Police, SPE/CBI/Jaipur v. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Mangoliawas, presently

2. Mool Raj Chaudhary son of Shri Mohan Raj Chaudhary, Managing Director, Super Cables machines, (India) Pvt. Ltd. Mangaliawas, Ajmer, Resident of House No.1, Shastri Nagar, Ajmer (Rajasthan)

3. Rajesh Chaudhary son of Shri Mool Raj Chaudhary, Director, Super Cables Machines, (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mangoliawas, Ajmer, Resident of House No.1, Shastri Nagar, Ajmer (Rajasthan)

4. Gopal Lal Aeran, proprietor nasirabad Transport Company, Agent, Yadav Transport Company, Bhilwara (dead) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Spl. Counsel for For Respondent(s) : None present CBI, through V.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Reserved on Pronounced on Order :: :: 16/ 18 /08/2025

1. The Central Bureau of Investigation has preferred a revision petition against the order dated 07.08.2003 passed in Sessions Case No.23/1996, whereby, respondent No.1 Yamuna Prasad Peshwa was discharged under Sections 13(2), read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (“P.C. Act”) and read [2025:RJ-JP:32025] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1312/2003] with Section 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC and for further trial of Respondent Nos.2 to 4, the C.B.I. was directed to submit the charge-sheet before the Competent Jurisdictional Court for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B of IPC.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order suffers from patent illegality as the trial Court has gone beyond the documents submitted before it. It is contended that prima facie there was ample evidence placed on record to show that respondent No.1 Yamuna Prasad being a Public Servant in connivance with respondent Nos.2 to 4, while abusing his official position, caused undue pecuniary advantage to respondent Nos.2 to 4 and thereby caused loss to the Bank in the tune of Rs.75,00,000/- (Seventy Five Lakh). It is also contended that at the time of offence, the Respondent No.1 was the Branch Manager of Union Bank of India and he in connivance with Respondent Nos.2 to 4, neither scrutinized nor made any inquiry about the production of Cable Machine, Sale of Machines, Stock Position of Manufactured Machines as well as Stock of Raw Material of the firm i.e., M/s Super Cable Machine (India) Private Limited Mangaliawas, District Ajmer. It is further contended that the Respondent No.1, without making any inquiry enhanced the C.C. limit in cash trades accounts of the firm. The act of the Respondent No.1, clearly falls within the ambit of Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The Investigation also reveals that the documents submitted by Respondent Nos.2 to 4, for enhancing the C.C. Limits were also forged. It is further contended that the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 07.08.2003 did not consider the factual aspects and has gone beyond the [2025:RJ-JP:32025] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1312/2003] record, while discharging Respondent No.1 from the offences under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. Similarly, the order passed against the other co-accused directing the Department to submit the charge-sheet in the Competent Jurisdictional Court was also passed without consideration and thereby suffers from patent illegality, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court may be quashed.

3. The notices to the respondents were duly served but no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

5. Heard and perused the material available on record. It is settled law that for framing of charges or to discharge the accused, the Court has to see only the documents submitted before it along with the charge-sheet and the court is not required to go beyond the documents. In the present case, it is alleged against the Respondent No.1 that he without any inquiry enhanced the C.C. limit of the firm and thereby caused loss of Rs. 75,00,000/-(Seventy five lakh) to the Bank. The learned trial Court in the impugned order after considering the material placed before it and after considering the Circular dated 29.02.1988 and the statements of Harbans Lal, Sambhoo Singh concluded that prima facie no offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and no other offences are made out against the Respondent No.1. The trial Court also concluded that the Respondent No.1 has not committed any offence and whatever was done by the Respondent No.1 was after receiving the recommendation from Higher Authority. The Respondent No.1 was not bound to inquire about the documents submitted before it. [2025:RJ-JP:32025] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1312/2003]

6. After, perusing the statements of Sambhoo Singh and Harbans Lal, it is apparent that it is not the responsibility of the Respondent No.1 to verify the genuineness of the documents. The Respondent No.1 was not responsible for holding the inquiry to verify the genuineness of the documents submitted before him. The Respondent No.1 after believing the documents submitted before him to be genuine increased the C.C. limit of the firm. It is not alleged against the Respondent No.1, that he in collusion with the Respondent Nos.2 to 4, prepared the M.T.R., which forms the basis of increasing the C.C. limit and further there is no evidence on record to the fact that Respondent No.1 has wrongfully gained anything. As per the statements of prosecution witness Sambhu Singh, the Discharge certificate, Transport bill as well as Sales invoices were submitted before the Respondent No.1 and the Respondent No.1 simply believed those documents to be true. The act of the Respondent No.1 may come within the purview of negligence, however, the fact that the Respondent No.1 has dishonestly caused wrongful loss to the Bank or wrongfully gained anything out of the said transaction is not proved.

7. The learned Court below after assigning the cogent reasons has discharged the Respondent No.1, for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act along with Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is based upon the evidence submitted before it through charge-sheet. As far as the direction given to the Department to submit a charge-sheet about Respondent Nos.2 to 4, before the concerned jurisdictional Court, is concerned, that direction also stands by law, as the primary [2025:RJ-JP:32025] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1312/2003] offence for which Respondent No.1 was charge-sheeted under the P.C. Act was not made out. The rest of the offences for which Respondent Nos.2 to 4, are alleged were under Sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B of IPC. These offences are exclusively triable by a Magistrate, therefore, the direction of the concerned Court to direct the Department to submit the charge-sheet against the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in the Competent Jurisdictional Court is also following the law.

8. Upshot to the above discussion, this Court do not find any perversity or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. The instant revision petition does not sense any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-11 (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J