Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 468 (UTT)

ARUN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2019-08-28

R.C.KHULBE

body2019
JUDGMENT Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J. Applicant Arun Kr. Sharma has sought his release on bail in connection with RC No.0072016A0008 under Sections 120-B, 420, 471 of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and u/s 66 of the I.T. Act, 2000 at P.S. CBI SPE, Dehradun. 2. An information was received to the CBI to the effect that Arun Kr. Sharma (Branch Manager), PNB Vidhan Sabha, Branch Dehradun, during the year 2009-10 in connivance with V.K. Shrivastava (DGM/Circle Head), V.K. Mahajan (AGM), V.K. Nagpal (AGM), A.K. Aneja (DGM), Smt. Archana Sethi (Chief Manager), H.S. Bhalla (Chief Manager), Samir Bhatnagar (Manager), all of PNB Circle Office Dehradun and Sri Sanjay Poddar, partner of M/s Vedant Steel Processing Center, Roorkee, defrauded the bank to the tune of Rs.12.00 crores by way of sanctioning a term loan of Rs.382.00 lakh for plant and machinery and working capital (CC) Limit of Rs.750.00 lakh in favour of M/s Vedant Steel Processing Centre, Roorkee for the purpose of processing of steel on 31.8.2009. 3. On the basis of said information, the FIR was lodged on 8.8.2016 by the CBI. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted. 4. M/s Vedant Steel Processing Centre, Roorkee submitted an application for taking term loan of Rs.382.00 lakh for plant and machinery (CC) limit of Rs.750.00 lakh on 23.6.2009. The Techno Economic Viability report was prepared on 27.7.2009. After that, the said proposal was forwarded by the applicant in the capacity of Branch Manager on 16.8.2009 to the Circle Office which was the sanctioning authority. The valuation report was prepared by Mr. M.C. Sharma, Bank Valuer on 23.8.2009 regarding the valuation of property of M/s Vedant Steel Processing Centre, Roorkee. As per the valuation report, the property was valued at Rs.149.74 lakh. On the basis of report dated 23.8.2009, the circle office of PNB sanctioned the loan on 31.8.2009 of Rs.382.00 lakh and Cash Credit Limit of Rs.750.00 lakh in favour of M/s Vedant Steel Processing Centre, Roorkee with the rider that the said amount is to be released only on ascertaining the total value of collateral at Rs.425.00 lakh. After receiving the said sanction letter, the applicant released the loan of Rs.150.00 lakh in favour of M/s Vedant Steel Processing Centre, Roorkee on 17.11.2009, on the basis of MoU as submitted by M/s Vedant Steel Processing Centre, Roorkee to the Bank. 5. After receiving the said sanction letter, the applicant released the loan of Rs.150.00 lakh in favour of M/s Vedant Steel Processing Centre, Roorkee on 17.11.2009, on the basis of MoU as submitted by M/s Vedant Steel Processing Centre, Roorkee to the Bank. 5. After release of said amount, again the Valuer of Bank Mr. M.C. Sharma submitted a revised Valuation Report dated 29.12.2009 to the bank. The said report is on record, according to which, Mr. M.C. Sharma valued the same property at Rs.459.00 lakh. On the basis of revised report, the entire loan amount has been released in favour of M/s Vedant Steel Processing Centre, Roorkee by the applicant/accused. 6. During the course of hearing of bail application, a query was raised whether the said revised Valuation report dated 29.12.2009 was forwarded by the accused/applicant to the Circle Office or not but in this regard, no information could be given by learned Counsel for the CBI. However, it was argued that after sanction of loan on 31.8.2009 by the Circle Office, the applicant, who was the Branch Manager, submitted his report on 17.11.2009 to the Circle Office which shows that the applicant himself went at the spot for verifying the valuation of property and assessed the value of property as Rs.368.00 lakh. The Circle Office also relied the report given by the applicant and sanctioned the loan. 7. During investigation, it was found that the MoU submitted by M/s Vedant Steel Processing Centre, Roorkee to the applicant, on which the applicant released the loan amount, was forged. From the report dated 17.11.2009 submitted by the applicant, it is clear that he himself went at the spot and valued the property as Rs.368.00 lakh. Relying on this report, the circle office came to the conclusion that the report submitted by the applicant is genuine. While as per the record, the Valuer who was nominated by the Bank, submitted two reports regarding the selfsame property; first report is dated 23.8.2009 in which the property is valued at Rs.149.74 lakh while in the second report dated 29.12.2009, the value of the same property was shown as Rs.459.00 lakh. While as per the record, the Valuer who was nominated by the Bank, submitted two reports regarding the selfsame property; first report is dated 23.8.2009 in which the property is valued at Rs.149.74 lakh while in the second report dated 29.12.2009, the value of the same property was shown as Rs.459.00 lakh. On a perusal of two reports, it is evident that there is a difference of about Rs.319 lakh, therein, and these reports were well within the knowledge of applicant/accused, but in spite of that, he released the huge amount of Rs.750.00 lakh in favour of M/s Vedant Steel Processing Centre, Roorkee. The applicant was the Branch Manager who was responsible to release the amount and to assess the property; he himself visited the spot and submitted report to the circle office which was, in fact, incorrect. The two valuation reports submitted by Mr. M.C. Sharma were well within the knowledge of applicant but even then, the applicant released the huge amount in favour of M/s Vedant Steel Processing Centre, Roorkee. 8. Looking to the gravity of offence, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. 9. The bail application is, thus, rejected. 10. Needless to observe that the observations, made hereinabove, will not have any affect on the final merits of the trial.