SATISH CHANDRA JHANWAR S/O LAXMINARAYAN JHANWARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH CBI/BS/FC/ MUMBAI

                                                                       1-REVN-187-2023 3(1).doc

               Tikam

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                            CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 187 OF 2023
VAISHALI
ANIL               Satish Chandra Jhanwar S/o Laxminarayan
TIKAM              Jhanwar                                                ...Applicant/s
                   VERSUS
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI        The State Of Maharashtra & Anr                         ...Respondent/s
ANIL TIKAM
Date: 2026.10.08
16:42:35 +0530     _________________________________________________________________
                   Mr. Karan Bhonsle a/w. Datta Mane a/w. Sanjali Bidwe a/w. Arif Qureshi
                   i/by Pradeep Havnur, Advocates for the Applicant.
                   Mr. S.M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
                   Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, SPP a/w. Digvijay S. Kachare a/w. Saili Dhuru a/w.
                   Anay Joshi a/w. Sumitkumar Nimbalkar a/w. Yukta Sawant a/w. Sanika
                   Joshi for Respondent No. 2- CBI.
                    _________________________________________________________________

                                                       CORAM      :   SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
                                                       DATE       :   28th SEPTEMBER 2026.
                   P.C. :

                   1.         The challenge in this application is to the framing of charges

                   against the Applicant by the Learned Special Judge, CBI, City Civil &

                   Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. Earlier, this Court (Coram: Justice Shri.

                   Sandeep Marne) had rejected the discharge application of the Applicant.

                   The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble

                   Apex Court remanded matter to this Court for fresh hearing, as the

                   chargesheet had not been filed while passing said order.

                   2.         It is prosecution's case that the present case came to be

                   registered on the basis of a written complaint filed by Shri A. W. Sathe,

                   Deputy General Manager, Corporate Finance Branch, Central Bank of

                                                   Page 1 of 6
                                                       1-REVN-187-2023 3(1).doc

Tikam

    India, Mumbai (for short, “CFB”) against M/s Biotor Industries Ltd. (for

    short, “M/s. BIL”), its directors, employees, agents and other unknown

    public servants under Sections 120-B, 420,467,468,471 of the Indian Penal

    Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)

    (d) the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “PC Act”). In the

    complaint, it had been alleged that M/s BIL was engaged in the business of

    manufacturing castor oil and other derivatives and, in furtherance of a

    conspiracy to cheat the Bank through its representatives, had approached

    Bank for sanction of a Sales Bill Financing Facility of Rs. 50 Crores, for

    financing the farmers who were supplying castor seeds (raw material) to

    M/s BIL. The said company, through its representatives, dishonestly

    represented to the Bank that the said finance was intended for the farmers

    who were supplying castor seeds (raw material) to said company and it

    would act as a Management and Collection Agent (M&C Agent) i.e. an

    intermediary between the Bank and the beneficiary farmers under the said

    loan facility and assist the Bank in ascertaining eligible farmers and then

    disburse the loan proceeds to such farmers. In furtherance of the said

    conspiracy, relying on the said representation and on executing M&C

    agreement, the Bank sanctioned the requested loan facility to M/s BIL and

    opened loan accounts in the names of 1597 fictitious farmers on the basis

    of forged and fabricated documents submitted by M/s BIL. In furtherance



                                    Page 2 of 6
                                                       1-REVN-187-2023 3(1).doc

Tikam

    of this conspiracy, M/s BIL through its representatives, got the loan

    disbursements in its own accounts and thereafter, in accounts of 10

    different persons. The said loan amounts were thereafter routed back to

    M/s BIL, and the proceeds did not reach the farmer beneficiaries. The

    Applicant (accused no 15) was working as Deputy General Manager at

    Priority Sector Department at the relevant time.    It is alleged that the

    Applicant was involved in processing and recommending the loan facility

    despite adverse financial position of M/s BIL and thereby acted in

    furtherance of the alleged conspiracy to cause wrongful loss of

    approximately Rs. 56.25 crores to the bank.

    3.        It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the

    Applicant was working as Deputy General Manager in the Priority Sector

    Department of the bank. The loan proposal had been processed before

    joining of the Applicant in the said Department. Learned counsel further

    submitted that the sanction of the loan was not an individual decision but

    was made through a structural hierarchy culminating in the Management

    Committee of the Board of Directors, which was the highest decision

    making authority and the Applicant was not part of the said authority. The

    Applicant had forwarded the loan proposal to General Manager and then

    General Manager forwarded the same to the Executive Director and

    thereafter, the Members of the Committee approved the loan.            The



                                   Page 3 of 6
                                                         1-REVN-187-2023 3(1).doc

Tikam

    allegations against the Applicant are that he made changes in the terms

    and conditions of the loan proposal, which were detrimental to the interest

    of the bank. Learned counsel further submitted that the said changes were

    approved by the higher authority. However, these facts are not considered

    by the Learned Special Judge and framed charges against the applicant,

    which is erroneous and requested to allow the revision application.

    4.         It is contention of learned SPP that the Applicant has played an

    instrumental role in processing and recommending the loan proposal of 50

    crore to the M/s. BIL despite being aware of its adverse financial condition.

    The Applicant instructed changes to the original Executive Brief dated

    08.07.2009, resulting in the amended brief dated 18.07.2009, whereby the

    proposal was converted into a Sales Bills Discounting facility, allegedly

    involving higher risk and dilution of KYC and other due diligence

    requirements. The learned SPP further submitted that the Applicant

    participated in preparing and signing the Executive Briefs dated

    20.07.2009, 22.07.2009 and 28.08.2009, which allegedly favoured the

    borrowing company rather than the intended beneficiaries. It was further

    submitted that, despite apparent deviations from RBI guidelines and the

    Bank's internal loan policy, the Applicant failed to raise any objection,

    thereby facilitating the processing and sanction of the loan. There was

    active involvement of present Applicant in the alleged crime as he was part



                                     Page 4 of 6
                                                         1-REVN-187-2023 3(1).doc

Tikam

    of conspiracy with the co-accused and caused huge loss to the Bank . The

    Applicant had made several changes in the loan proposal, which were

    harmful to the bank. He acted in conspiracy with            co-accused and

    contributed to expediting the loan approval. There are statements of

    witnesses, who indicates the role played by the Applicant. There is prima

    facie case against the Applicant. Learned Special Judge has rightly framed

    charges against the Applicant and requested to reject the application.

    5.         I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order and

    documents produced on record. The Applicant was working as a Deputy

    General Manager in the Priority Sector Department of the Central Bank of

    India at Mumbai. It appears that, prior to his joining, the loan proposal had

    already been submitted to higher authorities. After his joining, he acted as

    per the instructions of the higher authorities i.e. co-accused. The main

    allegations against the Applicant are that he has made changes in the loan

    proposal. It appears that the said proposal was thereafter, approved by the

    higher authority. It appears that the crucial role in the sanctioning of loan

    was played by the General Manager, the Executive Director and the

    Members of Committee. Considering the evidences produced on record, no

    case is made out against the Applicant. However, this fact has not been

    considered by the Learned Special Judge while framing charges . In view

    of above, I pass following order.



                                        Page 5 of 6
                                                        1-REVN-187-2023 3(1).doc

Tikam




                                     ORDER

        (i)   Revision Application is allowed.

        (ii) The charges framed against the Applicant in Special Case No.19

              of 2015 are set-aside. The applicant is discharged in Crime No.

              RC-BSM/2013/E003 for the offences punishable under sections

              120-B, 420,467,468 and 471 of IPC and under sections 13(2 )

              r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act.

         (iv) Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly.




                                                  (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)




                                    Page 6 of 6