M. JAYARAJAN Vs. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is one of the accused in a pending case for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity) and under Sections 120 -B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) IT is alleged that the petitioner, when he was working as the Divisional Manager, Vijaya Bank, Moore Street branch, Chennai, one M/s. Mevida Steels Private Limited, Chennai, had sought for grant of certain credit facilities. The said request is said to have been forwarded by the petitioner to his higher -ups for consideration. However, the petitioner's superiors are said to have declined to consider the same favourably and was said to have been rejected. However, there was a subsequent reconsideration of the request, though not at the instance or recommendation of the petitioner, whereby the requested credit facility is said to have been provided. The said party having defaulted in servicing the facility and it having been found latently that the said party did not meet the eligibility conditions for availing such facility and hence it was alleged that the officials of the bank, including the petitioner were liable to be punished for offences as aforesaid.

(3.) THE learned Senior Advocate, Shri C.H. Jadhav, appearing for the respondent, CBI, on the other hand, would seek to point out that having regard to the scope and depth of examination of the record, at the stage of proceeding to frame charges, the case of the prosecution being examined thread bare on merits, is not contemplated. Shri C.H. Jadhav does not deny the contents of the documents that are placed before this court. But it is sought to be pointed out that the present petitioner was the Divisional Manager and the Branch head of the particular branch of the concerned bank. The specific allegation against him is that he had facilitated the Managing Director of M/s. Mediva Steels Private Limited, (Accused no. 5) to open a Current Account with the bank, in the name of the Company, (Accused no. 4) without proper introduction. Even though the company was a new client and had a liability of over Rs. 1.20 crore with UCO bank, he had processed the proposal of the company on the same day and forwarded to the office of the Assistant General Manager and zonal head with a favourable recommendation. And contrary to the sanction, had issued the inland letter of credit in favour of a non -existing M/s. Meenakshi Steels instead of M/s. Annapoorna Agencies and M/s. Shivashakti Steels.