STATE Vs. SILUVAI GNANENTHIRA ROCHE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Special Public Prosecutor for the applicant, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 has been stated to be discharged by the Trial Court in the year 2007. Heard finally.

(2.) The grievance in this application is that impugned order dated 2/6/2010 acquitting respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 from the charge framed for an offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the P.C. Act", for short) under section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been passed at a stage not permissible under the law.

(3.) Facts necessary to decide this application are:-- Respondent No. 1 was the Senior Vice President, Respondent No. 2 was the Branch Manager and Respondent No. 3 was a Proprietor of M/s. Regency Builders, the borrower of GIC Housing Finance Ltd., (hereinafter called "GICHFL" for short) at the relevant time. Respondent No. 3 was granted construction finance of Rs. 25,00,000/- by GICHFL on 28.06.1995 against mortgage of land as a security for repayment of the loan. It was alleged that Respondents No. 1 and 2 and other officers of the GICHFL knew that Respondent No. 3 was not the absolute owner of the land in question and yet accepted the execution of mortgage deed in favour of the GICHFL on 14.08.1995 and then entering into criminal conspiracy to cheat the GICHFL and cause wrongful loss to it, by abusing their position as public servants, recommended and allowed disbursement of construction loan to Respondent No. The loan ultimately turned out to be a bad debt, with outstanding amount, as of 16.12.2004, soaring to Rs. 50,57,500/-. The applicant - CBI, ACG, Goa investigated into these allegations and filed a charge-sheet against Respondents No. 1 to 3 for prosecuting them for offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 I.P.C. and also an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his discharge, which was disposed of by the learned Special Judge holding that it was prematurely filed and the question as to whether or not the GICHFL was a Government Company, could be decided only at the stage of trial. Accordingly, charge was framed against Respondents No. 1 and 2 on 18.01.2008 for offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and trial commenced. After evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses and not all, was over, the Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 232 Cr.P.C. for his acquittal on the ground that PW1 Sanjay Koppikar, of GICHFL, stated that GICHFL was not a Government Company. The application was allowed by learned Special Judge, Panaji by her order passed on 02.02010. The Respondent No. 1 as well as Respondent No. 2 who did not file any application but thought to be sailing in same boat, were acquitted for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) P.C. Act by this order. Intending to challenge it, this application to seek leave to appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. is filed.