Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 191 (ORI)

Satarupa Mohanty v. State of Orissa

2015-03-24

S.K.MISHRA

body2015
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Advocate. 2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 167 467 468 471 406 409 420 and 120-B of the I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.1239 of 2014 of the court of the learned S.D.J.M. Baripada arising out of EOW P.S. Case No.26 of 2014. 3. The Branch Manager of SIPS Campus Branch Bank of India Jharpokharia has lodged an F.I.R. indicating that the loans were sanctioned purportedly under Government sponsored Jalanidhi scheme without following the procedure and formalities. It is specifically mentioned that the then Bank Manager and sanctioning authority Girija Shankar Mishra (not petitioner) has rendered the loans ineligible for Government subsidy of 50% in each account. It was further stated that phase-wise disbursement was not done for execution of the projects of all the cases and full disbursement has already been done in respect of all the loan accounts the onus was on the supplier-cum-executor of the projects to complete the projects in all respects. One Bangali Charan Jena Proprietor of Ms. Oriental Machinery Supplier did not complete the projects in all respects regarding all the 131 beneficiaries. On the contrary said Bangali Charan Jena has acted in a very dubious and fraudulent manner in the matter and embezzled the substantial portion of loan amounts of innocent and unsuspecting rural beneficiaries borrowers. One Susanta Kuamr Jena son of Bangali Charan Jena was functioning as an intermediary all along involving the loans. 4. It was noticed by the Bank officials that in some accounts the signature appearing on the receipt submitted by the Ms. Oriental Machinery Supplier appears to vary with the beneficiaries signatures in the corresponding loan documents. Therefore the Bank initiated Departmental Proceeding against the erring officials involved in the matter at SIPS Campus Branch during the relevant period namely Girija Shankar Mishra the then Branch Manager and Smt. Satarupa Mohanty Second Officer the present petitioner. Such disciplinary proceedings culminated in service of penalty orders of Compulsory Retirement from Service and Dismissal from Service imposed on Girija Shankar Mishra and Smt. Satarupa Mohanty respectively. The informant has further stated that there was conspiracy between the Branch Manager Girija Shankar Mishra and the Proprietor of the supplier farm Ms. Oriental Machinery Supplier to defraud the Bankborrowers in a systematic and fraudulent manner. The informant has further stated that there was conspiracy between the Branch Manager Girija Shankar Mishra and the Proprietor of the supplier farm Ms. Oriental Machinery Supplier to defraud the Bankborrowers in a systematic and fraudulent manner. Therefore request was made to the Economic Offence Wing Bhubaneswar to register a case and make a thorough investigation into the matter. 5. In course of hearing the learned counsel for the State states that the investigation so far made reveals that the Agriculture Officer has recommended only 18 numbers of farmers vide his letter no.154 dated 25.02.2012. The accused persons namely Bangali Charan Jena and his son Susanta Kumar Jena have submitted a forged letter with fake signatures of the Asst. Agriculture Officer containing the names of 131 farmers. Correspondence was made between the present Branch Manager and the A.S.O which reveals that the signature and the seal was forged. Both the father and son Bangali Charan Jena and Susanta Kumar Jena arranged the rural farmers and got the loan Account opening of 131 farmers. Against the requirement of the execution of security documents they mostly obtained by the supplier and handed over to the Bank. The Ex-Branch Manager Girija Shankar Mishra and Ex-Second Officer accepted those documents without following the procedure phase-wise disbursement and credited the whole loan amount of Rs.1 crore 31 lac in the account of Ms. Oriental Machinery Suppliers of Bangali Charan Jena which is not an empanelled approved executant by the Agriculture Department during the period 08.05.2012 to 26.03.2013. The execution of the Project was not done under the supervision of Agriculture Department of Odisha Government as required in this Scheme. As the loans were not sanctioned as per the requirement of the scheme no subsidy claim could be lodged by the Bank as a result of which the Bank sustained loss and there was a set back in execution of the scheme of the State Government. 6. The prosecution further alleged that the present petitioner joined the Bank of India as staff clerk in the year 2010 and later joined in the same Bank as Probationary Officer. During the period in the Bank from March 2012 to June 2013 agricultural term loans of Rs.1 lakh each of 131 persons were sanctioned by Sri G.S. Mishra without adhering to the procedures and guidelines applicable to the scheme as stated above. During the period in the Bank from March 2012 to June 2013 agricultural term loans of Rs.1 lakh each of 131 persons were sanctioned by Sri G.S. Mishra without adhering to the procedures and guidelines applicable to the scheme as stated above. The present petitioner was allegedly involved in the disbursement of all 131 loan accounts from opening the accounts preparing the related vouchers till their posting verification in the system and is establishing her involvement in disbursement of all 131 loan accounts without any doubt. The full amount was disbursed by her crediting to the cash credit account of Ms. Oriental Machinery Suppliers and later transferred to the credit to the account of Susanta Kumar Jena son of Bangali Charan Jena. It is further alleged that on 02.04.2013 Susant Kumar Jena issued 11 cheques aggregating Rs.230000- in the name of the borrowers and the petitioner transferred it to the S.B. Accounts of the borrowers in gross violation of bank s guidelines. On the same date she has authorized payment of eight accounts of borrowers in their absence with a deposit of Rs.1.60 lakhs in the C.D. Account of Susanta Kumar Jena instead of actual physical payment of cash to the respective borrowers. The withdrawal slips were handed over by her to the cashier of the branch for adjusting the payment. It is further revealed from the investigation that a sum of Rs.100000/- was deposited from the account of Susanta Kumar Jena to her account on 30.03.2013. It is also alleged that accused Susanta Kumar Jena and the present petitioner got married on 05.06.2014. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner very painstakingly argued that the Probationary Officer has no power or scope for sanction of any credit related matters and Sri G.S. Mishra the then Branch Manager was the sanctioning authority. It is stated that he also issued all the credit retail vouchers having signature of the Branch Manager. Hence it is contended that the petitioner has no role in the entire process of sanction. It is further stated in the concluding portion of the defence statement given by the Enquiring Officer that the then Manager G.S. Mishra has confessed his role and accepts the charges and the present petitioner is innocent as she has no involvement in the process nor she has any mala fide intention. However such report has not been produced in the Court today. However such report has not been produced in the Court today. The report has not been annexed to the bail application. Only the copy of the appeal memo against the penalty has been annexed to the main application. Later on the deposition of one Sitakanta Mohanty Branch Manager and some circulars has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that at present the petitioner is in advanced stage of pregnancy and her E.D.D. is 07.05.2015. It is apparent from the certificate filed by the petitioner that such a contention is true. 8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objects to the anticipatory bail of the petitioner on the ground that it is an economic offence and misappropriation of Government money to the tune of Rs.13100000/- (Rupees one crore thirty-one lakh) has been made by the petitioner and other accused persons. It is further pointed out that embezzlement has been made in a calculated and premeditated manner. Secondly it is stated that the case is under investigation and larger conspiracy and misappropriated money is yet to be brought to light and the petitioner if protected by the anticipatory bail her interrogation in course of investigation will be adversely affected. It is further stated that the Bank accounts of the petitioner have not been verified and the assets accumulated out of the misappropriated money have not been detected. It is further stated that a number of witnesses are to be examined in the locality. Hence the application for anticipatory bail should be rejected. 9. Admittedly in this case the key players are Bangali Charan Jena his son Susanta Kumar Jena and the then Branch Manager Girija Sankar Mishra. The petitioner was a Junior Officer posted at that time in the Bank. It is further apparent from the records that the petitioner is a lady and is at present in advanced stage of pregnancy which requires specialized medical attention. On one date the Investigating Officer was present in Court and instructed the Addl. Government Advocate to submit the Court that whereabouts of the present petitioner is not known. The Court gave oral direction to the counsel for the petitioner to supply the address of the present petitioner and accordingly it is orally reported that in between 04.03.2015 to 17.03.2015 the Investigating Officer had already once interrogated the petitioner though she was on interim protection. The Court gave oral direction to the counsel for the petitioner to supply the address of the present petitioner and accordingly it is orally reported that in between 04.03.2015 to 17.03.2015 the Investigating Officer had already once interrogated the petitioner though she was on interim protection. The first proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. provides that even in cases where a person is accused of committing an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life a Magistrate can grant bail to such person if he is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm. Thus there is provision for special treatment of arrest under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. Moreover it is apparent that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner nor she has been convicted in any cognizable offence by any court of law. The petitioner being a permanent resident of village-Magbani under Udala Police Station in the district of Mayurbhanj and is a dismissed public sector employee who is pursuing her appeal against her dismissal there is no chance of her fleeing from justice. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the case this Court is of the opinion that anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner. Hence it is directed that in the event of her arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the Arresting Officer. However it is stipulated that this order shall not be taken into account to consider the bail application of the co-accused persons. The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer in progress of the investigation of the case. The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of. A free copy of this order be handed over to Sri Niranjan Maharana learned counsel for the C.B.I. for compliance. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. BLAPL disposed of.