:1: 904-revn-365.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISTICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 365 OF 2011 Shailesh G. Sardesai ..Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr. S. R. Chitnis,Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Deepak Thakre, for the Applicant. Mr. Mandar Goswami, Advocate,for the Respondent No.1 Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. Mr. N. S. Raju, Dy.S.P. CBI EOW present in Court. CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL,J DATE: 24.08.2011 P. C. Heard extensively. The Accused(applicant(original Accused No.6), a Chartered Accountant by profession disputes the order recorded below Exhibit 24 in Special Case No. 138 of 2009 by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge( Special Judge) ( C. B. I) Greater Bombay in refusing to discharge the applicant. 2 A report was lodged by Deputy General Manager of Bank of Baroda Govandi-Mumbai against M/s. Krishna Books Stationery Manufacturing Pvt Ltd and M/s. Vallabh Books Manufacturing Pvt Ltd and Others alleging that the accused cheated Bank of Baroda to the tune of Rs.1.5 crores. After conducting investigation CBI filed chargesheet :2: 904-revn-365.11 against the suspects including accused-applicant for offence under Section 120(B) read with Sections 420,467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution claimed, during investigation, evidence is collected to prove that seven accused entered into criminal conspiracy between 2005 to 2007s at Aurangabad and Mumbai with object to cheat Bank of Baroda, Govandi Branch, Mumbai for opening current accounts. On 17.11.2005, the two firms have been sanctioned credit facilities to the tune of Rs.31 and 30 lacs respectively. Thereafter, fresh application dated 4th September, 2006 was moved seeking to increase credit facilities to Rs.75 to 70 lacs respectively. The applications were endorsed by project report prepared by accused No.6( Applicant). The project report showed that the registered offices of the companies are located at Mumbai. The complainant alleged that there were inflated and unrealistic figures of immovable properties including viability of projects in the project report. 3 The Learned Senior Counsel while exhaustively arguing the matter, explained the scope of Section 227 of the Cr. P.C and took me to the history of legislation and under Section 227 of C r. P. C. what are the powers of Sessions Judge in discharging the accused and assuming evidence at primary stage. One should not be roped on only documents, in the absence of any evidence. The Learned Senior Counsel to press his :3: 904-revn-365.11 points, placed reliance to the judgment in the matter of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v/s Jitendra Bimraj Bijjaya and Others ( 1990) 4 SCC P. 76. The said case was dealing with the Terrorists And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, scope of Section 3(1) of the said Act coupled with Section 14(3) of the said Act. 4 The Learned Senior Counsel submits that the loan is not sanctioned merely based on the project report. There is no element of conspiracy. It was the bank which was expected to have looked and verified search report given by the Advocate. Bank officers were hands in gloves with the borrowers. The accused-applicant as Chartered Accountant is not required to verify the office address of the clients at Mumbai. The charge under the provisions of prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is misplaced. It could only be against accused No.7( the Senior Manager- a public servant.). 5 The Learned Senior Counsel read the statement of witnesses namely Pravin P. Kumar and Prakash P. Ghodke, the loan sanction letter and disbursement order to impress, by no stretch there could be a charge or material to frame a charge against the accused-applicant. . 6 The Learned APP submits that the basic charge against the accused-applicant is of conspiracy. The sanction order is to be confined to the Senior Manager (A-7 ), it has nothing to do with the role played :4: 904-revn-365.11 by accused No.6. 7 The record reveals that the property branded as industrial galas were already mortgaged to Dena Bank for which already facilities were availed by borrowers/ owners. In spite of the same, the partners/ borrowers of the above referred firms moved the bank for disbursement of the facilities. The project report prepared by A-6 as a Chartered Accountant has it's sanctity. The Chartered Accountant owes duties to the bank as to the genuineness of the statements in Project Report. It is not that the project report is merely a scrap paper not to be considered. It was in this scenario the bank acted basically as foundation on the project report prepared by A-6. Even if the prosecution refers league and collaboration of A-7 and A-6 having closely associated at Aurangabad, however, this court will not be influenced by the same as documents speak for itself. 8 Thus, the basic sanction to the loan is the project report. This leads prima facie to infer a conspiracy. The conspiracy has different shades to be seen it never emerges directly. Section 10 of the Evidence Act deals with acts of a conspirator. There are reasonable grounds to infer, the applicant conspired with principal borrower and Bank officials to commit the offence. The criticism to the Bank Manger is easy, but should not be projected to their prejudice in their absence. Bank officers may be :5: 904-revn-365.11 hands in gloves with the borrower,but primary role of accused No.6 is illustrated in the statements of witnesses. The documents are in the team work and collaboration. The accused gave inflated and unrealistic figures of the costs of the properties and credits of the borrower as to their worth and about their expertise in the field of manufacturing books. The record illustrate that one of the borrowers was a small time trader in Agarbati vending. It reveals, A-1 Nandkumar, A-2 Vijaykumar, A-5 Amrish showed shops 17,18,19,20,21 and 22 sold by Venkatesh constructions to M/s Vallabh Books on 10.01.2007 for a consideration of Rs. 58 lacs and these shops were mortgaged to Bank of Baroda, by suppressing vital fact that Shops 17,18,19, 20 were already mortgaged to Mehta. The accused/Applicant, apparently was a close associate of A-1 Nandkumar. In the Project Report applicant has inflated the figures. There are reasons to believe, inspite of knowledge to the applicant of existing charge of Dena Bank or Mehta the applicant skipped the same. The probity of statement and documents need not be dissected minutely. Taking these aspects, it would be difficult to accept defects as pointed out by the Learned Senior Counsel, for discharge. 9 The Learned Judge has consciously exercised his powers in terms of Section 227 of the Cr. P. C. He thus, found material under the statute and has analyzed and weighed the documentary evidence as was :6: 904-revn-365.11 permissible. 10 Before the Learned Judge a overruled judgment of Supreme Court- Satish Mehra v/s Delhi Administration ( 1996) 9 SCC 766 was relied. The said judgment is overruled in the matter State of Orissa v/s Devendra Nath Padhi 2004 ( AIR ) SCW 6813. 11 No error on the part of the Learned Judge in rejecting the application for discharge. Observations in the order are prima facie. Application rejected. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. )