anticipation of and not by the export bills. The bank suffered the benefit of foreign exchange and the petitioner dishonestly misutilised the amount otherwise. The bank suffered the benefit of foreign exchange and the petitioner dishonestly misutilised the amount otherwise. On 6.6.1987 also the 1st accused dishonestly forwarded a proposal to the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Madras for various fund based and non-fund based facilities for Rs.2.75 crores to be sanctioned in favour of the company. There is no request letter on behalf of the company for obtaining such huge loans from the banks. The 1st accused also mentioned in the proposal that future estimate for the company for the period 30.4.1987 was Rs.1680 lakhs. On the exaggerated proposal, a facility for Rs.2.75 crores for fund based and non-fund based was approved by the Chief General Manager, S.B.I. Madras on 8.6.1987. The investigation also revealed that the officials of S.B.I. failed to maintain devotion to their duties while processing and recommending for the sanction of credit facility to the tune of Rs.7 crores in favour of the petitioner company without verifying the object clause of the company for the diversification of business. In fact, departmental proceedings were recommended by the C.B.I. against three S.B.I. officials viz., Thiru B.Shankar, Field Officer, Thiru S.Mahadevan, Deputy Manager and Thiru A.Sivashankaran, AGM for their misconduct. 8. Again on 16.11.1987, the 1st accused forwarded another proposal for enhancement of the fund based and non fund based facilities from Rs.2.75 crores to Rs.9.75 crores to be sanctioned for the company. But investigation has disclosed that no export order worth Rs.30 crores for M/ s.Kaytronics, Singapore was found in the record of S.B.I., Commercial Branch. Similarly there was no request letter on behalf of the company for enhancement of such facility. It was revealed during investigation that the 1st accused in conspiracy with petitioner misrepresented the facts to State Bank of India and caused undue pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.11.40 crores to the company. These facts constitute the commission of the offence, punishable under Sec.120-B, I.P.C. read with 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 9. The investigation further revealed that in conspiracy both of them dishonestly misrepresented the facts in the proposals on various dates to cause undue pecuniary advantage to the petitioner company and also to obtain pecuniary advantage for himself. There is sufficient oral and documentary evidence to establish prima facie case against all the accused persons. 9. The investigation further revealed that in conspiracy both of them dishonestly misrepresented the facts in the proposals on various dates to cause undue pecuniary advantage to the petitioner company and also to obtain pecuniary advantage for himself. There is sufficient oral and documentary evidence to establish prima facie case against all the accused persons. The proposal dated 13.8.1997 for one time of L.C. of Rs.1.35 crores and on his recommendation, the amount was sanctioned and the 2nd accused received the amount. This fact is proved from document No.25 which was submitted along with the charge sheet. The documents indicate that no supply order was placed on M/s.Sterling Electronics Private Limited, Chennai. The Department of Electronics, Government of India, New Delhi, has placed the supply orders to various four foreign companies and not to M/ s.Sterling Electronics Private Limited. The statement of witness No.12 recorded during investigation and on a perusal of the forwarding letter dated 23.5.1995, it is clear that no such supply order was placed on the petitioner company. This fact is also proved by the statement of witness. No.12. At the time of framing of charges only, those documents are concerned which have been filed by the Investigation Officer along with the charge sheet can be considered to come to a reasonable conclusion whether there is prima facie material to frame a charge. Witnesses 7 to 11 and 16 in the statements recorded during investigation disclosed that they have dishonestly misutilised the sum of Rs.30.60 lakhs from S.B.I. for the purpose of executing an export order of computer components for Moscow. The statements recorded from witnesses No.3 to 9 and 16 also disclosed that such export was never executed by the company and the money was spent otherwise by them. The oral and documentary materials were also perused by the trial court and found prima face case against the petitioner and Thiru Shenoy. There are enough materials to show that they obtained about Rs.11.40 crores from S.B.I. and misutilised the same without executing any export order. Moreover, at the time of framing of charge only, strong suspicion is required against the persons. There is sufficient evidence of oral as well as documentary which creates strong suspicion against them and therefore, the trial court had rightly ordered to frame the charge and there are no materials to quash the charge sheet. 10. Moreover, at the time of framing of charge only, strong suspicion is required against the persons. There is sufficient evidence of oral as well as documentary which creates strong suspicion against them and therefore, the trial court had rightly ordered to frame the charge and there are no materials to quash the charge sheet. 10. Heard the learned counsel of both parties. 11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the discharge application and there are no prima facie materials to frame charge against him. The documents have been summoned on the application of the petitioner and they will clinch the issue in his favour to prove the lack of bona fide on the part of the prosecution. The amount of Rs.30.60 lakhs received by the petitioner from the bank was utilised for procuring raw materials. The prosecution allegation is absolutely baseless and false. The C.B.I. had deliberately suppressed the documents from the State Bank of India and Canara Bank and purposely failed to examine the Menon Impex Private Limited. There is no law that a letter of request should be given before the proposal is made. The formal request made by the petitioner was mentioned in the proposal itself. The bank prepare a credit appraisal report based on the date furnished by the borrower company in the format prescribed by the bank. Moreover, the bank maintains a big team of trained field officers who verify the data furnished by the borrower and send their report. The bank cannot advance any loan to any person by his mere asking for it. No foreign exchange is involved in this export transaction to Russia and payment is made only by rupee. The past performance and current trend of the company are furnished in the balance sheet and annual account. There is no evidence to show that the amount of Rs.9.75 crores was actually drawn by the petitioner company causing any loss to the bank. The estimate made by the first accused is only based on the strength of the audited balance sheet and the accounts of the company approved by the AGM. The charges levelled against them are groundless and there was no ground to presume that the accused had committed the offence alleged by the prosecution. The estimate made by the first accused is only based on the strength of the audited balance sheet and the accounts of the company approved by the AGM. The charges levelled against them are groundless and there was no ground to presume that the accused had committed the offence alleged by the prosecution. The proceedings amount to abuse of process of court and, as such, they have to be quashed. 12. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. contended that the trial court was justified in dismissing the application for discharge. Moreover, at the time of framing of charge, the trial court is expected to go through the documents and the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation and if there is an accusing finger against the accused and on the basis of prima facie material, charge can be framed. The documents said to have been sent for by the petitioner cannot be considered at the time of framing of charge. The grounds now raised by the petitioner are matters that have to be decided during the time of trial based on the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution. In fact, even in the charge sheet it is stated that further list of witnesses and documents will be submitted if deemed necessary. The investigation clearly disclosed the conspiracy between the petitioner and the other persons and there is absolutely no record to show that any export was made to Russia. Simply because the money was repaid with interest within a short period, it cannot be concluded that they have not committed any offence or the proceedings against them have to be quashed. The prosecution will be able to establish that they have committed an offence at the time of the trial and the materials now projected by the prosecution are sufficient to frame a charge against them. There is absolutely no material to show that the charge is motivated or mala fide Departmental proceedings were recommended by C.B.I. against other employees of the State Bank of India for their misconduct and the non-inclusion of some of them will not vitiate the proceedings against the petitioner. 13. The petitioner has filed the revision aggrieved against the dismissal of the discharge petition and filed another petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.177 of 1997. 13. The petitioner has filed the revision aggrieved against the dismissal of the discharge petition and filed another petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.177 of 1997. Since the issue involved in both the cases is one and the same, a common order is pronounced, in both the cases and the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are described in Crl.O.P.No.16750 of 1999 to avoid confusion. 14. The points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the materials now projected by the petitioner are sufficient to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.177 of 1997? (2) Whether the order passed by the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.162 of 1997 is proper and correct? and (3) To what relief? 15.Points 1 to 3: The petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.177 of 1997 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge for C.B.I. Cases at Chennai. He filed Crl.M.P.No.162 of 1997 under Sec.239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge the same was dismissed on 12.5.1999 and aggrieved against this the petitioner preferred the criminal revision petition refer to above. Later, the very same petitioner filed the criminal original petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner stated that in view of the criminal original petition, he is not canvassing any point relating to the criminal revision petition and under the circumstance, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. cases put forth their arguments relating to the criminal original petition. 16. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that it is a case of no evidence and the first information report was lodged on 10.6.1993 relating to some other offence whereas the charge sheet was filed on 22.2.1996 relating to some other offence. The prosecution as a motivated one and investigation, is also not bona fide. The petitioner already filed a quash petition when the first information report was pending and even then, the State Bank of India filed a counter to the effect that the loan was sanctioned in accordance with the guidelines and procedures of Reserve Bank of India and there was no violation. In fact, some of the witnesses also stated that the loans were sanctioned as per norms. In fact, some of the witnesses also stated that the loans were sanctioned as per norms. On the other hand, the Investigating Agency has not chosen to examine any witness to speak about the norms and guidelines normally followed by the Reserve Bank of India and whether it was adhered to in the case. The prosecution has suppressed many materials and several witnesses were examined during investigation without documents and some of the documents were seized only on the date of filing of the charge sheet and, as such, the witnesses concerned to those documents could not have been confronted with reference to the documents. Learned senior counsel further stated that none of the witnesses have pointed out that the first accused had deviated any guidelines fixed by the Reserve Bank of India. The investigating agency has not chosen to examine anybody from the Customs Department in order to show whether the goods were exported or not. He further pointed out that after the retirement of the first accused, the case has been filed because no sanction is required. The officers, who succeeded the first accused have also recommended further loans and they have also sanctioned enhanced amount but inspite of that, they were not included as accused. They were not included because the State of India would not give any sanction for the prosecution as the loan was sanctioned according to the guidelines. 17. It is necessary to find out whether on the basis of the materials available and produced by the prosecution whether one can come to the conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioner in order to quash the proceedings. The petitioner has invoked Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows: “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” The petitioner is bound to establish that the filing of the chargesheet is only an abuse of process of the court and, as such, the proceedings have to be quashed. 18. The charge sheet has been filed on 22.2.1996 relating to four transactions. 18. The charge sheet has been filed on 22.2.1996 relating to four transactions. According to the first information report, during the period 1986 certain officials of State Bank of India, Madras and Bombay (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’) entered into criminal conspiracy with the second accused, the then Director of M/s.Sterling Electronics Private Limited, now know as Sterling Computers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sterling’) with the object of obtaining various huge credit facilities for Sterling by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing the official position as public servant and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the said officials of the bank dishonestly and fraudulently caused undue pecuniary advantage to the company to the tune of Rs.6.75 crores fund based and Rs.9 crores non-fund based without collateral security from company and thereby abused the official position as public servant to obtain pecuniary advantage for themselves and for the company. 19. On 22.9.1986 current account No.1924 was opened in the name of Sterling at State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Madras by the petitioner. On 10.6.1987 he also opened another cash credit account at State Bank of India, Commercial Branch. On 20.5.1987 the petitioner applied for Export Packing Credit Limit for Rs.30.60 lakhs in the said bank for executing an export order of computer components for Moscow. The first accused prepared a proposal for the same. The export packing credit limit for the said amount was sanctioned to Sterling on the same date and it was given credit to in the current account No.1924 of Sterling. This amount has to be realised by the bank from Sterling through the export bills received from Moscow company against the export order; but on 3.6.1987 this amount along with interest of Rs.7,629 was realised by the bank from the company’s current account and not by export bills. According to the prosecution, the petitioner dishonestly misutilised this amount received from the bank and he had not exported the computer components to Moscow. 20. Learned Special Public Prosecutor pointed out that in respect of the first instance dated 20.5.1987, witnesses 7 to 11, 16 and 19 have been examined and apart from that, Ex.D-8 to 12, 15, 16, 27, 28, 34 and 36 also relate to the transaction. 20. Learned Special Public Prosecutor pointed out that in respect of the first instance dated 20.5.1987, witnesses 7 to 11, 16 and 19 have been examined and apart from that, Ex.D-8 to 12, 15, 16, 27, 28, 34 and 36 also relate to the transaction. Learned counsel further stated that the amount has not been realised by foreign bills and the loan has been no doubt, cleared by the petitioner on 3.6.1987. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner stated that the Sterling company is only a supporting manufacturer whereas M/s.Menon Impex Limited was the main exporter of the company and the investigation has not chosen to examine anyone connected with the Menon Impex Limited in order to find out whether the computer parts were exported to Moscow or not. Learned senior counsel further stated that the witnesses relied on by the prosecution have not been asked to make the statement with regard to the guidelines or instructions of Reserve Bank of India in granting the credit facility. He further stated that the documents relied on by the prosecution are only internal records of the bank and they cannot be taken for establishing a prima facie case in respect of the allegation that the goods have not been exported. It is also stated that these entries have been made without notice to the petitioner. It is necessary to state that when proper entries have been made by the bank in the usual course of business, prima facie they have to be accepted and the truth or otherwise can be decided on the basis of the evidence only in the course of trial. Now, no court can come to the conclusion that the entries made in the bank records are created one or they have no probative value. If the contention of the learned senior counsel is accepted, it would only amount that putting the cart before the horse. Learned senior counsel further stated that some of the witnesses were examined on 22.2.1996 when the charge sheet was filed and, as such, there could not have been any possibility for those witnesses to go through the same. In my view, it is too early to consider the statement of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. It is quite possible that the documents might have been seized in the morning and the witnesses could have been examined later. In my view, it is too early to consider the statement of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. It is quite possible that the documents might have been seized in the morning and the witnesses could have been examined later. It is also stated that the witnesses were examined only based on their memory without any document and, hence, they have no probative value. Learned senior counsel further stated that the bank had already sent a communication that no amount is due from Sterling. The question whether the loan has been repaid or not is a different matter and it has no bearing to decide the case relating to quashing of the proceedings. It is only when the trial commences, the veracity of the evidence can be tested and moreover, if necessary the prosecution can also file necessary documents with the permission of the court. 21. The second instance relates to sanction of Rs.2.75 crores for fund based and non-fund based facility based on the proposal dated 6.6.1987. Witnesses No.3 to 9 and 16 and Exs.D-9, 10, 13 and 37 relate to this transaction. According to the prosecution, without request letter and mis-representing in the proposal the position with regard to packing credit as though exports were actually made it was availed. However, the learned senior counsel stated that the counter filed by the bank in Crl.O.P.No.7827 of 1997 on the file of this court would clearly demonstrate that there was nothing unusual in the sanction of loan and in fact, the entire loan amount has been cleared. It is stated that on Mr.Margabandu has not come forward to say that he was misled by the first accused. The investigating agency has not cited him as a witness nor he has been arrayed as an accused. It is stated that based upon the past performance, the loan had been sanctioned. Whenever a party wants to avail a loan, he should normally give a request letter. When no such letter is available with the bank, it raises a doubt as to how a loan could have been sanctioned under this head. Further more, in respect of the transaction, the loan had been sanctioned on the date of request itself and the material documents have also not been filed to show whether the export was actually done or it is only book adjustment. Further more, in respect of the transaction, the loan had been sanctioned on the date of request itself and the material documents have also not been filed to show whether the export was actually done or it is only book adjustment. Only in the course of fullfiedged trial, it would be known as whether export had actually been done and foreign exchange had been utilised. It is stated that the balance sheets for the year 1987 to 1992 were also seized by the investigating agency have not been filed into the court and even assuming that they were not filed into the court, one cannot rush to the conclusion that by not filing the same, the proceeding can be quashed. 22. The third transaction relates to one time letter of credit for Rs.1.35 crores dated 13.8.1997. The investigating agency relies upon the statement of witnesses No.7 to 9, 12, 13 and 16 and also documents No.D-18, 24, 25, 38 and 41. According to the prosecution, without any request letter, this facility has been granted. No order has been placed by NIC; but the learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the first accused was only a recommending authority and facility was sanctioned by one Markabandu and subsequently ratified by the local board comprising various officials and the investigating officer has not examined these persons. If these documents were produced on the side of the prosecution, it will establish that the goods have been supplied by Sterling to Srinivas Computers Limited, which is a sister concern of Sterling. Various vouchers, invoices and debit notes were also seized by the investigating agency from the premises of Sterling and Srinivas Computers Limited; but they were not produced before the court. Deliberately the investigating officer has singled out the first accused for prosecution because he being a retired officer, sanction is not necessary to prosecute him. The successive officers have neither been cited as witnesses nor arrayed as accused in the case. It is only a general ground raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner without any basis. In fact, even in the counter the respondent categorically stated that the C.B.I. had recommend departmental proceedings against other officers. Even assuming that the case has been filed only in respect of a particular officer leaving other accused, it cannot be used as a lever by the petitioner to quash the proceedings. In fact, even in the counter the respondent categorically stated that the C.B.I. had recommend departmental proceedings against other officers. Even assuming that the case has been filed only in respect of a particular officer leaving other accused, it cannot be used as a lever by the petitioner to quash the proceedings. As adverted to, it is always open to the prosecution to file documents or cite witness at a later point of time and they have got right also to further investigate the matter by invoking Sec.173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The grounds now urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are not sufficient to quash the proceedings. 23. The last transaction relates to enhancement from Rs.2.75 crores to Rs.9.75 crores for fund based and non-fund based dated 16.11.1987. The prosecution relies upon the statement of witnesses No.7 to 9, 11 and 16 and also documents Exs.D-39 and 42. It is also similar to instance No.3 that there was no request letter. However, learned senior counsel for the petitioner stated that the proposal dated 16.11.1987 was produced and the document No.39 was considered by the local board on 18.11.1987 and none of the persons has been cited as witness. The allegation is only with regard to export of M/s.Kaytronics, Singapore. No stipulation has been laid down in the sanction letter document No.14 compelling the company to export goods to Kaytronics, Singapore. There may be several reasons for not exporting goods to a particular country or company. The export order is worth about Rs.30 crores. However, the bank had provided the loan as packing credit facility, During 1987-88, Sterling had produced goods worth Rs.36 crores, out of which goods worth Rs.15.46 crores were exported. The Government of India had in fact issued to Sterling, Performance Certificate. The aforesaid grounds are not valid in law to quash the proceedings. Only in the course of trial, it can be found out whether the goods were really exported by the petitioner to the country mentioned therein and other details. It is seen from the records that the first accused had escalated the future projections from Rs.2,400 lakhs to Rs.3,182 lakhs within a period of three months. According to the prosecution, the first accused in conspiracy with the petitioner misrepresented the fact in the proposal dated 16.11.1987 to cause undue pecuniary advantage to Sterling. It is seen from the records that the first accused had escalated the future projections from Rs.2,400 lakhs to Rs.3,182 lakhs within a period of three months. According to the prosecution, the first accused in conspiracy with the petitioner misrepresented the fact in the proposal dated 16.11.1987 to cause undue pecuniary advantage to Sterling. The first accused abused his official position as public servant to obtain pecuniary advantage for himself and also for the company. It is also necessary to keep in mind that the accused were charged under Sec.120-B Indian Penal Code relating to conspiracy and the records filed on the side of the prosecution clearly established that there is a prima facie case to proceed further in the matter and it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence. The evidence now projected by the prosecution has to be tested in a court of law and by looking into the documents as well as the evidence, the court cannot come to the conclusion that the case can be thrown out. Further more, only if the court comes to the conclusion that there are not materials to proceed further, then alone the proceedings can be quashed and it is not necessary for the court to go into the merits of the case and take a decision without examining the witnesses or giving an opportunity to the prosecution and the defence to work out their rights. 24. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. cases contended that the bank had suffered the benefit of foreign exchange and the petitioner had dishonestly misutilised the amounts. The subsequent proposals have also been sent by the first accused with a different purpose. There was no request letter on behalf of the company for obtaining a huge loan. According to the prosecution, if there is any export contract to Moscow, necessarily the company could have filed the agreements or relevant records to prove the same. Now, a stand has been taken by the petitioner that it is only a supporting manufacturer and the main exporter is another person. If the main exporter is some other person, it is not known how from the current account of the petitioner the loan has been cleared on 3.6.1987. Now, a stand has been taken by the petitioner that it is only a supporting manufacturer and the main exporter is another person. If the main exporter is some other person, it is not known how from the current account of the petitioner the loan has been cleared on 3.6.1987. The investigation had also disclosed that no export order worths about Rs.30 crores by M/ s.Kaytronics, Singapore was found in the records of the bank and now the defence would state that it has been done through the sister concern namely, Srinivas Computers Limited. The investigation further disclosed that both of them have misrepresented the facts in the proposals dated 6.6.1987, 13.8.1997 and 16.11.1987 to cause undue pecuniary advantages to the tune of Rs.11.40 crores to the company and the first accused had misused his official position. In fact, some of the documents were called for by the petitioner before the trial court. On the basis of the evidence and materials only, the trial court found out that there was prima facie material and charges were framed. The officials of the bank failed to maintain devotion to their duty while processing and recommending for the sanction of the credit facility in favour of the petitioner company without verifying the object clause for divestigation of the business. The business whether there was conseprisory between the petitioner and the bank can be decided only on the basis of evidence and now it is premature to take a decision on merits. The available materials are sufficient to proceed further against the petitioner and the court is of the view that there is no material to come to the conclusion that the filing of charge sheet is an abuse of the process of court. There is also no reason to jump to the conclusion that the investigation is biased or motivated. The statement of witnesses No.7 to 11 and 16 recorded during investigation disclosed that there was dishonest misutilisation of the funds of the bank and the statement of witnesses No.3 to 9 disclosed that the export was never made by the company and the money was spent otherwise by them. These materials only indicated that necessarily the petitioner has to face trial and simply because the loan has been repaid within a short period with interest, it is not a valid or sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. 25. These materials only indicated that necessarily the petitioner has to face trial and simply because the loan has been repaid within a short period with interest, it is not a valid or sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. 25. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on Vineet Narain and others v. Union of India and another, J.T. (1996)1 S.C. 708, wherein it was observed that investigation into every accusation made against each and every person must be conducted and completed expeditiously. He also relied on Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and another, (1996)9 S.C.C. 766 , wherein it was observed that when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. Most of Sessions Courts in India are under heavy pressure of workload. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings at the stage of Sec.227 of the Code itself. There is no dispute about this principle; but a careful reading of the facts in that case would clearly demonstrate that it cannot be applied to the case on hand. According to the facts in that case, the complaint was made by the wife with the New York Police that her husband committed sexual offences against her 18 months old female child, was investigated by the New York Police who found the complaint bereft of truth hook, line and sinker. The subsequent charge is that the appellant committed such offences against the same child at New Delhi sometime during March to July 1991. Moreover, the wife’s attitude towards her husband was found to be vengeful and in the circumstance, possibility of the wife implicating her husband cannot be ruled out. Hence, I am of the view that it has no application to the present case. 26. Moreover, the wife’s attitude towards her husband was found to be vengeful and in the circumstance, possibility of the wife implicating her husband cannot be ruled out. Hence, I am of the view that it has no application to the present case. 26. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on State of U.P. v. R.K.Srivastava, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2222, wherein it was observed that it is now well settled principle of law that if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken and accepted in their entirety do not constitute an offence, the criminal proceedings should be quashed. There is also no dispute about the principle. 27. Learned senior counsel also relied on M.Gopala Krishnaiah v. State, 1988 Crl.L.J. 651, that bank vesting discretion in officials for decreasing rate of interest and increasing number of instalments for repayments of loans -Exercising discretion within limits in the case of old customer per se does not amount to cheating or causing loss to the bank or causing advantage to the customer. This decision has no application to the case on hand. 28. Reliance was also placed in Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1323, wherein it was observed that prima facie police acted in partisan manner to shield real culprits, trial court directed to direct C.B.I. for proper investigation of case and under Sec.173(8), Crl.P.C. This decision is also not applicable to the case on hand. The petitioner also relied on State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar, A.I.R. 1982 S. C. 949, wherein it was observed that a first information report which does not alleged or disclose that the essential requirements of the penal provision are prima facie satisfied, cannot form the foundation or constitute the starting point of a lawful investigation. An investigation can be quashed if no cognizable offence is disclosed by the F.I.R. There is no dispute about this principle. The decisions cited supra only relate to the principles and the applicability depends upon the facts and circumstances in each case. I am of the view that they have no application to the case on hand. 29. An investigation can be quashed if no cognizable offence is disclosed by the F.I.R. There is no dispute about this principle. The decisions cited supra only relate to the principles and the applicability depends upon the facts and circumstances in each case. I am of the view that they have no application to the case on hand. 29. Learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar and others, (1994)4 S.C.C. 142 , wherein it was observed that, once charges are framed under Sec.240, Crl.P.C. the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Secs.239 and 240, Crl.P.C. nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. to quash the same export in those rate cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence. 30. The prosecution also relied on Kanti Bhadra Shah and another v. The State of West Bengal, (2000)1 Supreme 6 , wherein it was observed that if the trial court decides to frame a charge there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge itself is prima facie order that the trial Judge has formed the opinion upon considering the police report and other documents and after hearing both sides, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned. 31. The prosecution also relied on State of M.P. v. S.B.Johari and others, (2000)1 Supreme 142 , wherein it was observed that in proceedings initiated to quash charge framed, the High Court cannot appreciate and weigh materials produced by prosecution at the stage of framing of charge. The court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that on accused committed the particular offence. In such case, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding trial. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that on accused committed the particular offence. In such case, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding trial. The aforesaid decisions are applicable to the case on hand and the case of the petitioner is not falling within the rare categories to quash the proceedings. 32. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid discussion that only in rarest of rare cases, the proceedings can be quashed if the Court comes to the conclusion that no case is made out or the available materials on record, if accepted, and the same is not subject to cross-examination it will not end in conviction, then only the proceedings can be quashed. The trial court after analysing the documents relied on by the prosecution and after hearing both sides, came to the conclusion that there are materials to frame the charges. I am of the view that there is no force in the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and whatever grounds raised can be decided only on the basis of evidence and this being so, the proceedings cannot be quashed. 33. For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is devoid of any merit and accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed. The criminal revision petition is also dismissed. It is, however, open to the petitioner to agitate the points before the trial court and the trial court is also directed to consider the same uninfluenced by any of the observations if any. The trial court is also directed to expedite the trial as early as possible. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. The matter is posted today “for being mentioned” on the representation of the learned Senior Counsel. The learned Counsel stated that there is an observation in para.33 of the order as follows: “The trial court is also directed to expedite the trial as early as possible.” No time has been fixed. The learned counsel further stated that the petitioner has to file number of applications for sending for certain documents from banks and departments. The learned Counsel stated that there is an observation in para.33 of the order as follows: “The trial court is also directed to expedite the trial as early as possible.” No time has been fixed. The learned counsel further stated that the petitioner has to file number of applications for sending for certain documents from banks and departments. If and when such applications are filed, learned Judge is directed to consider and dispose of the applications on merits as early as possible. 2. The learned counsel further stated that the petitioner is a businessman frequently visiting foreign countries and he would not be able to appear before the court on all hearings. The petitioner is directed to appear before the court at the time of framing charges and thereafter it is open to the petitioner to file necessary application before the concerned court and the learned Judge is directed to consider the same sympathetically. It is also open to the trial Judge to insist the presence of the petitioner as and when it is felt necessary.