Bombay High Court Discharges Bank Official from Fraudulent Loan Sanctioning Case Due to Lack of Evidence.
09 January 2024
Evidence >> Criminal Law | Default or Fraud >> Debt Recovery
In Arvind Sethi v/s Union of India., the petitioner challenges the Special Court's order dated 27th September 2019, which rejected his discharge application in CBI Special Case No. 4 of 2018. The petitioner, Arvind Atma Sethi, was accused of being involved in a fraudulent loan sanctioning process, resulting in a loss to the Central Bank of India amounting to Rs. 17 Crores. He was accused of failing to observe lending norms and conducting due diligence when processing the loan, which involved overvalued collateral and misused funds.
The petitioner, who was the Assistant General Manager of the bank's Head Office at the time, argued that the loan was sanctioned at the Peddar Road branch, and he was only involved later in the process at the Head Office. The prosecution claimed that the petitioner’s failure to ensure proper procedures led to financial loss, but there was no evidence showing that he directly benefitted from or was involved in the conspiracy.
The court, upon reviewing the case, found that there was insufficient evidence to charge the petitioner with any crime, as there was no proof of his active involvement in the fraudulent actions or any collusion with other accused parties. The court ruled that the petitioner should be discharged from the proceedings, and the impugned order was quashed.