SUNIL RAMJI SINGH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the CBI and learned APP for the State.

(2.) The challenge in this application is to an order dtd. 13/08/2018 passed by the Special Judge, Sessions Court in Exhibit 130 in Special Case No. 94 of 2002.

(3.) The applicant is the original accused no.5. The applicant had preferred an application for discharge which came to be rejected by the impugned order. The FIR No. RC/ 05(E)/1999/BSFC/BLR was registered on 31/12/1999 against 8 accused. The alleged offences are under Sec. 120B read with 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC", for short) and under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act", for short). The accused no. 6- M/s.Sunil Silk Mills is a partnership firm dealing in the business of processing of cotton and man-made fabrics against job orders as well as in the business of exports of ready-made garments and bed- sheets. Accused no. 4, the present applicant- accused no. 5, accused no.7 and 8 are the partners of accused no. 6 firm. Accused no.1- Mr.M.Sadananda Shetty was functioning as a Chief Manager of Vijaya Bank, Santacruz Branch during the period from 03/06/1994 to 06/08/1997 and accused no. 2- Mr. Sudhakar Shetty was the Chief Manager (officiating) from 07/08/1997 to 01/05/1998 in the same branch. Accused no. 3 - Mrs. Leelavati was the Assistant Manager Forex Department from 01/08/1993 to 30/04/1999. The allegations in brief as can be found in the charge-sheet are that the accused no. 1 in conspiracy with the accused nos. 3, 4 and the present applicant during the period from 28/02/1997 to 16/07/1997 permitted various credit facilities to accused no.6- partnership firm inspite of the expiry of earlier credit limits sanctioned by the competent authority of bank. Accused no.1 by abusing his position allowed the export proceeds on the basis of export bills to be adjusted against the outstanding Packing Credit Limit ("PCL", for short) although the accused no.6 did not have running account facilities. The accused no.1 issued bank guarantee on the request of accused no. 6 without collecting any margin and also neglecting various onerous conditions to the detriment of the bank. The accused no.1 permitted credit limit without any valid sanction from the competent authority. The sanction had already expired. The accused no.2 also permitted PCL of Rs.305.80 lakhs without any valid sanction to the accused no. 6 firm. The accused no. 2 purchased bills despite repeated dishonour of earlier bills and invocation of guarantee. The accused no.3 without any authority recommended release facilities to the accused no.6 firm. The allegations then are that the accused no.4 did not use the proceeds of PCL for export purpose.