1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Revision Application No.245 of 2009 S. Vasudevan .. .. .. Applicant (Orig.accused No.9) v/s. The State of Maharashtra .. .. Respondent (Orig.Complainant) Mr.Seshadri with Mr.S.K. Raj for Applicant. Mrs.Revati Mohite-Dere with Ms.Heena Shah for CBI. Mr.Shailesh More, APP for State. ---- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 9th November 2009 P.C. : 1.This Revision Application challenges the order dismissing the Application for discharge. The Applicant has been arraigned as accused No.9 in Special Case No. 28 of 2008 for offences relating to cheating and other related offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). The Applicant is the Chief Manager of Indian Bank, Dadar Branch. He is stated to have granted 9 home loans to accused Nos.1 to 2 to the tune of Rs.2.3 Crores and thereby caused loss to the Bank as well as the Union Bank of India. An earlier charge was created in favour of the Union Bank of India, which was not considered when the loan was granted by the Applicant as the Chief 2 Manager of Indian Bank. The Applicant is stated to have taken 3 airline tickets from Mumbai to Chennai from accused No.1. He claims to have returned that amount to accused No.1. Hence, taking out tickets is not disputed. The return of the amount would have to be shown by the Applicant at the stage of trial. How the loan came to be granted improperly has been shown by the Respondent. The Applicant could have granted a loan to the extent of Rs.25 Lakhs. The application for the loan was for almost double the amount. The respective flats for which loans came to be granted are shown to have been partitioned. The partition is not effected at the time of the construction of the flat. The documents showing partition are stated to have been drawn up. There are similar flats on various floors. The prosecution has relied upon the documents in respect of one of the flats being flat No.405. It is shown to be admeasuring 727 sq. ft carpet area. The plan annexed thereto shows no partition. It shows a single main door. The document relied upon by accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the loan sought is for flat Nos.605-A and 605-B on the 6th floor of the building. Flat No.605-A is shown to be admeasuring 522 sq. ft. built up area. Flat No.605-B is shown to be 510 sq. ft. built up area. The plan of the flats attached to the document showing flat Nos.605-A and 605-B and making out a partition, shows a kitchen and a living 3 room on one side and a living room and a bed room on the other side, constituting the two flats. The plan shows two main entrances for the two flats. The list of amenities shows, inter alia, bed rooms and toilets. Neither of the flats has two bed rooms or two toilets. The documents are, prima facie, shown to have been got up to show two flats instead of one. The loan, which is applied for the two flats, would fall outside the sanctioning authority of the Applicant and could not have been granted. 2.The Advocate on behalf of the Applicant contended that the Applicant had authority to sanction the loan to the extent of Rs.100 Lakhs. He drew my attention to a statement called Chart 1-B showing the General Credit Powers for Field level/Credit Functionaries . The statement does not show how the Applicant becomes entitled to sanction as per his case. It is a part of a document relied for the first time in the Application. It does not even show the specific qualifications of the sanctioning officers. It is not a part of the charge-sheet. It is a defence document which can be considered in its time and only in trial. By partitioning the two flats the Applicant is prima facie seen not to have had authority to sanction the loan. 3.The prosecution has also shown statements of 3 4 witnesses. The statement of the Secretary of the Society shows a list of the flats against the names of the owners. Flat No.605 is not shown to have been partitioned. The statement of the contractor of the building, who carried on redevelopment work of the building, shows that the owners were given possession of the specified flats. That includes flat No.605, which is not shown to be partitioned. The statement of the Senior Manager of the Indian Bank, who is shown to have inspected the flats to make the report, shows that the aforesaid flats were visited along with a visit in respect of similar flats similarly shown to be partitioned on the 4th floor of the building being flat Nos.404-A and 404-B. He found that there were actually only 2 flats being flat Nos.605 and 404 and not 4 flats being flat Nos.605-A, 605-B, 404-A and 404-B. 4.The fact that the loans have been sanctioned despite the earlier lien of another Nationalized Bank by the Applicant, the flats are shown to be partitioned by virtue of which only his authority to sanction the loan can be seen and the fact that he admittedly took an airline ticket from one of his customers being accused No.1 (whether or not he repaid the ticket at a later date) shows a prima facie case having been made out to cheat the two Nationalized Banks by sanction of the loan under the IPC and to have received 5 illegal gratification under the PC Act for such an act. 5.Hence, the Applicant could not have been discharged and the trial against him must proceed. 6.It is contended on his behalf that sanction to prosecute is not obtained. The Respondent shall obtain sanction in accordance with law, if required. 7.Hence, the Criminal Revision Application has no merit and is dismissed. Trial under Special Case No.28 of 2008 shall proceed. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)