The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Yogendra Singh Jadon on 31 January, 2020

Supreme Court of India

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Yogendra Singh Jadon on 31 January, 2020

Author: Hemant Gupta

Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta

                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2020
           (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 172 OF 2017)

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                                    .....APPELLANT(S)


YOGENDRA SINGH JADON & ANR.                              .....RESPONDENT(S)



1. The State is aggrieved against an order passed by the High Court

of Madhya Pradesh on 2nd May, 2016 whereby the proceedings

against the respondents, both sons of late Manohar Singh Jadon,

for an offence under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,

18601 were quashed.

2. A charge sheet for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 409,

120B IPC and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 19882 was filed on 9th July, 2008 consequent to registration of

FIR No. 3 of 2007 on 23 rd June, 2007. The allegation was that

Manohar Singh Jadon, deceased father of the respondents in

connivance with other employees of District Cooperative Kendriya

Bank Maryadit, Shajapur3 committed financial irregularities on the
1 for short, ‘IPC’
2 for short, ‘Act’
3 for short, ‘Bank’

basis of forged documents by misusing his post and by providing

fake loan to the relatives. Manohar Singh Jadon was President of

the Bank from 5th February, 1997 to 26th March, 2002 and from 27 th

March, 2002 to 7th May, 2004. Harshvardhan Singh Jadon

(accused-respondent No. 2) is the proprietor of M/s. Harshvardhan

& Brothers whereas Yogendra Singh (accused-respondent No. 1) is

the proprietor of M/s. Sarohar Trading Company. Ghanshyam

Sharma, General Manager, Ramanlal Acharya, Manager, Ram Singh

Yadav, General Manager were also arrayed as accused. It was

alleged that accused Harshvardhan Singh Jadon submitted an

application on 2nd November, 2000 for grant of cash credit limit of

Rs.25 lakhs and that the cash credit limit was sanctioned without

following the due procedure. It was also alleged that mortgage

deed was not registered nor signature of original loanee was found

on the mortgage paper. It is also pointed out that an amount of

Rs.59,88,327/- was balance on 1st December, 2001 even after

depositing Rs.25 lakhs and that the President has done the renewal

of cash credit limit at his own level and its confirmation was got

done later on from the loan Sub-Committee, while the case was of

the son of the President alone. In respect of Yogendra Singh, again

the allegation is that cash credit limit of Rs.25 lakhs was

sanctioned on the basis of his application dated 30 th July, 2001

without completing any of the procedural requirements and

without mortgage of any of the property. Smt. Saroj Singh

mortgaged the land but without any valuation. The surety of

Ishwar Singh was taken. The same person mortgaged land as in

the case of Harshvardhan. Similar is the assertion in respect of

registration of mortgage. It was also alleged that a sum of

Rs.25,65,894/- is the balance as on 31st March, 2002 even after

withdrawal beyond the approved credit limit of Rs.25 lakhs.

3. The Special Judge passed an order of framing of charges against

Harshvardhan Singh Jadon and Yogendra Singh Jadon apart from

other accused on 24th February, 2014. Such order was challenged

by the respondents by way of a criminal revision.

4. The High Court in the Revision Petition found that the offences

under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC are not made out against the

respondents. The Court held that there is no assertion that the

cash credit facility obtained with a knowledge that they will not

repay the loan amount. The Court held as under:

“12. It may be that the Officers of the Bank, because of
the fact that father of the applicants was President of
the Bank, had acted in disregard of the relevant rules
and regulations in that behalf of confer benefit upon the
applicants, but that will give rise to liability against the
officers of the bank who failed to discharge their duties
in accordance with prescribed norms and regulations.
However, that may not be a ground to proceed against
a person who has been granted cash credit facility.

xx xx xx

14. In the instant case, the uncontroverted allegations
taken in their entirety do not prima facie establish that
the applicants deceived the Bank Authorities or
fraudulently or dishonestly induced them to sanction
cash credit facility. Thus, the basic ingredient to
constitute the offence of 420 of IPC is totally missing in
the chargesheet.”


5. We find that the High Court has examined the entire issue as to

whether the offence under Sections 420 and 120-B is made out or

not at pre trial stage. The respondents are beneficiary of the grant

of cash credit limit when their father was the President of the Bank.

The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be

proved in court of law. The manner in which loan was advanced

without any proper documents and the fact that the respondents

are beneficiary of benevolence of their father prima facie disclose

an offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. It may be stated

that other officials of the Bank have been charge sheeted for an

offence under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act. The charge

under Section 420 IPC is not an isolated offence but it has to be

read along with the offences under the Act to which the

respondents may be liable with the aid of Section 120-B of IPC.

6. Consequently, we find that the order of the High Court quashing

the charges against the respondents is not sustainable in law and

the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. It shall be open to

the respondents to take such other action as may be available to

them in accordance with law.






JANUARY 31, 2020.


Source link