SANJIV KUMAR DHAR Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admitted. Heard finally by consent of respective learned counsel. The applicant is accused No. 3 in the chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the applicant and respondent Nos. 2 to 16 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B & 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant was working as Regional Manager of Regional Office of National Insurance Company Limited (henceforth abbreviated to "NIC") situated at Pune. Respondent No. 2. Subhash Agre was working as Branch Manager of NIC, Chandrapur, Respondent No. 3-Mehboob Chand was working as Divisional Manager of NIC Amravati. Respondent No. 4-Chandrakant Thodge was working as Development Officer, NIC, Pusad. Respondent No. 5-Sanjay Jivtode was working as Executive Chairman of Chandrapur District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Chandrapur (in short "CDCC Bank"). The respondent Nos. 6 to 16 were working as Agents.

(2.) The allegations against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are that they had entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 5-Sanjay Jivtode of CDCC Bank on 11th and 12th March, 1999 for a Group Insurance Policy of Employees of Cooperative Bank and the Societies working under them. It is alleged that the said Group Scheme was in violation of the Circular which was to take effect from 15.1.1999. It is stated that the Circular had modified the structure of the policy. The Circular dated 15.1.1999 was received in the office of the applicant at Pune on 28.1.1999. It is alleged that the said Circular was not dispatched to the Divisional Officers and other subordinate Offices till 26th February, 1999. In the meantime, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had issued the abovestated Group policy for one lakh members of CDCC Bank, which violated the policy structure issued in the Circular dated 15.1.1999. A commission to the tune of Rs. 34.5 lakhs was given to the Agents, who are also accused in the present case. It is alleged that the applicant and all other accused had entered into a conspiracy to cheat the NIC and cause loss to the Company by issuing policy, which was against the structure laid down in the Circular dated 15.1.1999. It is alleged that the total loss caused to the Company by way of commission amounted to Rs. 34,50,000/-.

(3.) Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was not directly concerned with the dispatch of the Circular and for delayed receipt of the Circular in the Office of the NIC, Warora, from where the policy had been issued. It is admitted position that the policy had been issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and that the applicant was not directly concerned with the issuance of the policy. What is alleged is that the applicant had facilitated the issuance of policy by delayed dispatch of the Circular under which such policy could not have been issued. As such, it is alleged that the applicant was one of the co-conspirators in the whole conspiracy. It is submitted that the Branch Office of Warora was not directly under the administrative control of the applicant. It was under the administrative control of Divisional Office No. 2 of Nagpur. It is further submitted that NIC has a mechanism of job allocation pertaining to various departments of the Regional offices and the job of circulation of company guidelines in the form of circulars and periodic guidelines is the ultimate duty of the respective Departmental Heads and not the Regional in-charge. The Circular in question was issued by the Rural non-traditional Business Department of NIC, Head Office, Calcutta on 11.1.1999. On receipt of said Circular, it was marked to the concerned departmental head for onward circulation to the Divisional offices. As such, the dispatch of Circular was not direct responsibility of the regional heads. It is further submitted that the Circular was received in the Regional Office at Pune, which was headed by the applicant on 26.1.1999. A meeting was called by NIC to discuss the modalities of said Circular in the light of the situation then prevailing in the market. The said meeting remain inconclusive and Insurance Companies were directed to wait for final outcome. The Regional Office of NIC, thereafter, issued a Circular to all Divisional offices asking them to strictly follow the directions given by the Calcutta Office. However onward transmission of the said Circular to the Branch Offices was the duty of Divisional Offices. It is further submitted that the Warora Branch Office from where the policy in question had been issued was under the administrative control of Divisional Office No. 2, Nagpur. There was no practice of regional office directly sending Circulars to the Branch office. It is submitted that the Divisional Office was supposed to inform the Branch Office regarding change of guidelines issued by the Head Office and the Regional Office. It was submitted that the Nagpur Divisional Office had issued memo on 3rd March, 1999 and it was received by Warora Branch on 15th or 16th March 1999. The Insurance Policy in question was underwritten on 11th and 12th March, 1999.