2022 (11) TMI 1578

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....redit facility sanctioned to A1 company by Bank of India, Banjara Hills branch where the petitioner was working as Chief Manager in the said Bank. 3. The facts of the case are not necessary since the ground raised by the petitioner is that the competent authority for grant of sanction declined to grant sanction for prosecution on 24.01.2015. However, the very same authority has granted sanction on 09.11.2016 on the very same material, on the basis of which sanction was refused earlier. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the sanctioning authority Sri Kul Bhushan Jain, who was the General Manger, NBG (South), Chennai has declined to grant sanction on 24.01.2015 by giving details running into ten pages. A chart was p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Similar view was taken in the judgment cited in the case of Mohd. Aleemuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2014(1) ALD (Cri.) 20(AP) and Ashok Shankarrao Chavan v. His Excellency Shri Ch. Vidyasagar Rao (Bombay) (DB). 6. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that there is nothing wrong with the order of the sanctioning authority granting sanction on 09.11.2016, though refused on 24.01.2015. He also submits that earlier, the competent authority thought it fit to prosecute them departmentally. However, a decision was taken subsequently to grant sanction to the CBI to be prosecuted before the Special Court, which cannot be found fault with. 7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment in the case of A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 9. Having gone through the sanction order, the sanctioning authority, who is the General Manager i.e., Sri Kul Bhushan Jain at the relevant time has commented at page 10 as follows: "The entire likely loss of Rs. 8.49 cr also cannot be attributed to her as only 2 disbursements, amounting to Rs. 2.56 cr, were made during her tenure. However, since she had made the initial disbursement without compliance of pre-disbursement terms this allegation can be partially attributed to her. Hence the above points do not indicate any 'Conspiracy' entered into by her, with STPL and others, for defrauding the Bank. Arrangement under Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of the PC Act entails adducing of some positive evidence regarding the mala fid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty has gone through the entire record thoroughly prior to 24.01.2015 and refused sanction as seen from the sanction order itself. What are the findings that the sanctioning authority-General Manager has found once again on 09.11.2016 to grant sanction, having declined it earlier are not at all stated. When the sanction granted is bereft of any reasons and granted stating that the records were gone through thoroughly once again would not suffice to grant sanction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 527, it is held as follows: "13. In our opinion, a change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for reviewing or reconsidering th....