Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohd. Shahrukh and Mr.Vignesh Ramanathan, Advocates v. STATE C.B.I

with the internal enquiry. PW1 the complainant Shri Y.P. Saigal, PW-2 Shri H.R. Magon, the then Regional Manager, PW-3 Shri V.K. Khattar, Administrative Officer (Loan), PW-4 Shri Jagdish Chander, Assistant, PW- 6 Shri Kuldeep Singh Tuli, Accountant, and PW-7 Shri Hari Om Maheshwari, Chartered Accountant. Their testimonies collectively established that the appellant had no financial authority to issue a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 25 lakhs, that there was no written application for issuance Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:26.11.2025 17:08:58 CRL.A. 769/2000 of the guarantee was received, that no margin money or security was obtained and that the guarantee was not entered in the Guarantee-cum- Liability Register.

4. The appellant, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all allegations and asserted that the guarantee had been issued on the oral instructions of the Regional Manager. The appellant subsequently denied issuing the guarantee in his letter exhibited as Ex.PW-2/D. He examined two defence witnesses, one of whom (DW-2 Roy Chaudhary) attempted to support the plea of oral approval, though his testimony was found unreliable and inconsistent.

5. Upon analysis of memorandum of instructions relating to re- organisation scheme of delegation of financial powers 1977, it was found that the appellant, who was a branch manager, did not have the discretionary financial power to issue BG to the tune of Rs 25 lacs. His defence was that he issued the BG on the approval of Regional Manager, who gave him oral instructions in the presence of co-accused SP Nair. The Regional Manager, examined as PW2, denied this suggestion. PW2 also deposed that during the tenure of appellant, there was a huge spurt in advances being given, leading to PW3 conducting an enquiry. PW3 deposed that there were huge clean overdrafts, beyond the power of the branch manager, to M/s Joy Imports. The co-accused also took a contradictory defence, that he had already taken the approval from the regional manager in absence of the appellant. The BG was issued on 02.06.1983, yet the appellant asked for permission to open it on 21.07.1983, and moreover, he denied issuing the BG in another letter. Moreover, a perusal of the Guarantee-cum-liability register (Ex. PW3/B) showed that the impugned BG and another BG issued on behalf of M/s Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:26.11.2025 17:08:58 CRL.A. 769/2000 Jungra Engineering Works were shown to have allotted the same number 83/15, showing that the entry was not made properly in the register.

6. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court held that the prosecution witnesses were cogent and supported by contemporaneous documents including the Guarantee-cum-Liability Register, enquiry reports, and correspondence exchanged between the branch and the Regional Office. The Court rejected the appellant’s plea of oral sanction. The Trial Court also found that the appellant exceeded his financial powers, failed to follow mandatory procedures, did not secure the bank’s interest, and acted in concert with co-accused S.P. Nair, thereby establishing the charges under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 120-B IPC.

7. Having re-examined the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the reasoning of the learned Special Judge. The conviction of the appellant stands affirmed.

8. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.K. Verma v. CBI1, B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration2, as well as the recent judgment of a Co- ordinate bench of this Court in Surendra Kumar v. CBI3, to contend that in the present case, the appellant prays for release on the period already undergone. It is submitted that these authorities recognise inordinate delay in trial and appeal proceedings, advanced age of the accused, absence of criminal antecedents, and the long-drawn agony of prosecution as significant mitigating factors for reducing the quantum of sentence, particularly in