1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1354 OF 2007

C.B.I.         …. APPELLANT

Versus

V.K. BHUTIANI         …. RESPONDENT

O R D E R  

1. The appellant-Central Bureau of Investigation has come up  in  

this appeal against the order dated 20.4.2005 passed by the High Court of  

Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 945 of 2003.  In that  Revision  

Petition, V.K. Bhutiani (respondent herein) had challenged the order on  

charge  dated  23.8.2003  passed  by  the  Special  Judge,  Delhi.   Those  

charges are as under:

“I, P.K. Bhasin, Special Judge, Delhi hereby charge you  

V.K. Bhutiani, O.P. Rajvanshi, Mrs.  Rashmi Aggarwal  

Parveen Aggarwal and Neeraj Jain as follows:

That your accused V.K. Bhutiani, while being  

posted as a Senior Manager in New Bank of India,  E-

Block,  Connaught  Circus,  New Delhi  and you accused  

O.P.  Rajvanshi,  Mrs.  Rashmi  Aggarwal,  Praveen  

Aggarwal  and Neeraj Jain  along with S.  Mohd.  Yusuf  

(now dead) had entered into a  

criminal  conspiracy  sometime  during  November  and  

December  1989  at  New  Delhi  for  defrauding/cheating  

New  Bank  of  India  to  the  tune  of  Rs.  17.20  lacs  by

2

resorting to cheating, forgery of documents in the nature  

of valuable securities and for using those documents for  

getting loan facilities to the extent of Rs. 17.20 lacs in the  

name  of  M/s.  Vikram  Enterprises,  proprietorship  

concern  of  you,  accused,  O.P.  Rajvanshi  and  also  by  

abuse  and  misuse  of  authority  and  also  by  abuse  and  

misuse of authority as a public servant you, accused V.K.  

Bhutiani  and  thereby  you  all  committed  an  offences  

punishable  under  Section  120-B  r/w  Section  

420/467/468/471  IPC and  Section  13(2)  r/w  13(1)(d)  of  

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Secondly,  in  furtherance  of  the  aforesaid  

conspiracy your accused V.K. Bhutiani, O.P. Rajvanshi,  

Rashmi Aggarwal,  Parveen  Aggarwal  and Neeraj  Jain  

cheated  New  Bank  of  India  and  got  released  loans  

amount  of  Rs.  17.20  lacs  in  the  name of  M/s.  Vikram  

Enterprises by way of two orders dated 28.12.1989 and  

26.12.1989 respectively  for  Rs.  12.65  lacs  and Rs.  2.25  

lacs in favour of M/s. Hazi Gubar and S. Abdul Kareen  

and one pay order dated 26.12.1989 for Rs. 2.30 lacs in  

favour  of  M/s.  Multiple  Traders  and  thereby  you  all  

committed an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

Thirdly,  that  in  furtherance  of  aforesaid  

conspiracy you accused O.P. Rajvanshi forged on receipt  

dated 20.12.89 for Rs. 4,35,000/- purporting to have been  

issued by M/s. Hazi Gudar S. Abdul Kareen in favour of  

M/s. Vikram Enterprises and you also forged one letter  

dated 17.12.1989 purporting to have been written by M/s.  

Hazi Gudar S. Abdul Kareem to Vikram Enterprises for  

using  the  same  for  cheating  New  Bank  of  India  by  

obtaining loan of Rs. 17.20 lacs and you also used these  

forged  documents  dishonestly  and  fraudulently  and

3

thereby  you  committed  an  offence  punishable  under  

Sections 467/468/471 IPC.

Fourthly, that in furtherance of the aforesaid  

conspiracy  you  accused  Parveen  Aggarwal  forged  on  

invoice  dated  15.12.89  for  Rs.  2.30  lacs  purporting  to  

have  been  issued  by  M/s.  Multiple  Traders,  

proprietorship  concern  of  your  co-accused  Rashmi  

Aggarwal, in the name of Vikram Enterprises for being  

used for the purpose of cheating New Bank of India by  

obtaining loan of Rs. 17.20 lacs in the name of Vikram  

Enterprises, firm of you co-accused O.P. Rajvanshi and  

you  also  forged  a  receipt  of  Rs.  1  lac  for  the  same  

purpose  purporting  to  have  been  issued  by  Multiple  

Traders in favour of M/s. Vikram Enterprises and these  

documents were then used for cheating New  

Bank  of  India  and  thereby  you  committed  an  offence  

punishable under Sections 467/468/471 IPC.

Fifthly,  that  in  furtherance  of  the  aforesaid  

conspiracy that you accused V.K. Bhutiani by corrupt or  

illegal means and by abusing your position as a public  

servant being a Senior Manager of New Bank of India  

sanctioned  loan  of  Rs.  17.20  lacs  for  M/s.  Vikram  

Enterprises, proprietorship concerns of your co-accused  

O.P. Rajvanshi without any public interest and thereby  

you  committed  an  offence  punishable  under  Section  

13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

And I hereby direct that all  be tried by this  

Court for the aforesaid offences.

Sd/-

Special Judge/Delhi

27.9.2003.”      

4

2. The Revision Petition was basically  on the ground that the  

respondent, who was a Senior Manager of the New Bank of India at the  

relevant  time,  was  in  fact  exonerated   by  the  Central  Vigilance  

Commission and in its report, he was found to be innocent.  The charges,  

which we have quoted above, were extremely  serious and included also  

the charge of  conspiracy with a view to defraud the bank.  In  

the process, it is apparent from the charge that the respondent along with  

other co-accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy to defraud the  

bank by granting the loans  which should never have been granted.  The  

allegation is regarding the securities which have been accepted against  

those loans were worthless. It  has also come on record that that the  

loans were never repaid.  

3. The High Court in its judgment has basically relied upon the  

report of the Central Vigilance Commission and also relied on the ruling  

of this Court in  P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar (1996) 9 SCC 1.

4. We  have  carefully  gone  through  the  aforesaid  ruling.  In  

paragraph 8 of the impugned order, the High Court opined as under:

“In my opinion, this judgment squarely applies in the present  

case.  The basic factors to establish conspiracy of petitioner  

were  all  before  the  Central  Vigilance  Commission.   After  

taking all  these factors into consideration,  it found that the  

petitioner was not actually involved in any corrupt practice or  

in  the  conspiracy  of  the other  accused persons  intended to  

cheat the bank. The discrepancy between the dates of making

5

a prayer  for loan  and  the  recommendation  for  it  or  

opening of the account were all observed to be in accordance  

with practice,  although a haste on the part of the petitioner  

was proved.  So far as valuation of the property offered as  

security  is  concerned,  the  petitioner  had  actually  not  

committed any fraud.   He did not over value the property.  

The Central Vigilance Commission having taken note of the  

fact has held that it was a case of misjudgment rather than a  

case of conspiracy. The vigilance commission also went into  

the question whether the petitioner was at fault in not making  

enough  inquiries  about  the  genuineness  of  the  documents  

issued by A-3 and others and about the genuineness  of the  

business run by A-3.  Yet the Vigilance Commission has given  

a clean chit to the petitioner although it found the petitioner  

guilty  to  the  extent  of  making  a  faulty  judgment  in  

recommending the proposal.” (emphasis supplied)

5. We have deliberately quoted the above paragraph to note that  

the  High  Court  did  not  bother  to  examine  the  charge-sheet  and  the  

allegations made therein nor did it examine the statement of the witnesses  

and/or the reports  of the handwritten experts which were the part of the  

charge-sheet.

6. In our opinion, the reliance of the High Court  on  the  ruling  

of  P.S. Rajya (supra) was

6

totally  uncalled  for  as  the  factual  situation  in  that  case  was  entirely  

different than the one prevalent here in this case.

7. We  were  also  taken  through  the  report  of  the  Central  

Vigilance Commission.  Para 7.1 of the said report reads as under:

“The  allegations  against  Shri  V.K.  Bhutiani  are  held  

proved only to the extent of making a faulty judgment in  

recommending the proposal for the PC limit as pointed out  

in para 6.61 and the article of charge is held proved only to  

the extent as various allegations have been substantiated or  

otherwise  as  mentioned  in  the  assessment  portion  of  the  

report.”

8. Thus, it cannot be held that the Central Vigilance Commission  

had given a clean chit to the respondent-accused.

9. In para 18 of the ruling in P.S. Rajya (supra),  relevant part of  

the report  of  Vigilance  Commission was quoted.   Para 18 of  the said  

judgment reads as under:

“It may not be out of place to extract a portion from the order  

exonerating  the  appellant   from  the  charge  framed  in  the  

departmental proceedings.  It reads as follows:

“The Commission after careful consideration of  

the facts  and records of  the case,  have advised that  the  

savings of the applicant,Shri P.S. Rajya, were more than  

the assets acquired by him and,  therefore, the charge of  

acquisition of assets disproportionate to income does not  

stand proved.  A copy of the advice of the Commissioner is  

enclosed.  The Commission have also advised that the ends  

of justice would be met by exonerating  the charged officer  

Shri P.S. Rajya.”

7

The President has given careful consideration to  

the facts  and records of the case and advice of the UPSC.  

The President has come to the conclusion that the advice of  

the  UPSC  be  accepted.   It  is,  therefore,  held  that  the  

articles of charge framed against Shri Rajya has not been  

proved.  The President is, therefore, pleased to exonerate  

Shri Rajya,  AIT (Retd.) of the charges framed against him  

and drop the proceedings initiated against him”

10. From a mere glance of  this,  it  will  be seen that the Central  

Vigilance Commission had exonerated  the accused therein by writing a  

clear cut finding that the charge of acquisition of assets disproportionate  

to the income did not stand proved against the accused in that case.  Such  

is certainly  not the case here.

11. In  our  opinion,  though  the  report  of  the  Central  Vigilance  

Commission may be a relevant factor, it cannot be held to be “be all or  

end all” of the matter for prosecuting the accused persons of such serious  

offences.

12. Mr.  Manoj  Jain,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  

appearing on behalf of the appellant-C.B.I. very rightly argued that the  

High Court has treated the said report to be  “be all or end all” of the  

matter.  He submitted that the High Court was not  correct in doing so.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent very candidly  

admitted that  from the report,  it  cannot  be said  that  the respondent-

accused in this case was totally exonerated. We have  deliberately  

quoted aforesaid para 7.1 of the report only to show that the respondent

8

was not totally exonerated.  Thus, the reliance by the High Court on the  

aforementioned ruling of P.S. Rajya (supra) was uncalled for.

14. The ruling of P.S. Rajya (supra) was considered by this Court  

in State through SPE & CBI, Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Krishna Mohan and  

Another  (2007)  14  SCC  667  wherein  this  Court,  after   elaborate  

discussion,  found  that  where the fact  

situation was different, the reliance could not be made all together on the  

report of the Central Vigilance Commission.  Relying on the ruling of  

State of  Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal  1992 Suppl.(1)  SCC 335, this  Court  

reiterated the position that where there could be some material found in  

the  charge  sheet,  then  it  would  not  be  the  function  of  the  court  to  

examine the charge-sheet with a view as to whether the accused could be  

convicted or not.  That would be a pre-mature exercise. The judgment in  

the case of M.Krishna Mohan (supra) was against acquittal and reliance  

on behalf of the defence was placed on the report of the Central Vigilance  

Commission.  In para 32 of the said judgment, this Court has made a  

clear reference that there was a clear cut finding by the High Court to  

the  effect  “we  have  already  held  that  for  the  reasons  given,  on  the  

peculiar facts of this case, the criminal proceedings initiated against the  

appellant cannot be pursued.”

15. We do not find any such reasoning having been given in the  

present case by the High Court.  On the other hand,  a perusal of the  

impugned  order  suggests  that  the  High  Court  did  not  examine  the

9

material available  by way of charge-sheet and has proceeded   

to follow the ruling of P.S. Rajya (supra).  We are, therefore, satisfied  

that this  appeal has to be allowed by setting-aside the impugned order  

passed  by  the  High  Court.   Accordingly,  the  appeal  succeeds.   The  

impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remanded. Now the trial  

court shall  proceed with the trial  since the charges have already been  

framed.   All  the contentions  in  law and fact  shall  be available  to  the  

respondent  as  well  as   the  prosecution.   This  judgment  shall  not  be  

treated to be an expression of opinion on our part.  

     ......................J.       [ V.S. SIRPURKAR ]

......................J.       [ DEEPAK VERMA ]

NEW DELHI AUGUST 11, 2009.