Mumbai, July 28, 2022 – Rajendra Prabhakar Takke, a retired branch manager of The City Co-operative Bank, has been denied bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, S.M. Menjoge, in a significant financial fraud case involving alleged misappropriation, cheating, and forgery. The court, after reviewing the case diary and hearing arguments from both sides, concluded that there was prima facie evidence of Takke’s involvement in the fraudulent activities, warranting his continued detention.
Takke, aged 59, faces charges under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant or banker), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471(A) (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), and 120(B) (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in connection with C.R. No. 204/2018 registered at N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station and E.O.W. D.C.B, C.I.D C.R. No. 14/2020.
Allegations and Prosecution’s Stance:
The prosecution, represented by Mrs. Ashwini Raykar, APP, argued that Takke, during his tenure as branch manager, played a crucial role in disbursing loans illegally, leading to substantial losses for the bank. They presented evidence indicating that numerous Non-Performing Asset (NPA) loan accounts, totaling 190 by March 31, 2018, included 56 cases where loans were disbursed irregularly.
According to the prosecution, a report by M/s. Pandit and Pandit Chartered Accountants revealed significant undervaluation of mortgaged properties and a discrepancy between the property’s actual value and the loan amounts disbursed. The prosecution alleged that Takke forwarded loan proposals to higher authorities without proper verification of documents and the borrowers’ repayment capacity.
Defense Arguments and Court’s Observations:
Mr. P.V. Vare, representing Takke, argued that his client was falsely implicated and that all documents were in the bank’s possession. He emphasized that Takke retired in 2018, and no irregularities were noticed during internal and RBI audits until then. He cited the Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI case, advocating for bail on the principle of “bail is the rule, jail is the exception,” and highlighted that Takke had been in custody since June 6, 2022.
However, the court, after examining the case diary, found compelling evidence against Takke. Judge Menjoge noted that Takke, as branch manager, forwarded 24 loan proposals without verifying crucial documents, descriptions of borrowers’ properties, or their repayment capabilities. He also disbursed loan amounts without obtaining necessary search and title reports, effectively bypassing standard procedures.
The court highlighted instances where Takke allegedly sanctioned cash credit and loan cases, temporarily increasing credit limits and sanctioning new loans to transfer funds to existing NPA accounts, thereby masking the extent of the bank’s financial distress. Furthermore, Takke was accused of forwarding loan proposals for properties already mortgaged with other banks, as exemplified by the case of Rajan Sawan and Vilas Sawant, where a fake NOC was used.
Testimonies and Evidence:
Statements from Pramod Ranpura and Binitkumar Singh, guarantors in multiple loan cases, revealed that their signatures were obtained by Hitesh Pandya, and Takke later obtained their signatures on forms and blank cheques at Pandya’s office. They testified that they were unaware of the substantial loans sanctioned in their names, despite working as drivers with meager salaries.
The court also considered the list of duties and responsibilities of a branch manager, which included scrutinizing loan proposals, verifying documents, conducting pre- and post-sanction visits, and ensuring KYC compliance. The court concluded that Takke had failed to perform these duties diligently, directly contributing to the fraudulent disbursement of loans and causing significant losses to the bank.
Rejection of Parity Argument:
Takke’s defense argued for bail on the ground of parity, citing the release of Harish Pardhi, a loan agent, on bail by a magistrate. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that Pardhi’s role was different from Takke’s. While Pardhi was a loan agent who submitted proposals and received commissions, Takke was a branch manager with the authority and responsibility to verify and forward loan applications.
Court’s Decision and Rationale:
Judge Menjoge, in his order, emphasized the gravity and seriousness of the economic offenses, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in P. Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement, which held that economic offenses cannot be classified uniformly and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Considering the substantial evidence presented in the case diary, the court concluded that there was a prima facie case against Takke. The court also expressed concerns about the potential for Takke to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail, particularly given the ongoing investigation.
Therefore, the court rejected Takke’s bail application, ensuring his continued detention pending further investigation and trial. The decision underscores the court’s commitment to upholding financial integrity and ensuring that those responsible for economic offenses are held accountable. The court’s detailed examination of the evidence and its rejection of the parity argument highlight the importance of considering the specific roles and responsibilities of individuals involved in complex financial crimes.