Ramnath PradeepversusState of Maharashtra

                                                                               1-REVN-616-2023.doc

                   Tikam

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 616 OF 2024

                       Ramnath Pradeep                               ...Applicant/s
                       VERSUS
VAISHALI               State of Maharashtra & Anr.                   ...Respondent/s
ANIL
TIKAM                  _________________________________________________________________
                       Ms. Shikha S. Bhura (thr. VC), Advocate for the Applicant.
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI            Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, SPP a/w. Digvijay S. Kachare a/w. Saili Dhuru a/w.
ANIL TIKAM
Date:                  Anay Joshi a/w. Sumitkumar Nimbalkar a/w. Yukta Sawant a/w. Sanika
2026.10.08
11:18:37 +0530         Joshi for Respondent No.2
                       Mr. S.M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State.
                       _________________________________________________________________

                                                           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.

                       2.         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 the matter to this Court for fresh hearing, as the chargesheet

                       had not been filed while passing said order.

                       3.         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 (for short, “CFB”), Central Bank of India (for short,


                                                       Page 1 of 9
                                                             1-REVN-616-2023.doc

Tikam

    “Bank”), Mumbai 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 (for short,

    “IPC”) 1860 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the

    Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 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 the 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 of 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. M/s BIL through its representatives, got



                                     Page 2 of 9
                                                               1-REVN-616-2023.doc

Tikam

    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.

    4.         It is alleged that the Applicant was working as the Executive

    Director at Priority Sector Department of the Bank, Mumbai at the relevant

    time. On 03/07/2009, the representatives of M/s BIL met the Applicant

    and requested for a short-term loan of Rs. 100 crores to finance farmers

    against their receivables on an unsigned plain paper. Further on

    04/07/2009, the Applicant advised the Priority Sector Department to

    contact M/s BIL. On 08/07/2009, he instructed the department to expedite

    the proposal     to catch the Management Committee meeting dt.

    11/07/2009, while extending the due date of Packing Credit availed from

    270 days to 360 days, despite the knowledge that the company was under

    acute financial stress, he signed multiple executive briefs.

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

    Applicant was an Executive Director, his endorsement on the internal note

    and his participation in the Management Committee even if accepted,

    establish official participation in an institutional banking process; they do

    not, by themselves, establish a criminal agreement or dishonest intention.

    It is submitted that the Applicant had no role in sanctioning or disbursing

    the loan. The loan proposal was processed through a well-defined, multi-



                                      Page 3 of 9
                                                             1-REVN-616-2023.doc

Tikam

    layered institutional mechanism, involving several independent stages of

    scrutiny, recommendation and approval. The Applicant was not the

    sanctioning authority acting individually. The proposal travelled through

    the Bank’s prescribed departmental and credit channels and was ultimately

    considered by the Management Committee. The Applicant was only one

    member of that institutional decision-making body. The ld. Counsel further

    submitted that the record, as relied upon by the prosecution itself, does not

    permit the sanction of Rs. 50 crores to be characterized as the Applicant’s

    individual act. The involvement of CMD, other Executive Directors and

    independent/RBI/Government nominees is material to the inference drawn

    against the Applicant. Sanction of the loan followed a structural hierarchy

    culminating in the Management Committee of the Board of Directors,

    which was the highest decision-making authority. The Applicant's role was

    limited to forwarding the proposal. Merely forwarding the proposal cannot

    be construed as participation in decision making process or endorsement of

    the contents of the proposal. The CMD stated that the Rs.100 crores

    proposal was reduced to Rs.50 crores and that proposal was introduced in

    the context of post-harvest finance to farmers and Priority Sector Lending.

    The statement of Prof. N. Balakrishnan records the composition of the

    Committee and the collective consideration of the proposal.         The ld.

    Counsel further submitted that there is a conspicuous absence of material



                                     Page 4 of 9
                                                               1-REVN-616-2023.doc

Tikam

    connecting the Applicant with the subsequent acts constituting the alleged

    fraud. The chargesheet does not attribute to the Applicant’s involvement in

    preparation or fabrication of the farmers’ documents, use of forged

    documents as genuine, instruction for fabrication, routing of the

    disbursements through the ten authorized persons, receipt of the alleged

    diverted funds, or any personal/pecuniary benefit. The subsequent acts

    relied upon by the prosecution are attributed to other accused persons.

    They cannot, without material showing prior knowledge and agreement,

    retroactively establish conspiracy on the part of the Applicant. The ld.

    Counsel further submitted that the same distinction is material to the

    allegations under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of IPC and to the allegation

    of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The mere

    fact that an officer’s participation in an institutional process does not

    supply the missing ingredients of forgery or abuse of official position. In

    these circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the chargesheet may

    disclose that the Applicant dealt with the proposal in his official capacity; it

    does not disclose the essential connecting material necessary to transform

    such official involvement into criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery or

    criminal misconduct. But these facts have not been considered by the

    Learned Special Judge and has framed charges, which is erroneous and

    requested to allow the Application.



                                      Page 5 of 9
                                                             1-REVN-616-2023.doc

Tikam

    Ld. Counsel for the Applicant relied on:

         1. State of M.P v. Sheetla Sahai & ors 2009 INSC 997

         2. State through DSP v. R. Soundirarasu Etc. 2022 INSC 915

         3. Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & anr 1978 INSC 223

    6.          It is contention of learned SPP that the letter dated 06/07/2009

    was sent by the Applicant to the CFB for processing the loan proposal. The

    Applicant facilitated taking the loan proposal out of the ordinary channel

    and routed it through the CFB. The Applicant directed Accused no.14 Shri

    P.C Srivastava to engage with the borrower company and process the

    proposal. Several material changes were made in the said proposal, which

    were favorable to the borrower and diluted the safeguards contained in the

    first proposal. Moreover, he issued instructions to expedite the proposal to

    meet the Management Committee meeting dated 11/07/2009. Learned

    SPP further submitted that the Applicant was not just the Executive

    Director, Priority Sector Department but was also a Member of Loan

    Advisory Committee and he recommended the second executive brief

    without raising a single objection despite the fact that the proposal was not

    in accordance with the RBI Policy and the Bank's prudential norms and

    posed a higher risk to the bank. Learned SPP further submitted that the

    Applicant did not merely sign the documents but knowingly recommended

    the altered proposal despite the irregularities appearing on the face of it



                                     Page 6 of 9
                                                              1-REVN-616-2023.doc

Tikam

    i.e. the KYC norms of the farmers outsourced to the M&C Agent, which was

    contrary to the RBI norms and also violated Clause 5.2 of the Bank's loan

    policy. Learned SPP further submitted that the RBI policy did not permit

    classification of the loan as an agricultural finance loan to a middleman for

    onwards lending to farmers. Learned SPP further submitted that financial

    position of M/s BIL was not disclosed in second executive brief. Though the

    details of financial condition of the said company were available in the first

    executive brief dated 08/07/2009, it was not shown in the second

    executive brief dated 18/07/2009. Despite the financial weakness of the

    borrower being apparent, Applicant recommended the second proposal.

    The Applicant approved a loan mechanism where funds were routed

    through intermediary accounts, enabling diversion of funds. 1597 bogus

    loan accounts in the name of fictitious farmers were opened, causing a

    wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 56.25 crore to Central Bank of India. He

    further submitted that charges are rightly framed against the Applicant and

    requested to reject the application.

    7.         I have heard both learned counsels.          Perused documents

    produced on record. Admittedly, at the relevant time, Applicant was the

    Executive Director - Priority Sector Department. He was a member of the

    Management Committee of the bank. It appears from the record that he

    played a central and influential role in the sanction and disbursement of



                                     Page 7 of 9
                                                            1-REVN-616-2023.doc

Tikam

    Rs. 50 crores loan to M/s BIL. He entertained an unsigned loan application

    seeking Rs. 100 crores for financing farmers and initiated action towards it

    despite procedural irregularities. It is alleged that he directed co-accused

    P.C Srivastava to engage with borrower company and process the proposal.

    He issued instructions to expedite the proposal to catch the Management

    Committee meeting dt. 11/07/2009. It is alleged that he pushed for

    processing a completely new loan structure which had not been previously

    sanctioned by the bank. He approached extension of packing credit despite

    being aware of the poor financial condition and repeated defaults of the

    borrower. The Applicant ignored red flags such as the company’s liquidity

    issues and prior classification concerns and failed to assess whether the

    company had the capacity to repay an additional Rs. 50 crores loan. It

    appears from the record that the Applicant, as a senior decision-maker,

    recommended and approved the proposal despite major violations. The

    KYC norms were violated by outsourcing borrower verification to M&C

    agent. The loan was misclassified as Priority Sector lending through a

    middleman. The disbursement of loan was routed through company-

    controlled accounts instead of farmers. Loan applications from actual

    borrowers (farmers) were absent. It is alleged that the Applicant

    pressurized bank officials to expedite account opening and disbursement.

    He ensured rapid disbursement of Rs. 50 crores, including opening 1597



                                    Page 8 of 9
                                                               1-REVN-616-2023.doc

Tikam

    bogus accounts within a very short time. He followed up continuously to

    ensure full disbursement before deadlines, indicating urgency beyond

    normal banking practice. It is alleged that he allowed a loan structure

    where the company benefitted both from bank funds and farmer supplies,

    while liability remained on farmers. It appears from record that the

    Applicant acted in concert with other accused persons and the borrower

    company, abusing his official position to facilitate sanction and

    disbursement of the loan in violation of norms, causing a wrongful loss of

    approximately Rs. 56.25 crores to Central Bank of India.

        The statement of witnesses Mr. Paul Mathew, Mr. R.B Gupta and Ms.

    Sulbha Pande indicate the involvement of the Applicant in the crime.

    Statement of witnesses and documents produced on record prima facie

    indicate involvement of the Applicant in the present crime. Hence, I pass

    following order:

                                      ORDER

    (i)         Criminal Revision Application is rejected.

    (ii)        All pending Applications are disposed of.

                                                   (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)




                                     Page 9 of 9