Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 835 (JHR)

Bangur Singh Soy v. Union Of Indian

2019-04-05

B.B.MANGALMURTI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Instant application has been filed against the order dated 11.02.2019 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.72 of 2019 in connection with RC05(A)/2015-R passed by Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi dismissing the application filed on behalf of petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this petitioner was posted as Scale-I Officer from 26.04.2010 to 23.10.2010 in Punjab National Bank, Mango Branch. The C.B.I. has lodged a case on the complaint received from the Chief Manger, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Main Road, Ranchi alleging therein that during the period April, 2010 to October, 2010, the 31 numbers of housing loan were sanctioned by the then Branch Manager by misusing his official position. This petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. but during investigation his name transpired and charge sheet was also submitted against this petitioner. He approached the trial court by filing discharge application but the same was dismissed without any appreciation of C.B.I. manual which empowers the Superintendent of Police to investigate for registration/disposal of RC/PE including powers for taking decision to verify complaints upto Rupees One Crore only. He further submitted that in the present case, without any preliminary enquiry F.I.R. was lodged which is contrary to the C.B.I. manual. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this petitioner was working in the bank having reputation of dedicated employee and he was not involved in any conspiracy for participating in the alleged offence which was committed in the bank branch. This petitioner was posted as Scale-I Officer but had no special training with regard to grant of credit facility. He also submitted that as per allegation the 31 housing loans were fraudulently sanctioned in which involvement of this petitioner was shown to be in five (05) cases in which housing loan were sanctioned. 3. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposed and submitted that there is no pre requisite to make preliminary enquiry in each and every case. Here in this case, the Chief Manager, Punjab National Branch, Circle Office, Ranchi has given a complaint to the Superintendent of Police about the commission of cheating the bank by sanctioning the 31 numbers of hosing loans. He also submitted that presently the Superintendent of Police is empowered to lodge F.I.R. more than the amount of Rupees One Crore. Here in this case, the Chief Manager, Punjab National Branch, Circle Office, Ranchi has given a complaint to the Superintendent of Police about the commission of cheating the bank by sanctioning the 31 numbers of hosing loans. He also submitted that presently the Superintendent of Police is empowered to lodge F.I.R. more than the amount of Rupees One Crore. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. tried to clarify the position that as per allegation this petitioner is involved in sanctioning process of five (05) housing loan and the amount is within one crore. Since the name of this petitioner transpired during investigation then after completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted on 30.09.2016 before the trial court showing involvement of this petitioner. Lastly, he submitted that at the time of consideration of discharge application the court has only to see that the materials are available which connect the accused. He relied on a decision of Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 (2) JLJR 320 SC. The Honble Apex Court has held that at the time of consideration of discharge application or an order of framing charge may not require meticulous examination of voluminous materials and the court is only required to see the materials on record which reasonably connects an accused with the alleged crime. 4. Considering the above submission of the parties and on perusal of papers attached with this application, it appears that as per allegation this petitioner while posted in Punjab National Bank, Mango Branch as Scale-I Officer from the period 26.04.2010 to 23.10.2010 and his duty was to carry out pre sanction verification but without any such verification he recommended for the sanction of five (05) instances of housing loan and without ascertaining the genuineness of loanee. The documents executed between the parties bears the signatures of this petitioner as well as Mr. G.S. Jha, the then Branch Manager of the said Branch. Even if the accused is not named in the F.I.R. There is no such hindrance to file charge sheet against him if his name transpired during investigation and sufficient material is collected against him. The documents executed between the parties bears the signatures of this petitioner as well as Mr. G.S. Jha, the then Branch Manager of the said Branch. Even if the accused is not named in the F.I.R. There is no such hindrance to file charge sheet against him if his name transpired during investigation and sufficient material is collected against him. The F.I.R. is a piece of documents by which the law is set in motion and therefore name of all accused persons may not be possible to appear in the F.I.R. at the initial stage of the case. The court below has passed reasoned order and found prima facie case connecting this petitioner in the alleged offence while recommending for sanction of housing loan. The court below has also found sufficient material against the petitioner for framing of charge in the case and thereby dismissed his application for discharge. 5. Finding no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned, instant application is dismissed. 6. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned.