CRLP/8215/2012 of S. Venkatesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2014

ORDER:

This criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (‘the CrPC’ for short) has been filed by thepetitioners/A24 and A25 requesting to quash the proceedings againstthem in CC.No.948 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional JudicialMagistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, Medak District taken on file forthe offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of theIndian Penal Code.

2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for thepetitioners/A24 and A25 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutorrepresenting the respondents/State. Perused the material record.

3. Now the points for determination are:

(1) Whether the petitioners/Accused 24 and 25 hadmade out valid and sufficient grounds for quashingthe proceedings against them in the CC.No.948 of2011 on the file of the Court of the AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy?

(2) Whether the uncontroverted allegations made inthe complaint, the charge sheet and the evidencecollected in support of the same do not discloseprima facie the commission of any offence, muchless the alleged offences, and make out a caseagainst A24 and A25?

4. POINTS:

4. (a) The substance of the charge appears to be as follows:

‘On 23.05.2002 at 17:00 hours, the Revenue Divisional Officer,Siddipet, lodged a report at CID Police Station Hyderabad. In the saidreport, he had stated as under: ‘On 25.03.1998 and 27.03.1998 certainnewspapers had published news items regarding irregularities insanctions and disbursements of long term loans in Primary AgriculturalCo-operative Society (‘PACS’ for short) Gajwel and Dilalpur. Basing onsuch news items, the RDO had submitted a report to the DistrictCollector, Medak at Sanagreedy. The matter was further enquired intoby the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Siddipet and his team of officersfrom the Co-operative Bank, Hyderabad. During the enquiries, certainserious irregularities were noticed in respect of 66 un-disbursed LT loanapplications of PACS, Dilalpur and 40 LT loan applications of PACS,Gajwel. The said irregularities related to the sanction of the loans whichwere not disbursed. During the enquiry, it was also noticed that certainserious irregularities were also there in respect of 45 disbursed LT loanfiles. The loanees applied for LT loans at PACS, Gajwel and the Dilalpurand had submitted fake, forged and tampered documents showingexcess lands than the actual holdings of the lands. The staff of PACS,Gajwel and Dilalpur and the District Co-operative Central Bank, GajwelBranch, the ADO, the AGM of MDCCB, Sanagareddy sanctioned the LTloans without verifying the land holdings and had disbursed the LT loansand the said transactions involved large scale fraud in the matter ofdisbursements of LT loans.’ On receipt of the complaint with the abovecontents, the case in Cr.No.11 of 2002 was registered at CID policeStation, Hyderabad and was investigated into. After investigation wasdone in regard to the procedure for sanction of long term loans and otheraspects and after collecting the necessary oral and documentaryevidence a charge sheet was laid against 41 accused for theaforementioned offences. The learned Magistrate has taken the case onfile as CC.948 of 2011.’

4. (b) Now the case of the present petitioners/A24 and A25 is this:

4. (b) Now the case of the present petitioners/A24 and A25 is this:

‘The loanees had submitted loan applications along with pahanicopies in which the names of the loanees appeared. Such pahani copieswere signed by the revenue authorities i.e., the 3[rd] respondent-RDO,Siddipet and his office staff. Placing reliance on such pahani copies, thepetitioners/A24 and A25 being supervisory authorities on behalf of theDistrict Co-operative Central Bank have verified the claims of themembers of the society. The Field Officers of the bank went forinspection of the lands along with the applicants for loans and at thattime the assistance of the revenue authorities was provided through thesubordinates of the 3[rd] respondent and the lands were identified by thesaid members of staff of the office of the 3[rd] respondent and on that onlythe loan applications were processed and thereupon loans weresanctioned. Later it was found that excess values of properties wereshown in respect of properties offered as securities. Immediate actionwas taken for making good the deficiency in the security values. Toshield his own staff of revenue department, who had issued false pahanicopies, the 3[rd] respondent had resorted to lodging the false complaint.Even though the crime was registered long time back no investigationwas done for a long time. The FIR was issued in the year 2002. TheFIR was closed in the year 2005. However, the charge sheet wasleisurely filed in the year 2008. The petitioners/A24 and A25 are nowbeing subjected to prosecution after a long spell of ten years of thealleged occurrence. The prosecution of the petitioners/A24 and A25 atthis belated stage in the above calendar case results in gravemiscarriage of justice. And, for negligence or dereliction in discharge ofduties no criminal prosecution can be launched. No action was takenunder the penal provisions of the Societies Act. The provisions of theSocieties Act do not warrant launching of criminal prosecution against the petitioners and to the case on hand the ingredients of the penalprovisions mentioned in the charge sheet are not attracted.’

4. (c) The learned counsel for the petitioners/A24 and A25 whilereiterating the pleaded case had submitted as under: ‘There is nothingwrong in relying upon the certified copies granted by the revenueauthorities while processing the loan applications and forwarding the loanapplications for sanction of loans to the higher authorities. The fact thatthe properties were excessively evaluated while offering them assecurities was not brought to the notice of the officers of the bank at therelevant time. They had acted in a bona fide manner in the matter. Hence, their actions cannot be treated as mala fide; further, after it isnoticed that there is excessive valuation of the properties, immediateaction was taken and the deficiencies in values of securities were gotrectified. The prosecution ought to have been launched, if necessary,against the staff of the Revenue Divisional Office concerned who hadissued the false certificates and not on the present petitioners. Thepresent petitioners are innocent and they are not involved in any offence.In the absence of allegations that they had committed irregularities forany monetary gain and only for mere dereliction in discharge of duties acriminal prosecution cannot be launched. In fact, the bank has not takenany action against the petitioners under the penal provisions of theSocieties Act.

4. (d) On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutorhad submitted that responsible officers and members of staff of thebank, who are the accused herein, by their serious irregular acts indischarge of their duties had caused huge financial loss and that all thetransactions involved a large scale fraud in disbursement of LT loansand that a plain reading of the averments in the report, the charge sheetand the evidence collected would show the complicity of all the accusedincluding the petitioners herein and that at this stage this court is not

required to deeply examine and evaluate the evidence and that this is afit case where the petitioners have to face trial. He prayed for dismissalof the petition.

5. I have given earnest consideration. Coming to the 2[nd] petitioner/A24, it is not in dispute that he had worked as a Supervisor atDCCB, Gajwel Branch and that presently, he is working as Manager inDCCB, Siddipet Branch. According to the case of the prosecution, hehad connived with some of the loanees who are also arraigned asAccused nos.13 to 22 in the present crime and had processed their longterm loan applications received through PACS, Dilalpur and had signedon the relevant material documents in the file processed by him thoughthe file contained forged and manipulated land records and he had furtherforwarded them to the higher officials for sanction and disbursement ofloans and that certain of the said loans were sanctioned and disbursedand that he had failed to conduct Field inspection and had also failed tocompare the documents submitted with the revenue records in the officeof the MRO and had therefore, committed offences of criminal breach oftrust and cheating. Insofar as the 1[st] petitioner/A25, it is not in disputethat he was the Supervisor at DCCB, Gajwel branch. According to thecase of the prosecution, he had connived with Accused nos.1 to 12, 16and 18 and had processed about 14 LT loan files received throughPACS, Gajwel and Dilalpur and that he had signed the materialdocuments while processing the file though the files contained forgedand manipulated land records and had forwarded them to the higherofficials for sanction and disbursement of loans without conducting fieldinspections and comparing the documents in the loan files with therecords in the office of the MRO and had thus committed criminal breachof trust and cheating.

6. What is to be noted is that both the petitioners/A24 and A25 had

6. What is to be noted is that both the petitioners/A24 and A25 had received the files from their subordinates; and while processing the filesrelating to long term loans, which were received through the PACS, theyhad relied upon the material documents in the files particularly thoseconcerned to land records as by that time there was no need to suspectthe genuineness of the documents; and hence, they had furtherforwarded the files to the higher officials for sanctions of loans anddisbursement of loans. Certified copies of revenue records in the normalcourse of events are reliable; and the acts like placing reliance oncertified copies in the files, which were forwarded to the petitioners/A24and A25 for processing the loan applications, cannot be said to be actsof criminal breach of trust or cheating. A certified copy of a revenuerecord is the evidence of the existence, condition and contents of theoriginal. The law enables every public officer having custody of a publicdocument to give certified copy of it on demand to any person concernedand such certified copy is admissible only in proof of contents of a publicdocument and can be acted upon. If there is any negligence ordereliction in performance of duties while processing the long term loanfiles, the petitioners/A24 and A25 could at best be subjected todepartmental action. The entire case of the prosecution, according tothe submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, is based onthe enquiry reports of the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Siddipet andhis team of officers. Further, when once the irregularities have come tolight the irregularities were in fact got rectified. The two officers did notadmittedly deal with the loanees personally and directly and there are noallegations of dishonesty or misappropriation of any public money. Theloan transactions are more than 1 ½ decades old and the crime wasregistered in the year 2002. The charge sheet was filed in the year2008. For all these reasons, this court finds that the prosecution of thepresent petitioners/A24 and A25, who had only dealt with the filesforwarded to them by the PACS concerned after processing at the lowerlevel, is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the court and their prosecution at this distance of time would be an exercise in futility.

7. Viewed thus this court finds that exercise of powers under Section482 of the CrPC and quashing the proceedings insofar as thepetitioners/A24 and 25 will advance the cause of justice.

8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing theproceedings against the petitioners/A24 and A25 in C.C.No.948 of 2011on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass, Sangareddy, Medak District. Consequently, miscellaneouspetitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

30[th] December 2014Vjl

____________________

M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J