HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2485 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner/A.14 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 109 IPC along with others. He was one of the Directors in Vasavi Co- operative Urban Bank Limited (in short, the bank). He filed Crl.M.P.No.3568 of 2009 in C.C.No.152 of 2004 for discharging him from the case. By order dated 17.08.2009 the Magistrate dismissed the said petition. The said order was questioned by the petitioner before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by way of Crl.R.P.No.142 of 2009. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by judgment dated 15.12.2009 dismissed the said revision petition. Now, the petitioner approached this Court with this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court is of the opinion that this is nothing but to circumvent the ban of entertaining a second revision petition against a revisional order. It is contended by the Senior Counsel that this Criminal Petition is maintainable in case there is miscarriage of justice committed by both the Courts below. 2. Subject matter of the case is obtaining of term loan of Rs.30,00,000/- and OD facility of Rs.10,00,000/- by A.1 and A.2 from the bank by forging signatures of T.Venkateswara Rao (2nd witness as per the list in the charge sheet) by mortgaging property standing in the joint names of A.1, A.2 and T.Venkateswara Rao. Subsequently, OD facility was enhanced from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/- and again from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/-. The said sanction of loan including OD facility as well as enhancements of OD facility were without prior approval of Board of Directors and without following procedure. The allegations against A.12 to A.16 who are Directors of the bank is that they have approved sanction of enhancement of OD facility from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/- in the Board of Directors meeting held on 31.05.2001 after release of loan amount. It is contended by the Senior Counsel for the petitioner that mere post-facto approval of enhancements of OD facility after release of loan amount will not attract any of the penal provisions alleged against the petitioner and that in order to constitute cheating, there must be deception from the inception of the transaction and that in order to constitute conspiracy, there must be prior meeting of minds and that there is no material to show the same. By virtue of post-facto approval by the Board of Direcdtors of the bank, the fraud committed on the bank was approved by the Board. It is a matter for evidence to find out whether the Board of Directors including the petitioner/A.14 had any prior knowledge of the fraud resulting in loss to the bank before approving enhancement of the OD facility. It cannot be said that there is no triable case against A.14 in this offence. I do not find any gross miscarriage of justice in this matter and it is a matter which has to be finally decided after full trial of the case before the trial Court. 3. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt.29th December, 2011 PNV