Can documents/material produced by accused be considered at stage of discharge by the Court?, Patna High Court says, no

In Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar vs. The State Of Bihar Through C.B.I. (2025), Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court observed:"In the present case, based on the materials produced by the prosecution the Court below was of the opinion that there are sufficient materials to proceed with the criminal case and it is settled law that documents/material produced by the accused cannot be considered at the stage of discharge". Having recorded the observation of the Special Judge, C.B.I.-I,  Justice Kumar's In 39-page long judgement dated May 16, 2025 concluded:"The impugned order dated 28.09.2015 passed by passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-I, Patna is hereby affirmed." 

The case was heard and decided along with two other petitions by Vishakha Sindhu and Vineet Kumar Verma who too had assailed the order of September 28, 2015 in a 2011 case by Special Judge, C.B.I.-I, Patna rejecting their discharge petitions. These petitions were disposed of by a common judgment. 

Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar was the Manager in the Central Bank of India, Main Branch, Patna, Vishakha Sindhu was the wife of petitioner and one of the Directors of M/s. Sidhi Exports Private Limited and Vineet Kumar Verma was the brother-in-law of Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar and also one of the Directors of M/S. Sidhi Overseas Private Limited. It was alleged that in connivance with each other they had abused the official position of Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar, the bank manager who had sanctioned pre/post shipment advances to the firms belonging to his relative and associate and thereby, caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.368.56 lakhs to the Bank. It was also alleged that they had committed forgery by altering original dates on the aforesaid illegal advances. 

It was alleged that Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar, the bank manager unauthorisedly made advances against foreign outward bills for collection to the extent of Rs.148 lakhs to M/s. Sidhi Exports Private Limited, a firm in which his wife was one of the Directors and with mala fide intention made debit entries in the current deposit nominal account no.259 and correspondingly credited the overdraft account of M/s. Sidhi Exports Private Limited. It was also alleged that the petitioner- Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar falsified the accounts of the Bank with mala fide intention and thereby caused wrongful loss of interest on the aforesaid amount to the bank. It was alleged that petitioner- Vishakha Sindhu one of the Directors of M/S Sidhi Export Private Limited and wife of Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar, dishonestly submitted an export bill for collection to the Central Bank of India, Main Branch, Patna after altering the name of original collecting Bank on the G.R. forms. She also suppressed the fact that the same bill had already been submitted to the Jammu & Kashmir Bank, the original collecting bank, for advance. It has been further alleged that petitioner - Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar knowingly accepted this forged document in order to cover up the aforesaid illegal act and dishonestly altered the date on the forwarding letter written by the firm to the bank and allowed advances, thereby cheated the Bank. The petitioner-Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar in connivance with the then Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Main Branch, Patna, acted dishonestly and without authority sanctioned packing credit limit to M/s. Sidhi Overseas Private Limited without considering business antecedents of the aforesaid firm. He also dishonestly allowed heavy overdrawings in the packing credit account of aforesaid firm and therefore, the illegal actions of petitioner- Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar and other bank officials resulted in wrongful gain of Rs.80.93 Lakh to the firm and a corresponding loss of Rs.80.93 lakhs to the Bank. It was further alleged that in order to conceal the above-mentioned overdrawing positions, petitioner-Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar also altered the relevant records of the Bank.

The petitioner-Sindhu Ratna Kul Bhaskar in connivance with other bank officials, dishonestly and in an unauthorised manner allowed foreign outward bill for collection advances to M/s. Sidhi Overseas Private Limited, thereby causing the bank to deliver money to the said firm and these actions caused a wrongful gain of Rs.91.50 lakhs to the firm. The petitioner-Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar in conspiracy with petitioner -Vineet Kumar Verma induced the Central Bank of India to deliver money to the said firm, as a result of which, the firm made a wrongful gain of Rs.69.13 lakhs. It was also alleged that in order to cover up overdrawing position, petitioner-Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar made false credit entry dated August 16, 1999 of Rs.19 lakhs in the packing credit account of M/s. Sidhi Overseas Private Limited by debiting a non-existent Other Term Loan account.  

The counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Velji Raghavji Patel vs. State of Maharashtra reported as 1964 SCC OnLine SC 185 and Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. Calcutta S.C.C. 591, G. Sagar Suri & Anr. vs. State of UP. & Others reported as (2000) 2 SCC 636, ALPIC Finance Ltd. vs. P. Sadashivan & Anr. reported as (2001) 3 SCC 513, Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr., Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. reported as (2006) 6 SCC 736, Rajwant Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported as 2007 (1) PLJR 406 : 2006 SCC OnLine Pat 463, Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI & Anr. reported as 2008(9) SCC 677, R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab reported as 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21; M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Another v/s Special Judicial Magistrate & Others reported as (1998 ) 5 SCC 749 ; Bhajanlal & Ors. reported as 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. vs.Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others reported as AIR 1988 S.C. 709 : (1988) 1 SCC 692; Bejai Singh Dugar v/s Certificate Officer Bhagalpur & Others 1965 BLJR - 341 (DB);Smt. Sarla Devi Agrawal vs. State of Bihar reported as 1979 BBCJ 213 (DB); Damodar Prasad Nathani vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. 1999 (1) PLJR 522; Kanhya Lal vs. The vs. the State of Bihar 2002(2) BBCJ 278 and K.K. Ahuja vs. V.K. Vora and Anr. 2009 (10) SCC 48. 

The counsel for the C.B.I. relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Odisha vs. Devendra Nath Padhi reported as (2005) I SCC 568; CBI vs. Aryan Singh & Ors. reported as (2023) 18 SCC 399 and P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerela & Anr. reported as (2010) 2 SCC 398.

Justice Kumar relied on paragraph nos. 14 to 16 of Supreme Court's decision in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Jagjit Singh reported as (2013) 10 SCC 686, paragraph no.14 to 18 of the decision in Anil Bhavarlal Jain & Anr. vs. The State of Maharshtra & Ors. reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3823 and in State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishoresinh Sao reported as (2023) 17 SCC 688.

He observed:"In the present case, the offence, as alleged in the F.I.R. involves defrauding the financial system of the country by the persons who are responsible officer bearers of the Bank. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforese-quoted decisions has held that such offences caused adverse ripple effect in the society and are in the nature of moral turpitude. When an offence of cheating, fraud etc. has been committed by the borrower after weaving a conspiracy with the Bank officials, as alleged in the F.I.R., would not make a case suitable for interference by this Court. 51. Moreover, this Court at this stage, will not not go into the merits of the case and examine threadbare the defence of the accused persons if a strong prima facie case for trial is made out particularly offences affecting the financial and economic system. In the present case, the petitioners have failed to make out a case that the allegations are totally groundless and therefore, the criminal case should not proceed against them." 

Notably, "at any stage" principle in Cr.P.C enables the Court to address issues, gather evidence, and ensure a fair and just outcome by allowing interventions throughout the criminal process. 

Justice Kumar observed that documents/material produced by accused cannot be considered at stage of discharge by the Court. The fact is Section 313 Cr.P.C. (Power to examine the accused) allows a court to examine the accused at any stage of the proceedings, without prior warning, to clarify any issues. It also mandates examination after the prosecution witnesses have been examined and before the accused presents their defense.  Section 258 of CrPC (Power to stop proceedings) states that In summons-cases, a Magistrate can stop proceedings at any stage before judgment, even after evidence has been recorded, under specific conditions.  Section 306 CrPC (Tender of pardon to accomplice) states that Chief Judicial Magistrates or Metropolitan Magistrates can tender a pardon to an accomplice at any stage of the investigation, inquiry, or trial. It is apparent that the court did not pay heed to victim's rights. The victims have the right to be heard at every stage of the proceedings, including during investigation and trial. 

 

If the petitioners approach the Division Bench, they are likely to get relief especially with regard to consideration of new evidence.