Anant Bijay Singh, J. - (1.) The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. 09(S) 2014 EOW R for the offence initially registered under sections 120 (B), r/w 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of complaint lodged by Shri Neeraj Raja Singh, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch, City Centre, Sector IV, Bokaro Steel City 827004 addressed to one S.K. Khare, Superintendent of Police/ C.B.I, EOW, Ranchi alleging as follows: (i) That State Bank of India, SME Branch, Ranchi has given loan to M/s Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd, located at Demotand, District Hazaribagh. (ii) It is further alleged that the company was promoted by Sri Vivek Pratap Singh, Sri Uday Pratap Singh and its its banking relationship with State Bank of India started at Commercial Branch, Ranchi (SME Branch, Ranchi). Subsequently, at the request of the borrower, the account was transfered to SME Branch, Bokaro as such the present branch ie. SME Bokaro has filed the complaint in this regard. (iii) It is further alleged that the loan was sanctioned to the above named unit but subsequently declared N.P.A on 28.11.2011 and since there was no recovery in the loan account to the tune of Rs. 15.22 crores plus accrued interest calculated till July, 2013 and as such the matter was transferred to Stresses Assets Management Branch, Patna for hard recovery measures. (iv) It is further alleged that the accounts of the Company having been declared N.P.A and having been transferred to SAMB, Patna for hard recovery SAMB, Patna proceeded further under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as under: Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd-Present outstanding Rs. 15.22 crores. Notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 27.12.2011 and possession notice under section 13(4) was issued on 13.08.2012 and the same was challenged by the unit for the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in S.A. No. 96 of 2012. (v) It is further alleged that due to intervention of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in th above case recovery was not proceeded but in the meantime, N.P.A. Resolution Agent M/s Vision had taken possession of the land and properties of the Company which were mortgaged to the State Bank of India, M/s Vision advised vide its letter NO. VFBS/38/2012 13 dated 07.03.2013 that few properties of M/s Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd located at Demotand, District Hazaribagh mortgaged to the Bank vide sale deed Nos. 2327 dated 09.05.2009 and 2194 dated 04.03.2009 were found to be fake property and such could not be located and on such reporting by the agency M/s Vision, the matter was referred to by SAMB, Patna to local Head office, SBI, Patna for investigation. The DGM (Vigilance) ordered an investigation into the matter and they submitted their report on the mortgaged properties for M/s Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd. as under; M/s Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd: The property of this unit was mortgaged to the Bank by deposit of following sale deeds: Sale Deed No. 2327 dated 09.03.2009 , Sale Deed No. 2194 of 04.03.2009 which represent fake property as per legal opinion dated 05.10.2013 of advocate Sri Rajendra Kumar Chopra and according to his opinion the mortgagor Sri Vivek Pratap Singh neither has possession nor ownership. The valuation report of the above mentioned property at the time of original sanction was given by Sri Dinesh Chand of 433 A.P. Colony Gaya, the legal opinion for the same was given by Sri Pandey Ratneshwari Prasad of 146, A.P. Colony, Gaya, Sri Tarkeshwar Rana. (vi) It is further alleged that the Investigating Officer of the Bank has pointed out certain doubts on the integrity of the above Panel Advocates those who have given their opinion and also on the Govt. approved Valuer who submitted the valuation report. (vii) It is further alleged that it is apparent from the report that the property as mortgaged to the Bank against such public debt is fake and based on forged documents and as such big forgery has been committed by the Company and its promoters and a total amount of Rs. 15.52 crores plus interest has been misappropriated. On the basis. On the basis of these allegations the instant case has been instituted.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that that the petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. Further, it has been submitted that it the petitioner is a bank official and was then functioning as RMME (Relationship Manager Medium Enterprises) and the basic responsibility was to build good relationship with the borrowers so the business of the bank is enhanced. The role to be played as RMME was limited to marketing, appraisal and assessment jointly with CSO along with presentation before the sanctioning authority for the sanction of the proposal and after getting sanction signing the sanction letter prepared by the CSO and then allowing the disbursement when the same has been recommended by C.S,O.
(3.) It is further submitted that the allegation that the petitioner did not conduct the pre sanction survey is false and incorrect because as per the Bank extant rules and regulations no pre sanction is required for the promoter who has successful and satisfactorily running accounts at the relevant point of time. Further, pre sanction is not the sole responsibility of the petitioner who was acting a RMME: instead the same is joint responsibility of the entire RMME: team which has to be subsequently approved by the competent sanctioning authority. The role of RMMI, it is the duty to present proposals for sanction before the competent authority. Petitioner is merely an officer who makes presentation before the competent sanctioning authority comprising of three officers of AGAM rank and the same is chaired by DGM. It is after the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority that the subject loan is sanctioned and disbursed and as such the petitioner has not role in the same, expect presenting the same.;