JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Kislay Prasad, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI. 3. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 28.11.2019 passed in R.C. No. 14(S) of 2008-AHD-R by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. dated 16.11.2019 with a prayer before the learned court below to issue summons to the proposed accused namely (i) Pradeep Dilip Potnis (ii) Neeta Singh (iii) Murlidhar Ram (iv) Anjani Kumar Jha (v) Kailash Chandra Kulshresth (vi) Girish Nath Singh (vii) Md. Daud Ali and (viii) Anand Kumar has been rejected by the learned court below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had earlier moved this court in Cr. Revision No. 530 of 2019 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 397/2019 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner (who is an accused in the case) under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. was rejected. He submits that from perusal of the order passed in Cr. Revision No. 530 of 2019 it appears that earlier petition which was filed by the petitioner before the learned court below under Section 319 Cr. P.C. was held to be not maintainable at the instance of accused person. It further appears from the earlier order of remand passed by this court that the petition filed at the instance of the accused was held to be maintainable and the matter was remitted to the learned court below for fresh consideration. 5. The prosecution case in brief is that one Atul Kumar Agarwal, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Ranchi filed a written report on 28.11.2008 before the Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.), Ranchi, stating interalia that a cash credit limit of Rs. 75,00,000/- and a term loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- was sanctioned by Bank of Baroda to M/s. Neelam Spices, Ranchi. It was alleged that a sum of Rs. 74,92,805 and Rs. 16,59,716/- respectively, on the different heads stated above, were still outstanding against M/s Neelam Spices, Ranchi along with interest admissible thereon. 75,00,000/- and a term loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- was sanctioned by Bank of Baroda to M/s. Neelam Spices, Ranchi. It was alleged that a sum of Rs. 74,92,805 and Rs. 16,59,716/- respectively, on the different heads stated above, were still outstanding against M/s Neelam Spices, Ranchi along with interest admissible thereon. Santosh Sahu and Satish Kumar Sahu were the partners of M/s. Neelam Spices, Ranchi and the loan amount was sanctioned as against the equitable mortgage of landed property belonging to the aforesaid partners whereas Shri Budhram Sahu, Jairam Sahu and Girdhariram Sahu were the guarantors. It was alleged that during verification of the mortgaged property shown by the loanee or the guarantors it transpired that the said property did not belong to them and thereby the bank was cheated pursuant to which the case was instituted against the borrowers/loanees i.e. Santosh Sahu, Satish Kumar Sahu, Buduram Sahu, Jairam Sahu and Girdhariram Sahu for the alleged offence under Sections 120B/420/467/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and six other accused persons vide Charge Sheet No. 4/2010. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not named accused in the F.I.R. The charges were framed against the petitioner, Kailash Nath, Rajiv Ranjan “Arvind” and Ritesh Kumar under Sections 120B read with Section 420/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 08.10.2012. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of evidence led before the learned court below, the witnesses have deposed and taken the names of the aforesaid proposed accused and there is enough material which has come up during evidence of the witnesses before the learned court below for summoning the accused under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C.. Accordingly, a petition was filed for the said purpose. Learned counsel has submitted that supplementary affidavit dated 06.01.2020 has been filed by the petitioner before this court to bring on record the evidences which were led before the learned court below. In the supplementary affidavit the petitioner has also brought on record the final report which was submitted by the CBI. 7. Learned counsel has submitted that supplementary affidavit dated 06.01.2020 has been filed by the petitioner before this court to bring on record the evidences which were led before the learned court below. In the supplementary affidavit the petitioner has also brought on record the final report which was submitted by the CBI. 7. The learned counsel has referred to the evidence of P.W. 13 (Anjani Kumar Jha) to submit that it has been stated that loan is sanctioned on the basis of appraisal report and the appraisal report is not binding on the sanctioning authority. It has also been stated that appraisal report consists of Audit report, projected balance, copy of valuation. It has also come in the evidence of P.W. 13 that at the time of sanction, the Regional Manager is required to be satisfied for the purposes of sanction of loan. P.W. 13 has stated that scrutiny of loan documents was done by P.W. 13, Neeta Singh, Murlidhar Ram and P.D. Potnis. Learned counsel submits that the very fact that the loan was sanctioned by the Regional Office in which the aforesaid four persons were in the Committee, therefore their complicity in the matter cannot be ruled out. 8. Learned counsel has also referred to the evidence of P.W. 21 to submit that it has been specifically stated that P.D. Potnis was the regional manager at Jamshedpur, at Jharkhand at the time when the loan was sanctioned to M/s. Neelam Spices. It has been clearly stated by P.W. 21 that Anjani Kumar Jha, Senior Manager, (Credit), Murlidhar Ram and Smt. Neeta Singh were posted in the Regional Office, Jharkhand at Jamshedpur who were in the sanction committee of the loan. He has also referred to Exhibit 22/9 wherein details of the proposal for loan has been mentioned by the Regional Office and the loan was sanctioned by the Regional Office on 12.11.2005. 9. Learned counsel has further referred to the deposition of P.W. 22 i.e. Pradeep Dilip Potnis to submit that he was posted as Regional Manager at Bank of Baroda, Jamshedpur and the area under him covers the entire state of Jharkhand. He has also stated that discretionary power to sanction loan up to Rs. 1 Crore was with the Regional Office and term loan of Rs. 25 lacs and cash credit of Rs. 75 lacs was sanctioned in favour of M/s Neelam Spices by him. He has also stated that discretionary power to sanction loan up to Rs. 1 Crore was with the Regional Office and term loan of Rs. 25 lacs and cash credit of Rs. 75 lacs was sanctioned in favour of M/s Neelam Spices by him. He has also stated that out of the aforesaid proposals which were received, he had rejected some of the loan applications and some were allowed. He has also stated that proposal received by the Branch is not binding on the Regional Office. 10. Learned counsel has further referred to evidence of P.W. 36 to submit that the Manager, Credit does not have the power of sanction loan. He is only the recommendatory authority. The loan was sanctioned by the Regional Office and the sanction of loan took about 2 ½ months, but no clarification or the letter was issued to the then Manager, Credit namely Sudhir Lakra who is the petitioner before this court. He has further referred to paragraph 37 of the deposition to submit that the proposal was sent on 03.09.2005, but the loan was not sanctioned on the said application. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that these depositions of the various witnesses clearly indicate that the sanctioning authority was the Regional Office and they had the discretion to sanction the loan or not to sanction the loan and the primary responsibility for the purposes of sanction of loan was with the Regional Office and the officers who were posted in the branch including the petitioner were merely the recommendatory authority. Learned counsel submits that considering this aspect of the matter, these evidences of the witnesses are enough to constitute more than prima facie case against the proposed accused and accordingly the learned court below ought to have summoned these persons under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that these aspects of the matter had not been properly appreciated by the learned court below and therefore the impugned order be set aside. He has also submitted that he has filed one interlocutory application to make these persons as opposite parties in this case and if this court is satisfied then before passing any order, they may be made party and notice be issued to the proposed accused. 12. He has also submitted that he has filed one interlocutory application to make these persons as opposite parties in this case and if this court is satisfied then before passing any order, they may be made party and notice be issued to the proposed accused. 12. Learned counsel for the CBI on the other hand has referred to chargesheet annexed with the supplementary affidavit to submit that during investigation it has come to light that based on false information and forged documents furnished by the borrowers, Sri Sudhir Lakra, the then Manager, Credit i.e. present petitioner dishonestly prepared the proposal and the same was dishonestly forwarded to the Regional Office, Jamshedpur on 03.09.2005 by Sri Kailash Nath, the then Branch Manager, without making the necessary scrutiny. It has also come in evidence that after clarifying certain queries, Regional Manager P.D. Potnis sanctioned the loan on 14.11.2005. The bank officials concerned, as per the norms prescribed in this regard, were duty bound to get the landed properties evaluated which were intended to be mortgaged by the borrowers and the guarantors, by the approved valuer of the bank. But intentionally, this was not adhered to and the accused bank officials chose to place reliance on the valuation report, showing inordinately inflated acreage of land and its value which was submitted by a valuer engaged and paid by the borrowers themselves. 13. Learned counsel for the CBI has also referred to the evidence of P.D. Potnis to submit that it has come in evidence at paragraph 6 that the petitioner as well as Senior Branch Manager did not undertake steps for verifying the genuineness and physical verification on the spot. He has also referred to paragraph no. 27 of his deposition to submit that as per clause 9 of the terms and conditions of sanction, Senior Branch Manager was to visit the plot to be mortgaged and satisfy independently regarding valuation and it was also indicated in the terms and conditions that before this disbursement of cash credit, stock statement be obtained in the prescribed proforma by the bank denoting their sundry creditor position. At the time of disbursement of cash credit all cheques are to be passed by the Senior Branch Manager after verifying/satisfying on payment being made. Firm has to keep senior branch manager informed with the details of stock etc. At the time of disbursement of cash credit all cheques are to be passed by the Senior Branch Manager after verifying/satisfying on payment being made. Firm has to keep senior branch manager informed with the details of stock etc. This monitoring is important because the disbursement in the form of cash credit, the cheques of the cash credit are required to be passed only after senior Branch Manager is satisfied of end use. 14. Learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that although there is no dispute that the loan was sanctioned by the Regional Office and the proposed accused formed a part of the sanction committee. Being a member of the sanction committee, is not sufficient to summon the proposed accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. as no complicity of these persons have come up during the evidence so far which were led before the learned court below. He has also submitted that from the records of this case, it appears that loan sanctioning authority has to act on the basis of information which is furnished and correctness and genuineness of the information is the primary responsibility of the branch. He submits that no evidence has come regarding any connivance of aforesaid persons at regional office, therefore the petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. has been rightly rejected by the learned court below. 15. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case this court finds that from perusal of the evidences which has been placed by the petitioner to show complicity of the proposed accused who were the members of the Sanction Committee and were admittedly placed in the Regional Office, apart from the fact that the proposed accused were placed at the regional office and they were the members of the sanctioning committee, the learned counsel for the petitioner has neither been able to show any complicity of these persons nor has been able to point out any evidence regarding involvement or connivance of these persons with the borrower or the persons posted at the Branch. Rather the evidence suggests that the Regional Office was acting on the basis of the recommendation which were made by the Branch and primarily it was the responsibility of the branch to furnish correct information to the Regional Office. Rather the evidence suggests that the Regional Office was acting on the basis of the recommendation which were made by the Branch and primarily it was the responsibility of the branch to furnish correct information to the Regional Office. It has also come in evidence that letter regarding sanction also indicated certain precautions which were to be taken at the branch level at the time of ultimate issuance of the sanction letter and also end use of the loan so disbursed. The law is well settled that for issuance of summon under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. more than prima facie case is required to be shown and this court is not at all satisfied with the arguments advanced by the petitioner on the basis of the evidence which has been placed by way of supplementary affidavit and referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner to find any prima facie case, much less, more than prima facie case, against the proposed accused person posted at regional office. In such circumstances, this court has also gone through the order passed by the learned court below and this court finds that the learned court below has passed as well reasoned order and has not committed any error in rejecting the petition under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. filed by the petitioner before the learned court below. 16. It is just to put on record that no argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in connection with other persons namely Kailash Chandra Kulshresth, Girish Nath Singh, Md. Daud Ali and Anand Kumar and the entire argument has been made only in connection with the persons who were part of the Sanction Committee at the Regional Office i.e. Pradip Dilip Potnis, Neeta Singh, Murlidhar Ram and Anjani Kumar Jha. 17. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this court finds no merit in this application which is hereby dismissed. 18. I.A. No. 69 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner to implead the proposed accused persons. Since the main petition has been dismissed no useful purpose will be served by impleading them. Accordingly, I.A. No. 69/2020 is hereby dismissed. 19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 20. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.