JUDGMENT 1. Three criminal revisions bearing No.5454/2019 preferred by Sandeep Sharma, Cr.R. No.4985/2019 preferred by Vinod Kumar Gupta and Cr.R. No.4383/2019 preferred by R.B.S. Jaat are being decided by common order. All three criminal revisions were preferred against framing of charges by the Courts below. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 13.09.2002, one Ishwar Kumar Dawani, Guddi Pandey and Sandeep Sharma entered into a conspiracy to obtain loan for purchase of Car bearing number MP-20- FA2 2099. The said accused persons suppressed the fact from the bank that said car has already been financed under hire purchase agreement by Tata Telco Company. In the application form which was submitted for obtaining the loan on secondhand vehicle, the aforesaid fact was suppressed. Bank Officer R.B.S. Jaat proposed for the loan and Manager Vinod Kumar Gupta approved the loan. A bankers cheque was issued in name of accused Smt. Guddi Pandey. The borrower defaulted in payment of money, he has issued a cheque which was not honoured. Bank suffered a loss as the vehicle was already hypothecated with Tata Telco Company. Finance Company sold the vehicle in March, 2005 to Surendra Kumar and therefore, State Bank of India suffered a loss. It was alleged that R.B.S. Jaat and Vinod Kumar Gupta, who are the employees of the bank did not verify the documents and had approved the loan and thus they have assisted in the offence and had got benefit indirectly. Police had filed charge-sheet against the applicants under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420/120-B and 34 of IPC. 3. Learned trial Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, Shri Manish Singh Thakur framed charges against Vinod Gupta, R.B.S. Jaat and Sandeep Sharma under Sections 420/120-B of IPC and they were discharged for committing offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.08.2019, applicants had filed these criminal revisions against framing of charge under Section 420 read with section 120-B of IPC. 5. Applicant R.B.S. Jaat who was Deputy Manager and Passing Manager of State Bank of India has raised the grounds in revision that he was not aware about hypothecation agreement with Tata Telco Company. In the application, it has been mentioned by the accused persons that the secondhand vehicle is not on finance and nil has been mentioned in the application form. In the application, it has been mentioned by the accused persons that the secondhand vehicle is not on finance and nil has been mentioned in the application form. It was further submitted by him that there is no evidence of criminal conspiracy done by the applicant. There is no material available in the challan to substantiate offence under Section 420/120-B of IPC and on basis of aforesaid grounds, applicant R.B.S. Jaat has made a prayer for quashing of charges framed against him. 6. In Criminal Revision No.4985/2019, Vinod Kumar Gupta, who is the Manager of State Bank of India at the relevant time has raised the ground that there is no evidence on record that he entered into a conspiracy with the accused persons and gave them any undue advantage or benefit. Loan was sanctioned by the applicant on the basis of R.T.O. papers wherein, nil entry was made against the column of hire purchase agreement and in surveyor report also in column No.11, hire purchase agreement is mentioned nil. Therefore, it cannot be said that applicant is in any way connected with the offence. He had sanctioned the loan on the basis of report of R.T.O. papers and surveyor report and he has no mens rea and neither any offence of conspiracy is made against him. There is no evidence that applicant Vinod Kumar Gupta is involved in conspiracy and he prayed for quashing of charges framed against him. 7. Similarly, Sandeep Sharma has filed the criminal revision bearing No.5454/2019 challenging the charges. He has raised the grounds in his criminal revision that he had no knowledge regarding previous hypothecation. He was a guarantor of the loan amount and was not in conspiracy with the accused persons. There is no evidence on record to show that applicant was in conspiracy with other co-accused persons. Loan has been sanctioned on the basis of R.T.O. papers and also the report of surveyor where remark nil has been entered for hire purchase agreement. It is submitted by him that no case is made out under Section 420/120-B of IPC against applicant Sandeep Sharma. 8. Considered the arguments and averments made by the applicants in their criminal revisions and also perused the case diary of Crime No.531/2006. 9. It is submitted by him that no case is made out under Section 420/120-B of IPC against applicant Sandeep Sharma. 8. Considered the arguments and averments made by the applicants in their criminal revisions and also perused the case diary of Crime No.531/2006. 9. Ishwar Kumar Dawani has filed a declaration form of State Bank of India on 07.09.2002 and in the said declaration Sandeep Sharma was mentioned as third party guarantor of the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs). Guarantor has also signed a declaration form and he has declared his income and assets in the said declaration form. Another agreement letter dated 13.09.2002 was signed by Branch Manager, borrower and guarantor in which it is mentioned that purpose of loan for Indica V-2 Car bearing number MP-20-FA-2099, loan-cum-hypothecation agreement was also attached by the borrower. Applicant Sandeep Sharma has also signed guarantee agreement dated 30.09.2002. A revival letter was also signed on 20.01.2005 at Jabalpur by Ishwar Kumar Dawani and Sandeep Sharma. R.T.O. Form No.29 has been signed by the transferer and said RTO forms are blank. An Ikrarnama was signed by Sandeep Sharma, Guddi Pandey and Ishwar Kumar Dawani. In this document, Sandeep Sharma has signed as witness. In applicants declaration form i.e. Ishwar Kumar Dawani in column No.12 has mentioned that he has not availed any loan from banking of financial institution. In the earlier hire purchase agreement with Tata Telco Company, Ishwar Kumar Dawani was guarantor no.2 and on the said form, signature of Guddi Pandey is there and therefore, she is aware of hire purchase agreement with Tata Telco Company. So there is prima facie involvement of Ishwar Kumar Dawani as well as Guddi Pandey. There is no document on record to show that Sandeep Sharma who is the guarantor was aware from hire purchase agreement. Applicant Vinod Kumar Gupta who is Manager of Bank approved the loan on the basis of report of RTO as well as report of surveyor. There is no evidence available on record that Vinod Kumar Gupta has received any indirect benefit for approving the loan amount and it is also mentioned that the prosecution has not collected any evidence to show that Vinod Kumar Gupta received any indirect benefit for approving the loan amount. There is no evidence available on record that Vinod Kumar Gupta has received any indirect benefit for approving the loan amount and it is also mentioned that the prosecution has not collected any evidence to show that Vinod Kumar Gupta received any indirect benefit for approving the loan amount. There is no document or any evidence to show that Vinod Kumar Gupta was in knowledge of earlier hire purchase agreement entered by Guddi Pandey with Tata Telco Company. Similarly, the case of R.B.S. Jaat, Assistant Manager, who had recommended for loan, there is no evidence that he has received indirect benefit and had knowledge of any hire purchase agreement. They may be negligent in their duties and may not have followed the banking rules and regulations for sanction of loan but they have no mens rea and they were not in conspiracy with accused persons for grant of loan. In absence of evidence against them regarding their active role or indirect benefit received by them or conspiracy done by them, learned Court below has committed an error in framing the charge under Section 420 r/w Section 120-B of IPC. Charges framed against these two applicants are quashed and they are discharged. Criminal Revision No.4985/2019 filed by Vinod Kumar Gupta and Criminal Revision No.4383/2019 filed by R.B.S. Jaat are allowed . 10. So far as applicant Sandeep Sharma is concerned, he is the guarantor of the loan amount and charge under Section 420/120-B of IPC has been framed against the present applicant. As far as, offence of conspiracy is concerned, direct evidence is of conspiracy is generally not available. Prosecution must get a chance to prove their case of criminal conspiracy between Sandeep Sharma and Ishwar Kumar Dawani. The applicant was guarantor of the loan amount and he has given his documents like income tax return and other documents for becoming a guarantor to accused Ishwar Kumar Dawani. At this stage, it cannot be ruled out that there was conspiracy between the guarantor and the purchaser of the car. Guarantor is generally well known to the borrower and he is in confidence with the borrower, therefore, he gives guarantee. Therefore, prosecution must have chance to prove his case against guarantor Sandeep Sharma. Therefore, criminal revision filed by Sandeep Sharma i.e. Criminal Revision No.5454/2019 is dismissed . 11. Guarantor is generally well known to the borrower and he is in confidence with the borrower, therefore, he gives guarantee. Therefore, prosecution must have chance to prove his case against guarantor Sandeep Sharma. Therefore, criminal revision filed by Sandeep Sharma i.e. Criminal Revision No.5454/2019 is dismissed . 11. In the result, criminal revision No.4985/2019 filed by applicant Vinod Kumar Gupta and criminal revision No.4383/2019 filed by applicant R.B.S. Jaat are allowed and criminal revision No.5454/2019 filed by applicant Sandeep Sharma is dismissed .