1-REVN-187-2023 3(1).doc Tikam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 187 OF 2023 Satish Chandra Jhanwar S/o Laxminarayan Jhanwar ...Applicant/s VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra & Anr ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Karan Bhonsle a/w. Datta Mane a/w. Sanjali Bidwe a/w. Arif Qureshi i/by Pradeep Havnur, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr. S.M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent No.1-State. 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- CBI. _________________________________________________________________ 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. 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 matter to this Court for fresh hearing, as the chargesheet had not been filed while passing said order. 2. It is prosecution's case that 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, Central Bank of VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2026.10.08 16:42:35 +0530 1-REVN-187-2023 3(1).doc Tikam India, Mumbai (for short, “CFB”) 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, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “PC Act”). 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 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 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. In furtherance 1-REVN-187-2023 3(1).doc Tikam of this conspiracy, M/s BIL through its representatives, got 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. The Applicant (accused no 15) was working as Deputy General Manager at Priority Sector Department at the relevant time. It is alleged that the Applicant was involved in processing and recommending the loan facility despite adverse financial position of M/s BIL and thereby acted in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy to cause wrongful loss of approximately Rs. 56.25 crores to the bank. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant was working as Deputy General Manager in the Priority Sector Department of the bank. The loan proposal had been processed before joining of the Applicant in the said Department. Learned counsel further submitted that the sanction of the loan was not an individual decision but was made through a structural hierarchy culminating in the Management Committee of the Board of Directors, which was the highest decision making authority and the Applicant was not part of the said authority. The Applicant had forwarded the loan proposal to General Manager and then General Manager forwarded the same to the Executive Director and thereafter, the Members of the Committee approved the loan. The 1-REVN-187-2023 3(1).doc Tikam allegations against the Applicant are that he made changes in the terms and conditions of the loan proposal, which were detrimental to the interest of the bank. Learned counsel further submitted that the said changes were approved by the higher authority. However, these facts are not considered by the Learned Special Judge and framed charges against the applicant, which is erroneous and requested to allow the revision application. 4. It is contention of learned SPP that the Applicant has played an instrumental role in processing and recommending the loan proposal of 50 crore to the M/s. BIL despite being aware of its adverse financial condition. The Applicant instructed changes to the original Executive Brief dated 08.07.2009, resulting in the amended brief dated 18.07.2009, whereby the proposal was converted into a Sales Bills Discounting facility, allegedly involving higher risk and dilution of KYC and other due diligence requirements. The learned SPP further submitted that the Applicant participated in preparing and signing the Executive Briefs dated 20.07.2009, 22.07.2009 and 28.08.2009, which allegedly favoured the borrowing company rather than the intended beneficiaries. It was further submitted that, despite apparent deviations from RBI guidelines and the Bank's internal loan policy, the Applicant failed to raise any objection, thereby facilitating the processing and sanction of the loan. There was active involvement of present Applicant in the alleged crime as he was part 1-REVN-187-2023 3(1).doc Tikam of conspiracy with the co-accused and caused huge loss to the Bank . The Applicant had made several changes in the loan proposal, which were harmful to the bank. He acted in conspiracy with co-accused and contributed to expediting the loan approval. There are statements of witnesses, who indicates the role played by the Applicant. There is prima facie case against the Applicant. Learned Special Judge has rightly framed charges against the Applicant and requested to reject the application. 5. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order and documents produced on record. The Applicant was working as a Deputy General Manager in the Priority Sector Department of the Central Bank of India at Mumbai. It appears that, prior to his joining, the loan proposal had already been submitted to higher authorities. After his joining, he acted as per the instructions of the higher authorities i.e. co-accused. The main allegations against the Applicant are that he has made changes in the loan proposal. It appears that the said proposal was thereafter, approved by the higher authority. It appears that the crucial role in the sanctioning of loan was played by the General Manager, the Executive Director and the Members of Committee. Considering the evidences produced on record, no case is made out against the Applicant. However, this fact has not been considered by the Learned Special Judge while framing charges . In view of above, I pass following order. Page 5 of 6 1-REVN-187-2023 3(1).doc Tikam ORDER (i) Revision Application is allowed. (ii) The charges framed against the Applicant in Special Case No.19 of 2015 are set-aside. The applicant is discharged in Crime No. RC-BSM/2013/E003 for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420,467,468 and 471 of IPC and under sections 13(2 ) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act. (iv) Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)