IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 1030 of 2010
Sudhir Lakra -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation --Opposite Party
CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.K. SINHA
For the Petitioner : M/s. Nityanand Sinha, Vikram Sinha,
Raj Kishore Kullu & Kislaya Prasad, Advocates
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate
-----
Reserved on: 18-3-2011 Pronounced on: 25 -4-2011
D.K. Sinha, J. This criminal revision is directed against the order impugned
dated 17.9.2010, passed by Shri Pankaj Kumar, Special Judge,
C.B.I., Ranchi by which a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner
under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in R.C. Case
No.14(S)/08-AHD-R was rejected and now the case is pending
before the successor court of Shri Radha Mohan Tiwary, Special
Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi.
2. Prosecution story in short was that the case was
instituted by the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Main Branch,
Ranchi by submitting a written report on 28.11.2008, addressed to
the Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.), Ranchi, alleging inter alia that
a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.75,00,000/- and a term loan of
Rs.25,00,000/- was sanctioned by the Bank of Baroda to M/s.
Neelam Spices, Ranchi. It was alleged that sum of Rs.74,92,805/-
and Rs.16,59,716/- respectively on the different heads stated
above were still outstanding against M/s. Neelam Spices, Ranchi
along with interest admissible thereon. S/Shri Santosh Sahu and
Satish Kumar Sahu were the partners of M/s. Neelam Spices,
Ranchi and the loan amount was sanctioned as against the
equitable mortgage of landed property belonging to the partners
aforesaid, whereas guarantors were S/Shri Budhram Sahu, Jairam
Sahu and Girdhariram Sahu, to which sale deeds were presented
to the Bank of Baroda as collateral security with the application of
the loan. It was alleged that partner of the firm Shri Santosh Sahu
had deposited deeds of two land in respect of two chunks of
homestead land i.e. being Plot No.1937 to 1940, situated at village
Simalia, measuring 83 decimals, whereas the other deed disclosed
land measuring .25 acres at village Jhiri. The deeds of land
submitted by the guarantors disclosed 2.81 acres of land situated at
village Adchori, Ratu, Ranchi. It was stated that when the loan
became sticky, the authorities of the Bank verified the landed
properties and in the process of verification, it transpired that the
landed properties shown by the loanee or the guarantors did not
belong to them. It was detected that .81 acres of land were
manipulated to be read as 2.81 acres and in that manner, Bank
was cheated inasmuch as it was induced to sanction loan in favour
of the borrowers/loanees on the basis of forged securities, as such,
on the written complaint, R.C. Case No.14(S)/08-AHD-R was
registered on 17.12.2008 against the borrowers/guarantors viz.
Santosh Sahu , Satish Kumar Sahu, Budhram Sahu, Jairam Sahu
and Girdhariram Sahu for the alleged offence under Sections 120B/
420/467/468/471
of the Indian Penal Code and litigation was
initiated.
3. Learned counsel Mr. Sinha submitted that the
petitioner was not named in the FIR but at the relevant time he was
posted as Manager, Credit in the Bank of Baroda. He was not
assigned the duty to examine the genuineness of the documents
produced by the borrowers. The normal procedure was that before
recommending the loan by the Branch Manger, pre-sanction
inspection report for new SSI Unit used to be prepared, to which
inspection used to be done by the competent officers of the Bank.
Papers and relevant documents, as per Banking Rules, were
examined by the Legal Section of the Bank and only thereafter, the
loan was sanctioned after receiving the legal opinion from the
empanelled lawyer and for such reason, the informant did not name
the petitioner as an accused in his written report being presented
before the Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.). Now the petitioner is
posted in Mumbai as Manager Credit in the Bank of Baroda. Upon
receipt of the summons from the Special Court, C.B.I., he applied
for being represented in this case by his Advocate under Section
205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the same was rejected
by the impugned order. It was not practically possible for the
petitioner against whom there was no allegation, to attend the
Special Court, C.B.I. generally on each and every date and
therefore, he craved the indulgence of the Special Court by filing a
petition under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
which was rejected.
4. Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel further submitted that
there was no material at all against the petitioner, however, since
the summons was issued against him, he requested for
dispensation from his personal attendance in the Court and
permission to be represented through his lawyer on each and every
date but the same was refused only on the ground that allegation
was serious in nature and his petition was not fit for consideration.
5. Heard Mr. Khan, the learned counsel appearing for
the C.B.I., who submitted that transaction was made by granting
loan to the named accused during the period of posting of the
petitioner in the concerned Branch of the Bank of Baroda.
6. A Bench of this Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Karuna Jha Vs.
State of Jharkhand and another, reported in 2005(1) East Cr.C 176
(Jhr) held as under:
“In the case of Ram Harsh Das vs. State of Bihar,
reported in 1998(1) All PLR 495, a Division Bench of the
Patna High Court while appreciating the provision
observed that the Magistrate can exercise powers
conferred upon him under section 205 Cr.P.C. even in
warrant cases, provided he had issued summons instead
of issuing the warrant. The Court further observed that in
a case where a warrant has been issued at the first
instance, the power under Section 205 Cr.P.C. cannot be
exercised. The court also held that there is no hard and
fast rule which can be laid down for deciding the question
of grant or refusal of prayer for dispensing the personal
attendance.”
7. Under the facts and circumstances, the criminal
revision filed by the petitioner is allowed and the petitioner is
dispensed with his personal attendance with the direction that he
would appear through his Lawyer/Lawyers on giving undertaking to
the satisfaction of the concerned Court that he would not dispute
his identity as the particular accused in the said case and that his
counsel/counsels would remain present in the Court and that there
would not be objection on his part in recording of prosecution
evidence in his absence. It is observed that at any time in course of
trial, if the Trial Court finds that the presence of the petitioner is
required then for the reasons to be recorded, the Court may direct
the accused-petitioner to remain physically in attendance and the
petitioner in such case would not avoid to attend the Court.
8. This criminal revision is allowed with the aforesaid
observation and direction.
(D.K. Sinha, J.)
S.B.