1. The petitioner by way of present revision petition has challenged the impugned order on charge dated 19.04.2021 and consequent charge framed on 09.10.2021 in RC BD1/2010/E/0006 of 2010 under Section 120 B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13 (1) (ii) of the PC Act. 1.[1] On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that on the written complaint of General Manager of SBI regarding alleged crime committed by Suhrit Services Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors and others, whereby SBI, Overseas Branch are cheated to the tune of Rs. 12.18 crores, the case was registered against the present petitioner, who is accused no.5 in the said matter. There is no material in the charge-sheet filed to connect the present petitioner with crime, who was merely a junior accountant of the accused company. However, the learned Trial Court was pleased to frame charges against him vide order dated. 09.10.2021. 1.[2] Aggrieved by the same, the present petitioner has filed this petition on the grounds that there is no material to suggest that there was any meeting of mind of the present petitioner Rajesh Kumar and the Directors of the accused company, so, charge of criminal conspiracy cannot be fastened on the petitioner; the petitioner was merely an employee of the accused company and he had no direct participation in affairs of the accused company; the petitioner was not an authorised signatory on behalf of the accused company; an employee cannot be made responsible for the criminal wrongs committed by his employer, since purchase orders clearly suggest that the complainant himself, i.e., the State Bank of India is responsible for all the lapses; details of stock in transit by Stock Valuation Officer of SBI is totally baseless; no witnesses has stated anything incriminating against the present accused/applicant; the only allegation against petitioner is that he took a print-out of the stocks statement and handed it over to the Asset Verification Officer of the SBI; the complainant was not in picture when the loan was granted and suspicion as well as conjectures are not substitute for proof required in criminal Courts. Prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order on charge and actual framing of charge.
2. Notice was issued to CBI. Reply has been filed. 2.[1] It has been submitted in the Status Report that the petition is not maintainable as the same has been malafidely filed only with the intention to delay the trial proceedings; the petitioner has himself mis-represented the facts; the impugned order was passed after proper application of judicial mind and considering the documentary evidence on record. The facts regarding registration of FIR and the attended circumstances have been detailed in the Status Report. The role of the accused/petitioner Shri Rajesh Kumar is also specifically mentioned. Under these circumstances, it has been prayed that the petition may be dismissed.
3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the content of the petition while arguing. It is submitted that the loan was sanctioned in May, 2008 and it was disbursed in August, 2008 so, the alleged stock statement attributed to the petitioner, which was submitted on 03.09.2008 cannot have any bearing and petitioner has no connection with the alleged syphoning of bank funds by other co-accused persons. The petitioner was only accountant. There is no conspiracy or meeting of mind. The CBI has failed to connect the petitioner with the crime and there is no prima facie case so he prays for discharge.
5. On behalf of the CBI, learned counsel has argued that it is a serious financial crime, the crime continued for years together as working capital loan was reviewed at regular intervals; for the reasons best known to petitioner, he has submitted a forged stock statement showing that large number of vehicles were available in stock -in -trade, however, most of the vehicles were not available in stock. Under these circumstances, it has been prayed that application by the petitioner may be dismissed.
6. In the present case, the impugned order of charge is dated 19.04.2021. Para No.18 and 19 of the said order deals with the role of the present petitioner. The said paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:-
“18. So far as the role of accused no. 5 is concerned who is alleged to have supplied an inflated stock statement knowing it to be false, there is primafacie evidence of the same in the form of statements of LW 2, LW 27 and LW 50. LW 2 Manish Kumar
(Dy. Manager, Legal, HMIL) confirmed that out of 1223 vehicles mentioned in the stock statement dt. 3.9.2008, the Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN) of 786 vehicles were of those vehicles which had not been allotted ever by HMIL to any dealer. Further, of this list, only 306 vehicles had been sold by HMIL to Suhrit Services P. Ltd. and 131 vehicles out of this list had infact been allotted to other dealers. LW 50 Mr. Ashish Anand (Regional Sales Manager, HMIL), when shown the stock statement handed over by accused no. 5 to the AVO of SBI, stated that in his service career, he had not come across any such order wherein 1200 cars have been purchased by a company. He further stated that normally, a dealer orders about 250 cars in transit and further that in a month, M/s SSPL (Accused company) ordered about 250300 cars in a month. The allegation that this stock statement was handed over by accused no. 5 is confirmed by LW 27 Vipin Kukreti who was the Asset Verification Officer to whom this list was handed over. The role of accused no. 5 thus prima facie surfaces in the conspiracy by accused company and its directors for defrauding the complainant bank. It needs a highlight that as per LW 52 Mr. Anurag Kumar Sinha DGM, SBI, it is the stock statement which was the basis for the accused no. 6 and Ashutosh Goel to fix the drawing limit of the accused company/its directors.
19. In regard to the alleged role of accused no. 5 Rajesh Kumar, ld. Counsel appearing for A[5] submitted that A[5] has been charged with handing over an inflated/false stock statement dt. 3.9.2008 whereas the working capital loan had been sanctioned much earlier on 12.5.2008 and infact, the entire funds had been utilised by 12.8.2008. Consequently, the stock statement dt. 3.9.2008 could possibly have no bearing on the sanction of loan or its utilisation. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on a judgment dt. 3.5.2007 delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi i.e. Crl. Revision P. no. 854/2005. I have carefully gone through the cited judgment. The accused petitioner (in the cited judgment) was alleged to have defrauded the bank pursuant to a conspiracy. However, his only role, being the Director of the company which had applied for loan, was to execute certain loan documents after the loan had been sanctioned. Hon’ble High Court held that in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused petitioner i.e. expressly furnishing forged documents or being covertly/overtly involved in the decision to defraud the Bank or furnishing of securities which were not clean, there was insufficient material to frame Charge against the petitioner accused. In the present case however, the facts are different and so is the alleged role of A[5] since he is alleged to have knowingly supplied a false and inflated stock statement to the AVO of SBI which stock statement was relevant for 2 very important reasons – first, the stocks were hypothecated in favour of the complainant Bank as primary security and second, the stock statement formed the basis for fixing the drawing power of the Directors of the accused company i.e. as per LW 52. Ld. Counsel for the accused has not been able to show any circumstance which would warrant this Court to believe that A[5] had no knowledge about the actual stock status when he handed over the inflated/false stock statement to the AVO of SBI. Even assuming that the cash credit a/c of accused company had no transactions after 12.8.2008 (though record suggests otherwise), complete utilisation of funds by the accused company did not mean that the banking relationship ended. Fund utilisation was one act of the r’ship, other being its repayment which the complainant Bank had sought to secure by way securities. As already highlighted, the stocks of the complainant were the primary security with the complainant Bank. The alleged act of A[5] of supplying a false stock statement to the AVO of SBI was an act in pursuance of the conspiracy to defraud the complainant Bank by misleading it with regard to the extent of primary security available”. 6.[1] In my view each and every objection raised by the present petitioner in the criminal revision petition has been duly discussed and dealt with by learned Special Judge at the time of passing the order on charge. In the stock statement dated 03.02.2008, supplied to the bank by the petitioner, 1223 vehicles were shown available with the accused company but during interrogation it came to light that Vehicle Identification Number of 786 vehicles were of those vehicles which had not been allotted ever by HMIL to any dealer. Only 306 vehicles had been sold by HMIL to Suhrit Services Pvt. Ltd., 131 vehicles out of this list, had been allotted to other dealers. Moreover, Regional Sales Manager of HMIL had stated that in his service career he had never come across any such purchase order where 1200 cars had been purchased by a company. Mr. Vipin Kukreti, who was a Asset Verification Officer, had confirmed that it was only the present petitioner who had handed over the stock statement to him. So, prima facie, role of accused no.5 surfaced alongwith the company and its directors for defrauding the complainant bank, which was a continuous offence and mere fact that the working capital loan was sanctioned on 12.05.2008 and funds were utilised on 12.08.2008 and mere submission of stock statement by petitioner on 03.09.2008 would not mean that the petitioner is prima facie not involved. 6.[2] The learned Trial Court has also discussed the judgment delivered by a coordinate bench of this Court in the matter of Pratik Ratra vs. CBI. Crl. Rev. 854/2005 dated 03.05.2007. In the said case, the petitioner was merely a professional director and employee who had no role in the decision making process of the company, which was privately managed and he had only signed certain documents. With due respect, the role of the present petitioner is not similar to the role of petitioner in Crl. Rev. 854/2005. It is the petitioner, who was supposed to maintain the total Stock Valuation Report and out of the stock shown as 1223 vehicles as on 03.09.2009, 786 vehicles were never allotted by HMIL to any dealer and in respect of 306 vehicles, it is mentioned that they were sold by HMIL to Suhrit Services Pvt. Ltd. and 131 vehicles from the said list were sold by HMIL to other dealers, apart from non-allotment of 786 vehicles. 6.[3] Under these circumstances, there is a prima facie material in the charge-sheet specifically showing the role of the present petitioner and the evidence being the documentary evidence as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation and it is a fit case for framing of charge. However, the petitioner is at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses of the CBI or he may lead evidence to prove his case before the learned Trial Court at appropriate stage.
7. The petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.
8. It is made clear that nothing stated herein above shall affect the merits of the case.
9. A copy of this order be sent to learned Sessions Judge.