1. The revision petitioner herein is accused 6 in Special Case No. 117 of 2005 pending on the file of the learned XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases (CCH-4), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’, for short). He has challenged in this revision, order dated 24-12-2007 passed in the said case holding that charges shall be framed for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘T.C Act’, for short), against all the accused 1 to 7 therein, including the present petitioner (accused 6).

2. Stated in brief, the facts leading to present revision petition are as under:

(i) One Sri S.V Raghavendran (C.W 1), the Chief Vigilance Officer, Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as ‘bank’ for short) filed his complaint dated 19-11-2002 (Annexure-C) before the Police of CBI against five accused persons namely: (1) Sri A. Vasudevan, Assistant General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Bangalore; (2) Sri K.N.G Rao, former Manager (Credit), Syndicate Bank, Sadhashiva Nagar Branch, Bangalore; (3) Sri Venkataramana Reddy, Manager (IT), Corporate Officer, Syndicate Bank, Bangalore; (4) Sri R. Raghupathy, Chief Manager, Sadhashiva Nagar Branch, Bangalore; and (5) Sri P.D.S.R.V Prasad, Managing Partner, M/s. Venkatalakshmi Constructions, Hyderabad, alleging that accused 1 to 4, being the officers of the Bank conspired themselves and granted loan to accused 5 illegally and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Bank and thus committed the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act.

(ii) On the basis of the said complaint, the Police of CBI registered a case in FIR No. RC. 09(A)/2003-BLR against all the said accused 1 to 5 for the said offences and proceeded to investigate the case. After investigation, the CBI submitted charge-sheet before the Trial Court against totally seven accused. However, the CBI left out, Sri A. Vasudevan (A1), the then Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Bangalore, on the ground that the Competent Authority did not accord sanction to prosecute him. It also dropped Sri Venkataramana Reddy (A3), the then Manager (IT), Corporate Office of the Bank, Bangalore, on the ground that the investigation did not reveal his active role in the commission of the said offences. Those two persons were respectively, accused 1 and 3 in the FIR. While deleting the said two accused person, the CBI arrayed four other persons as accused, of whom, the present petitioner is one and he is accused 6 in the charge-sheet.

(iii) After hearing both the sides on the question of framing charges, the Trial Court passed the impugned order dated 24-12-2007 holding that there are grounds to presume that accused 1 to 7 as shown in the charge-sheet, including the petitioner (A6), have committed the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, and therefore charges have to be framed against them for all the said offences.

(iv) The petitioner herein, who is accused 6 before the Trial Court, has challenged the correctness of the said order. However, the other accused namely, accused 1 to 5 and 7 have not challenged the said order.

3. Stated in brief the case of the prosecution as alleged in the FIR (Annexure-D) is as under:

(i) M/s. Venkatalakshmi Constructions, Hyderabad, is duly represented by its Managing Partner, Sri P.D.S.R.V Prasad (A3). Its office is at Yelahanka, Bangalore. On 2-4-1998 the said firm applied to the Bank, Sadhashiva Nagar Branch, Bangalore, for sanction of Secured Over Draft (SOD) limit of Rs. 25 lakhs and a Bank Guarantee (BG) of Rs. 15 lakhs. For availing the said facilities, the said firm offered two vacant sites each measuring 410 Sq. Ft. adjacent to each other and situate at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad City, as collateral security.

(ii) The said two sites were standing in the name of Sri Syed Yahya Zubeen Saleem and Ms. Nazeem Khanam. The said firm impersonated the owners of the said sites and made the Bank to believe that the said owners themselves offered the sites as collateral security towards the said financial facilities availed by the firm. The said sites were offered as security by the said firm without the knowledge and consent of the true owners thereof.

(iii) On 18-3-1998, Sri A. Vasudevan (who was A1 in FIR), the then Chief Manager of the Bank, Sadhashiva Nagar Branch, Bangalore, had sent a letter to Sri A.V Ranganathan (C.W 23), the then Chief Manager of the said Bank at N.S Road Branch, Hyderabad, through the Managing Partner of the said firm namely, Sri P.D.S.R.V Prasad, requesting the said A.V Ranganathan to inspect the said properties at Hyderabad and submit ADV 84 Report. Accordingly, the said A.V Ranganathan sent ADV Report dated 29-4-1998 through the said Sri P.D.S.R.V Prasad on 5-5-1998. Thereafter, on 20-5-1998, Sri Vasudevan favourably processed the proposal and noted that himself had visited the property situate at Hyderabad on 19-5-1998 and he was of the opinion that the property was worth more than Rs. 50 lakhs. Thereafter, the said Vasudevan sanctioned to the said firm SOD limit of Rs. 25 lakhs and BD limit of Rs. 15 lakhs on 26-5-1998.

(iv) Sri R. Raghupathy (who was shown as A4 in the FIR ansd who is A2 in the charge-sheet) succeeded the said Chief Manager Sri A. Vasudevan (A1 in the FIR) and colluded with the said firm and allowed the said firm to draw money in excess over the limits.

(v) Later, it was found that the said two properties were offered to the Bank as collateral security by the said firm, through its Managing Partner, while availing the said financial facilities, by falsely creating the sale deeds and other relevant documents pertaining thereto, without the consent and knowledge of the true owners thereof, and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs. 177.34 lakhs. Therefore, C.W 1-S.V. Raghavendran, Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank, Manipal, lodged the complaint against the said four bank officials and the Managing Partner of the said firm.

4. After completion of investigation, while deleting Sri A. Vasudevan and Sri Venkataramana Reddy (who were respectively, A1 and A3 in the FIR) and arraying four other persons namely, Sri P. Venkatapathi Raju and Sri M. Suryanarayana Raju, the two other partners of M/s. Venkatalakshmi Constructions, respectively as accused 4 and 5, and the petitioner P.V Amarnath Prasad, Chartered Engineer, Hyderabad, as accused 6 and Sri B. Prithviraj Reddy, Managing Director, Kakathiya Travels, Hyderabad, as accused 7-the CBI submitted charge-sheet against totally seven accused including these four persons (as A4 to A7) and two Officers of the Bank (as A1 and A2) who were shown in the FIR respectively as accused 2 and 4, and P.D.S.R.V Prasad (as A3) who was shown as accused 5 in the FIR.

5. The case of the prosecution, as alleged in the charge-sheet, against the newly added four accused (respectively A4 to A7), is as under:

(i) Accused 4 and 5, being two other partners of M/s. Venkatalakshmi Constructions conspired with accused 1 to 3-the officers of the Bank, accused 6-the petitioner Sri P.V Amarnath Prasad, Chartered Engineer, and accused 7-B. Prithviraj Reddy, in committing the said offences and thereby caused the said wrongful loss to the Bank.

(ii) Accused 7-B. Prithviraj Reddy brought some persons from Hyderabad to Bangalore and introduced them to the officers of Sadhashiva Nagar Branch of the Bank that they were the true owners of the said two sites at Hyderabad and created false documents of title and other relevant documents to support the claim of accused 3 to 5-the partners of the said firm.

(iii) The case against the petitioner-P.V Amarnath Prasad (A6) is that he, fully knowing that the said properties did not belong to the said Sri Syed Yahya Zubeen Saleem and Miss. Nazeem Khanam, in connivance with accused 3-P.D.S.R.V Prasad, the Managing Partner of the said firm, and accused 1 to 3-the Officers of the Bank, falsely prepared the valuation reports valuing the said sites at Rs. 57.4 lakhs and thereby committed, along with other accused, all the said offences as against the Bank.

6. I have heard the arguments of Sri P.S Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Harnahalli, who initially represented and respondent-CBI and also Sri D.G Hegde, who succeeded Sri Ashok Harnahalli representing the CBI. I have perused the averments in the petition, the contents of the documents annexed thereto, the statement of objections filed by the respondent-CBI and also the contents of FIR, charge-sheet, the statements of charge-sheet Witnesses, and all the relevant documents.

7. At the outset, referring to the provisions of Section 19(3)(c) of P.C Act, Sri D.G Hegde, learned Counsel for the respondent-CBI strongly contended that the present revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Cri. P.C challenging the impugned order for framing of charge against the petitioner along with other accused for the said offences itself is not maintainable inasmuch as, the impugned order being an interlocutory order, there is a clear bar under the said provision of P.C Act for entertaining such a revision petition.

8. Per contra, Sri P.S Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, strongly contended that Section 19(3)(c) bars the revision against only an interlocutory order and the impugned order for framing of charge cannot be termed as interlocutory order, and therefore, the present revision petition cannot be held to be not maintainable.

9. Section 19 of the P.C Act provides for previous sanction for prosecuting the public servants. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the said Act reads thus:

“(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).—

(a) xxx

(b) xxx

(c) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings”.

10. Thus, from the plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that the revisional powers under Section 397 of Cri. P.C are not to be exercised in relation to an interlocutory order only but not in relation to an order which is not interlocutory. Therefore, it is to be examined whether the impugned order can be termed as an ‘interlocutory order’ so as to bar the present revision under Section 19(3)(c) of the P.C Act.

11. In support of his above contention as to maintainability of this revision, Sri D.G Hegde, learned Counsel for the respondent-CBI has placed reliance on an unreported decision of Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 371 of 2008 and Criminal M.A No. 8085 of 2008 and other connected matters which came to be disposed of on 5-5-2009. On careful reading of the said decision, it could be seen that the accused who were prosecuted for various offences under IPC and also some offences under P.C Act, had questioned before the Trial Court, the correctness of the sanction order passed by the Competent Authority according sanction to prosecute the accused for the offences under P.C Act. The Trial Court negatived their contentions and passed order against them. Therefore, the accused filed revision petition under Section 397 of the Cri. P.C before the Delhi High Court. On those facts, the Delhi High Court held that the order passed by the Trial Court on the validity or otherwise of the sanction could not be questioned in a revision under Section 397 of the Cri. P.C by virtue of the bar under Section 19(3Xc) of P.C Act. Therefore, the facts in the said case cannot be compared with the facts in the present case and hence the said decision cannot be applied to the instant case.

12. As to the nature of the order for framing of the charge, there is a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C Shukla v. State Through C.B.I . AIR 1980 SC 962, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed at para No. 66 of its judgment as under:

“This Court has therefore taken the view in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185, that the expression “interlocutory order” has been used in Section 397(2) of the Code in a restricted sense, that it ‘denotes’ orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties and that any order which substantially affects the rights of the accused is not an interlocutory order. On that reasoning, an order for the framing of a charge against the accused in this case cannot be said to be an interlocutory order”.

13. Further, in its subsequent decision in the case of State represented by Inspector of Police v. Mrs. Renukadevi 1999 Cri. L.J 2955 Mad., the Hon'ble Madras High Court has observed at para Nos. 19, 21 and 22 as under:

“19. It cannot be debated that every order which is not final need not be an interlocutory order. There could be intermediate category of order also, which is not final. When an order, though an interim order, decides the issues on merits and determines the issues affecting the rights of the parties, it cannot be an interlocutory order. In other words, any order pending disposal of the case passed by the Trial Court as an interim arrangement, which does not decide the issue or right can certainly be called as an interlocutory order.

21. Any order which substantially affects or decides the right of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order, so as to bar a revision against that order. As indicated earlier, some orders may not be equated with the expression interlocutory order and the same may not be final order too. Merely because it is not a final order, it cannot be called as interlocutory order pure or simple. Some kinds of orders may fall in between the two. They are called as an intermediate order. In that case, the bar in Section 397(2) of the Cri. P.C is not attracted to such kind of intermediate order.

22. The “interlocutory orders” are not to be confused with the “intermediate orders” which though not final orders, are sometimes passed during the course of trial or enquiry. When such intermediate orders do not decide the dispute of the parties finally, it could decide some points of controversy regarding rights finally and then in respect of those orders, the bar put in Section 397 of the Cri. P.C does not get attracted”.

(emphasis supplied)

14. Following the above said two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent-CBI that the present revision petition challenging the impugned order for framing of charge against the petitioner-accused is not maintainable, cannot be accepted. Therefore, I hold that the present revision petition is maintainable.

15. Having held that the present revision petition is maintainable, I have now to consider “whether the allegations in the FIR, charge-sheet and other material produced on record by the prosecution disclose the commission of the offences alleged against this petitioner for framing charges against him for the said offences?”

16. It is not in dispute that the complaint (Annexure-C) filed by C.W 1-Sri S.V Raghavendra, Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank, does not disclose any allegation against the petitioner-accused constituting any of the offences for which he has been charge-sheeted. On careful reading of the averments in the said complaint, on the basis of which the FIR came to be issued against 5 accused named therein, it could be seen that it is not even remotely alleged that accused 1 to 4, therein the officers of the Bank, obtained false valuation report either from this petitioner or from any other approved valuer in respect of the properties in question, by conspiring with accused 5 therein, namely, P.D.S.R.V Prasad Raju, the Managing Director of the firm M/s. Venkatalakshmi Constructions. Therefore, the averments in the said complaint could not be the basis for framing charge against this petitioner (accused 6 in the charge-sheet) for any of the offences for which he is charge-sheeted.

17. Since the allegations in the said complaint (Annexure-C) do not disclose the commission of any of the offences by the petitioner, there remains the accusation made against him in the charge-sheet supported by material produced on record by the CBI along with the charge-sheet, to see whether there are grounds to presume that this petitioner has committed any of the offences for which he is charge-sheeted along with other six accused.

18. As could be seen from the allegations in the charge-sheet as stated supra, the accusation against the present petitioner (A6) is that he, being one of the approved valuers on the panel of the Bank, fully knowing that the said properties did not belong to Sri Syed Yahya Zubeen Saleem and Smt. Naseem Khanam, falsely prepared valuation reports valuing said sites at Rs. 57.04 lakhs in connivance with accused 3 namely, P.D.S.R.V Prasad Raju, the Managing Director of the said firm and accused 1 and 2, the officers of the Bank, and thereby committed the said offences against the Bank along with said six accused. In order to establish this accusation against this petitioner-accused, the CBI has placed reliance on the statements of C.Ws 17 to 20, valuation reports said to have been given to the bank by this petitioner-accused and also three other valuation reports given by one M. Rajarao and Company, the copies whereof are produced by the learned Counsel for respondent-CBI along with his statement of objections as Annexures-R1 to R3 to R6 and R8.

19. Sri P.S Rajagopal. learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-accused strongly contended that the valuation reports are said to have been given by the petitioner on dated 29-4-1998 and 2-6-1998, but the material on record discloses that A. Vasudevan, then Manager of the said Bank, had already inspected the sites in question and decided to sanction the said financial facilities to the said firm on 18-3-1998 itself and therefore, it could not be held that the Bank sanctioned said financial facility to the said firm based on the said valuation reports which are subsequent to 18-3-1998 and hence no charge could be framed against this petitioner-accused for any of the said offences. He further contended that the statements of C.Ws 17 to 20 do not disclose that this petitioner-accused conspired with any of the other accused either in falsely creating Sale Deeds and other relevant documents pertaining to the sites in question or in valuing the said sites. He also contended that C.Ws 17 to 20, the officers of the Bank, were subordinate to A. Vasudevan, the Chief Manager of the Bank and therefore, they did all the acts in compliance with the directions issued to them by the said Vasudevan who has not been sent up for trial on the ground that the Competent Authority did not accord sanction for prosecuting him. He further submitted that therefore, it cannot be said that this petitioner conspired with any of the officers of the Bank, including accused 1 to 3. He also submitted that admittedly accused 2-R. Raghupathy succeeded said A. Vasudevan (who is not sent up for trial) on 9-6-1998 and the said valuation reports are said to have been given by this petitioner on 19-4-1998 and 2-6-1998 and this being so, there could be no occasion for this petitioner to conspire with accused 2. While submitting so, Sri P.S Rajagopal, the learned Senior Counsel, requested this Court to allow this revision petition and thereby set aside the impugned order dated 24-12-2007 passed by the Trial Court for framing of the charges against this petitioner (A6) for the said offences.

20. Per contra, Sri Ashok Harnahalli, who was initially representing the respondent-CBI and also Sri D.G Hegde who succeeded him, strongly contended that the structures on the sites in question were erected much earlier to the said dates of valuation and this petitioner-accused has falsely submitted his valuation reports stating that the valuation pertains only to open sites and he submitted the said valuation reports without inspecting the said sites and without ascertaining from the relevant documents whether they actually belonged to said Sri Syed Yahya Zubeen Saleem and Smt. Naseema Khanam and they had valid title to the said sites and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no sufficient material produced on record by the CBI for framing charge against this petitioner-accused. They further contended that there is enough material to show that the 3rd site was acquired by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for BSNL and as such even persons said to have been owning the said sites had ceased to be the owners thereof, but the petitioner-accused, valued the said sites fully knowing that the persons, purported to be its owners, did not have title to the said property. They further contended that the valuation reports submitted by the petitioner-accused do not reveal the true facts inasmuch as, where there were structures it is stated in the said reports that there were no structures, therefore, it is quite clear that this petitioner submitted false valuation report to support the claim of the firm and hence, the Trial Court was quite justified in passing the impugned order for framing charges against him for the said offences along with all other six accused.

21. For framing charge against this petitioner (A6) for the offence of conspiracy, the prosecution has to show that the material placed on record by the CBI along with charge-sheet is sufficient to prima facie show that he prepared the said valuation reports or created any of the said sale deeds and other relevant documents falsely in connivance with accused 1 and 2-the Bank Officers or in connivance with accused 3 to 5 respectively the Managing Director and partners of the said firm or accused 7 pertaining to the said sites with intent to cause wrongful loss to the Bank and wrongful gain to the said firm.

22. On careful reading of the above statements of C.Ws 17 to 20-the bank officials, it could be seen that they have stated before the 10 during the investigation of the case as under:

(i) C.W 17-R.C. Pillai, Deputy General Manager:

(a) It was found that the credit facility sanctioned to M/s. Venkatalakshmi Constructions (of whom, A3 and A5 are partners) by Sadashivanagar Branch was irregular one and hence it required close monitoring of the Regional Office. Since the party was not repaying the amount it was decided to file suit in the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery. Before filing the suit, it was decided to verify the properties that were offered as collateral security by the party.

(b) Since the properties offered as collateral security could not be identified by the staff of Sadashivanagar Branch and since it was told that the property belonging to Sri Syed Yahya Zubeen Saleem and his wife was allotted to BSNL and the loans were also obtained by some other party by depositing the title deeds in favour of Punjab National Bank, Hyderabad, the parties were called to the Regional Office and asked to verify the details of the property offered by them as collateral security.

(c) It is the practice of the bank to inspect the securities including the immovable properties before release of the facilities to establish the credentials regarding securities. In respect of the immovable properties, the bank is having a separate format called ADV-84 to be submitted by the investigating officials with detailed remarks.

(ii) C.W 18-T.G. George, Chief Manager, Sadashivanagar Branch:

(a) Smt. Bharathi Pai, the previous Chief Manager of Sadashivanagar Branch, had asked the Zonal Office at Hyderabad for valuation of the properties mortgaged on behalf of M/s. Venkatalakshmi Constructions, from the approved valuer Sri P.V Amarnath Prasad vide Letter No. 185/2003.Gen/0434, dated 12-3-2003. In response thereto, the Branch received a letter dated 24-4-2003 from the Zonal Office stating that P.V Amarnath Prasad (petitioner herein) was handed over the copies of his earlier valuation reports with a request to submit fresh valuation reports, since he did not submit fresh valuation reports, they (Zonal Office) had taken back from him his previous valuation reports and handed over the same to another valuer who was in the panel. Vide above referred letter, the AGM, Zonal Office had forwarded the fresh valuation reports, issued by M. Rajarao and Company of Hyderabad, on the properties said to belonging to Sri Syed Yahya Zubeen Saleem and Mrs. Naseem Khanam as well as the property said to belonging to Sri N.B Krishna and others which were handed over to you as per your request.

(b) Sri P.V Amarnath Prasad submitted that he had never given the valuation report of the property belonging to M/s. Venkatalakshmi Constructions to the Syndicate Bank, but, the valuation report submitted by him during the year 1998 was to some other bank, and the bank officials and the party had shown him the land and accordingly he had done the valuation. He further submitted that the party had submitted the valuation report to the Syndicate Bank without his consent/knowledge.

(c) Though P.V Amarnath Prasad fully concurred with the view of M/s. Rajarao and Company's report but he never mentioned in writing. We do not have any evidence of giving instruction to P.V Amarnath Prasad for valuing the properties and we also observed from the ledger extract that no payment was made by the branch to Sri P.V Amarnath Prasad.

(iii) C.W 19-A.V. Ranganathan, Retired AGM of the Bank:

(a) I was working in N.S Road Branch, Hyderabad during the period from May 1992 to 1998. When I was so working there, I had received a letter from A. Vasudevan, the then Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank to inspect the site at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and to submit report. Sri Vasudevan had also asked to get legal opinion on the properties to be offered as security. Accordingly, I deputed Mr. Subramanian (C.W 20), Manager (Credit) to inspect the properties and to submit ADV-84. Sri Subramanian inspected the properties and submitted ADV-84 which I forwarded to the Sadashivanagar Branch vide letter dated 5-5-1998 through the party on his request.

(iv) C.W 20-V. Subramanian, Senior Manager of the Bank, Corporate Office, Gandhinagar, Bangalore:

(a) I was instructed by then Chief Manager, Sri A.V Ranganathan (C.W 19), to inspect the properties located at Road No. 14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and to submit report. Accordingly, I visited the site along with the representative of M/s. Venkatalakshmi Constructions and the approved valuer Sri P.V Amarnath Prasad who is in the Bank's panel. The property was identified by the representative of the firm. On visit to the site, I found an open plot at the address stated above. Subsequently, I submitted my report in the prescribed pro forma ADV-84 to then Chief Manager to forward it to Bangalore.

23. From the above statements of C.Ws 17 to 20, it is clear that C.W 19-Sri A.V Amarnath Prasad, who was working as Chief Manager of N.S Road Branch of the Bank at Hyderabad during the relevant period (1995-98), received the letter from A. Vasudevan (A1 in FIR who has not been sent up for trial), then Manager of the Bank, at Sadashivanagar Branch, to inspect the sites at Banjara Hills and to submit report. Therefore this C.W 19-A.V. Amarnath deputed C.W 20-Subramanian for inspecting the said sites. The statement of C.W 20-V. Subramanian reveals that as instructed by C.W 19-A.V. Ranganathan, he inspected the sites in question at Hyderabad along with petitioner-P.V Amarnath Prasad and at that time, it was found that the said properties were open plots and were situate at the address shown in the letter of C.W 19-A.V. Ranganathan and the said open plots were shown to him and also to the valuer by a person belonging to the said firm. The statement of C.W 20 further reveals that he submitted his report in the prescribed pro forma ADV-84 to Chief Manager i.e, C.W 19-A.V. Ranganathan for forwarding the same to Bangalore.

24. Thus, on perusal of the above statements of C.Ws 17 to 20 it could be seen that the sites in respect whereof the petitioner gave his valuation reports were shown to him and identified, by the representative of the said firm. It is pertinent to note that the statement of C.W 20-Subramanian does not reveal that the said representative of the firm was one of the accused 3 to 5. Therefore it is clear that, the statement of C.W 20 does not reveal that any of the accused 3 to 5 showed the petitioner in his presence the said properties as belonging to the said firm or as belonging to the said Syed Yahya Zubeen Saleem and Smt. Naseem Khanam. This being so, it could not be said that the petitioner conspired either with any of the accused 3 to 5, the partners of the said firm or with any of the accused persons 1 and 2, the officers of the Bank.

25. It is also pertinent to note that accused 2-Raghupathy was not on duty either at Sadashivanagar Branch, Bangalore or at N.S Road Branch at Hyderabad during the relevant period. Therefore, there could be no occasion for the petitioner to conspire with A2. Further, absolutely there is no material on record to show that this petitioner-accused had any kind of communication either with accused 1-K.N.G Rao, the Officer of the Bank or with any of the accused 3 to 5-the Managing Director and partners of the said firm. There is also no material produced on record to show that this petitioner-accused had any communication with accused 7 who is alleged to have brought some persons from Hyderabad to Bangalore as true owners of the properties in question and who is alleged to have created false documents pertaining to the said properties, in collusion with accused 3 to 5.

26. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the statements of C.W.s 17 to 20 do not disclose any of the ingredients of either the offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC or any of the other offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. Further, since the petitioner-accused is not a public servant, the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act is also made out against him.

27. Having arrived at the conclusion that the statements of CWs. 17 to 20 do not disclose any facts constituting any of the offences alleged against this petitioner-accused, I have to examine “whether the valuation reports at Annexures-R1 to R3 submitted by him to the Bank disclose any facts constituting any of the said offences?”

28. Annexures-R1 and R2 are the two valuation reports submitted to the Bank by the petitioner-accused. Since these documents are produced by the respondent-CBI, they have to be accepted, for the limited purpose, to see whether they make out any of the said offences against the petitioner-accused. These reports disclose that the two plots situate at Banjara Hills in Hyderabad City were valued by the petitioner-valuer at Rs. 28,70,000/- each as on 29-4-1998. They further disclose that each plot measured 410 sq. yards and it comprised of land and structure. It could also be seen from them that the value of structure thereon had been ignored. This being so, the contention of the learned Counsel for respondent-CBI that the said sites were not open sites and structures were erected thereon, and that the petitioner-accused issued valuation reports valuing the said properties as if they were only open sites without showing therein the existence of the structures, cannot be accepted.

29. Annexures-R6 and R7 are the two valuation reports given to the Bank by M. Raja Rao and Company at the request of the Bank. These two documents are also relied upon by the CBI. It is not in dispute that these two reports pertain to the very same properties (plots at Banjara Hills in Hyderabad City), in respect whereof, Annexures-R1 and R2 were given by this petitioner-accused. Annexures-R6 and R7 reports disclose that the said properties were valued by the said M. Raja Rao and Company, as on 21-4-2003, at the request of the Bank and they were valued at Rs. 32,80,000/- each. It is mentioned in the said reports (Annexures-R6 and R7) that the said properties could be ultimately identified by the latter valuer with the help of the boundaries mentioned in the earlier valuation reports. Thus, it is clear from these Annexures-R6 and R7 that there were no discrepancies as to the description of the said properties and they were not valued by the petitioner at any exorbitantly high rate so as to facilitate the said firm to borrow heavy amount from the Bank by furnishing the said plots as collateral security. Besides this, it is not the case of the respondent-CBI that the petitioner valued the said plots at exorbitantly high rate. On the other hand, it is its case against him that he valued the said properties without properly ascertaining that the said Syed Yahya Zubeen Saleem and Mrs. Naseem Khanam had valid title to the said reports.

30. Annexure-R3 is the third valuation report given by the petitioner-accused in respect of the third property said to belonging to five persons namely N.B Krishna, Dr. R.N.K Bhargava, D.C Venkata Subhanna, Smt. P. Shivamma and Dr. C.N Sunanda. As per the said report, the said property was valued at Rs. 1,64,74,500/-. The area of the said property is shown as 1,569 sq. yards. It is described as commercial land.

31. Annexure-R8 is the valuation report given by the said M. Raja Rao and Company in respect of the very same property in respect whereof Annexure-R3 was given by the petitioner. On perusal of Annexure-R8 report it could be seen that the property thereunder is valued by the said M. Raja Rao and Company as on 21-4-2003 i.e, about five years after this petitioner valued the said property as per Annexure-R3. The area of the said property is shown in the latter report as 1,569 sq. yards which tallies with the area shown by the petitioner in his report Annexure-R3. The said property has been valued by the latter valuer at Rs. 1,56,90,000/-. It is mentioned in Annexure-R8 that the said value was in respect of the plot comprising of open site and some structures thereof. It is mentioned in the latter report that the said property was a level plot measuring 1,569 sq. yards with red soil. Thus, it is clear from these two reports i.e, Annexures-R3 and R8, that there are no discrepancies as to the description of the property in the said reports and there is no considerable variation in the valuation made by this petitioner and the said M. Raja Rao and Company. Therefore, it is quite clear that the petitioner did not value the said property at any exorbitant rate.

32. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent-CBI that the petitioner-accused did not property identify the property and has incorrectly and falsely shown the properties in his reports as open land, despite there being structures on the said properties, cannot be accepted.

33. It is the strong contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent-CBI that the petitioner, being approved valuer of the Bank, ought to have verified the title of the purported owners of the said sites with reference to the title deeds and other relevant documents, but he failed to do so and therefore, it has to be inferred that he conspired with the Bank Officers, who are accused 1 and 2 and the partners of the said firm who are accused 3 to 5 and also accused 7, who created false documents of title pertaining to the said properties.

34. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner, being the valuer, not a legal expert, he could not be expected to verify the legality or otherwise of the title to the said properties nor could he be expected to identify the true owners thereof.

35. The averment in the complaint (Annexure-C) filed by C.W 1-S.V. Raghavendran, the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Syndicate Bank, discloses (at para 2 on page 2) that A. Vasudevan, then Chief Manager, Sadhashivanagar Branch, had already decided to accommodate the party and therefore he (A. Vasudevan) had sent a letter dated 18-3-1998 through the party to C.W 19-Sri A.V Ranganathan, the Ex. Chief Manager of N.S Road Branch, Hyderabad requiring him to inspect the said property and submit a report in ADV-84. This averment itself goes to show that the said A. Vasudevan, who was initially arrayed as accused 1 in the FIR and later came to be deleted for want of sanction, had already verified the documents pertaining to the properties and had decided to sanction financial facilities to the said firm and accordingly C.W 19-A.V. Ranganathan, the AGM of Hyderabad Zonal Office, directed C.W 20-Subramanyam, to inspect the said sites and submit the report in ADV-84 and the said Subramanyam inspected the said sites and submitted his report in ADV-84.

36. Thus, it is crystal clear from the very allegations in the complaint dated 19-11-2002 (Annexure-C) filed by the complainant-S.V Raghavendran (C.W 1) on the basis of which FIR No. RC. 09 (A)/2003-BLR came to be issued against the said A. Vasudevan (as A1) and other four accused for the said offences and also from the material collected by the CBI during investigation that it was the said A. Vasudevan who played vital role in sanctioning the said secured over draft for Rs. 25 lakhs and a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 15 lakhs to the said firm by accepting the said properties on collateral security. It is very unfortunate that though the said A. Vasudevan was named in the FIR as the main accused and though the CBI collected evidence against him for the said offences and proposed to send him for trail, the Competent Authority of the Bank, successfully protected him from being prosecuted, by refusing to accord the required sanction to the CBI, to prosecute him for the said offences along with other accused. No wonder, if the prosecution in the said case ends in acquittal of all the accused therein by reason of the said A. Vasudevan being not sent up for trial resulting in loss of considerable amount of public money belonging to the depositors of the said bank.

37. The above being so, even if there were any defects in the title deeds pertaining to the said properties, this petitioner, whose responsibility was only to inspect the properties, measure the same and submit his report as to the fair market value thereof, could not be held responsible for any defect in the title to the said properties.

38. The legality or otherwise of the title to the said properties was to be examined by the Advocate who furnished his legal opinion. In fact, as the records of the case disclose, the Bank obtained legal opinion from its Advocate namely D. Gopalakrishna and it acted upon the said opinion in giving financial facility to the said firm. If any defects were therein the title to the said properties, it is only the said Advocate who could be held responsible for the same, but not this petitioner who was only a valuer and whose duty was only to inspect the properties and submit his report as to the true and correct market value thereof. Since the valuation given by this petitioner in the year 1998 and the valuation given by the said M. Raja Rao and Company in the year 2003, do not show that the said properties were valued exorbitantly at high rate by the petitioner with intent to cause wrongful gain to the said firm and wrongful loss to the Bank.

39. Therefore, it could not be said that this petitioner, in any way conspired either with any of the accused 1 and 2-the Bank Officers or with any of accused 3 to 5, respectively being the Managing Director and partners of the said firm, or with accused 7 who is alleged to have colluded with accused 1 to 5 in falsely creating the sale deeds and other relevant documents pertaining to the said properties.

40. It is the settled law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshub Mahindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, that as provided under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ‘upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, if the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused’. Further, as provided under Section 228 of Cri. P.C ‘if after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, he shall frame charge against the accused for the said offence and proceed with the trial’. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision (at para 9) as under:

“9. Section 227 of the Cri. P.C lays down that, ‘if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing’. On the other hand as enjoined by Section 228, ‘if after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then subject to the procedure laid down by clauses (a) and (b) of the said Section the charge shall be framed in writing against the accused”’.

(emphasis supplied)

41. Further, it is also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Advocate v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja as under:

“It seems well-settled that at the Sections 227 and 228 stage i.e, stage of framing the charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their fact value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution stages as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case”.

42. Following the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decisions, I am of the considered opinion that even if the entire material placed on record by the respondent-CBI before the Trial Court in the said case, as discussed by me supra, is taken at its face value, the same is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that there is any ground for presuming that this petitioner-accused has committed either the offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC or any of the other offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC as alleged in the charge-sheet. Further, since this petitioner who is accused 6 in the charge-sheet, is not a public servant, no charge could be framed against him for any of the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This being so, I am of the further opinion that the Trial Court committed serious error in holding that there are grounds to presume that this petitioner-accused committed the said offences and therefore charge shall have to be framed against him for the same. Consequently, the charge framed against this petitioner-accused for the said offences has to be set aside.

43. For the aforesaid reasons, the present revision petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 24-12-2007 passed in Special Case No. 117 of 2005 on the file of the learned XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (CCH-4), for framing of charges against this petitioner who is accused 6 therein is hereby set aside. The petitioner-accused is hereby discharged of all the said offences for which he is charge-sheeted.

44. A copy of the operative portion of this order shall be sent forthwith to the Trial Court for information and compliance.