JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 3. The applicant, who is accused No. 4 in Special Criminal Case No. 3 of 2013 filed against him by the non-applicant for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, by this application, has challenged order dated 2-1-2014 passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting his application for discharge from the case. 4. It is the case of the non-applicant that at the relevant time, this applicant, who was working as Manager (Credit) at Regional Office of Union Bank of India, Nagpur and accused Nos. 1 to 3, who were the Deputy General Manager and Assistant General Manager and Branch Manager, Ghat road branch, Nagpur, had made a criminal conspiracy to cheat Union Bank of India by abusing their official positions and ignoring credit norms for favouring a Company, namely M/s Mobile Magic Retail Private Ltd., Nagpur, (for short, "the company") accepted the proposal of the company for taking over its loan account from Bank of India and also granted enhancement of credit limits and thereby caused loss of Rs.5,55,96,770/- to Union Bank of India. 5. It has been the case of the prosecution that this applicant, being a Loan Processing Officer, was required to study the loan proposal objectively and analyse it by obtaining relevant information and make his recommendations appropriately in the matter. It has been particularly alleged that as a Manager (Credit), this applicant did not perform his duty in processing the loan proposal properly and even though, some information was relevant which ought to have been considered by him before making a recommendation for sanction of proposal for taking over the loan account of the company from Bank of India with enhancement of limits, deliberately ignored that material and made recommendations favourable to the company which resulted in taking over of the loan account and also grant of enhanced limits to the company, although it had no financial capacity to repay the loan. 6. According to learned Counsel for the applicant, vigilance report dated 17-4-2010 signed by Chief Vigilance Officer, Union Bank of India does not fasten any criminal liability upon the present applicant. 6. According to learned Counsel for the applicant, vigilance report dated 17-4-2010 signed by Chief Vigilance Officer, Union Bank of India does not fasten any criminal liability upon the present applicant. He further submits that the vigilance report categorically states that so far as the present applicant is concerned, no vigilance angle is involved. He points out from the staff accountability report that this applicant has not been held to be accountable in any manner and only some officers namely, M. Suryaprakasam, V. G. Kolhe and H. C. Wasnik have been held to be accountable. He further submits that if some material was not considered by the present applicant while processing of the loan proposal, it would not mean that the applicant had acted in the matter dishonestly. In order to attribute any dishonest intention to the applicant, he further submits, it is necessary that some material is produced on record by the investigating agency and this material is absolutely not there and, therefore, the applicant deserves to be discharged from this case. He submits that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer and also report of the Staff Accountability Committee and has passed a perverse and arbitrary order which cannot be sustained in law. 7. On the other hand, strongly opposing this application, Shri Ahirkar, learned Special Counsel for the non-applicant, submits that some relevant material, which ought to have been considered for processing of the loan proposal, has not been considered by the present applicant and had this material been considered by the applicant, the recommendation which he had made would not have been there. He submits that this material was in the nature of inadequacy of primary security, bank statements for the months of September, October and November, 2007 and the account of M/s Mobile Magic Co. with Bank of India being highly irregular so as to warrant its categorization as Non Performing Asset (NPA). He further submits that during the course of investigation, all these aspects of the case and the irregularities committed by the applicant have come to light and at this stage, they indicate that the applicant ignored the most relevant material while processing the loan proposal deliberately. He further submits that the entire material collected during the course of investigation has been properly considered by the trial Court. He further submits that the entire material collected during the course of investigation has been properly considered by the trial Court. He further submits the vigilance committee report as well as report of the Staff Accountability Committee of Union Bank of India have not considered the aspect of deliberate ignorance of the relevant material by the present applicant and, therefore, these reports carry no weight and even if they had not been considered by the trial Court, it would not change the fate of discharge application filed by the present applicant. 8. Upon consideration of the documents filed on record of this case by the applicant and the impugned order with the assistance of learned Counsel for the applicant and the non-applicant, I find myself in agreement with the learned Special Counsel for the non-applicant and I am of the view that there is no substance in the argument canvassed on behalf of the applicant. 9. The applicant was working as Manager (Credit) at regional office of Union Bank of India and, therefore, it was his duty to meticulously examine and analyse the loan proposals that were placed before him for processing. No doubt, the applicant was entrusted with the job of processing of the loan proposals and making suitable recommendation only, the responsibility so placed can not be said to be any the less onerous. After all, on the basis of facts stated in the process note and recommendations made therein that the superior authorities, including the sanctioning authority, would consider the loan proposals and accept in most of the cases recommendations made in the process note. Although, at the regional office level, the loan processing officer acts on the basis of the recommendations of the branch from where the loan proposal originates, the processing officer at the regional office cannot escape from the responsibility of carefully scrutinizing and analysing of the loan proposal. He cannot say that whatever has been submitted to him by the branch office of the Bank would only be examined and recommendations accordingly be made by him. Apart from examining what is submitted to him by the branch office, there lies independent responsibility upon the processing officer at the regional office to take care of the inadequacies and lacunae that could be found in the proposal submitted by the branch office. Apart from examining what is submitted to him by the branch office, there lies independent responsibility upon the processing officer at the regional office to take care of the inadequacies and lacunae that could be found in the proposal submitted by the branch office. If this were not the case, there would be no need for a Bank like Union Bank of India to open a middle level office called regional office and employ a loan processing officer at regional office. Therefore, it would have to be seen as to whether the duty and responsibility cast upon the applicant has been properly performed by him or the applicant had been prima facie negligent in performance of the duty or the applicant had done some acts which were prima-facie deliberate and intentional. All this will have to be examined from the view point of the allegations taken at their face value and prima facie making out the offences alleged against the applicant and others. 10. It is seen in this case that as per the statement of one of the witnesses Yogesh Pawani, six months Bank statements of the company were required to be obtained and scrutinized. However, what were obtained and scrutinized were the Bank statements for the period from 1-4-2007 to 1-9-2007. These statements were not for a period of six months and were for only five months and even the period was not completely relevant. The application for taking over the loan account was made on 1-11-2007 and, therefore, the relevant period of the Bank statements was from 1-5-2007 to 31-10-2007. But, the Bank statements for the months of September and October, 2007 were neither obtained nor considered in any manner by the processing officer. It has been alleged that the Bank statements for the month of September, 2007 as well as October, 2007 were disclosing a serious fact about the health and capacity of the company, which would have had a bearing upon the entire decision making process. It has been alleged that the account of M/s Magic Mobile Co. was overdrawn since 13-9-2007 continuously till 13-12-2007. If the extract of account for the period subsequent to 13-9-2007 had been considered, the fact of overdrawing of the account would have come to light and it would have changed the whole scenario. It has been alleged that the account of M/s Magic Mobile Co. was overdrawn since 13-9-2007 continuously till 13-12-2007. If the extract of account for the period subsequent to 13-9-2007 had been considered, the fact of overdrawing of the account would have come to light and it would have changed the whole scenario. The extract of bank account for the most relevant period had not been obtained by the applicant though he ought to have and, therefore, a reasonable suspicion arises in the mind that it was not obtained only because it would have come in the way of the applicant in making a favourable recommendation in his process note. 11. The reasonable suspicion so arising in this case against the applicant is sufficient for me to find that this is not just a case of negligence simplicitor but something prima-facie done knowingly and intentionally to help the company and therefore there are sufficient grounds to proceed further in this case against the applicant. If the applicant had to show that it was a plain mistake on his part, it would be a matter of his defence. This is because of the fact that what has been ignored by him was something which would have had a material bearing upon the entire decision making process in the case. 12. In the case of Onkar Nath Mishra and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in 2008(2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) (S.C.) 550 : (2008) 2 SCC 561 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to review the material and the documents on record with a view to find out that the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and that the Court is not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that even the strong suspicion founded on material would be enough for justifying the framing of charge against the accused in respect of commission of the offence alleged against him. In my view, ratio of this case is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that even the strong suspicion founded on material would be enough for justifying the framing of charge against the accused in respect of commission of the offence alleged against him. In my view, ratio of this case is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. Apart from the above referred intentional act, there are other acts done intentionally and which are prima-facie attributable to concerned officers at regional office including the applicant. 14. It is seen that even though Bank of India had not categorized the account of M/s Magic Mobile Co. as nonperforming asset or NPA, the extract of it's account disclosed that the account with the Bank of India was overdrawn continuously from more that 90 days before submission of the final process note dated 4-12-2007. If any loan account remains continuously overdrawn in which even the interest is not paid, I do not think that any expert opinion is required to say that the account is a NPA for the reason that the Reserve Bank of India guidelines in this regard are loud and clear and known to almost all, except a naive. Non-certification of the account as NPA by the Bank of India might be for its own reasons, perhaps for the reason that the Bank of India was interested in getting rid of such an account. But the applicant was neither a novice nor naive. He was an expert banker who could have easily found out the NPA status of the account, in spite of non-certification by the Bank of India, if he had thrown a simple glance at the relevant extract of the bank account. Probably, in order to avoid this eventuality, the relevant extract of the bank account was not obtained by the applicant. 15. It also appears that the applicant did not take into account inadequacy of the primary security, which was in the nature of mobile handsets. It is well known to everybody that prices of the mobile handsets go down quickly on upgradation of technology and entry of new mobiles with upgraded technology in the market. This fact, it appears, has not been duly considered by the applicant. 16. It is well known to everybody that prices of the mobile handsets go down quickly on upgradation of technology and entry of new mobiles with upgraded technology in the market. This fact, it appears, has not been duly considered by the applicant. 16. The above referred acts taken together at their face value constitute a reasonable basis for raising a suspicion against the applicant that he may have done something in the matter with dishonest intention. Whether that dishonest intention was really there are not, would be something, which would have to be considered on merits of the case at the conclusion of the trial, but this material, at this stage, is sufficient to reach a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further against the applicant in this case. 17. Learned Counsel for applicant is right when he submits that learned Special Judge has not considered the reports of the Vigilance Committee and the Staff Accountability Committee. But, as rightly pointed out by learned Special Counsel for the non-applicant, upon perusal of these reports, copies of which are available on record, I find that even these reports do not take care of the lacunae and deliberate acts prima facie done with intention to help the company while processing its loan proposal and which have been pointed out in the earlier paragraphs. They only show that generally what had been done by the applicant was within the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, although such conclusion is surprising and appears to be made in ignorance of relevant material on record. These reports, nowhere show as to how non-consideration of the relevant material by the applicant had not impacted in any manner the final sanction given by the sanctioning authority. Therefore, I do not think that even if these reports were to be considered by the learned trial Judge, any difference would have been made in the conclusion reached by the learned trial Judge in the matter. 18. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the report of the Staff Accountability Committee, in particular, places emphasis upon some non compliances made at the level of the branch office of the Union Bank of India. He submits that if those compliances had been made at the level of branch office, perhaps damage in this case could have been avoided. He submits that if those compliances had been made at the level of branch office, perhaps damage in this case could have been avoided. In short, learned Counsel for the applicant is making an effort to show that ultimately it was in the hands of the concerned branch office to stop the disbursement so as to avoid the loss alleged to be caused to the Bank. 19. I am not impressed by this argument for the simple reason that whatever compliances were to be made at the branch office level were to be made for the purpose of disbursing the loan limits sanctioned by the competent authority. These compliances had nothing to do with the discharge of onerous responsibility that was placed on the shoulder of the present applicant in processing of the proposal and making his proper recommendation in the matter. I have already pointed out as to how there was breach of the said duty on the part of the applicant and as to how such failure has given rise to a reasonable suspicion against him so as to warrant his trial on merits. 20. In the result, I find that the impugned order cannot be seen as perverse or arbitrary or against the well settled principles of law. There are sufficient grounds for proceeding further in the matter against the applicant. This application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. The application stands dismissed.