MRUTYUNJAYA N. JENA Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I. Perused the Records. The petitioner assails the order dated 26.07.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 36 of 2010 in rejecting the application filed by him under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred as the 'Code' for brevity, to discharge him from the charges under Section 120 -B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hereinafter referred as the 'Act'.

(2.) IN course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised two points; firstly it is submitted that the petitioner not being a public servant, as defined under Section 2 of the Act, cannot be charged for the offence under Sections 120 -B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act; secondly, it is contended that there is no material on record to come to the conclusion that there has been any conspiracy between the petitioner and the other two accused persons to commit any crime as there is no written document to that effect nor, it is submitted that, the prosecution alleged that there is oral evidence to that effect.

(3.) THE prosecution case, in brief is that the present petitioner as Proprietor of Utkal Fabrication and Engineering works, Rourkela applied for certain loan and loan of Rs. 10 lakh was sanctioned under Credit Guarantee Fund for small scale industries. It is further alleged by the prosecution that no firm in the name and style of Utkal Fabrication and Engineering Works in shed Nos. 4 and 5, Nayabazar, Rourkela was in existence. During investigation, it came to light that the petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with Chaitanaya Badi, the then Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Bishra Road Branch, Rourkela and Dipankar Mishra, the then officer of Canara Bank of said branch to commit cheating and fraud to misappropriate public money. In pursuance thereto, the Branch Manager sanctioned the loan of Rs. 10 lakhs in favour of the present petitioner falsely certifying his credit worthiness. The amount was sanctioned in favour of the said non -existence firm. Thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged and Investigating machinery was set into motion. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the then Branch Manager and the then Officer of Canara Bank, Bishra Road Branch, Rourkela along with the petitioner. It is not disputed that the present petitioner is not a public servant. So now the question arises, whether the present petitioner can be tried along with other two accused persons by the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act and whether there is sufficient material on record to frame charges against the present petitioner.