Judgment : This revision questioning the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Mumbai, rejecting the applicant's application for discharge was taken up for final disposal at admission stage and is being disposed of by this Judgment. 2. The applicant is the original accused No.6 in Special Case No.83 of 2006 before the learned Special Judge. He was working as Branch Manager of Clare Road Branch of Union Bank of India. He has been charge sheeted along with others for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Indian Penal Code. M/s. Syncaps Limited had availed cash credit facility from the Union Bank of India, Clare Road Branch, Mumbai to the tune of Rs.1,60,00,000/-by hypothecation of stocks and book debts. This was done between September, 1999 to December, 2000. The applicant took over as manager of the concerned Branch on 8th November, 2000. While taking a loan, borrower had suppressed that they were having loan account with Vijaya Bank Bhuleshwar Branch, Mumbai. They allegedly filed forged copies of audited balance sheet and property documents. 3. One Mr. S.K. Saraf had made a complaint in respect of cash credit facility availed by M/s. Syncaps Limited. The complainant had alleged that M/s. Syncaps Limited had duped Vijaya Bank as well as Union Bank of India. The complaint had been sent by the Regional office to carry out thorough and discreet inquiry against M/s. Syncaps Limited and to maintain confidentiality about the correspondence in respect of Mr. S.K. Saraf's complaint. On 11th December, 2000, the applicant is alleged to have obtained from M/s. Syncaps Limited a letter stating that the complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf was baseless and lodged due to business rivalry, indicating that the contents of the complaint were divulged by the applicant to M/s. Syncaps Limited in breach of instructions by his superiors. He also caused to send a letter on 23rd December, 2000 under the signature of Mr. S.M. Wani, Accountant of the Branch to the Regional office stating that the necessary enquiry was made and that the complaint was filed due to business rivalry. 4. He also caused to send a letter on 23rd December, 2000 under the signature of Mr. S.M. Wani, Accountant of the Branch to the Regional office stating that the necessary enquiry was made and that the complaint was filed due to business rivalry. 4. The investigation also revealed that the applicant considered a proposal for renewal of the cash credit limit and enhancement of cash credit facility in the face of apparent discrepancy in the audited balance sheet of M/s. Syncaps Limited which were not signed by qualified Chartered Accountant. On the basis of recommendation of the applicant, the Regional office sanctioned renewal of cash credit limit of Rs.1,20,00,000/-and Rs.40,00,000/-for FDBP under the letters of credit and confirmed contract with ECGC cover. He ignored the discrepancy in the property documents creating equitable mortgage on property bearing CTS No.1916 part Survey No.140/17 part, Plot No.487 FP485 area 462.89 Sq.Meters at Vileparle(E), Mumbai. The area was wrongly shown as 6231 Sq. Feet whereas it was actually 4971 Sq. Feet. On a report by Vigilance Officer of Union Bank of India, investigation was carried out and on completion of investigation, the applicant along with several others was found to be involved in various acts for which they were eventually charge sheeted. The investigating officer obtained sanction to prosecute the applicant, since he was a public servant. He was charge sheeted along with others after sanction was accorded. 5. The applicant filed an application for discharge which came to be rejected by the impugned order. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that he joined Clare Road Branch of Union Bank of India, Mumbai in the year 2000 whereas loan transaction was processed in the year 1999. It was stated that there was absolutely no material against the applicant for framing of charge. The application was opposed contending that when the complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf against M/s. Syncaps Limited was sent to the applicant with a direction not to disclose or divulge the contents of the complaint to the party. The applicant submitted a report that allegations against M/s. Syncaps Limited were not correct and that the Directors of M/s. Syncaps Limited wrote a letter to the Union Bank of India denying the allegations of Mr. S.K. Saraf. This could not have been happened without applicant's informing M/s. Syncaps Limited of the complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf. 6. The applicant submitted a report that allegations against M/s. Syncaps Limited were not correct and that the Directors of M/s. Syncaps Limited wrote a letter to the Union Bank of India denying the allegations of Mr. S.K. Saraf. This could not have been happened without applicant's informing M/s. Syncaps Limited of the complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf. 6. The learned trial Judge held that the bogus and false documents were prepared with the help of accused Nos.3 to 5. Accused No.8, an Advocate had submitted a false and bogus Title Clearance Certificate. Without verifying genuineness of the documents submitted, the applicant recommended further cash credit facilities. The learned Judge, therefore, rejected the application. This order is challenged by the applicant by the present proceedings. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for CBI. With the help of both the learned counsel, I have gone through the material placed on record. The allegations against the applicant are that he sanctioned cash credit facilities without verifying the genuineness of the documents and thus, was a party to the conspiracy of fabricating and forging documents. The cash credit facilities themselves were granted on 24th December, 1999 when the applicant was not the Manager of the Union Bank of India. Collateral security of a vacant plot admeasuring 5980 Sq. Feet was given while sanctioning cash credit facilities on 24th December, 1999. What the applicant seems to have done is that on 31st March, 2001, he recommended renewal of those facilities on the basis of security furnished including that of the vacant plot at Vile Parle, Mumbai. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that recommendation by the applicant to renew cash credit facilities had been approved by the Regional office. He submitted that since the case was one of renewal facilities already provided, if the applicant was at any fault in relying on the documents already submitted by the party and acted upon by the Bank in the past, that would be at worst, negligence, and could not be called as a conspiracy to create forged documents. If there was any discrepancy in the area of the plot, that was already there when the facility was first sanctioned. If there was any discrepancy in the area of the plot, that was already there when the facility was first sanctioned. The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that as far as additional security in respect of property at Falna is concerned, there is no allegation that this is not genuine. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, there was absolutely no material to frame charge against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 13(2), charge of offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act is merely inferential on the assumption that the applicant was party to the conspiracy to commit forgery, which he could not have been done without consideration other than legal remuneration. 8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI submitted that merely because certain documents were already relied on by the predecessor of the applicant while granting cash credit facilities, it did not follow that the applicant should blindly recommend renewal without verifying documents. He submitted that it was necessary for the applicant to check creditworthiness of the client, particularly, in face of the complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf which had been forwarded to him. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the applicant had failed to check authenticity of the audited accounts which M/s. Syncaps Limited had furnished and had also not obtained ECGC Policy. He submitted that this itself showed the complicity of the applicant in conspiracy to use forged documents. 9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that complicity of the applicant is apparent because after being told not to divulge the contents of the complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf, he seems to have made the complaint known to M/s. Syncaps Limited, who then sent a letter stating that the complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf was false. He submitted that without applicant's divulging the contents of the complaint, M/s. Syncaps Limited could not have responded to the complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf. He submitted that complicity of the applicant as fortified by the fact that he caused a letter to be sent by Mr. S.M. Wani on 28th December, 2000 to the effect that the complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf was false. 10. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced. S.K. Saraf. He submitted that complicity of the applicant as fortified by the fact that he caused a letter to be sent by Mr. S.M. Wani on 28th December, 2000 to the effect that the complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf was false. 10. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced. What emerges from the record is that all the documents submitted by M/s. Syncaps Limited for renewal of cash credit facility or additional facility had already been submitted by them even before the applicant took over as Manager of the Clare Road Branch. The applicant was instructed by the superiors, who referred a complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf to him, to make necessary enquiry confidentially. There is reason to believe that the applicant allowed M/s. Syncaps Limited to know of the complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf and caused a letter to be sent to the Regional office under the signature of accountant of his branch Mr. S.M. Wani that the complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf was filed due to business rivalry. The applicant then recommended renewal of the cash credit limit and further, limit of Rs.40,00,000/-under the letters of credit ignoring discrepancies in property documents about which he had been alerted by the complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf. It is the refrain of the prosecution that the subsequent act of communicating that complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf was filed due to business rivalry, and the possibility of applicant leaking the complaint by Mr. S.K. Saraf to M/s. Syncaps Limited, resulting M/s. Syncaps's writing to the Bank that the complaint was due to business rivalry, show the complicity of the applicant in conspiracy to forge documents filed to secure or to renew the credit facilities. Since most of the documents, in consideration whereof the facility was provided, had already been submitted to the branch before the applicant took over as a manager of the Clare Road Branch, it would be improper to conclude that he was a party to the conspiracy of forging documents. His subsequent indiscretion may be, in leaking the fact of enquiry into a complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf, or certifying that the complaint was made on account of business rivalry through his accountant, or recommending renewal of the facilities, may at worst be indiscretion or indiscipline which could be dealt with administratively by the Bank as a departmental delinquency. His subsequent indiscretion may be, in leaking the fact of enquiry into a complaint of Mr. S.K. Saraf, or certifying that the complaint was made on account of business rivalry through his accountant, or recommending renewal of the facilities, may at worst be indiscretion or indiscipline which could be dealt with administratively by the Bank as a departmental delinquency. The material collected does not show that there is either sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant or that there is material which if unrebutted would warrant the conviction of the applicant on criminal charges of engaging in a conspiracy to forge documents or to cheat. In view of this, the learned Judge should have seen that the applicant was entitled to be discharged. 11. The application is, therefore, allowed. The impugned Order passed by the learned Special Judge is set aside. The learned Judge shall proceed to discharge the applicant of the offence for which the applicant is proposed to be tried.