IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7833 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SRI AREPALLY DAVID RAJU, S/O LATE SAMUEL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PARTNER M/S EIFFEL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTOR, BRANCH OFFICE, PLOT NO.8, HEMA NAGAR, IDA NACHARAM, RULES AND REGULATIONS DISTRICT, GREATER HYDERABAD, TELANGANA R/O PLOT NO.25, RTC COLONY, CHENGICHERLA, GHATKESAR MANDAL, HYDERABAD – 500 039.
(BY SRI.MURTHY D.NAIK, ADV.) AND:
.. PETITIONER 1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032.
2. SHRI. SARASWATI PRASHAD S/O SHRI ASSA RAM ROHLE, ZONAL MANAGER, DENA BANK, BANGALORE.
..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRASANNA KUMAR.P, ADV. FOR R-1) THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2018 PASSED IN SPL.C.C.No.578/2015 ON THE FILE OF XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU IN IA NO.1/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 18.06.2018 FRAMED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120-B R/W 420 AND 471 OF IPC FRAMED BY THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.578/2018 AT ANNEXURE-G; AND FURTHER PLEASED TO DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 FROM SPL.C.C.NO.578/2018 ON THE FILE OF XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner is accused No.5 in Spl.C.C.No.578/2015 before XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru.
2. The CBI after investigation of FIR in RC.No.03(A)/2014/CBI/ACB/BLR/BANGALORE registered against the Asst. General Manager of Dena Bank and others, filed charge sheet before the trial Court. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 filed applications under Sections 239 and 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. After hearing, the learned trial Judge by order dated 23.04.2018, has rejected those applications holding that there exists sufficient material against accused No.5 for offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 of IPC.
3. Sri.Murthy D.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner urged following grounds in support of this petition:
that there is absolutely no material against the petitioner in the charge sheet;
that petitioner is in no way connected with the firm M/s Eiffel Engineers and Contractors; and therefore, petitioner should not have been prosecuted by the CBI.
4. Sri.Prasanna Kumar.P, learned standing counsel for CBI submitted that loan was sanctioned to accused Nos.2 to 4 by the Bank employee (Accused No.1). A sum of Rs.2.62 crores has been diverted to accused No.5 without any justification. Therefore, learned trial Judge has rightly held that there is material to prosecute the petitioner under Sections 120-B and 420 of IPC. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this petition.
5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
6. Briefly stated the facts according to the prosecution are, Dena Bank sanctioned loan to accused Nos. 2 to 4. Accused No.1 was the officer in- charge, working as Asst. General Manager of Dena Bank, at the material point of time. Accused Nos.2 to 4 diverted a sum of Rs.2.62 crores to M/s Eiffel Engineers and Contractors without any justification and thus, the public money has been misused.
7. The finding recorded by the learned trial Judge in paragraph No.36 of the impugned order shows that it was contended by accused No.5 before the learned trial Judge that he was not a partner of M/s Eiffel Engineers and Contractors but an agent of the said firm. The amount credited to the account of the firm was withdrawn by him for payment to the creditors. In paragraph No. 37 of the impugned order, learned trial Judge has recorded summary of statement of one Johnson, Managing Partner of M/s Eiffel Engineers and Contractors wherein he has stated that the firm had an account bearing No.761079611 which was opened on 7.2.2007 in the name of three partners of the firm. Accused No.5 introduced himself as a person who had contested for Parliament election from ‘Praja Rajyam party’ and offered to get work to the M/s Eiffel Engineers and Contractors. As requested by accused No.5, the firm opened another current account bearing No.6039023588. After account was opened, the said firm got some work from Progressive Constructions. As the said firm did not pay any money, M/s Eiffel Engineers and Contractors stopped the work. Accused No.5 absconded after opening of the new account. Subsequently, Johnson came to know that about Rs.2.62 crores was transferred to the said account and the same was withdrawn by accused No.5. According to him, M/s Eiffel Engineers and Contractors did not get any benefit out of the said amount deposited in the A/c No. 6039023588.
8. The above finding recorded by the learned trial Judge while rejecting the application, prima facie, shows that accused No.5 got the new Bank account opened and withdrew amount of Rs.2.62 crores. Admittedly, the money belonged to Dena Bank. The Managing Partner of M/s Eiffel Engineers and Contractors has stated in his statement that money was withdrawn by accused No.5. In the circumstances, the claim of innocence urged on behalf of the petitioner can be proved only after trial.
9. Learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that while rejecting the application seeking discharge, the trial Judge has held that material is available to frame charge against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC. However, while framing charges, learned trial Judge has added Section 471 IPC also. So far as addition of Section 471 IPC in the charge is concerned, petitioner is at liberty to approach the trial Judge and seek correction under Section 216 of Cr.P.C.
Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.