GOPI NATH BHOWMIK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Gopi Nath Bhowmik of Cr. App. No. 383 of 2001 (S.J.) has been convicted for the offences under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rl for one year and under Sections 420 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rl for two years and further under Section 5(i)(d) punishable under Section 5(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to two years Rl and the appellant, Jai Prakash Goel of Cr. App. No. 406 of 2001 (S.J.) has been convicted for the offences under Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rl for two years in Special Case No. 57/1986 arising out of RC No. 24 of 1986 by a judgment dated 10.10.2001 by the Special Judge, CBI, North Bihar, Patna.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant, Gopi Nath Bhowmik of Cr. App. No. 383 of 2001 as Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Jalalgarh Branch entered into conspiracy with appellant Jai Prakarh Goel and acquitted Parmeshwari Devi Goel partners of M/s Bhagwati Trading Company and misappropriated Rs. 1,51,399/- by disbursing cash credit loan to the non-existent firm against prescribed norms. The further allegation is that the appellant, Gopi Nath Bhowmik entertained application of M/s Bhagwati Trading Company for wholesale trade in apple, onion, potato and orange etc. and without inquiring about its existence and financial status forwarded its loan application with his recommendation to the regional office of the bank even though the firm in question did not fulfil the conditions which were required and disbursed the loan amount of Rs. 1,51,399/- to the accused firm without complying with the directions specified by the Regional Office.

(3.) The prosecution to substantiate its charge examined 12 witnesses out of whom PW-1, A.K. Jha was the Vigilance Officer, Central Bank of India who stated about the procedure that a Branch Manager before giving cash credit was to verify the worthiness of the loanee and in a sweeping manner stated that the appellant had wrongly disbursed the loan to the loanee in the present case without adhering to the prescribed procedure. However, he conceded that he had not done any inquiry himself nor was he the Vigilance Officer in the present case. In cross-examination he conceded that he was not aware as to whether the appellant, Gopi Nath Bhowmik as Branch Manager had followed the formalities or not and when he stated that the Rules had not been followed he meant the rules of the bank which is contained in the Circulars which however have not been brought on record. Importantly, he has stated that if an officiating Branch Manager receives the proposal for loan up to four lakhs he was to transmit the same to the regional office for sanction and he was not aware as to whether the cash credit granted to the loanee had been sanctioned with or without hypothecation. PW-2, B.K. Kulkarni is a formal witness merely on the point of grant of sanction for prosecution of the present appellant. PW-3, Md. Ajimuddin was the Branch Manager who took charge from appellant, Gopi Nath Bhowmik who has testified on the details of the application filed by the loanee for cash credit facility. He has specifically stated that once the appellant, Gopi Nath Bhowmik had received the application of the loanee, M/s Bhagwati Trading Company he forwarded the same with his recommendation to the Purnea District Office and it was the Divisional Manager, P.C. Rawat who sanctioned the loan of four lakhs. He further stated that when he went to the site of Bhagwati Trading Company on 1.1.1985 he did not find existence of any stock so he sent a report about the same to the Divisional Office at Purnea on 2.1.1985. He specifically stated in his cross-examination that the Branch Manager had no powers to sanction loan and all processing have been done at the Divisional Office and the sanction advice had also been sent from the Divisional Office. His further information was that loanee had deposited Rs. 1,51,399/- by May 1987.