Full Judgement
Bombay High Court
Ashok Namdeorao Choudhary vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ganeshpeth, ... on 8 February, 2024
2024:BHC-NAG:1615
178 appln10.24
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.10/2024
Ashok Namdeorao Choudhary
..vs..
State of Mah., thr.PSO Ganeshpeth Police Station, Nagpur
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order
and Registrar's orders
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Shri T.A.Mirza, Counsel for the Applicant.
Shri Raja Thakare with Shri Ajay Misar, Special Public
Prosecutors for the Non-applicant/State.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 01/02/2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 08/02/2024
1. By this application under Section 389(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
2. The applicant has challenged judgment and order of
sentence and conviction passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur in RCC No.147/2002 dated
22.12.2023 by preferring Criminal Appeal No.402/2023 before
learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The applicant had
also preferred an application for suspension of sentence which
was rejected by learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur by
order dated 22.1.2024.
.....2/-
178 appln10.24
2
3. The applicant is working as General Manager in the
Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank Limited (the NDCC
Bank). As per contentions of the applicant, on 25.4.2002, First
Information Report was lodged by co-accused Sunil Kedar
against brokers namely Home Trade Limited (HTL), Century
Dealers, Giltage Management, Indramani Merchants and
Syndicate Management Services alleging that the NDCC Bank
had invested amount Rs.125.60 crores for purchasing the
government securities. The NABARD asked the NDCC Bank to
supply original securities and, therefore, the bank requested its
brokers to deliver original securities. However, they have not
delivered the same and supplied only photocopies and,
therefore, the First Information Report was lodged alleging that
funds of the bank have been misappropriated and the bank is
duped by its brokers to the tune of Rs.125.6 crores. Thereafter,
on 29.4.2002, another First Information Report was registered at
the behest of Shri Bhaurao Aswar, the Special Auditor of
Cooperative Societies, Nagpur against the applicant and other
co-accused. As per allegations, the applicant who is working as
General Manager entered into conspiracy with the co-accused
and misappropriated funds of the bank to the tune of Rs.117.51
crores under the pretext of investment made by the bank in the
government securities through private brokers namely HTL,
Century Dealers, Giltage Management, Indramani Merchants,
.....3/-
178 appln10.24
3
and Syndicate Management Services and brokers in turn
misappropriated funds of the bank by not purchasing the
government securities in favour of the bank. As per allegation
in the complaint, the applicant recommended proposal for
purchasing government securities through the private brokers
without any approval from the board of the bank for sales and
purchases of the government securities and invested the
amount by transferring the same to the brokers for purchasing
the government securities, but the brokers have not purchased
the same and the bank could not receive the original securities.
Thus, the applicant who is general manger of the bank
knowingly recommended to purchase the government securities
through private brokers having conspiracy with the said brokers'
companies and their officials and misappropriated the funds of
the bank and duped the bank and acted in breach of trust while
carrying out his responsibilities.
4. After filing of chargesheet, 53 witnesses were
examined by the prosecution. After appreciation of evidence,
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the
applicant and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
five years and to pay fine Rs.10.00 lacs of the offence
punishable under Sections 409 read with 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code. The applicant further convicted of the offence
punishable under Sections 406 read with 120-B of the Indian
.....4/-
178 appln10.24
4
Penal Code, but no separate sentence is awarded. He is also
convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 468 read
with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine Rs.2.00
lacs, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
The applicant is also convicted of the offence punishable under
Sections 471 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to
pay fine Rs.50,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for 3 months.
5. The judgment and order of sentence and conviction
is challenged by the applicant by preferring Criminal Appeal
No.402/2023 along with application for suspension of sentence
which was rejected.
Hence, this application.
6. Heard learned counsel Shri T.A.Mirza for the
applicant and learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri Raja
Thakare for the State.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
only role attributed to the applicant is that he forwarded the
sheets before the co-accused. The evidence shows that the
note sheets are prepared by accused No.11 who is acquitted on
.....5/-
178 appln10.24
5
the same set of evidence. The allegations revolved around two
transaction viz., (i) advancement of loan of Rs.40.00 crores to
EDIL and the evidence on record and observation trial court in
its judgment show that the said amount is repaid by the EDIL
and (ii) the applicant along with accused Nos.1 and 11 without
observing guidelines issued by the NABARD entered into
transactions of purchasing the government securities by way of
investment exceeding 5%. The period of alleged transactions
regarding purchasing of the government securities through HTL
were during 5.2.2001 and 12.6.2001 and the similar
transactions to HTL and four other broker companies were
during 25.2.2002 to 5.2.2002. The subject and sale and
purchase of transactions of physical securities was not discussed
in any of meetings of board of directors and approval was not
taken. It is further alleged that original physical securities
holding certification or any other document will show that the
securities purchased for the NDCC bank were not available on
its record. The applicant who is senior officer allegedly not
verified and confirmed as to whether physical securities were
really purchased and that too in the name of the NDCC Bank
and not filed report thereof in the bank. He further submitted
that thus nature of allegations against the applicant are that the
applicant and other officials of the bank committed irregularities
and contravening circulars and guidelines issued by the RBI and
.....6/-
178 appln10.24
6
NABARD and by violating the same, the transactions are entered
into. Thus, the nature of charge appears to be that the board
has delegated powers to accused no.1 and the present applicant
by resolution purchased and sold the securities only through
MSCB under SGL(II) with the RBI and without taking any policy
decision, transactions are entered through brokers without
approving panel of brokers for the purpose. He submitted that
the observation of the court is contrary to the evidence. In fact,
Exhibit-1185 is the resolution passed by the board of directors,
which shows as :
"in suppression of the previous resolutions No.7 of
the Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank
Limited, Nagpur dated 21.9.1993 it is hereby
resolved that any two of following namely 1. Shri
S.C.Kedar, Chairman, 2. Sau.A.C.Mahajan, Vice
Chairman, Shri A.N.Chaudhary, General Manager, 4.
Shri A.G.Gokhale, Chief Accountant, and 5. Shri
S.S.Gode, Chief Officer are hereby authorized jointly
to purchase, sale, endorse, negotiate, transfer or
other deal with the government and any securities
for and on behalf of the Nagpur District Central
Cooperative Bank Limited, Nagpur and also to
receive the principle and interests thereon."
He submitted that in view of the above resolution,
the powers are assigned to the applicant and there is no
reference either of SGL(II) or MSCB. The trial court held that the
alleged transactions are entered by keeping the directors in dark
and without obtaining any approval by holding any meetings. It
is further observed by the trial court that the entire transaction
.....7/-
178 appln10.24
7
has taken place on the basis of circular resolution. In fact, the
resolution passed on 24.8.2001, which is at Exhibit-1194, shows
that the investment of purchasing the government securities is
brought to the notice in a meeting held on 24.8.2001. Not only
this, the annual report of the bank Exhibit-1315 also shows that
the said investment by way of purchasing the securities is also
published in the said report and brought to the notice of all
share holders. Thus, nothing is done in a secrecy. At the most,
the act of the applicant shows that there is a contravention of
violation and irregularities which can at the most be said to be a
negligence on his part. There is no charge that the applicant
has received any monetary gain by the said transactions. There
is absolutely no evidence that the applicant was the member to
the conspiracy and in view of the said conspiracy, the amount
was transferred to the HTL and other securities.
8. Per contra, learned Special Pubic Prosecutor for the
State submitted that the definition of Criminal Breach of Trust,
in view of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, shows that
when a person, with whom the property is entrusted or having
any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or
converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or
disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or
of any legal contact, express or implied, which he has made
.....8/-
178 appln10.24
8
touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any
other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
He submitted that the amount invested is the public
money. The NDCC Bank is established for the welfare of poor
agriculturists and agriculturists are share holders. The
securities are shown to be purchased. In fact, it was never
purchased and large amount was transferred to the brokers.
The evidence of PW25 Rodrick Cruz proves various circulars
issued by the RBI are contravened. The prosecution has also
examined Anita Mangesh Kenkre, who is the Chief General
Manager of SEBI, who also stated that the Giltage Management
Services Limited, Bombay; Syndicate Management Services,
Ahmedabad, Indramani Merchants Private Limited and Century
Dealers Private Limited were never registered as brokers or sub
brokers with the SEBI. Thus, it is apparent that the transactions
are entered into with the private brokers without following due
process of law. If the applicant is released on bail, wrong
signal will go in the society and sympathy, if granted to the
applicant, would be misplaced sympathy. The applicant is not a
layman, but is serving as General Manager of the bank; has
active role, and prepared forged documents and the NABARD
was misguided. In support of his contentions, he submitted that
the Honourable Apex Court, while considering the scope of
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the case of
.....9/-
178 appln10.24
9
Omprakash Sahni vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and anr,
reported in (2023)6 SCC 123, held that bearing in mind the
principles of law, the endeavour on the part of the Court,
therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by
the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court can be said to
be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair
chances of acquittal. If the answer to the above said question is
to be in the affirmative, as a necessary corollary, we shall have
to say that, if ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to
have an acquittal at the hands of this Court, he should not be
kept behind the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of
the appeal, which usually take very long for decision and
disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to ascertain
whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, what is to be
looked into is something palpable. To put it in other words,
something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the
record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima
facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable.
The Appellate Court should not re-appreciate the evidence at
the stage of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case
of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach.
Thus, in view of principles laid down by the Honourable Apex
Court, the applicant has to show something palpable. In fact,
.....10/-
178 appln10.24
10
the applicant has no case to release him on bail by suspending
the sentence and the application deserves to be rejected.
9. Before adverting to the evidence to ascertain,
whether the applicant has made out a case for suspension of
sentence, it is necessary to see legal position.
10. Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal, enjoins upon
the appellate court the power to issue an order for the
suspension of the sentence or an order of conviction during the
pendency of an appeal. The said Section is reproduced below:
"389. Suspension of sentence pending the
appeal; release of appellant on bail. - (1)
Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the
Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by
it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence
or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if
he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or
on his own bond:
Provided that the Appellate Court shall, before
releasing on bail or on his own bond a convicted
person who is convicted of an offence punishable
with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment
for a term of not less than ten years, shall give
opportunity to the Public Prosecutor for showing
cause in writing against such release;
Provided further that in cases where a convicted
person is released on bail it shall be open to the
Public Prosecutor to file an application for the
cancellation of the bail".
11. Thus, the suspension describes postponement or
temporarily preventing a state of affairs from continuing. Thus,
.....11/-
178 appln10.24
11
when we talk about the suspension of sentence, the concept is
to differ or postpone the execution of sentence.
12. The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Afjal
Ansari vs. State of U.P., reported in 2023(16) SCALE 775,
while considering the scope of Section 389 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, observed that "it becomes manifestly
evident from the plain language of the provision, that the
Appellate Court is unambiguously vested with the power to
suspend implementation of the sentence or the order of
conviction under appeal and grant bail to the incarcerated
convict, for which it is imperative to assign the reasons in
writing. This Court has undertaken a comprehensive
examination of this issue on multiple occasions, laying down the
broad parameters to be appraised for the suspension of a
conviction under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. There is no gainsaying that in order to suspend the
conviction of an individual, the primary factors that are to be
looked into, would be the peculiar facts and circumstances of
that specific case, where the failure to stay such a conviction
would lead to injustice or irreversible consequences. The very
notion of irreversible consequences is centered on factors,
including the individual's criminal antecedents, the gravity of
the offence, and its wider social impact, while simultaneously
considering the facts and circumstances of the case." The
.....12/-
178 appln10.24
12
Hon'able Apex Court, in paragraph No.15 of the said decision,
observed that, "this Court has on several occasions opined that
there is no reason to interpret Section 389(1) of the CrPC in a
narrow manner, in the context of a stay on an order of
conviction, when there are irreversible consequences.
Undoubtedly, Ravikant Patil vs. Sarvabhouma S.Bagali,
reported in (2007)1 SCC 673, holds that an order granting a
stay of conviction should not be the rule but an exception and
should be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the facts of
a case. However, where conviction, if allowed to operate would
lead to irreparable damage and where the convict cannot be
compensated in any monetary terms or otherwise, if he is
acquitted later on, that by itself carves out an exceptional
situation".
13. In Kashmira Singh vs. The State of Punjab,
reported in (1977)4 SCC 291, the Honourable Apex Court
held that, "it would indeed be a travesty of justice to keep a
person in jail for a period of five or six years for an offence
which is ultimately found not to have been committed by him.
Can the Court ever compensate him for his incarceration which
is found to unjustified? Would it be just at all for the Court to
tell a person: "We have admitted your appeal because we think
you have a prima facie case, but unfortunately we have no time
to hear your appeal for quite a few years and, therefore, until
.....13/-
178 appln10.24
13
we hear your appeal, you must remain in jail, even though you
may be innocent?" What confidence would such administration
of justice inspire in the mind of the public? It may quite
conceivably happen, and it has in fact happened in a few cases
in this Court, that a person may serve out his full term of
imprisonment before his appeal is taken up for hearing. Would
a judge not be overwhelmed with a feeling of contrition while
acquitting such a person after hearing the appeal? Would it not
be an affront to his sense of justice ? Of what avail would the
acquittal be to such a person who has already served out his
term of imprisonment or at any rate a major part of it? It is,
therefore, absolutely essential that the practice which this Court
has been following in the past must be reconsidered and so long
as this Court is not in a position to hear the appeal of an
accused within a reasonable period of time, the Court should
ordinarily, unless there are cogent grounds for acting otherwise,
release the accused on bail in cases where special leave has
been granted to the accused to appeal against his conviction
and sentence".
14. In the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and
ors vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1999)4 SCC 421, the
appellants were convicted by the trial court against which the
appeal was pending before the High Court. The High Court
successively rejected the prayer for grant of bail, till the
.....14/-
178 appln10.24
14
pendency of appeal after suspending the sentence. Thus, it has
been held that,"when a convicted person is sentenced to fixed
period of sentence and when he files appeal under any
statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by
the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional
circumstances. Of course if there is any statutory restriction
against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly,
when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for
suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if
for any reason the sentence of limited duration cannot be
suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the
appeal on merits more so when motion for expeditious hearing
the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable
right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time.
When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons
such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate
court must bestow special concern in the matter suspending
the sentence, so as to make the appeal right meaningful and
effective. Of course appellate courts can impose similar
conditions when bail is granted".
15. The similar ratio is laid down in the cases of Kiran
Kumar vs. State of M.P., reported in (2001)9 SCC 211 and
Suresh Kumar and ors vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported
in (2001)10 SCC 338 by referring the judgment of Bhagwan
.....15/-
178 appln10.24
15
Rama Shinde Gosai and ors vs. State of Gujarat supra
holding that when a person is convicted and sentenced to a
short term imprisonment, the normal rule is that when his
appeal is pending, the sentence should be suspended.
16. In the background of the above well settled law and
turning to cases in hand, it reveals that the applicant is
convicted by observing in paragraph No.74 that during the
NABARD inspection, the following irregularities and
discrepancies are found:
(a) The Board has delegated powers to the
Chairman vide resolution No.14(6) dated 16/05/1999
(Exhs.1193/3158) for purchase and sale of securities
only through MSCB under SGL(II) with the RBI.
(b) The Board had not taken any policy decision for
transacting through the brokers nor had approved
the panel of brokers for the purpose.
(c) Market quotations were not being called for and
the rate provided by the broker in the contract were
not verified and compared with the prices quoted in
the market.
(d) Though, the bank had maintained SGL(II)
account through MSCB the transactions were routed
only through five brokers viz. HTL and 4 other broker
companies.
.....16/-
178 appln10.24
16
(e) As there was no delivery of securities book
entries at the bank level were passed on the basis of
contract notes received through the brokers. Brokers
had only sent photo copies of certificates of
securities purchased during 2000-2001 which were
endorsed in the name of broker firm.
(f) No agreements entered into between NDCC Bank
and the respective brokers for the purpose of
trading in securities in the secondary market.
(g) Though on the reverse side of the contract notes
issued by HTL indicate that brokerage had been
charged at rates not exceeding the official scale of
brokerage, respective column to show actual
amount of brokerage charged were left unfilled in
the contract notes. The contract notes issued by
the other brokers also did not indicate brokerage, if
any, paid to them.
(h) The counter party involved in the purchase and
sale of securities was not indicated in the contract
notes issued by the HTL and four other brokers (i.e.
4 other broker companies).
(i) Payments to the broker firms were realized on
settlement dates without getting delivery of the
securities.
(j) No fixed internal investment policy and
procedures were laid down by the board of directors
nor were there half yearly reviews of the bank's
.....17/-
178 appln10.24
17
investment port-folio by the bank's board of
directors. Even though, as per part 'V' of the RBI
RPCD Circular No.RF.BC-17/A-4/92-93 dated 4th
September, 1992 such reviews should be conducted
and copies of the review notes to be forwarded to
the NABARD and RBI.
(i) Valuation of the securities to be done on quarterly
basis as per guidelines issued by the RBI vide
circular RPCD No.154/07:02:08/94-95 dated 23rd
May, 1995 was not being made. The securities were
also not valued (at cost or market price whichever
was lower) as on 31/03/2001.
(k) As on 31/03/2001 the total premium paid
aggregated Rs.408.75 lakhs and the same has been
capitalized as required.
(l) The bank has resorted to continuous process of
sale and purchase of securities. As per the contract
notes, the sales were effected at rates higher than
the cost price and the difference between sale price
and purchase price was being transferred to P and L
account as income from time to time. These
incomes cannot be considered real as the bank had
not ascertained at any point of time whether the
broker had really made any efforts to get unsold
securities (i.e. securities belonging to the bank and
lying with the brokers) in the name of the bank.
(m) The bank had been utilizing sale proceeds of
securities for fresh purchase made on the same
.....18/-
178 appln10.24
18
dates. As a result inflow of funds to the bank was
very minimum. Most of the times the bank was
paying additional amounts to cover cost of fresh
purchase switch were mostly at high premiums. As
on 05/02/2002, the date of transaction (till date of
completion of present inspection) amount of
premium paid against outstanding securities
aggregated Rs.2901.26 lakhs as against Rs.408.75
lakhs of premium paid in securities outstanding as
on 31/03/2001. This represents 709.79% increase in
premium as against 120.78% growth in the total
value of outstanding securities of these two dates.
(n) The risk involved in security transaction was
increasing trend since the bank has not adopted
system for classification of securities under "held for
trading", "available for sale" and "held to maturity"
and the entire securities portfolio under SGL-II with
MSCB and under physical mode with the aforesaid
brokers were to be under continuous trading.
(n) No well defined account procedure/manual had
been prepared by the NDCC bank to ascertain
profitability of security transactions realistically.
(o) Based on average cost-yield analysis of
investment portfolio during 2000-2001 trading in
GOI securities fetched 9.74% as compared to other
investments like Fixed Deposits with MSCB fetching
average return of 12%. If unadjusted interest which
was actually paid on purchase of securities, but
shown as receivable in the B/S as on 31/03/2001
.....19/-
178 appln10.24
19
was taken into account, the average return from the
securities' trading would come down to 7.18%. As
against this, average cost of mobilizing terms
deposit comprising FD, Re-investment Deposit and
deposits and deposits mobilized from Urban Bank
etc. works out 12.80%, 13% and 13.83%
respectively. So, the bank had been incurring losses
in its trading activities.
17. The Judgment of the trial court further shows that
the prosecution examined PW25, who is an officer of the RBI,
who proved and confirmed various circulars and resolutions
issued by the RBI from time to time in respect of the investment
in the government securities. Existence and issuance of all
circulars are also proved by PW48 Shri Deshmukh and the
applicant and accused No.1 have violated directives issued by
RBI and NABARD from time to time while investing the
government securities through HTL and four broker companies.
The further observation of the trial court shows that the entire
transaction, relating to investment, were being looked after by
the applicant and accused No.1 and the accounts of those
transaction were maintained by PW7 Shri Wakhare and in his
absence PW6 Shri Dani. According to these witnesses, the
applicant informed them that from 2001 transactions of the
government securities will be done through HTL. The
transactions were not done through SGL(II) account. From the
.....20/-
178 appln10.24
20
judgment, it further revealed that the trial court observed that
before doing any transaction of GOI (physical) securities,
accused No.1 and the applicant used to discuss with HTL either
on phone or otherwise.
18. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
above observations are not supported by any evidence. In fact,
all note sheets are either prepared by accused Nos.11 or PW7
Wakhare. The chart prepared by the trial court mentioned in the
judgment shows that all note sheets about purchase of GOI
securities are either prepared by accused No.11 or PW7.
Accused No.11 is acquitted on the same set of evidence.
19. The sum and substance of the observation of the
trial court is that crores of rupees were transferred to HTL under
the guise of purchasing GOI (Physical) Securities which were
never purchased for the NDCC Bank and when no such
securities were ever purchased, there is no question of sale
and, therefore, all sale and purchase transactions entered by
accused No.1 and the applicant between the NDCC bank and
HTL are completely false and forged. Whereas, in paragraph
No.96, the trial court observed that accused No.1 and the
applicant or any other officer of the NDCC Bank had not taken
any steps to call for original securities from the concerned
brokers or to confirm as to whether any such securities were
.....21/-
178 appln10.24
21
ever purchased by them for the NDCC Bank. Thus, at once, the
trial court held that there was no such transaction at the same
time it holds that the applicant has not taken steps to call for
original securities.
20. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken me
through the evidence and pointed out that the trial court held
that the board has delegated the powers to the Chairman vide
resolution No.14(6) dated 16.5.1999 (Exhibits-1193/3158) for
purchase and sale of securities only through MSCB under SGL(II)
with the RBI. Whereas, Exhibit-1185 shows that the applicant
and the names mentioned therein were authorized jointly to
purchase, sale, endorse, negotiate, transfer or other deal with
the government and any securities for and on behalf of the
NDCC Bank, Nagpur and also to receive the principle and
interests due thereon which is blanket authority without
referring either MSCB or SGL(II). This observation is without any
evidence on record. The trial court has drawn the inference
without any material. He further submitted that the trial court
further observed that the entire transaction of purchasing
government securities through HTL is by keeping board of
directors in dark. Whereas, Exhibit-1194 shows that purchasing
on government securities through HTL is brought to the notice
of all members by passing resolution. It is not only brought to
the notice of board of directors, but it was also brought to the
.....22/-
178 appln10.24
22
notice of all share holders by publishing the same in annual
report. Thus, the said observation is also without any evidence.
The nature of allegation and evidence shows that the applicant
who is General Manager was aware about norms and the
guidelines issued by the NABARD, but he has violated the same.
He submitted that the observation of the trial court that there
was conspiracy between officer and official of HTL is also
without any evidence. He invited my attention towards cross
examination of investigating officer Shri Kishor Bele, examined
vide Exhibit-3151, who specifically admitted, as follows:
"gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs dh Hkk-na-fo-ps dye 467 o 471 uqlkj ts vkjksi
vkgsr R;kuqlkj dks.krkgh nLr vkjksih dz-2 v'kksd pkS/kjh ;kauh r;kj
dsysyk ukgh- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs dh riklknjE;ku cWdsdMwu th dkgh
dkxni=s tIr dj.;kr vkyh] rh dkxni=s cWdsrwu Jh-xksMs ;kaP;k mifLFkrhr
tIr dj.;kr vkyh vkgsr- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs dh Jh- xksMs ;kauh cWdsrY;k
dqBY;kgh vfu;ehrrsckcr fjtoZ cWd vkWQ bafM;k] egkjk"Vª jkT; lgdkjh
cWd] jftLVªkj] dksvkWijsVhOg lkslk;Vht] iw.ks] ukckMZ bR;knh fBdk.kh cWdsps
O;oLFkkid Eg.kwu dks.krhgh rdzkj dsY;kps riklknjE;ku vk
