KULBHUSGAN NAHAR Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions are the outcome of order dated 18-5-2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Anti Corruption, Jammu, in File No.30/Challan, in case, titled as, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Lalit Aditya Kachru & Ors., whereby the trial Court prima facie came to the conclusion that there are grounds to presume that the petitioners-accused are involved in the commission of offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act (for short "PC Act") and Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Ranbir Penal Code (for short, "RPC") registered with the CBI vide FIR No. RC0042009A0010 and, accordingly, directed for framing of charges against them.

(2.) Petitioners in 561 -A No. 220/2011 have questioned the impugned order on the grounds that no case is made out against them. It has been pleaded that the transactions made between the petitioners and the State Bank of India, Jammu Cantt. were purely civil one; therefore, by no stretch of imagination the same can be construed to be a criminal liability. The petitioners have given in detail how the same can be said to be civil transactions. It is contended that petitioner No. 1 is an industrialist and an established businessman, is engaged in the manufacturing of Allopathic as well as Ayurvedic Drugs since 1972.

(3.) Petitioner in 561-A Nos. 113/2012 and 258/2011 has sought quashment of the impugned orders on the ground that he has not committed any offence nor there is any legal evidence on the file to the same effect. It is contended that he was posted as a Chief Manager, State Bank of India. Jammu Cantt. with effect from 27-4-2007 to 8-6-2009. During his posting the deposits of the Branch increased from Rs. 83.67 crores to 121.03 crores and also there was increase in advances also. Respondent No.2, Mr. Satish Kumar Gupta, who was the Head of M/s. Vaid Milk Products, had to launch two new projects namely Tetrapack and Dairy Farm worth Rs. 50 Crores, therefore, he opened a current account with the Bank. It is contended that private respondents were genuine persons and no case of impersonation was ever reported. It is further contended that he never misused his official position in any way nor ever he gave any favour to any person. In nutshell, it is contended no case is made out against him, but despite that he has been charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences.