Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Parimal Roy vs The State Of West Bengal on 17 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas
C.R.A. 128 of 2004
Parimal Roy
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal
For the Appellant : Ms. Monami Mukherjee,
Ld. Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. Bidyut Kumar Ray, Sr. Adv.
Hearing concluded on : 19.05.2025
Judgment On : 17.06.2025
Prasenjit Biswas, J:-
1.
The instant appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the impugned
judgement and order of conviction dated 27.11.2003 passed by the learned
Judge, 4th Special Court, Calcutta in connection with Special Case No. 2 of
1988.
2. By passing the impugned judgment this appellant is found guilty for
commission of offence punishable under Section 120B/420/465/471 of
2
the Indian Penal Code along with fine and sentenced him to suffer
imprisonment accordingly.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgement and
order of conviction passed by the Trial Court the present appeal is filed at
the behest of the appellant -convict.
4. In short campus story of the prosecution is delineated hereunder:-
“Shri K.C. Balasubrananium, the Branch Manager of Central
Bank of India, New Market Branch, Calcutta had entered into a
criminal conspiracy with Parimal Roy (the present appellant) of
village Udayarampur, P.O. Bishnupur, District- 24 Parganas (South)
and out of the said conspiracy the Branch Manager of the Bank had
sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs. 2,75,000/- and term loan of Rs.
1,00,000/- in favour of the firm of Parimal Roy under the name and
style as M/s. Packing India, 35, C.R. Avenue, Calcutta- 700 006
alleged to be a fictitious one. The amount of the above two loans
were released in favour of the accused Parimal Roy in an irregular
manner without adhering the rules of the bank and allowed the
accused Parimal Roy to withdraw the said amount to the tune of Rs.
3,75,000/-.”
5. Shri D.N. Biswas, Inspector of Police, C.B.I. lodged the FIR suo moto and
the case was registered being Crime No. 68 of 1986 dated 23.09.1986 for
the offence under Section 120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3
6. Thus, the criminal law was set in motion. The CBI Inspector took up the
case for investigation and in course of investigation he examined
witnesses, arrested the accused persons and seized some other documents
under the seizure list and thereafter, he has been transferred from
Calcutta to Delhi then one Pradip Christopher, Inspector
CBI/S.P.E./A.C.B./Calcutta took up the investigation and after conclusion
of investigation submitted charge-sheet against this appellant along with
other accused persons under Section 120B/420/467/468/471 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section (1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
7. Charge was framed against this appellant and other two accused persons
under Section 120B/420 read with Section 34/465/471 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947.
8. In this case, prosecution has examined 21 witnesses in order to bring
home the charge levelled against the accused persons.
9. Ms. Monami Mukherjee, learned Amicus Curiae said that the prosecution
has hopelessly failed to prove the case against this appellant beyond all
reasonable shadow of doubt. The learned Advocate further contended that
the entire investigation was done in a perfunctory manner and virtually
there is no evidence at all from any of PWs to the effect that this appellant
acted dishonestly in furtherance of the conspiracy to cheat the bank by
any illegal act. The Bank Manager, K.C. Balasubrananium (one of the
accused persons) after duly following banking procedure and rules granted
4
loans in favour of the M/s. Packing India. It is further said by the learned
Advocate that PW2 being the Deputy Chief Officer of Central Bank of India,
New Market Branch never stated that there was any irregularities in the
opening of the account in the name of M/s. Packing India. It is said by the
learned Advocate that the prosecution has failed to produce any cogent
evidence by which it can be said that the appellant has committed the
offence for which he was found guilty.
10. Ms. Mukherjee further assailed that the learned Trial Court failed to
assess the evidences brought in the record properly with due weightage on
the fact that the loan to the appellant was sanctioned in compliance with
the guidelines provided by the bank for sanctioning of loan to a borrower
and the bank sanctioned loan to the accused appellant within the
permissible discretionary powers of the Branch Manager of the bank. It is
further contended by the learned Advocate that the prosecution withheld
the material witnesses like Shri V.P. Krishnan, the then Regional Manager
of the Bank, Mr. Swaraj Dastidar who introduced the account opening of
M/s. Packing India, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mukherjee and Shri K.C.
Chakraborty who verified the signature of the appellant and many others
who could have thrown sufficient light to bring out truth and thereby there
is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. It is further said by the
learned Advocate that none of the prosecution witnesses have ever
supported the prosecution story to the effect that the appellant has acted
dishonestly and fraudulently while opening the loan account and
withdrawing the amount from the account. As per submission of the
5
learned Advocate the findings of the learned Trial Court are based upon
conjecture and surmises and not warranted by the materials on record
and as such, on the basis of the evidences on record the prosecution has
not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant to the hilt and/or beyond
all reasonable doubt. So, it is submitted by the learned Advocate that the
impugned judgement and order may be set aside outright.
11. Per contra, Bidyut Kumar Ray, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the State said that there is no infirmity and irregularity in the impugned
judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. The
attention of this Court is drawn by the learned Advocate to the findings of
the learned Trial Court. It is said by the learned Advocate that all the
witnesses have stated in one voice that the documents produced by this
appellant and the other accused were false and the accused no. 1 has
acted illegally and on relying upon all these forged and fictitious papers
and documents sanctioned loan in favour of M/s. Packing India, proprietor
of which is the accused no.2, Parimal Roy. It is said by the learned
Advocate that after getting proper sanction order the accused no. 1 was
prosecuted. The attention of this Court is drawn by the learned Advocate
to the relevant portions of the page nos. 80, 100, 101 and 103 of the paper
book. The attention of this Court is also drawn to the relevant portions of
the deposition of PW1, PW2 and PW11. It is said by the learned Advocate
for the State as there is no irregularity in the impugned judgment and
order of conviction, then there is nothing to interfere with it and the
impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial
6
Court may be affirmed and the appeal filed by the appellant may be
dismissed.
12. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by both the parties. I
have also consulted the entire materials gathered in the record.
13. PW1, Lokesh Narayan Chattopadhyay, the Deputy Chief Officer, Central
Bank of India, South Calcutta in his evidence has stated that the
procedure for obtaining term loan by the intending borrower. It is said by
this witness that at first the application duly filled in and signed by the
borrower should be submitted at the branch and after receiving the said
application the processing starts. A credit status report is thereafter
obtained and pre-inspection of the unit or the establishment is to be done
and all the information mentioned in the application is to be verified. The
financial status of the intending borrower is also to be verified and
thereafter, quotations for purchase of the machinery for which the term
loan has been applied for is called from the borrower. It is further said by
this PW2 that thereafter the feasibility of the project is to be considered
and if necessary the branch may seek technical assistance from the
regional office and after being satisfied about all these the loan is
sanctioned directly adhering to the terms and conditions. The party will be
required to sign on the sanctioned order as a token of acceptance of the
terms and thereafter the bank will pay the price of the machinery and
margin money to be debited of the loan account and the amount will be
paid to the supplier directly. Thereafter, an inspection will be made for
7
installation of machineries and insurance coverage will also be taken
covering several of risk of accidents etc.
14. In cross-examination, this witness stated that in respect of A/C No. 11704
of New Market Branch, Central Bank of India standing in the name of
M/s. Packing India, they found some anomalies and pointed out the
anomalies by writing a letter to the Branch Manager but this witness had
no document to show or he could not produce any document that such a
letter was written by him addressing to the Branch Manager. In cross-
examination, this witness further said that he informed to his superior
officer, the Regional Manager about the anomalies by sending him a note
but this witness could not say whether his note has been produced in
Court or not. At the time of giving deposition this witness said that
according to category of the branch, the Branch Manager had got their
discretionary powers to sanction the proposal of advances at their end and
the bank issues the circulars intimating the discretionary power of the
respective Branch Manager according to categories. It is categorically said
by this witness that when the branch is headed by Class-III Officer, two
Class-II officers designated as Assistant Branch Manager and there will be
no post of accountant in that case. This PW1 further said that according to
the circulars the discretionary power of the Branch Manager, Large Scale
Branch as under-
Small Scale Industries.
Total under Group I, - Rs. 5,00,000/-
Total under Group II - Rs. 1,00,000/-
8
Total under Group III - Rs. 1,00,000/-
Aggregate commitments - Rs. 5,00,000/-
This witness stated that the entire procedure is to be complied with before
getting loan from the concerned branch of the Bank. The borrower in this
case is S.S.I. Unit. This witness said that Exhibit 2 is the sanction
proposal of party M/s. Packing India of New Market Branch.
15. PW2, Amit Kumar Ghosh, Deputy Chief Officer, Central Bank of India,
New Market Branch, in his evidence has stated that the financial reports
are in favour of M/s. Packing India and Shri Uthan Pada Mondal. It is said
by this witness that before sanctioning of loan some formalities are to be
performed and first of all the amount asked for must be within the
financial limit of the Branch Manager and secondly a proposal is called for
and after examination of the proposal if it is found acceptable then the
loan may be sanctioned. It is said by this witness that according to the
normal practice the financial reports in cases of loan are prepared by the
chief cashier. In this case, loan amount to the tune of Rs. 3,75,000/- was
sanctioned by the Branch Manager of the bank (the another accused)
which well within the financial limit of the Branch Manager. In course of
deposition this PW2 proved the specimen signatures cards of M/s. Packing
India and said that the signatures were verified by two officers of the bank
namely, Shri Sunil Kumar Mukherjee and K.C. Chakraborty. This PW2
further said that a Xerox copy of the S.S.I. certificate was submitted before
the bank and the original was retained at the unit and he identified the
Trade Licence of M/s Packing India of 35, C.R. Avenue and the number of
9
the Trade Licence is 10150 dated 12.06.1988. It is said by the witness that
although the date was written as 1988 but it should be 1985. This witness
(PW2) in his evidence stated the name of the guarantor is Uthan Pada
Mondal. This witness also proved the letter of guarantee of Uthan Pada
Mondal. It is said by this witness that the guarantor letter and other
connected papers are accepted and verified by the Branch Manager.
16. This PW2 in his evidence further stated that the Sanction Register bears
the signature of the accused K.C. Balasubrananium as well as the
accountant Mr. S.C. Brahma and it was prepared in duplicate. It is said by
this witness that the original copy was sent to the Regional Office and the
duplicate was kept in the Bank. This witness identified the statement of
account of Cash Credit of M/s. Packing India and signature of the
accountant Mr. S.K. Saha.
17. This PW2 identified a letter (marked Exhibit 18) written by this appellant
addressing to the Manager of the Central Bank of India. It is said by this
witness that the portion in red ink on the letter (Exhibit 18) is an
instruction written by another accused K.C. Balasubrananium, the then
Bank Manager and it bears his signature which is marked as exhibit 18/1.
It is said by this witness that the proforma invoice was attached with the
letter and it bears the signature of Parimal Roy which is marked as exhibit
18/2 in the case. In course of deposition it is said by this witness that in
the cash credit account and excess sanctioned over the limit to the party
has been allowed but this witness did not mention the excess amount or
details of anomaly. In cross-examination, this PW2 stated that the loan
10
sanctioning power of the Branch Manager depends upon the scale of the
Branch Manager and the activity of the parties and the year 1985, the loan
sanctioning limit of the Branch Manager of New Market Branch was Rs.
5,00,000/- and as a Deputy Chief Officer of the bank, this witness had no
authority to interfere with the function of the Branch Manager. So, as per
submission of PW2 the loan sanctioning limit of that branch at the
relevant point of time was Rs. 5,00,000/- and the two loans which were
issued in favour of the appellant to the extent of Rs. 3,75,000/- was well
within the limit of the Branch Manager of the Bank. This PW2 in his
evidence has stated that at the relevant time the New Market Branch was
the Chief Officer Category Branch and M/s. Packing India, the borrower in
question was a S.S.I. a unit and according to the circular a Branch
Manager under the Chief Officer Category Branch enjoyed the
discretionary power in sanctioning loan to the limit of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is
said by this witness that until or unless the bank executes the necessary
documents the loan is not sanctioned and for enjoyment of the advance on
hypothecation basis, the borrower has to execute the demand promissory
notes also in addition to other documents. It is said by this witness that
without proper identification nobody is allowed to open an account in the
bank. After scrutinizing the evidence of PW2 who was the Deputy Chief
Officer of the Central Bank of India it appears that all procedures has been
complied before sanctioning loan amount to this appellant.
18. PW11, Virendra Digambar Kulkarni, the General Manager, Personnel
Department, Central Bank of India at Bombay has stated in his evidence
11
that he signed on the sanction order to prosecute the accused K.C.
Balasubrananium. Virtually, this witness stated nothing in his
examination-in-chief against this appellant save and except proving the
sanction order. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he did not
recollect the nature of irregularities which he found against the other
accused K.C. Balasubrananium and he failed to throw any light regarding
involvement of this appellant in this case.
19. PW18, Dhirendra Nath Biswas, complainant/I.O. of this case stated in
cross-examination that he started the investigation on 23.09.1986 and
before registration of the case he did not make any enquiry as to the
source information and in reply to the question put to him that whether
before investigation he made any enquiry about the genuiness of
complaint and or information and in reply to that he answered in negative
which is contrary to the contentions of the written complaint. In the
written complaint this witness stated that he received reliable information
regarding the alleged offence committed by this appellant and the other
accused persons.
20. PW19, Hiranmoy Nath, General Manager, District Industries Centre, South
24 Parganas who in his cross-examination stated that their office issued
the certificate after verification of documents filed by this appellant. The
appellant provided all the relevant necessary documents to register M/s.
Packing India as S.S.I. Unit. In cross examination this PW18 has stated
that his office issued the certificate after verification of documents by this
appellant.
12
21. PW21, Pradip Christopher, Inspector of Police, A.C.B., C.B.I. who is the
second I.O. of the case and submitted charge-sheet in cross-examination
failed to say whether he examined any witness or seized any documents in
connection with the case.
22. PW12, Uthan Pada Mondal and PW13 Luci Homes were tendered by the
prosecution for cross examination.
23. PW14 Ranjit Kumar Roy in his evidence stated that C.B.I. Officer obtained
his specimen signatures in a blank white sheet.
24. PW15 Kalyan Kumar Mukherjee stated nothing involving this appellant
with the case.
25. PW17 Kanai Lal Parui, clerk in the Pailan Branch of United Bank of India
failed to state anything in connection with this case.
26. Other witnesses cited by the prosecution did not state anything material
regarding involvement of this appellant with the alleged offence. I have
already stated hereinabove that PW1 stated that the entire procedure by
which a Bank Manager can disburse the loan to the intending borrower
after following the rules and regulations of the bank. As per statement of
PW2, the Deputy Chief Officer of the Central Bank of India, New Market
Branch that this appellant submitted standard application duly filled in
and signed by him annexing with all the relevant documents and after
being satisfied the loan was sanctioned by the then Branch Manager (other
accused person) and the loan amount which was sanctioned in favour of
M/s. Packing India is well within the financial limit of the Branch
Manager. It appears that under the normal banking rules and procedure
13
the loan proposal of the appellant was sanctioned. PW2 specifically stated
that the signatures in the specimen signatures cards of M/s. Packing India
were verified by the two officers of the bank namely, Shri S.K. Mukherjee,
Mr. K.C. Chakraborty, but the prosecution withheld those witnesses and
no explanation was given for not citing them as witnesses in the case. So,
it would appear from the testimonies of the aforementioned witnesses that
everything was done following the due procedure and after being satisfied
the loan was disbursed by the bank in favour of M/s. Packing India,
proprietor of which is this appellant.
27. So, the prosecution has hopelessly failed to prove that the appellant has
ever acted dishonestly and fraudulently to cheat the bank. The number of
material witnesses who could have unfolded the truth were not produced
and examined by the prosecution and no explanation is given for not citing
them as witnesses to the prosecution. None of the prosecution witnesses
have ever supported the prosecution story to the effect that this appellant
had acted dishonestly and fraudulently while opening the loan account
and withdrawing the amount from the account.
28. So, the entire findings of the impugned judgment and order of conviction
by the learned Trial Court are solely based on conjectures and surmises
and not warranted by the materials on record and the prosecution has
failed to prove without reasonable shadow of doubt regarding involvement
of this appellant with the alleged offence.
29. In view of the above facts and circumstances and discussion made above. I
am opinion that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by
14
the learned Trial Court dated 27.11.2003 in connection with Special Case
No. 2 of 1988 is liable to be set aside.
30. Accordingly, the instant appeal being CRA 128 of 2004 is hereby allowed.
31. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge 4th
Special Court, Calcutta dated 27.11.2002 in connection with Special Case
No. 2 of 1988 is hereby set aside.
32. This appellant is on bail. He is discharged from bail bonds and be set at
liberty if not wanted in connection with any other case.
33. Let a copy of this order along with T.C.R. be sent down to the Trial Court
immediately.
34. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the
parties on payment of requisite fees.
(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)