SRINIVAS DATTATRAYA BENDRE Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is one of the accused in Special Case No. 15 of 1995 pending before the Special Judge for Greater Bombay in which offences under sections 120b r/w. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 5 (2) r/w. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, corresponding to section 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are involved.

(2.) PETITIONER joined the service of Bank of Maharashtra as an Officer and after holding various posts in different departments and branches, he was appointed at Bombay as Deputy General Manager of Bombay Metropolitan Zone and took charge on 17.8.1987. According to the petitioner, even though he was promoted as General Manager, since his reliever did not report for duty, he was required to extend his stay till 31.10.1988. He thereafter worked as General Manager, Personnel and Planning, till his retirement. According to the petitioner, the prosecution against him is in respect of an account of Jayantilal Group of companies. The said group was banking with Bank of Maharashtra even during the earlier period before the PETITIONER took over as Deputy General Manager.

(3.) IN this Court arguments were advanced at length by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Khandeparkar and Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the C. B. I. IN addition to the material made available along with this petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner produced entire papers supplied along with charge sheet to the petitioner and with the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, reference was made to all the relevant material contained in the charge sheet. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the recommending authority and the sanctioning authority was Mr. Chitnis. IN the letter of the Regional Manager there is no statement to the effect that the facilities claimed should not be sanctioned. On the contrary it is stated that before acceding to the request of the company, definite repayment programme be finalised. IN the recommendation sent by the petitioner, he has specifically stated certain conditions, in addition to the security margin, limits and condition of 5% F. D. R. and counter guarantee. The other conditions specified are as under : 1. Unsecured loans from directors/relatives should be retained in the business. 2.The company should plough back the profits in the business to improve net worth. 3.The entire facilities to be guaranteed by all Directors in their personal capacity. 4.The company should meet margin money requirement out of its own sources. 5.Required permission from Government authorities should be obtained. 6.The goods under B/c to be excluded for calculation of drawing power in C. C. Account. With these conditions, he had recommended sanction during December 1987 only of Rs. 12.50 lakhs and hypothecation of B. D. B. G. & L. C. facilities be released fully. He has also stated that the dues in sister concerns as on 30.6.1987 were Rs. 30.66 lakhs. A reference to the statement of Mr. Bumkar also shows that the dues from sister concerns were Rs. 30.66 lakhs. IN the charge sheet as well as in the reply filed in the trial Court to the application for discharge, it is stated specifically that the dues from the sister concerns were Rs. 210 lakhs. I therefore specifically asked Mr. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to point out if in the entire material available with the prosecution, there is anything to show that the dues from the sister concerns were Rs. 210 lakhs and this was suppressed by the petitioner while sending recommendation. IN my view, if it were so, then the petitioner's case would stand on entirely different footing. However, even after going through the entire papers. Mr. Mehta could not point out to me that any material is collected by the prosecution to the effect that the dues of sister concerns were Rs. 210 lakhs and not Rs. 30.66 lakhs as stated by the petitioner in recommendation letter and as stated by Mr. Bumkar before the INvestigating officer. It appears that this statement in the reply of the investigating officer weighed with the learned trial Judge and therefore, I had specifically enquired from the learned Counsel for the C. B. I. giving him an opportunity to go through the entire charge sheet and to point out to me if there is any such material in the charge sheet and the learned Counsel had to state that there is no such evidence collected.