- (1.) The Appellant-Central Bureau of Investigation has come up in this appeal against the order dated 20.4.2005 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 945 of 2003. In that Revision Petition, V.K. Bhutiani (respondent herein) had challenged the order on charge dated 23.8.2003 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi. Those charges are as under: I, P.K. Bhasin, Special Judge, Delhi hereby charge you V.K. Bhutiani, O.P. Rajvanshi, Mrs. Rashmi Aggarwal Parveen Aggarwal and Neeraj Jain as follows: That your accused V.K. Bhutiani, while being posted as a Senior Manager in New Bank of India, E-Block, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and you accused O.P. Rajvanshi, Mrs. Rashmi Aggarwal, Praveen Aggarwal and Neeraj Jain along with S. Mohd. Yusuf (now dead) had entered into a criminal conspiracy sometime during November and December 1989 at New Delhi for defrauding/cheating New Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 17.20 lacs by resorting to cheating, forgery of documents in the nature of valuable securities and for using those documents for getting loan facilities to the extent of Rs. 17.20 lacs in the name of M/s. Vikram Enterprises, proprietorship concern of you, accused, O.P. Rajvanshi and also by abuse and misuse of authority and also by abuse and misuse of authority as a public servant you, accused V.K. Bhutiani and thereby you all committed an offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w Section 420/467/468/471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Secondly, in furtherance of the aforesaid conspiracy your accused V.K. Bhutiani, O.P. Rajvanshi, Rashmi Aggarwal, Parveen Aggarwal and Neeraj Jain cheated New Bank of India and got released loans amount of Rs. 17.20 lacs in the name of M/s. Vikram Enterprises by way of two orders dated 28.12.1989 and 26.12.1989 respectively for Rs. 12.65 lacs and Rs. 2.25 lacs in favour of M/s. Hazi Gubar and S. Abdul Kareen and one pay order dated 26.12.1989 for Rs. 2.30 lacs in favour of M/s. Multiple Traders and thereby you all committed an offence punishable under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. Thirdly, that in furtherance of aforesaid conspiracy you accused O.P. Rajvanshi forged on receipt dated 20.12.89 for Rs. 4,35,000/- purporting to have been issued by M/s. Hazi Gudar S. Abdul Kareen in favour of M/s. Vikram Enterprises and you also forged one letter dated 17.12.1989 purporting to have been written by M/s. Hazi Gudar S. Abdul Kareem to Vikram Enterprises for using the same for cheating New Bank of India by obtaining loan of Rs. 17.20 lacs and you accused these forged documents dishonestly and fraudulently and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Sections 467/468 471 Indian Penal Code. Fourthly, that in furtherance of the aforesaid conspiracy you accused Parveen Aggarwal forged on invoice dated 15.12.89 for Rs. 2.30 lacs purporting to have been issued by M/s. Multiple Traders, proprietorship concern of your co-accused Rashmi Aggarwal, in the name of Vikram Enterprises for being used for the purpose of cheating New Bank of India by obtaining loan of Rs. 17.20 lacs in the name of Vikram Enterprises, firm of you co-accused O.P. Rajvanshi and you also forged a receipt of Rs. 1 lac for the same purpose purporting to have been issued by Multiple Traders in favour of M/s. Vikram Enterprises and these documents were then used for cheating New Bank of India and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Sections 46]1468/471 Indian Penal Code. Fifthly, that in furtherance of the aforesaid conspiracy that you accused V.K. Bhutiani by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing your position as a public servant being a Senior Manager of New Bank of India sanctioned loan of Rs. 17.20 lacs for M/s. Vikram Enterprises, proprietorship concerns of your co-accused O.P. Rajvanshi without any public interest and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 13(1 )(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. And I hereby direct that all be tried by this Court for the aforesaid offences. Sd/ Special Judge/Delhi 27.9.2003.
(2.) The Revision Petition was basically on the ground that the Respondent, who was a Senior Manager of the New Bank of India at the relevant time was in fact exonerated by the Central Vigilance Commission and in its report, he was found to be innocent. The charges, which we have quoted above, were extremely serious and included also the charge of conspiracy with a view to defraud the bank. In the process, it is apparent from the charge that the Respondent along with other co-accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy to defraud the bank by granting the loans which should never have been granted. The allegation is regarding the securities which have been accepted against those loans were worthless. It has also come on record that the loans were never repaid.
(3.) The High Court in its judgment has basically relied upon the report of the Central Vigilance Commission and also relied on the ruling of this Court in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, 1996 9 SCC 1.;