GIRISH CHANDRA Vs. PINAKEE ENTERPRISERS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- In this petition under S.482, Criminal Procedure Code (for short the 'Code'), the petitioners Officers of the Orissa State Financial Corporation (for short the 'Corporation') seek to quash the proceeding in the Criminal Case. ICC No. 246 of 1984 pending before the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Cuttack. In the said case the petitioners have been charged under S.167/34 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The proceeding was initiated on the complaint filed by the opposite party a private Limited Company represented by its Chairman, Narsingh Prasad Chaudhury, alleging, inter alia, that in response to the call of the State Government to provide financial assistance for small and medium scale industries, the Managing Director of the Company, then as unemployed graduate, was tempted to avail of the opportunity and wanted to start an industry for cold storage of potato at village Urali near Cuttack city. He approached the Corporation, the premier financing agency in the State, for financial assistance. The requisite paraphernalia like registration with the District Industries Centre, Cuttack and obtaining a feasibility report from ORITCO, Bhubaneswar through Orissa Small Industries Corporation, Cuttack were complied. On the basis of the feasibility report, the complainant applied to the Corporation for a loan of Rs. 30 lacs. The petitioner 1, then the Managing Director of the Corporation forwarded the same to the District Branch for due processing. The petitioner 2, Rabindranath Panigwahi who was then the Branch Manager of the District Branch, on being satisfied about the project and the site recommended the application for loan to the Head Office. Then the complainant received intimation from the Head Office to arrange financier to provide working capital. It is further alleged that the petitioner 1 addressed a letter to the complainant stating that Rs. 24,000/- was sanctioned in his favour for construction of the said storage at Urali. On the request of the complainant the Andhra Bank agreed to provide working capital and a tripartite agreement was entered into between accused 3, Sri T.M. Sahani, representing the Corporation, the Manager Andhra Bank and the Chairman of the complainant-company. At the instance of petitioner 2 to float a company in place of a partnership firm the complainant-company came into existence. Thereafter the to an application was placed before the Board in which the petitioners 1 to 3 played a prominent role. Then the Board sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 22,47,000/- and imposed two conditions, i.e., to widen the approach road and to get the unit insured for natural calculation, such as flood, cyclone, earthquake and etc. in its meeting held in October 1982. The said decision was communicated to the complainant by the letter of the Corporation dated 23-10-82. The complainant made some constructions at the site and also took steps to get a clearance certificate from the Sales Tax and Income-tax Departments as per instruction of the Corporation. It is also averred in the complaint petition that at this stage the accused persons having conspired with each other to sabotage the project have deliberately prepared a false and concocted report to be submitted to the General Manager (Chairman) and indeed submitted such a report recommending therein to cancel the sanctioned order issued in favour of the company. Thereafter in August, 1984 the complainant learnt that accused 2 and 3 gave a false and concocted report contrary to the existing facts to sabotage the unit. They completely went back on the earlier reports regarding suitability of the site for setting up the industry. The complainant further alleged that due to the aforesaid actions of the accused personals, he sustained a loss of more than rupees 4 lacs besides sufferings, mentally and financially.

(3.) On receiving the complaint petition the learned magistrate held inquiry under S.202 of the Code. In course of the said inquiry, one Satis Chandra Das was examined as a witness in support of the allegations made in the complaint petition. Some documents were also filed by the complainant. On perusal of the materials on record, the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate was satisfied that a prima facie case under S.167/34 I. P C. was made out against the accused persons. It appears from the order-sheet that the contention was repeatedly raised that accused 1 (petitioner 1 in the present proceeding) an Officer of the Indian Administrative Service, was entitled to protection under S.197 of the Code and the said contention was negatived by the learned Magistrate by orders dated 30-1-85 and 13-3-1986.