Prima facie case at charge stage requires material showing direct complicity, not mere routine approval steps.
At the stage of framing charge, suspicion must be backed by material disclosing a prima facie case; a discharge is justified where the record does not show the accused's direct complicity in the alleged misconduct. The Court examined the charge sheet and supplementary material only to test whether they revealed involvement in the disputed credit-facility processing and found that the respondent's role was limited to routine internal approval steps, including signing a memorandum and attending a committee meeting. As no material showed participation in the alleged irregularities or any meeting with the private accused before sanction, mere speed in processing the proposal was insufficient, and discharge was upheld.
Issues: Whether the respondent's discharge was justified at the stage of consideration of charge on the basis of the material in the charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet.
Analysis: The material was examined only for the limited purpose of testing whether it disclosed complicity of the respondent. The record showed that the proposal for the credit facilities had been processed through the Bank's internal stages, including the Loan Advisory Committee and the Management Committee, and that the respondent's role was confined to signing the memorandum and participating in the Management Committee meeting. The sanction proposal had already been approved by senior Bank and there was no material showing any direct role of the respondent in the alleged irregularities relating to the SBLC or any meeting with the private accused before sanction. Mere speed in processing the proposal, without more, was held insufficient to create a sufficient basis for charge against the respondent.
Conclusion: The material did not disclose a prima facie case against the respondent and the discharge was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The prosecution against the respondent could not proceed on the basis of suspicion alone, as the material did not establish the necessary complicity for trial.
Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing of charge, suspicion must be supported by material showing a prima facie case against the accused; where the accused's role is limited to routine participation in an internal approval process and no material shows direct involvement in the alleged conspiracy or misconduct, discharge is warranted.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
