Multi-crore bank scam
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 31: Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Sanjay Parihar has returned the challan in the much publicizied muliti-crore bank scam and directed CBI Special Task Branch (Banking-Fraud Zone) for further investigation.
The court was dealing with three charge-sheets based upon FIRs registered with CBI Special Task Branch New Delhi against Jhelum Industries, Jhelum Infra Project India Pvt. Ltd and New Jammu Flour Mills.
The FIRs had been registered on account of alleged illegal transactions in loan accounts of the accused and diversion of funds by them to other sister concerns having loan accounts in the same bank—Bank of India who happened to be the complainant and at whose behest the cases had been registered.
The criminal prosecution is based upon all the transactions made in the accounts to demonstrate that there were deflection and diversion of funds besides there was falsification of balance sheets in order to garner high returns leading to the commission of offence under Section 420/ 467/468/471/ 120-B of Ranbir Penal Code.
The factual background leading to three cases happened to be that accused Raj Kumar Gupta alleged to be promoter of all three companies at one point of time was having business accounts with Punjab and Sind Bank and in the year 2013 because of mutual exchange between him and the representatives of Bank of India (complainant) in respect of M/s Jhelum Industries accused was availing cash credit limit of Rs 25 crore from Punjab and Sind Bank which account was taken over by the complainant bank with enhanced limits and accordingly the complainant bank sanctioned credit facility of Rs 32.50 crore which was subsequently reviewed.
Similarly, in respect of M/s Jhelum Infra Project Ltd cash credit facility/cash credit limit of Rs 35 crore maximum limit up to Rs 50 crore was also availed by its promoter and with regard to M/s New Jammu Flour Mills the company was availing cash credit facility from Punjab and Sind Bank which was taken over by the complainant and later on enhanced the limits to Rs 14 crore.
All the three transactions therefore took place between 2013-14 so in pursuance to the exchange of letters complainant sanctioned loan facility of cash credit to the tune of Rs 91 crore including bank guarantee of Rs 6 crore subject to compliance of various terms and conditions mentioned in the sanction letter with collateral security of land, buildings of the company. At the time of taking over of loan account from Punjab and Sind Bank, the complainant had verified the title of the properties to be mortgaged and even the valuation was conducted by the penal valuer of the complainant bank.
It is alleged that the accused companies indulged in large remittance in favour of groups and to the parties with which companies had some private concern. The bank got the account of the companies audited through forensic auditor M/s Satya Prakash Mangal and Co. who gave a report on 06.09.2016 that there had been diversion and siphoning of funds, so much so the companies had indulged in heavy cash withdrawal of Rs 5 lakh and above and accordingly the bank declared that the loan accounts had become fraudulent.
After counsels for the accused and APP Vinay Singh for the CBI, the court observed, “once the report itself had been stayed by the High Court and kept in abeyance, then without providing the borrower a reasonable opportunity of being heard so as to make a representation before classifying the accounts as fraud was required to be given to the accused companies which in this case is found lacking”.
“Assuming, thereby for the sake of arguments said forensic audit report is taken to be not in existence then there were no reasonable bases for the complainant bank to lay claim that the accounts have become fraud and un-operational. The investigating officer has not considered this aspect before filing the charge-sheets”, the court said.
“There was one time settlement inter-se parties in the year 2018—before the registration of FIR, but the investigating officer has failed to spell reasons as to what is the impact of such settlement on the merits of the case. Because once the parties had gone for one time settlement and as a consideration thereto the accused companies had also made part payment of Rs 12 crore towards the satisfaction of final settlement of Rs 70 crore which later on ran into bad whether because of alleged breach committed by the accused who failed to liquidate settled amount”, the court further said.
“Once that breach had happened would it give rise to a criminal liability to be fastened upon the accused companies and its directors such issues were required to be dealt in by the investigating officer after taking legal opinion from its supervisory officers. This is because there is a thin line of distinction between cases of such nature which give raise to both the liabilities that is civil or criminal”, the court said, adding “investigation appears to be tainted as the IO has not conducted in depth investigation to discover the truth while keeping in view the individual liberty and due observation of law which was expected of such a premier investigating agency such as CBI”.
“On the one hand, CBI is alleging that it has kept the issue of further investigation open, but in the same breath it has not investigated the role of bank officials rather has been taking refuge under Section 17-A of the Central Act which had no application into the given case”, the court said, adding “until further investigation is carried down the line, mere filing of three charge sheets would result into the court being called upon to try the accused on unsubstantial evidence”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
