1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 60 /2011 (Narayan Raghoji Raut vs. Central Bureau of Investigation) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 30 th June, 2011. Heard Mr.R.M.Patwardhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr Shyam Ahirkar, Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-sole. The revision-applicant has questioned the validity, legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 21.3.2011 ( below Exh. 353 ) in Special Case No. 6/2005 by learned Special Judge-2, Akola. Learned Advocate representing the revision-applicant contended that merely because the revision-applicant had received huge amount and deposited the same in his bank account, the learned trial Judge ought not to have carried away by this fact. According to him, the amount was advanced by way of loan to one of the co-accused and it was received by him and, therefore, deposited the same in the account of the revision-applicant. It appears that in the application for discharge, the revision-applicant did not advance such a contention that he had advanced loan to one of the co- accused and that the loan was repaid in his bank 2 account. It appears that one Manohar Ramteke, Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Kaulkhed Branch, Akola, had allegedly entered into criminal conspiracy with 16 persons with common object to defraud the Central Bank to the tune of Rs.1.5 crores. Loans were sanctioned on the basis of forged applications filed by Azgar Mullah Fakroddin. The loan was fraudulently sanctioned by the Branch Manager- Ramteke against FCNR ( B-deposits) which was kept in the Bank in US $ amounting of Rs. 4,37,652.31 USD $. The amount was shown to have been withdrawn by way of loan sanctioned to Azgar Mullah Fakroddin on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and various amounts were transferred in the name of various accused persons by issuing demand draft for the huge amounts in their name and it is alleged that the present applicant had also received huge sum of Rs. 2 lakhs pursuant to DD No. 4495 dated 29.3.2003 which he had deposited in his savings Bank Account No.2855 maintained with Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank Ganeshpeth Branch, Nagpur. Thus, during the investigation, it is transpired that the present applicant had received huge amount which according to prosecution, he deposited in his bank account was received as a result of forged and fabricated documents. That being so, it cannot be said that the charge or allegations or insinuations against the present revision applicant was absolutely ground-less or without any 3 reason whatsoever. Looking to the prima facie case against the present applicant as also considering the legal position with reference to ruling in State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh : (1977) 4 SCC 39 it appears that the the learned Sessions Judge refused to discharge the present applicant from the charge of criminal conspiracy in connection with alleged offence of defrauding the Central Bank by the Branch Manager along with 16 other persons in pursuance of common object of criminal conspiracy. The contention advanced before me that the present applicant had advanced loan to one of the co- accused and he repaid the said loan, is a contention in the nature of defence, which in all probability, would be considered by the learned trial Judge in case charge is framed against the present accused. At this stage, however, it cannot be said that the allegations against the applicant was groundless or devoid of substance. The impugned order, therefore, appears correct. The Revision is dismissed. Needless to state that, interim stay, if any, shall stand vacated. JUDGE Sahare