C SIVASANKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioner/2nd accused in C.C.177 of 1997 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge for C.B.I. cases at Chennai, has preferred the revision aggrieved against the order of dismissal dated 12.5.99 passed in Crl.M.P.No.162 of 1997 filed for discharge under Sec.239 of Criminal Procedure Code. After filing of the revision petition, the very same petitioner filed Crl.O.P.16750 of 1999 under Sec.482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.177 of 1997.

(2.) THE case in brief for disposal of both cases is as follows: THE revision petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.177 of 1997 and the respondent filed charge sheet against the petitioner and one R.B.Shenoy for offences under Secs.120-B, I.P.C. read with 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Sec.13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. THE petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s.Sterling Electronics Private Limited, later became Sterling Computers Private Limited in 1988. R.B.Shenoy was the Deputy General Manager of the Commercial Branch, State Bank of India, Chennai from 1984 to November, 1988. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.5.1987, the petitioner applied for export packing credit limit for Rs.30.60 lakhs to State Bank of India, Commercial Branch,Madras for executing an export order of Computer components to Moscow. THE first accused prepared a proposal dated 20.5.1987. THE export packing credit limit for Rs.30.60 lakhs was sanctioned to the Company by Thiru N.Sriram, then General Manager (Operations), State Bank of India under his financial powers on the same date. This amount was credited in the current account No.1924 of M/s.Sterling Electronics Private Limited. This amount was to be realised by State Bank of India from the company through the Export Bill received from Moscow against the export order. However, on 3.6.1987 this amount along with interest of Rs.7,629 was realised by the Bank from the Company's Current Account and not by the Export Bill and, as such, the petitioner dishonestly misused the amount sanctioned for the export of computer components to Moscow. Moreover, the petitioner in conspiracy with the other accused misrepresented the facts in the proposals dated 6.6.1987, 13.8.1987 and 16.11.1987 to cause pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.11.40 crores.

(3.) IT was alleged in the first information report that during 1986 certain officials of State Bank of India. Madras and Bombay entered into conspiracy with the petitioner with the object of obtaining various huge credit facilities by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing the official position as public servant and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, the concerned officials of the bank dishonestly or fraudulently caused undue pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.6.75 crores fund based and Rs.9 crores non-fund based without collateral security from the company. The bank officials dishonestly recommended to Letter of Credit facility for Rs.7 crores for printing and publishing telephone directories for MTNL Delhi and Mumbai and further authorised the Commercial Branch of State Bank of India to establish the said letter of credit in favour of company in anticipation of and not by the export bills. The bank suffered the benefit of foreign exchange and the petitioner dishonestly misutilised the amount otherwise. On 6.6.1987 also the 1st accused dishonestly forwarded a proposal to the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Madras for various fund based and non-fund based facilities for Rs.2.75 crores to be sanctioned in favour of the company. There is no request letter on behalf of the company for obtaining such huge loans from the banks. The 1st accused also mentioned in the proposal that future estimate for the company for the period 30.4.1987 was Rs.1680 lakhs. On the exaggerated proposal, a facility for Rs.2.75 crores for fund based and non-fund based was approved by the Chief General Manager, S.B.I.Madras on 8.6.1987. The investigation also revealed that the officials of S.B.I. failed to maintain devotion to their duties while processing and recommending for the sanction of credit facility to the tune of Rs.7 crores in favour of the petitioner company without verifying the object clause of the company for the diversification of business. In fact, departmental proceedings were recommended by the C.B.I. against three S.B.I. officials viz., Thiru B.Shankar, Field Officer, Thiru S.Mahadevan, Deputy Manager and Thiru A.Sivashankaran, AGM for their misconduct.