Manoj Kumar Singh vs State

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the CBI. This petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, Ranchi in connection with R.C.-7A/2006(R) whereby and whereunder, prayer made by the petitioner to grant pardon u/s 306 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected.

It is the case of the prosecution that the then Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kishoreganj Branch, Ranchi filed written complaint on 14.06.2006 alleging therein that the accused, Amar Nath Prasad and Anil Kumar Sinha being Manager and Deputy Manager respectively of the Bank entered into a conspiracy with co-accused persons with dishonest and fraudulent intention, sanctioned and disbursed loan to them by ignoring the rules and guidelines of the Bank and also by abusing their official position and thereby, the Bank has been put to loss to the tune of Rs. 4,83,000/-. On such accusation, the case was registered.

During investigation, it came to light that Manoj Kumar Singh alias Appu, the petitioner, cousin of co-accused Kumar Digvijay Singh, came to Ranchi on assurance being given by Kumar Digvijay Singh that he will be getting a job in the Punjab National Bank in place of Kameshwar Prasad who has been absenting from duty for the last two months. The said Manoj Kumar Singh alias Appu dishonestly and fraudulently opened one current account bearing No. 652 at Punjab National Bank at Kishoreganj Branch, Ranchi at the instance of Digvijay Singh. The petitioner signed account opening form and put specimen signature impersonating himself as Kameshwar Prasad, proprietor of M/s. Pareek & Brothers and he also affixed passport size photograph on the said opening form and specimen signature card. The petitioner had been introduced by the co-accused Jogesh Narayan Singh as Kameshwar Prasad.

It transpired that under the instruction of Digvijay Singh, this petitioner submitted a loan application for cash credit limit of Rs. ten lacs in the name of M/s. Pareek & Brothers, in which one Tirath Mani Devi stood guarantor. The said loan application was processed by accused Anil Kumar Sinha and sanctioned by Amar Nath Verma.

It further transpired that Kameshwar Prasad is the real proprietor of M/s. Pareek & Brothers, who having left Ranchi, had gone back to his native Place at Aurangabad, Bihar.

On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted, upon which cognizance of the offences was taken. Subsequently, an application was filed u/s 306, Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner stating therein that since he has made full disclosure of all the facts, pardon be granted. Even the C.B.I. supported that application, but the application was rejected though according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the plea for granting a pardon taken by other co-accused, Nagendra Singh was accepted.

According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the plea taken by the petitioner was rejected by the court as it is said that the petitioner had not made full disclosure of the entire episode and this would be evident from the statement recorded u/s 164, Cr.P.C., but at the same time, the court accepted the plea of other accused of grant of pardon by stating that he had made full disclosure, but the fact is that both persons had made full disclosure, but the court accepted the plea of other accused and rejected the plea of this petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the documents including the statement made by the petitioner u/s 164, Cr.P.C. and taking into account the case of the complainant, I do also endorse the view of the court that full disclosure of the entire episode had not been made by this petitioner and thereby the court did not commit illegality in rejecting the plea of grant of pardon to this petitioner. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.