V P RAGHAVENDRA RAO Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the third accused in C.C.No.225 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai and facing trial for the offences under Sections 120-B read with 420, 468 and 471 read with 468 IPC and after framing of charges by the trial court filed Criminal Crl.M.P.No.440 of 2007 under Sections 227, 239 and 245 of the Cr.P.C., seeking discharge, but the same was dismissed by order dated 27.06.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, being aggrieved by that the above Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

(2.) THE allegation as against the petitioner/ A-3 is that he introduced the first and second accused to the Chairman of the Indian Bank to avail DABP Credit facilities by A-1 and A-2 by furnishing fabricated documents to the Indian Bank. THE main contentions raised by the petitioner before the trial court were that, he has been falsely implicated in the case a reading of the entire statement of witnesses and a perusal of the documents do not reveal any iota of evidence to implicate the petitioner in the case not a single witness has stated that the petitioner forged or fabricated any document for the purpose of availing credit facilities from the Bank by the accused persons the petitioner was not the beneficiary of the loan transaction the Bank itself by its letters dated 12.11.1994 and 11.08.1995 had written to the Investigating Agency that the complaints lodged by them on 04.01.1994 against the accused be treated as withdrawn as the party has completely adjusted their liabilities at both the Branches and further the Bank could recover the full amount in both the cases on the assurance of the Management that the complaints lodged by the CBI would be withdrawn and further the Indian Bank had written to the Reserve Bank of India that none of the Bank officials were involved in the fraudulent activities in connivance with the borrowers and no loss is caused to the Bank.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dismissal of the earlier quash petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.31357 of 2002 and the withdrawal of Special Leave to Criminal Appeal No.3871 of 2006 with liberty to file a discharge petition could not have been relied upon by the Principal Special Judge as reasons for dismissing the discharge petition. LEARNED counsel basing reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court, namely:-(i)(1977) 2 Supreme Court Cases 699 (State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy)(ii)(1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 766 (Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration)(iii)(2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582 (Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab)(iv)AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2452 (C.B.I. v. Duneans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta)strenuously contended that when admittedly the entire loan amount due to the Bank has been settled down by the first and second accused and the Bank itself had admittedly addressed letters to the Investigating Agency informing the Investigating Agency that they are withdrawing the complaints, no useful purpose will be served by continuing with the trial of the case. LEARNED counsel further based reliance on the latest judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another in Criminal Appeal No.1302 of 2008 (S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6355 of 2005).