Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 901 (JHR)

Mahesh Chandra Pathak v. State of Jharkhand

2016-05-20

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. S. Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Deo, learned APP for the CBI. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 4(A)/2013(D) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. An FIR was instituted in which it was alleged that the petitioner being the then Chief Manager-cum-Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank, Dhanbad has recommended the proposal of M/s. Leonis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. without exercising due diligence/in depth credit appraisals of the said project/pre-sanction inspection/not obtaining required Bank statement and search report for study of company profile/without mentioning previous sanction or disbursement of housing loans to co-accused persons and in pursuance thereof and in violation of the terms and conditions of the sanction to M/s. Leonis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. released proceeds of term loan of total Rs. 176 lacs without conducting inspection of the unit before releasing the term loan and without verifying the fact of raising long terms funds of Rs. 134.87 lacs from the Company’s Bank Account statement and also did not ensure he terms and conditions of the sanction by the Directors of the Company. Further allegation has been made that the petitioner did not get the project report prepared by the Chartered Accountant approved by technically competent person and the unit before realising the term loan the unit was neither inspected not it was verified as to whether the term loan was properly utilised by the unit. After conducting investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and the other accused persons. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was the Chief Manager and Branch Head of Syndicate Bank, Dhanbad Branch and it has been submitted that the petitioner was merely the recommending authority and it was the regional authority who was the sanctioning authority for sanction of the term loan granted to the firm and as per the letter dated 25.5.2007 issued by the regional office at Patna it has been categorically stated that the pre-release and post-release terms of sanction has duly been complied with. Learned counsel further submits that proposal was processed and recommendation was also made by the petitioner for sanction of the loan to M/s. Leonis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is competent to sanction term loan upto a limit of Rs. 25 lacs, but since the request for term loan exceeded the sanctioning capacity of the petitioner, the same was recommended by the petitioner which was subsequently sanctioned by the regional office. It has also been submitted that the unit which was sanctioned the term loan was situated at Valsad in the State of Gujarat and the petitioner had also made inspection of the unit and in fact the Branch Office of Syndicate bank at Valsad has also intimated the petitioner regarding the inspections made by them. Learned counsel has also referred to the policy guidelines of 22.2.2011 issued by the General Manager (P) Syndicate Bank in which the accountability and the reasons for loan failure has been delineated with respect to the authorising authority, recommending authority and the sanctioning authority. It has been submitted that the sanctioning authority has been made responsible for adhering to the norms prescribed under the policy of the Bank as well as the RBI, Government and other regulatory bodies. Learned counsel has further submitted that although the loan was ultimately sanctioned by the Regional Office, Patna being the sanctioning authority, but surprisingly none of the said officials has been made accused in the present case whereas the petitioner has been roped in only because of the fact that he was the recommending authority. It has also been submitted that petitioner was transferred from Dhanbad Branch of Syndicate bank on 11.6.2007 and after a considerable length of time, the FIR has been instituted. Submission has also been advanced that due process was taken by the Bank for recovery of the loan amount under the SARFAESI Act and in fact the possession of the unit was taken over by the Bank and which was subsequently sold through auction for Rs. 111,111 lacs. Submission has also been advanced that due process was taken by the Bank for recovery of the loan amount under the SARFAESI Act and in fact the possession of the unit was taken over by the Bank and which was subsequently sold through auction for Rs. 111,111 lacs. It has also been submitted that the departmental proceeding has also been initiated against the petitioner in which it was noted about the inexperience of the firm and the subsequent failure of the product and in fact since the revised plan could not be furnished by the Company, the revival of the unit was not considered by the sanctioning authority. Learned counsel further submits that in the departmental proceeding the petitioner was given a punishment of reduction of one stage in the time scale of his pay. It has therefore, been submitted that the entire facts stated reveals that the petitioner had followed the due process of law and the norms and guidelines as enumerated by the Bank from time to time while recommending to the sanctioning authority the term loan credit in favour of M/s. Leonis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and such circumstances entitles the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the CBI opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and referred to the charge-sheet and has submitted that the involvement of the petitioner in recommending term loan to M/s. Leonis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. would be apparent from the fact that neither the petitioner has obtained the search report at the pre-sanction stage nor was aware of the fact that Sri Nilesh P. Parekh and Sangeeta N. Parekh were also the directors of the Company. It has been submitted that in course of investigation, it was detected that the firm had submitted false list of share-holders shown to have purchased the equity shares through certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant. He further submits that the report of the Chartered Accountant was relied upon by the petitioner whereas the petitioner should have himself verified the fact from the Bank statement. It has been submitted that the petitioner did not inspect the unit which was to be set up by the firm before release of the term loan and did not ensure proper end utilisation of the term loan before issuing the next instalment of term loan. It has been submitted that the petitioner did not inspect the unit which was to be set up by the firm before release of the term loan and did not ensure proper end utilisation of the term loan before issuing the next instalment of term loan. He further submitted that investigation further reveals that the petitioner has allowed diversion of fund to the tune of Rs. 75 lacs through M/s. National Fabricators Associates and M/s. Jalaram Traders which are non-existing firms. Learned counsel further submits that the disciplinary authority had also found the involvement of the petitioner while inflicting the punishment of reduction of one stage in the time scale of pay. It has been submitted that merely because the bank has proceeded to recover the amount by initiating proceeding under the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and by taking over possession of the firm and subsequently selling it through auction would not. minimise the culpability of the petitioner of being hand in gloves with the firm and thereby causing a huge loss to the Bank. 6. On perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner who was the Chief Manager-cum-Branch Head of Syndicate Bank, Dhanbad Branch was the recommending authority for grant of term loan to the unit, the sanctioning authority was the regional office at Patna and from the letter dated 25.5.2007, the recommendation which was made by the petitioner had been duly approved by the sanctioning authority and it had been noted in the said letter that the pre-release terms of sanction and the post-release terms of sanction have been complied with. The unit which was set up at Valsad in the State of Gujarat was to be inspected by the Local Branch of Syndicate Bank and inspection was also required to be carried out by the Branch at Dhanbad. Communications were made by the Senior Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Valsad which indicates that necessary steps were taken for verification of the plant site as was required to be done under the norms and procedures of the Bank. Communications were made by the Senior Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Valsad which indicates that necessary steps were taken for verification of the plant site as was required to be done under the norms and procedures of the Bank. This fact has further been substantiated by the letter dated 10.1.2008 in which the petitioner along with the officials of Valsad Branch of Syndicate Bank had inspected the premises of the new unit on 27.12.2007 wherein it was detected that the trial production of certain chemicals have already started and most of the machinery were also installed. It appears that in terms of the policy guidelines formulated by the Syndicate Bank with respect to recommending of term loan has duly been adhered to which would be evident from the inspection which has been carried out and the sanction of the term loan which has been granted by the regional office at Patna. It further appears that after the loan account of M/s. Leonis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. was declared as NPA, necessary steps were taken by the Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and after the unit was taken possession of by the Bank, the same was sold through auction. The petitioner was transferred from Dhanbad Branch on 12.6.2007. Even otherwise the involvement of the petitioner with respect to the allegations made in the FIR seems to get diluted in view of the stamp of approval put on the recommendation made by the petitioner by the sanctioning authority. The petitioner had taken due diligence as would appear from the record with respect to the follow up action taken after recommending and subsequent sanctioning of the loan by the regional office. Such circumstances dues entitle the petitioner the privilege of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner above named is directed to surrender in the Court below within three weeks and pray for bail, and in that event, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Additional District Judges 1st cum Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 4(A)/2013(D), subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ordered accordingly.