PRADEEP KUMAR ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEVERAL Vigilance Cases have been instituted against the present petitioner. Allegations in all the cases, except one, are for commission of alleged offence punishable under Sections 120b/420/ 467/468/472 Indian Penal Code read with section 13 (2) and 13 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) THE prosecution alleges that the then managing Director of Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation (for short, 'the corporation') in conspiracy with the other subordinate officials of the said Corporation and private builders sanctioned and disbursed loan amounting to crores of rupees by bifurcating the said money into small individual loans limited to Rs. 5,00,000. It is further alleged that in such method, as the money, which is meant for the rural poor people, was advanced to private builders who have also admittedly become chronic defaulters in repaying the said loans and, as such, the Corporation has sustained huge loss. The petitioner was working as the Accounts Officer in the said Corporation. It has been alleged against him that he prepared the appraisal report in respect of individual loanees misrepresenting, non-existent incomes of such loanees without verifying the genuineness of the documents and recommended their cases for sanction and disbursement of loans. The petitioner is admittedly a Chartered Accountant and was working in the Corporation in question since the year 1995. The particulars of the aforementioned cases are as detailed in the table:in each of the above cases, the petitioner previously approached this Court under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail in BLAPL Nos. 679, 680, 681, 682 and 683 of 2007. By order dated 30. 3. 2007, this Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner again approached this Court in blapl Nos. 3582, 3583, 3584, 3586 and 3587 of 2007 for grant of anticipatory bail. The said bail applications were disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 23. 4. 2007 observing, inter alia, that no anticipatory bail order can be granted as the same has been rejected once and further observing that in the event, the petitioner surrenders and moves for bail pursuant to the order passed in the earlier bail applications, the Court shall, as far as practicable, maintain parity. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the said cases, later submitted that as the petitioner has been directed to surrender and move for bail, he may also be given permission to move the higher forum in the event his bail applications are rejected. Considering such submission, this court further directed that the bail applications of the petitioner will be disposed of by the trial Court in the first hour so that in the event of rejection, the petitioner can move the higher forum on the same day. The records, if necessary, shall be transmitted to the higher forum at the cost of the petitioner. An application for modification of the above order was filed in each of the bail applications, on consideration of which, this court on finding that the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to specify the date on which the petitioner intends to surrender directed that, the date of surrender shall be intimated to the learned counsel for the Vigilance Department prior to surrendering so that the case diary can be made available to the concerned court.

(3.) WHILE disposing of the aforementioned bail applications filed under Section 438, criminal Procedure Code on the earlier occasion, appreciating the question as to whether the petitioner is required to verify the documents accompanying the loan applications, this Court observed as follows: "though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not required to verify the documents accompanying the loan applications, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure code, he has specifically stated that he was performing the duty of appraisal of loan files to assess the eligibility for sanction and disbursement of loan. This aspect of the duty of the petitioner had not been brought to the notice of the Court when earlier two applications filed by the petitioner were heard and disposed of. Since the petitioner was alleged to be a part of the process in sanctioning the loans and there was nothing on record to show that he was also required to look into the documents for the purpose of verification, anticipatory bail was granted in two cases. However, considering his own statement during interrogation that he was also required to process loan files and assess the eligibility for sanction and disbursement of loan, it can hardly be said that the petitioner has absolutely no role to play in verification of the documents accompanying the loan applications.