K V KULKARNI Vs. STATE OF DELHI
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. -
(1.) The revision petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No. 1 (A - 1) challenges an order dated 23.8.2002 by which, he, along with other accused, was charged with abusing his official position, to obtain undue pecuniary advantages for himself and others, in allowing bill purchase facilities to Sh.Vinay Mehra and also in sanctioning advances without approval of the competent authority, thus allowing one M/s. Harrisons Tire Co., Sonepat, to avail various bank limits. He stands charged of commission of offences under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
(2.) The FIR and charge-sheet against the petitioner and others accused that pursuant to a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Bank of India, the petitioner, a Chief Manager of the Bank, unauthorizedly allowed various facilities like Cash Credit Loans, Bill Purchase Loans, to M/s. Harrisons Tire Co. on the basis of forged goods receipts and thereby caused loss (to the Bank) to the tune of Rs. 89,72,785.44 with corresponding gain to the second accused. It was alleged that one M/s. Kanishka Tyre and Tubes had secured financial assistance from the bank and mortgaged its factory premises, machinery etc. and could not secure financial assistance from any other bank. The company, facing a financial crunch for several reasons urgently needed to raise money; A-2 allegedly approached the petitioner for loan facilities, and with the knowledge of the latter set up a new concern called M/s. Harrisons Tire Co. It was alleged that the said concern was only on paper, set up for the purpose of obtaining a loan. The proposal for loan falsely showed the second accused and the third accused as functionaries of M/s. Harrisons Tire Co. The proposal for Rs. 62.08 lakhs fell within the sanctioning authority of the Zonal Office and beyond the powers of petitioner.
(3.) The prosecution alleged that the petitioner failed to carry out pre-verification of the proposal, failed to visit the factory and recommended the case for approval. The proposal dated 3.10.1984 was sent belatedly to the Zonal Office on 30.1.1985; in the meanwhile the petitioner unauthorizedly allowed advances to the tune of Rs. 23 lakhs. It was also submitted by the prosecution that the petitioner failed to carry out post sanction inspection and allowed Cash Credit and Bill Purchase limits in the absence of stock statements. It was also alleged that he re-purchased bills to show favour to the company though the bills had been returned un-paid.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.