'Procedural irregularities due to work pressure okay'

"Moreover, the prosecution should have produced a circular or notification which specified the discretionary power or notification"

S. Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: Noting that procedural irregularities do not constitute crime, the High Court of Karnataka has set aside the conviction of a branch manager and other accused by the Special CBI court.

T Narayanappa, a former branch manager of State Bank of Mysuru, Baby Vasantha Kumar, the proprietrix of Balaji Aromatics, V Raghavendra, the proprietor of Karnataka Copper Mills, VManikanta, proprietor of Balaji Products, V Kandaswamy, Vasantha Kumar and T Venkataswamy were convicted by the CBI Court in February 2011 for the offences under Section 420 (Cheating) and Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In addition, T Narayanappa was also convicted under Section 409 (Criminal Breach of Trust by public servant) and under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The allegation against him was that he conspired with the businessmen to extend credit facilities to them beyond his discretionary power and caused a pecuniary loss of Rs.57,00,000 to the bank.

Quashing the 2011 order of the lower court, Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar in his judgment on October 29, 2022 said, “In regard to the allegation that accused No.1 had exceeded his discretionary limit, there is no consistent evidence. If one witness says that accused No.1 had exceeded the limit, another says that he had not exceeded. Moreover the prosecution should have produced a circular or notification which specified the discretionary power or notification which specified the discretionary power of the branch manager.” The Court also said that any procedural irregularities due to work pressure could be rectified.

“It does not become clear as to how the accused came to be prosecuted. There might be some procedural infractions, which could be set right or rectified as stated by PW1 in his cross examination. PW15 has given an admission that procedural irregularities were common because of work pressure,” it said. The HC also found that the evidence available did not show that a crime had been committed.

The judgment noted, “Now if the entire oral evidence of the prominent witnesses is assessed, it does not become clear as to what the illegality committed in sanctioning of loan and purchase of cheques and bills. No witness has implicated accused No.1, and their evidence does not help in any way to draw inference as to the existence of conspiracy among all the accused.” The Court said that the evidence of the Investigating Officer is of no use.

The evidence of the investigating officer is of no use at all. In a case of this type, the evidence of the investigating officer must disclose as to on what basis he could form an opinion that offences had been committed. The prosecution case is that the bank suffered loss of Rs.57,00,000 but no witness has stated that the bank suffered loss. Even the investigating officer does not state anything about it.” On the other hand the IO’s finding helped the case of the accused.

“Rather it is elicited from the investigating officer that accused No.1 had discretionary power up to Rs.10,00,000 and could purchase cheques up to Rs.2,00,000 and bills up to Rs.5,00,000,” the HC said. Allowing the appeal, the HC set aside the judgement of the lower court and said, “All the accused are acquitted of the offences with which they stood charged.”