CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. ARJUN KRISHNA FADTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 7/7/2011 passed by the Special Judge, Panaji in Special Case No.1/2010 thereby discharging the respondent (original accused no.9) from the charges leveled by the C.B.I/ACB/GOA. The respondent along with accused nos.1 to 8 are charged for the offences of conspiracy, cheating, falsification of the account and indulging into corrupt practices, which are punishable under section 120-B, 420 IPC and also under section 477-A IPC along with section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that respondent (original accused nos. 4, 5 and 8) had applied for loan to State Bank of India. Respondent (Accused no.9) was working as the Manager of the said bank at the relevant time. The loan was demanded for purchase of two flats. The respondent, who is a lawyer by profession gave title verification and search report in respect of those two flats to the bank. On accepting the title verification and search report given by respondent (accused no.9), the loan was disbursed by respondent (accused no.1) to respondents (accused no.4 and accused no.5), the flat owners. C.B.I found that no flats were constructed and the opinion, title verification and search report given by the respondent was false. It is the case of the C.B.I that the loan amount was disbursed without taking care and caution on the basis of the false and forged documents and all the respondents (accused) including the respondent (accused no.9) have conspired and thus, the bank was put to the loss of Rs.72,23,000/-, in the name of different borrowers and respondent (accused no.1) sanctioned this housing loans and also cash credit loans and two personal loans totally the said amount during the period August 2011 to October 2004. Thus, the Investigating Agency found that the respondents (accused no.2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8) have received undue pecuniary advantage and wrongful loss of Rs.72,23,000/- was caused to S.B.I. C.B.I thereafter filed charge sheet against respondents (accused nos 1 to 8) and subsequently it filed supplementary charge sheet against respondent (accused no.9). Respondent (accused no.9) moved application for discharge under section 227 of Cr. P.C. to the Special Court stating that there was no evidence against him and therefore, he be discharged.

(3.) Learned Special Judge after going through the record and the evidence collected by the C.B.I arrived at a conclusion that there was no material on record to justify that respondent (accused no.9) had acted in conspiracy with respondent (accused no.1) and other accused by issuing legal opinion. She found that it was not a case to frame charge against him and therefore she discharged him from the proceeding. Hence, this revision application.