IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON’BLE JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY CRR/27/2022 The State (CBI) ... Revisionist Versus M.Ravindra Rao and another ... Respondents For the revisionist : Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind For the respondents : Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Ajith Prasad Heard on : 05.02.2026 Judgment on : 10.02.2026 APURBA SINHA RAY, J. 1. The State (CBI) has filed this criminal revisional application being No. CRR/27/2022 challenging the order No. 31 dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Court at Port Blair discharging the respondent No. 1 and 2 from the CBI RC case No. 121 2017 A 0004 dated 07.09.2012 under Sections 120 B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 13 (2)/13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2 Factual Matrix : 2. The brief fact of the said case is that on 07.09.2017 the FIR bearing No.RC-121/2017 A 0004 was chalked out with the allegation that M/s Arya Aqua India Private Limited through its Managing Directors Shri.R. Murugesan and Farida Bibi applied for loan on subsidy basis through the Directorate of Industries, A&N Administration in the Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Ltd. The subsidy amount claimed was of 25% of the Bills worth Rs.2,10,79,094/ (Rupees Two Crores Ten Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Ninety Four Only) which was prepared on the basis of false and fabricated documents. The Directorate of Industries, A&N Administration accepted the paper on record and on the basis of the Bills and Receipts, Directorate of Industries, A&N Administration processed and released the subsidy of Rs.45,47,730/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Only) in favour of the Aryan Aqua India Private Limited. It has been alleged that the Cheque nos. mentioned in the Receipts purported to be issued from the Accounts of M/s Aryan Aqua India Private Limited are appears to be false and fabricated and those were issued to other parties and in some cases cheques were not at all issued by the Account Holder. It has also been alleged that the Machineries and equipment mentioned in the 3 original invoice issued by M/s Excel Water System Private Limited are not tallying with that of the fake invoice as well as in the Inspection Report of the Directorate of Industries dated 08.12.2014. On commission of this wrongful act the subsidy amount of Rs.45,47,730/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Only) was gained wrongfully by the M/s Aryan Aqua India Private Limited, Port Blair causing corresponding wrongful loss to the Government Exchequer. Submission from Bar: 3. Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind, learned advocate for the CBI has submitted that as per the investigating on 18.12.2012 M/s Aryan Aqua India Private Limited, Port Blair submitted a loan Application for Individual Term Loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs Only) for establishing Mineral Water Plant. The Respondent No.1 Mr. M.Ravindra Rao being the Managing Director of the concerned bank sanctioned the loan on 30.01.2013 with a condition of disbursement in four instalments and the Respondent No.2 being the Branch Manager namely Shri.S.A Khalique, Port Blair Branch disbursed the loan amount. Mr. Gobind has further submitted that as per banking norms in all the Term Loans, the Loan Amount shall be disbursed directly to the dealer/agent by way 4 of Pay Order or Demand Draft through the Bank. In this case, the loan amount was credited in the Current Account of the borrower namely M/s Aryan Aqua India Private Limited, instead of transferring it to the supplier of machineries. 4. Mr. Gobind has further submitted that investigation reveals that the loan amount was transferred in the Current account of said company by Credit Vouchers duly signed by S.A Khalique, Respondent No.2 the then Branch Manager. As per the Bank records the Bank had not sanctioned any similar type of loan i.e, Term Loan during the year 2012-13. The investigation discloses that the amount of Rs.70.00 Lakhs was transferred in favour of M/s Excel Industry Limited Chennai, the supplier of Machineries. The balance amount which was credited in the Current Account No.3781 was utilized by the borrower. The application form for loan along with enclosure i.e. the Certificate of Bank, was containing false facts and figures. As per the Annexure-Form the claim submitted before the Director of Industry was Rs.1,50,00,000/ (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs Only) for Plants and Machineries, whereas actually Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Only) was transferred for purchase of Plants and Machineries by the Bank. Although the respondents were aware that the actual amount for Plants Machineries which was transferred to M/s Excel Industry 5 Limited, Chennai was Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Only), the Respondent No.1 issued false certificate which is annexed at page No.41 in the affidavit of documents. The false statement/certificate of the Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Private Limited which was duly Signed by M.Ravindra Rao, Respondent No.1 helped the accused firm M/s Aryan Aqua India Private Limited to claim the subsidy on the entire amount i.e. Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs Only) out of the total amount the accused firm received 25% of subsidy i.e. Rs.45,47,730/ (Rupees of Forty Five Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Only) from the Directorate of Industries, A&N Administration. 5. Mr. Gobind has categorically argued that the learned Trial Court misconstrued the entire facts and the documents in the Charge Sheet and came to a conclusion that there was no ground to frame charge against the respondents herein. At the stage of framing Charge, the Trial Court is required to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. At the stage of framing charges it is not obligatory for the Judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. 6 6. Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the actual case is against the company Aryan Aqua (India) Pvt Ltd., its Managing Director being one Murugesan and Director being one Farida Bibi on the allegation that they had entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Directorate of Industries, Port Blair by submitting forged and fabricated documents to claim subsidies of Rs. 45 lakhs. From the copies of the prosecution papers it appears that there is no element of allegation against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in any manner or at all and these documents and grounds were examined carefully by the learned Trail Court and passed a reasoned, well explained order as to why there is no ground or material to frame charges against the opposite parties, who should in fact be witnesses to the main offence by the company and its officer. Mr. Kabir has drawn the attention of this court to the following points in support of his contentions that the impugned order has been rightly passed by the learned Trial Court: a) So far as the loan is concerned, it is the admitted position brought on record by the witnesses of the prosecution in their statements to the investigating agency, that there were no irregularities in the loan process, and that it was duly sanctioned by the Managing Committee of the Bank, after 7 taking legal advice of the then Law Officer of the bank, Mr, Krishna Rao and verification of all collateral including the property which was properly valued. Therefore there is nothing illegal whatsoever to do with the loan b) The allegation regarding certificate provided by the bank as used by the accused company A1 along with its officers A2, and A3 for availing subsidy, is merely a certificate to the extent of loan taken by the company towards purchase of plant and machinery, and has no further material therein. The said certificate is a statement of the correct situation of loan being taken, and the affairs of the company are not certified therein, nor are they known to or in any way concerned with the affairs of the bank. c) There is no further involvement or allegation of the bank officials A5 and A6 with the instant case, save and except these two allegations and it is apparent from the scrutiny of the case and its papers that the allegations are against the subsidy scheme of the Directorate of Industries being misused by the Al company through false and fabricated documents and claims, none of which involved the bank or its officers, save and except the sanction of the loan and issuing of certificate of loan, neither of which constitutes any offence whatsoever. 8 d) The transfer of funds to the supplier of articles on the request of the bank account holder by submission of a self cheque is accepted banking practice and constitutes no offence whatsoever. The bank merely follows the instructions of its customer, and accepts the cheque as instruction to debit his account and credit the account of the supplier towards the cost of goods supplied. This is simply an instruction to the bank to pay someone which has been done. e) Certain materials relied on in the said chargesheet, would prima facie , while not admitted to any extent, demonstrate the truth of the opposite parties' statements, and the fact that they are completely innocent, and the same may be briefly reflected hereunder for the consideration of this Learned Court; i. Statement of Rathindra Nath, Industry Promotion Officer, CSW9 ii. Statement of K. Murugan Managing Director, A&N Cooperative Bank, CSW13 iii. Statement of Anjan Sengupta Deputy General Manager A&N Cooperative Bank, CSW14 iv. Statement of K. Kathiresan, General Manager, Exel Water System, Chennai, CSW16 9 v. Statement of N. Ramar, Panel valuer, A&N Cooperative Bank, CSW19 vi. Application form of subsidy - D3 vii. Annexure IV to the subsidy application form viii. A&N Cooperative bank opening form- D130 ix. Cheque no. 538954 for Rs. 70,09,832/- dated 09.02.2013 - D132 x. RTGS voucher for Rs. 70,09,832/-- D138 xi. Debit voucher for Rs. 70,00,000/- - D139, including other vouchers at D140, 141 xii. Account ledger of the bank for this account 7. It is therefore obvious that there is no material whatsoever against the opposite parties to make out any case of any sort against them in any manner which was recognized and realized by the learned Trial Court on a proper assessment of the prosecution material that did not make out an offence or justify framing of charges. 8. Mr. Kabir has also submitted that there is no material showing that the respondents have benefited themselves or that they have committed forgery of any documents, or that they have in any manner been party to the offences. 10 9. Mr. Kabir has also pointed out that several steps were taken by the authority for recovery of the funds including inter alia: i. Money Suit no. 47 of 2019 by the Secretary Industries against the company A1 before the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Port Blair for a claim of the subsidy amount plus interest being Rs. 45,47,730 + interest @12.5% per annum of Rs. 19,45,781 = a total of Rs. 64,93,511. ii. The recall of subsidy was made on 24.01.2019, with an order dated 03.10.2019 by Secretary Industries to Tehsildar, Port Blair to create an encumbrance on the land of the company for recovery of the amounts disbursed towards subsidy with interest in terms of the land regulations iii. Over these orders the company Al had moved the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in W.P. No. 20297(W) of 2019 wherein His Lordship the Hon'ble Justice Debanshu Basak was pleased to pass Order dated 07.11.2019 directing the company to secure the amount of the claim by way of a fixed deposit with any nationalized bank, based on which a stay would operate 11 for steps of implementation of action to recover funds from the company iv. Against the said Order, the company had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court being M.A. 043 of 2019, wherein, by Order dated 02.12.2019, a Bench of Their Lordships the Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Datta and the Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya were pleased to direct that only the principal sum of Rs. 45,47,730/ - was to be secured in a fixed deposit and the documents handed over to the Secretary Industries based on which further action would be stayed. 10. In reply to above Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind has submitted that the respondents admitted that a Money Suit being No.47 of 2019 was filed against M/s Aryan Aqua India Private Limited for recovery of Rs.45,47,730/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Only) along with 12.5% Interest. The aforesaid admission of recovery prima facie makes out the case of prosecution that the 25% of subsidy amount received by M/s Aryan Aqua India Private Limited because of the false certificate issued by the respondent No.1 who facilitated the said Company to avail the subsidy. Similarly, the respondent No.2 transferred the balance loan amount in the Current Account bearing Account No.3781 and the said amount 12 was utilized by the said company. The recovery of subsidy amount in the Civil Suit ipso facto will not wash away the prosecution Case and in the recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex court it was held that both civil and criminal Proceedings can run simultaneously 2025 Supreme (SC) 2000 Rocky -Versus- State of Telangana and others. 11. However, Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind has cited the following judgments in support of his contention: 1) 1977 Supreme (SC) 256 State of Bihar -Versus- Ramesh Singh (2) 1987 Supreme (SC) 139 State of H,P -Versus- Krishan Lal Pardhan and Others (3) 2004 Supreme (SC) 1483 State of Orissa -Versus- Debendra Nath Padhi 4) 2007 Supreme (SC) 697 Soma Chakravarty -Versus- State Through CBI. (5) 2008 Supreme (SC) 486 Hem Chand -Versus- State of Jharkhand. (6) 2009 Supreme (SC) 1440 CBI -Versus- V.K.Bhutiani. (7) 2010 Supreme (SC) 104 P. Vijayan -Versus- State of Kerala and Anr. 13 (8) 2014 Supreme (SC) 14 State of Tamil Nadu by INS. of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption -Versus- N. Suresh Rajan and Ors. (9) 2017 Supreme (SC) 111 State of Rajasthan -Versus- Fatehkaran Mehdu. (10) 2019 Supreme (SC) 262 State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti- Corruption, Tamil Nadu -Versus- J. Doraiswamy Etc. (11) 2019 Supreme (SC) 701 Srilekha Sentilkumar - Versus- Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai, (12) 2025 Supreme (SC) 2000 Rocky -Versus: State of Telangana and Ors. 12. Mr. Gobind has prayed for setting aside the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court and to restore the Special Case No. 11 of 2017 for trial. 13. Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir has enclosed statements of several witnesses to show that the respondent No. 1 and 2 are innocent. Court’s View: 14. After going through the order No. 31 dated 07.04.2022 of Special case No. 11 of2017 pending before the learned Special Judge, Port Blair it appears that the learned Trial Judge 14 discharged the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 mainly on the grounds that the loan was sanctioned not on the unilateral decision of the accused M.Ravindra Rao, the then Managing Director of the Bank (the respondent No.1 herein) and it is clear from the statements of the relevant witnesses that the loan was sanctioned after it was approved by the Managing Committee after considering all other aspects. The learned Trial Judge has also observed that from the statement of K. Kathiresan, General Manager, Excel Water System Private Limited, it appeared that they had received Rs. 70,00,000/- from the accused company against the materials supplied worth Rs. 97,00,000/- and therefore according to learned Judge no question of misappropriation of Rs. 70,00,000/- disbursed by the M.Ravindra Rao can arise. The learned Judge did not accept the allegation against the respondent No.1, M.Ravindra Rao, the then Managing Director of the Cooperative Bank that he had issued annexure IV to enable the accused to claim the subsidy from the Directorate of Industries without any communication on record showing the value of plant and machineries as Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. According to the learned Judge, from the record it appeared to him that the accused company had submitted alleged fabricated bills with the Directorate of Industries for availing the subsidy and there is no evidence to connect the 15 respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with that part of the act of the accused company. Learned Judge has also observed that the loan was disbursed worth Rs. 1,45,00,000/- in three uneven instalments and there is no whisper about the disbursement of the rest amount and since the entire loan amount was exhausted in that three instalment it cannot be said that respondent No.2 had disbursed the same in three instalments instead of four though his act does not attract penal liability. In view of the aforesaid reasoning the learned Trial Judge did not find any evidence connecting the respondents herein i.e. accused No. 5 and accused No. 6 in the aforesaid Special Case No. 11 of 2017, with the alleged fraud committed by the rest of the accused persons and accordingly, he had discharged the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the aforesaid case under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. 15. The question of sanctioning the loan of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- is not the main issue in the relevant case. The most vital issues are that in disbursing the loan amount banking practice, procedures and norms are flouted by the respondent No. 1, M. Ravinder Rao and respondent No. 2 S.A. Khalique. The entire fund of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was transferred to the account of the borrower instead of the account of dealer/agents directly. This clearly violates banking practice, procedures and norms. It is 16 further allegation of CBI that the respondent No.2 transferred Rs. 70,00,000/- out of Rs 1,50,00,000/- to the account of Excel Water System Private Limited , and the balance fund was utilized by the borrower for its own purpose. Another serious charge is that the annexure IV issued by the respondent No.1which was also corrected by him in his own handwriting contained a false and fabricated statement that Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was used for the purpose of plants and machineries. The record also shows that the Excel Water System Private Limited which supplied the plants and machineries to the tune of Rs. 97,00,000/- and out of which they had received Rs. 70,00,000/- but nowhere it is stated by the General Manager of Excel Water System Private Limited that they supplied plant and machineries to the tune of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- . This annexure IV was not properly considered by the learned Special Judge at the time of making his mind for discharging him. The issue whether the same can be ignored particularly when there was serious allegation that annexure IV issued by M.Ravindra Rao stating that Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was used for plants and machineries and on the basis of such certificate, Directorate of Industries had allowed the accused company and its Directors to have Rs. 45,47,730/- as subsidy 17 after making a gross in road in the Exchequer of the Government, is not properly dealt with in the impugned order. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the statements of the several witnesses and he has placed the Xerox copies of statements of such witnesses. Let us consider those statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The statements of Mr. K.Murugan, Managing Director, Andaman & Nicobar Cooperative Bank Ltd., Port Blair, Mr. Anjan Sengupta, Deputy General Manager, A&N Cooperative Bank, Port Blair, Mr. K.Kathiresan, General Manager, Excel Water System Private Limited are very much important. So far as respondent No.1 and 2 are concerned, both Mr. K.Murugan, Managing Director, Andaman & Nicobar Cooperative Bank Ltd., Port Blair, and Mr. Anjan Sengupta, Deputy General Manager, A&N Cooperative Bank, Port Blair have stated before the concerned Investigating Officer that: “Further the general procedure adopted by the bank in all terms loan cases is availing of the loan through the Savings Bank/current Account of the borrower depending upon the case. For example, in Car loan or any purchase of plant and machinery the entire loan amount along with the margin money shall be disbursed directly to the dealer/agent by way of Pay Order or Demand Draft whatever it may be. However, in cases of Project Loan if the Infrastructure component is present, then the amount of loan shall be released as per the progress of the work. The bank has not sanctioned any similar type of loan during the year 2012- 2013. After the sanction of said term loan the funds was transferred to the current account No. 3781 which now shown to me vide using the debit voucher and credit vouchers. Credit vouchers dated on 09.02.2013 Rs.69,76,407, 11.02.2013 Rs. 30,00,000, on 21.02.2013 Rs.25,00,000 and Debit vouchers dated 09.02.2013 Rs. 70,00,000, 11.02.2013 Rs. 30,00,000, on 18 21.02.2013 Rs. 25,00,000 which now shown to me and I identify the signature of S.A.Khalique the then Branch Manager.” 17. The said two witnesses further stated that they were also shown annexure IV duly signed by M.Ravindra Rao, the then Managing Director of their bank which was enclosed in the subsidy claim submitted before the Directorate of Industries, by M/s Aruan Aqua (India) Pvt. Ltd represented by its M.D R.Murugesan. In the said Annexure IV it was mentioned that Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was availed for plants and machineries, instead Rs. 70,00,000/- was transferred for purchase of plants and machineries. Further on scrutiny of the files maintained in the Andaman & Nicobar Co-operative Bank no such letter is available and no correspondence was also taken place. This Annexure IV was issued by the then Managing director – Shri M.Ravindra Rao (now Retd) on his own. 18. Therefore, from the above statements of banking personnel it prima facie appears that disbursement of loan to the account of borrower was made in violation of established practice and procedure of bank and further such disbursement was made exceptionally at the instance of both the respondents. It is not clear why they have violated such an established banking procedure. The investigating agency has shown some acceptable basis of reasonable suspicion against respondent Nos. 1-2 in this regard at this stage. It is also found from their 19 statements that in the annexure IV issued by respondent No. 1 it was mentioned that Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was used for plants and machineries instead of Rs. 70,00,000/-. Therefore, it appears that the learned Special Judge did not consider the statements of the said witnesses in its proper perspective. 19. Statement of Mr. K.Kathiresan has disclosed that their company namely M/S Excel Water System Private Limited, Chennai had supplied materials valuing Rs. 97,00,000/- and not Rs.1,81,00,000/-. He has also mentioned that he received payment of Rs. 70,00,000/- in the form of account transfer. From his statement it is crystal clear that the Directorate of Industries personnel on the basis of documents including annexure IV came to the conclusion regarding the value of plants and machineries to the tune of Rs. 1,81,00,000/-, and hence, it prima facie appears that annexure IV issued by respondent No.1 was the foundational basis and the same prompted them to assess the value to the extent of Rs. 1,81,00,000/-. 20. The case law reported in 2004 0 Supreme (SC) 1483, State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that at the stage of framing of charge the Trial Court is required to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused or not. 20 21. In 1987 Supreme (SC) 139, State of H.P vs. Krishan Lal Pardhan and others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold whether materials on record would be sufficient to record conviction against respondents or weather charges will eventually stand proved or not can be determined only after evidence as recorded in the case. 22. In State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh reported in (1977) 4 SCC 39 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that at the stage of framing of charge it is not obligatory for the Judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts if proved would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. 23. In 2010 0 Supreme (SC) 104, P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that under Section 227 Cr.P.C the Judge can discharge the accused at the threshold if upon consideration of the record and documents he find that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words his consideration of the record and documents at that stage is for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 21 24. All other decisions cited by the learned counsel for the CBI narrates more or less the same principle and they are now established principles of law. 25. In view of the above, I do not think that there is no materials against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for framing charges against them. In view of the above I find that when there are sufficient prima facie materials against both the accused respondent as discussed above the order No. 31 dated 07.04.2022 should not be allowed to stand. 26. Accordingly the order No. 31 dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Port Blair in Special Case No. 11 of 2017 is set aside. The respondent No. 1 M.Ravindra Rao and respondent No. 2 S.A Khalique are directed to surrender before the learned Trial Judge, and the learned Trial Judge shall take them into custody and shall enlarge them on bail on certain conditions ensuring their presence before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of hearing, if they are willing to furnish bonds, and shall thereafter consider the framing of charges against the accused persons under proper sections of law after complying with all legal formalities. 27. Accordingly the Criminal Revisional application being CRR/27/2022 is thus allowed. 28. No order as to costs. 22 29. The criminal revisional application stands disposed of along with all connected applications, if any. 30. Let the Trial Court Record be sent down immediately to the Learned Trial Court along with a copy of this judgment. 31. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities. [ APURBA SINHA RAY, J. ]