VINCENT ANTONY Vs. DELHI POLICE ESTABLISHMENT, CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in Crl.A No.118/2011 is the 1st accused in C.C No.1/2004 of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam and the appellant in Crl.A No.114/2011 is the 2nd accused therein. The 2 nd accused is the Managing Partner of M/s.Mudra Silks and Fashions, Aluva, and the 1st accused was the Senior Manager of the Aluva Branch of the Bank of Baroda (the Bank) during 1989-2000. The two accused faced trial before the learned trial Judge under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the P.C Act "), and also under Sections 420 and 120B I.P.C on the allegation that without authority, and as part of a conspiracy, the 1st accused sanctioned huge amount of overdrafts to the 2nd accused for business purposes, far in excess of his authority as Senior Manager and consequently, the bank sustained heavy loss. The crime was registered at the Kochi office of the Central Bureau of Investigation on some source information. After investigation, the CBI submitted final report in court.

(2.) The two accused appeared before the learned trial Judge and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P85 documents in the trial court. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, both the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and projected a defence that the loan was sanctioned by the 1st accused without any dishonest or mala fide intention, that overdrawal was sanctioned in dishcharge of his official functions bona fide, that the Bank has not in fact sustained any loss and the Bank has already initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount due from the 2nd accused. In defence, the accused examined a witness as DW1 and proved Exts.D1 to D35 documents.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the two accused not guilty under Section 420 I.P.C in the absence of the required elements under Section 420 I.P.C, and accordingly, they were acquitted of the said offence charged with the aid of Section 120B I.P.C. However, the first accused was found guilty and convicted by the trial court under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C Act and the 2nd accused was also convicted thereunder with the aid of Section 120B I.P.C. Aggrieved by the judgmemnt of conviction dated 31.12.2010, the two accused have come up in appeal.