Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the trial court's refusal to discharge him from a pending prosecution. The court held that the materials on record disclose a prima facie case and warranted trial against the petitioner. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's finding and directed the continuance of the trial proceedings against the petitioner. The decision arose in the context of allegations concerning a conspiracy involving the sanctioning of a loan in violation of established banking norms. The judgment confirmed that the petitioner, in his official capacity, played a role in facilitating the transaction and must face trial under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The criminal revision petition arose from C.C.No.5/2017 on the files of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam. The petitioner, Radhakrishnan Nair, aged 57, was the 4th accused in the case and formerly held the position of Deputy General Manager at State Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram. The prosecution was initiated following a complaint filed in 2016 by the Regional Manager of the State Bank of India, Regional Business Office (RBO), Shornur, Kerala.

Also Read: Supreme Court Acquits Two Men In Murder Case | Says Witnesses’ 16 Km Bicycle Ride In 30 Minutes Improbable, Disbelieves Eye-Witness Account And Questions Single-Assailant Theory In 26-Injury Death

The complaint pertained to a loan of Rs.7.00 Crores sanctioned on 20.01.2015 to the first accused, M.M. Shoukkathali, Proprietor of M/s. M.M. Traders, for dealing in areca-nut and pepper. The loan was secured by a property comprising a residential building situated on 13.63 Ares of land in Survey No.333/1H of Vadanappilly Village, Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur District. The loan application was processed by the Medium Enterprises Hub of SBI, Thrissur, as the amount exceeded the purview of the local branch.

The Medium Enterprises Hub obtained valuation reports from two valuers—the 2nd accused, Sanoj P. Vincent, and the 3rd accused, A.M. Shereef—assessing the property at Rs.15.11 Crores and Rs.16.00 Crores respectively. Based on these inflated valuations, the loan was sanctioned and the borrower executed the required documents on 21.03.2015. The entire loan amount was withdrawn by the borrower on the same day.

However, the bank had not obtained all the necessary documents such as the mutation certificate and title deed at the time of sanctioning. Moreover, the collateral property was only purchased by the borrower on 20.03.2015, and the equitable mortgage was created subsequently on 28.03.2015.

Further loans were sanctioned to the same borrower—two ad-hoc loans of Rs.50 lakhs each on 01.06.2015 and 10.08.2015, followed by another Rs.22 lakhs on 30.09.2015—even though the original loan had already become a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 27.09.2015.

The 4th accused, along with the 5th accused Appu Mathew Jose, both serving as public servants and bank officials, were alleged to have abused their official positions and acted in criminal conspiracy with the 1st accused and others. The acts resulted in a wrongful loss of Rs.2.78 Crores to the bank.

The petitioner moved an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, which was rejected by the trial court. This led to the filing of the present criminal revision petition.

"The 4th accused is the Regional Manager of SBI who is empowered to ascertain the genuineness of the business assets of the 1st accused before granting ABL facility."

"The revision petitioner, being the head of RCC, had to examine the asset application for assessing the eligibility of the applicant for availing ABL facility of Rs.7.00 Crores and also to convene a meeting of the RCC of which CW10 and CW15 are the members."

"As per the statement given by CW10 and CW15 and as per document No.62 of the Minutes Book, it could be gathered that no RCC meeting was conducted and without conducting RCC meeting, documents for the same was forwarded to ZCC."

"It is relevant to note that the 1st accused offered collateral security to the tune of Rs.15.11 Crores and 16.00 Crores by mortgaging a property which was purchased on 20.03.2015, showing the total consideration as Rs.1.00 Crore."

"On 06.06.2016, after passing the loan, CW60 valued the property again and found that the value would come only to the tune of Rs.5,94,74,000/- and thereby, it could be seen that, the earlier valuation given by accused Nos.2 and 3, showing value of the property on much higher rate, is part of conspiracy hatched between the accused to give an undue advantage to the 1st accused."

"This would fortify the fact that without convening RCC meeting, the matter was referred to ZCC and the loan was sanctioned on 21.03.2015 and encashed on the same date."

The court further stated the applicable legal standard while deciding discharge applications:

"If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged. But if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the materials there are grounds for presuming that accused has committed the offence/s which is/are triable, then necessarily charge shall be framed."

"At the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the materials which have been brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate said materials, in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the materials taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence/s alleged."

Also Read: Caught Red-Handed In Bribery Trap | Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Civil Police Officer Accused Under P.C. Act After 15 Days In Custody

The court concluded: "Having addressed the genesis of the case as discussed on par with the materials produced by the prosecution while considering plea of discharge, it is emphatically clear that the 4th accused has involvement in the crime as part of conspiracy hatched in between the accused persons and thereby loan of Rs.7.00 Crores was granted to the 1st accused on mortgaging a property which is too less in value and thereby the 1st accused got illegal pecuniary advantage."

The court explicitly dismissed the revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the trial court order dated 10.12.2021. The court held: "The revision petitioner is liable to be tried after framing charge as the prosecution materials would prima facie show the offences alleged to be committed by him. Thus, his plea of discharge would not succeed as found by the trial court."

"In the result, this criminal revision petition stands dismissed."

"Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court forthwith."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Sri. N. Abhilash, Shri. Praveen K. Joy, Sri. E.S. Saneej, Sri. M.P. Unnikrishnan, Smt. M.K. Samyuktha, Shri. Deepu Rajagopal, Smt. Sandra S. Kumar, Sri. P. Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.)

For the Respondent: Shri. Sreelal N. Warrier, Special Public Prosecutor, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

Case Title: Radhakrishnan Nair v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:52814

Case Number: CRL.REV.PET NO. 253 OF 2022

Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen