Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 448 (AP)

Mutlapudi Anjaneyulu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-07-08

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2020
JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - The petitioner who is A-2 filed this petition seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.74 of 2020 on the file of Pedana Police Station, Krishna District, wherein he is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 465 r/w 34 IPC. 2. The Deputy General Manager of the Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank (for short "KDCC Bank") has given a complaint in Pedana Police Station on 10.03.2020 stating that 17 Secured Overdraft Loans were sanctioned at the Pedana Branch of KDCC Bank for a sum of Rs.4.25 crores. During the internal enquiry, it is found that this batch of 17 SOD loans sanctioned from February, 2016 to August, 2016 are full of irregularities from the beginning to the end. It is further stated in the complaint that prior to sanction of loan, the property offered as pledge has to be inspected personally and physically & verified by the AGM, who is designated as Nodal Officer to a few branches including Pedana Branch. Smt.P.Varalamma, AGM is the Nodal Officer having jurisdiction over this Pedana Branch and she did not carry out any inspection / verification in this regard. Instead, the prime suspect (the author of the entire fraud and the major beneficiary of the funds misappropriated) Kagitha Ramakrishna, AGM, incharge of NFS (Non-farm Sector) at Head Office has created record as if he carried out the inspection and personal verification of the properties offered as pledge to this batch of loans and not P.Varalamma, AGM, the Nodal Officer concerned. 3. It is further stated in the complaint that the personal inspection and physical verification and valuation of the properties offered as security or pledge has to be carried out at the branch level by the Branch Manager M.Anjayenulu (A-2) and Supervisor K.Sudheer, as they have to accompany the AGM concerned who is the Nodal Officer. Instead, these two officials have shown in the records as having followed all the procedures as they are in league with Kagitha Ramakrishna, AGM at the Head Office. 4. Instead, these two officials have shown in the records as having followed all the procedures as they are in league with Kagitha Ramakrishna, AGM at the Head Office. 4. The complaint further reveals that the scrutiny of the loan proposals of this batch of 17 SOD loans for Rs.4.25 crores was carried out by Kagitha Ramakrishna, AGM, Smt.V.Nirajini, Deputy GM and B.L.Chandra Sekhar, General Manager and the batch of 17 SOD loans for Rs.4.25 crores was sanctioned by the then CEO T.Veerababu, retired in the year 2016, even though none of the loan applications were supported by original of Title Deeds, Legal Opinion, Field Inspection Report etc. 5. It was averred in the complaint that it is learnt that Mukku Ratna Pulakara Rao and Mukku Venkateswaramma have confided that 15 loans sanctioned in August 2016 and to which they stood as surety aggregating to 3.75 crores was utilized by Kagitha Ramakrishna, AGM and all the 15 borrowers and his benamis. One Vemula Panduranga Babu, one of the 15 loanees in the schedule, confided that he had not availed any loan and his signature must have been forged by Kagitha Ramakrishna. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Special Public Prosecutor for CID. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither concerned with the loan applications nor with sanctioning of loans. As per the internal circular of the Bank dated 18.01.2014 for any loan amount between Rs.10,00,001/- to Rs.30,00,000/- it is the Nodal Officer concerned to attend for field inspection along with supervisors immediately after preparation of loan application at the Branch for onward transmission of the same to Head Office for sanction. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that loans were sanctioned to the loanees by following the procedure as well as statutory stipulations. Further, the sanctioning authority has to take possession of relevant documents as well as signatures and then only, it has to release amounts to the loanees and the same was done by A-1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner being the Branch Manager can only forward the details of applications given to him by the Field Inspecting Officer and he has not committed any offence as alleged. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner being the Branch Manager can only forward the details of applications given to him by the Field Inspecting Officer and he has not committed any offence as alleged. 8. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CID submits that it is a grave offence which took place with the connivance of all the accused and the petitioner alone is responsible for careful scrutiny of the loan applications while forwarding the same to the Head Office, but he acted hand-in-glove with the other accused and thus, all the accused committed the offence with a fraudulent intention. He further submitted that the investigation is still pending and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is every possibility of meddling with the investigation by the petitioner. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CID relied upon the memo issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank to buttress his submissions about the responsibility of the Branch Manager. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor for CID and on perusal of the complaint, it is evident that some of the loans were disbursed by way of cheques and cash was paid on those cheques at the counter of Pedana Branch and there is a possibility of payment of cash to third person after obtaining the signatures of the loanee on the cheques. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner has nothing to with sanctioning of the loan as it is above Rs.10 lakhs as per the circular dated 12.01.2014 relied upon by the petitioner, the loan applications have to be prepared at Branch and should be transmitted to the Head Office. As per the memo relied upon by the Special Public Prosecutor for CID all documentation has to be completed by the applicant/partner in the presence of the Bank authority. It is stated by the Special Public Prosecutor for CID the investigation reveals that the petitioner is also involved in the crime and the applications are scrutinized and other details are provided by him. 10. It is clear from the above discussion that there are allegations against the petitioner, the investigation so far done reveals the involvement of petitioner, further as the investigation is pending, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 11. In the result, the petition is dismissed. 10. It is clear from the above discussion that there are allegations against the petitioner, the investigation so far done reveals the involvement of petitioner, further as the investigation is pending, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 11. In the result, the petition is dismissed. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.