1-REVN-616-2023.doc Tikam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 616 OF 2024 Ramnath Pradeep ...Applicant/s VERSUS State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Ms. Shikha S. Bhura (thr. VC), Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, SPP a/w. Digvijay S. Kachare a/w. Saili Dhuru a/w. Anay Joshi a/w. Sumitkumar Nimbalkar a/w. Yukta Sawant a/w. Sanika Joshi for Respondent No.2 Mr. S.M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1. The challenge in this application is to the framing of charges against the Applicant by the Learned Special Judge, CBI, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. 2. Earlier, this Court (Coram: Justice Shri. Sandeep Marne) had rejected the discharge application of the Applicant. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court remanded the matter to this Court for fresh hearing, as the chargesheet had not been filed while passing said order. 3. The present case came to be registered on the basis of a written complaint filed by Shri A. W. Sathe, Deputy General Manager, Corporate Finance Branch (for short, “CFB”), Central Bank of India (for short, VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2026.10.08 11:18:37 +0530 1-REVN-616-2023.doc Tikam “Bank”), Mumbai against M/s Biotor Industries Ltd. (for short, “M/s. BIL”), its directors, employees, agents and other unknown public servants under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) 1860 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the complaint, it had been alleged that M/s BIL was engaged in the business of manufacturing castor oil and other derivatives and, in furtherance of a conspiracy to cheat the Bank through its representatives, had approached the Bank for sanction of a Sales Bill Financing Facility of Rs. 50 Crores, for financing the farmers who were supplying castor seeds (raw material) to M/s BIL. The said company, through its representatives, dishonestly represented to the Bank that the said finance was intended for the farmers who were supplying castor seeds (raw material) to said company and it would act as a Management and Collection Agent (M&C Agent) i.e. an intermediary between the bank and the beneficiary farmers under the said loan facility and assist the bank in ascertaining eligible farmers and then disburse the loan proceeds to such farmers. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, relying on the said representation and on executing of M&C agreement, the Bank sanctioned the requested loan facility to M/s BIL and opened loan accounts in the names of 1597 fictitious farmers on the basis of forged and fabricated documents submitted by M/s BIL. M/s BIL through its representatives, got 1-REVN-616-2023.doc Tikam the loan disbursements in its own accounts and thereafter in accounts of 10 different persons. The said loan amounts were thereafter routed back to M/s BIL, and the proceeds did not reach the farmer beneficiaries. 4. It is alleged that the Applicant was working as the Executive Director at Priority Sector Department of the Bank, Mumbai at the relevant time. On 03/07/2009, the representatives of M/s BIL met the Applicant and requested for a short-term loan of Rs. 100 crores to finance farmers against their receivables on an unsigned plain paper. Further on 04/07/2009, the Applicant advised the Priority Sector Department to contact M/s BIL. On 08/07/2009, he instructed the department to expedite the proposal to catch the Management Committee meeting dt. 11/07/2009, while extending the due date of Packing Credit availed from 270 days to 360 days, despite the knowledge that the company was under acute financial stress, he signed multiple executive briefs. 5. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant was an Executive Director, his endorsement on the internal note and his participation in the Management Committee even if accepted, establish official participation in an institutional banking process; they do not, by themselves, establish a criminal agreement or dishonest intention. It is submitted that the Applicant had no role in sanctioning or disbursing the loan. The loan proposal was processed through a well-defined, multi- 1-REVN-616-2023.doc Tikam layered institutional mechanism, involving several independent stages of scrutiny, recommendation and approval. The Applicant was not the sanctioning authority acting individually. The proposal travelled through the Bank’s prescribed departmental and credit channels and was ultimately considered by the Management Committee. The Applicant was only one member of that institutional decision-making body. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the record, as relied upon by the prosecution itself, does not permit the sanction of Rs. 50 crores to be characterized as the Applicant’s individual act. The involvement of CMD, other Executive Directors and independent/RBI/Government nominees is material to the inference drawn against the Applicant. Sanction of the loan followed a structural hierarchy culminating in the Management Committee of the Board of Directors, which was the highest decision-making authority. The Applicant's role was limited to forwarding the proposal. Merely forwarding the proposal cannot be construed as participation in decision making process or endorsement of the contents of the proposal. The CMD stated that the Rs.100 crores proposal was reduced to Rs.50 crores and that proposal was introduced in the context of post-harvest finance to farmers and Priority Sector Lending. The statement of Prof. N. Balakrishnan records the composition of the Committee and the collective consideration of the proposal. The ld. Counsel further submitted that there is a conspicuous absence of material 1-REVN-616-2023.doc Tikam connecting the Applicant with the subsequent acts constituting the alleged fraud. The chargesheet does not attribute to the Applicant’s involvement in preparation or fabrication of the farmers’ documents, use of forged documents as genuine, instruction for fabrication, routing of the disbursements through the ten authorized persons, receipt of the alleged diverted funds, or any personal/pecuniary benefit. The subsequent acts relied upon by the prosecution are attributed to other accused persons. They cannot, without material showing prior knowledge and agreement, retroactively establish conspiracy on the part of the Applicant. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the same distinction is material to the allegations under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of IPC and to the allegation of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The mere fact that an officer’s participation in an institutional process does not supply the missing ingredients of forgery or abuse of official position. In these circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the chargesheet may disclose that the Applicant dealt with the proposal in his official capacity; it does not disclose the essential connecting material necessary to transform such official involvement into criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery or criminal misconduct. But these facts have not been considered by the Learned Special Judge and has framed charges, which is erroneous and requested to allow the Application. Page 5 of 9 1-REVN-616-2023.doc Tikam Ld. Counsel for the Applicant relied on: 1. State of M.P v. Sheetla Sahai & ors 2009 INSC 997 2. State through DSP v. R. Soundirarasu Etc. 2022 INSC 915 3. Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & anr 1978 INSC 223 6. It is contention of learned SPP that the letter dated 06/07/2009 was sent by the Applicant to the CFB for processing the loan proposal. The Applicant facilitated taking the loan proposal out of the ordinary channel and routed it through the CFB. The Applicant directed Accused no.14 Shri P.C Srivastava to engage with the borrower company and process the proposal. Several material changes were made in the said proposal, which were favorable to the borrower and diluted the safeguards contained in the first proposal. Moreover, he issued instructions to expedite the proposal to meet the Management Committee meeting dated 11/07/2009. Learned SPP further submitted that the Applicant was not just the Executive Director, Priority Sector Department but was also a Member of Loan Advisory Committee and he recommended the second executive brief without raising a single objection despite the fact that the proposal was not in accordance with the RBI Policy and the Bank's prudential norms and posed a higher risk to the bank. Learned SPP further submitted that the Applicant did not merely sign the documents but knowingly recommended the altered proposal despite the irregularities appearing on the face of it 1-REVN-616-2023.doc Tikam i.e. the KYC norms of the farmers outsourced to the M&C Agent, which was contrary to the RBI norms and also violated Clause 5.2 of the Bank's loan policy. Learned SPP further submitted that the RBI policy did not permit classification of the loan as an agricultural finance loan to a middleman for onwards lending to farmers. Learned SPP further submitted that financial position of M/s BIL was not disclosed in second executive brief. Though the details of financial condition of the said company were available in the first executive brief dated 08/07/2009, it was not shown in the second executive brief dated 18/07/2009. Despite the financial weakness of the borrower being apparent, Applicant recommended the second proposal. The Applicant approved a loan mechanism where funds were routed through intermediary accounts, enabling diversion of funds. 1597 bogus loan accounts in the name of fictitious farmers were opened, causing a wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 56.25 crore to Central Bank of India. He further submitted that charges are rightly framed against the Applicant and requested to reject the application. 7. I have heard both learned counsels. Perused documents produced on record. Admittedly, at the relevant time, Applicant was the Executive Director - Priority Sector Department. He was a member of the Management Committee of the bank. It appears from the record that he played a central and influential role in the sanction and disbursement of 1-REVN-616-2023.doc Tikam Rs. 50 crores loan to M/s BIL. He entertained an unsigned loan application seeking Rs. 100 crores for financing farmers and initiated action towards it despite procedural irregularities. It is alleged that he directed co-accused P.C Srivastava to engage with borrower company and process the proposal. He issued instructions to expedite the proposal to catch the Management Committee meeting dt. 11/07/2009. It is alleged that he pushed for processing a completely new loan structure which had not been previously sanctioned by the bank. He approached extension of packing credit despite being aware of the poor financial condition and repeated defaults of the borrower. The Applicant ignored red flags such as the company’s liquidity issues and prior classification concerns and failed to assess whether the company had the capacity to repay an additional Rs. 50 crores loan. It appears from the record that the Applicant, as a senior decision-maker, recommended and approved the proposal despite major violations. The KYC norms were violated by outsourcing borrower verification to M&C agent. The loan was misclassified as Priority Sector lending through a middleman. The disbursement of loan was routed through company- controlled accounts instead of farmers. Loan applications from actual borrowers (farmers) were absent. It is alleged that the Applicant pressurized bank officials to expedite account opening and disbursement. He ensured rapid disbursement of Rs. 50 crores, including opening 1597 1-REVN-616-2023.doc Tikam bogus accounts within a very short time. He followed up continuously to ensure full disbursement before deadlines, indicating urgency beyond normal banking practice. It is alleged that he allowed a loan structure where the company benefitted both from bank funds and farmer supplies, while liability remained on farmers. It appears from record that the Applicant acted in concert with other accused persons and the borrower company, abusing his official position to facilitate sanction and disbursement of the loan in violation of norms, causing a wrongful loss of approximately Rs. 56.25 crores to Central Bank of India. The statement of witnesses Mr. Paul Mathew, Mr. R.B Gupta and Ms. Sulbha Pande indicate the involvement of the Applicant in the crime. Statement of witnesses and documents produced on record prima facie indicate involvement of the Applicant in the present crime. Hence, I pass following order: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Application is rejected. (ii) All pending Applications are disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)