(Prayer: Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case to this Hon'ble Court against the Order of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, in Crl.MP.No.466 of 2012 in CC.No.812 of 2011, dated 22.06.2012.

IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 1941 OF 2012)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC.No.812 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLRCMP 1227 OF 2016)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay granted in Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2012, dated 31-08-2012 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in CC. 812/2011 on the file of the court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Eluru W.GDist

IA NO: 2 OF 2019

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay granted in IA No. 1 of 2019 in Crl.RC.No. 1245 of 2012, dated 16.4.2019 and pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2019

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay granted in Crl.RC.No.1245 of 2012, dated 16.08.2019 and pass

IA NO: 4 OF 2019

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay granted in Crl.RC. No. 1245 of 2012, dated 13.9.2019 and pass

IA NO: 5 OF 2019

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay granted in Crl.RC. No. 1245 of 2012, dated 17.12.2019 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the presence of the petitioners in CC No. 812 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, West Godavari District, pending disposal of Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2012, before this Hon'ble Court.

IA NO: 2 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay granted in Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2012,dated 02.03.2020 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim stay granted in Crl.R.C.No.1245/2012 dated 12-03-2020 and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim stay granted in Crl.Rc.1245/2012 dated 09-02-2021 and pass)

1. This instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order, dated 22.06.2012, passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, in Criminal M.P.No.466 of 2012 in C.C.No.812 of 2011, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT:

                  a. Petitioners Nos.1 to 5 are the Managing Directors and other officials of M/s.Bhimavaram Hospitals Limited, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. Petitioner No.6 is the Bhimavaram Hospitals Limited itself.

                  b. On a written complaint of the Regional Manager, Region-VI, State Bank of India, Administrative Unit, Vijayawada, dt.10.06.2009, the Central Bureau of Investigation has registered a case in RC-05(E)/ 2009-CBI/ BS & FC/ Bangalore, against the present petitioners and other unknown officials of State Bank of India, Bhimavaram Branch, for the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.‟) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

                  c. After completion of investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation has submitted a charge sheet before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, on 14.05.2011, wherein the present petitioners were cited as Accused Nos. 1 to 5. No bank officials were cited as accused on the ground that sanction for prosecution was not accorded by the Vigilance Commissioner against them. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and numbered the charge sheet as C.C. No.812 of 2011.

                  d. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an interlocutory application, vide Crl.M.P.No.466 of 2012, before the learned Magistrate under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.‟), seeking discharge from the criminal case. The said application was dismissed by impugned order dt.22.06.2012. Aggrieved thereby, the present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred.

3. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the record.

4. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

                  a. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in not discharging the petitioners from the criminal case. Further contention of the petitioners is that the ingredients of the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C., and the substantive offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, alleged in the charge sheet, are not made out.

                  b. Secondly, it is submitted that that since no bank officials of State Bank of India, Bhimavaram Branch, were charge sheeted and the Vigilance Commission refused sanction to prosecute the bank officials, the entire charge sheet against the present petitioners cannot be sustained.

                  c. Finally, it is submitted that inspite of several materials before the Court below that loan sanctioned by the State Bank of India had already been fully repaid and there is no wrongful loss to the bank and no wrongful gain to the petitioners, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise.

                  d. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon several judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, wherein criminal proceedings were quashed and the accused were discharged when the bank loans had already been repaid. It is further submitted that there are several materials before the Investigating Agency that prior to submission of charge sheet, the Bhimavaram Hospitals Limited has repaid the loan amount availed from the State Bank of India. He further submits that the documents pertaining to the payment of loan though collected during the course of investigation, but still the CBI has submitted charge sheet.

                  e. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are as under:

                  (i) K.Bharati Devi & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr.,( (2024) 10 SCC 384)

                  (ii) Suresh C.Singal and Others v. State of Gujarat and Ors(2025 SCC online SC 788)

                  (iii) Hemant S. Hathi v. Central Bureau of Investigation &Ors.,( W.P. (Crl.) No.37 of 2020)

                  (iv) N.S. Gnaneshwaran Etc., v. The Inspector of Police & Anr.,( SLR (Crl.) Nos.17481-17482 of 2024)

                  (v) Gold Quest International Private Ltd., v. State of Tamil Nadu and others((2014) 15 SCC 235)

                  (vi) Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi v. B.B.Agarwal and others((2019) 15 SCC 522)

                  (vii) Dr.P.Madan Mohan Rao v. State of A.P.,( 2006(2) ALD (Crl.) 811 (AP))

5. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CBI:

                  a) The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI has submitted that though the petitioners have repaid the entire loan facility to the bank, but the offence alleged against the petitioners cannot be wiped out.

                  b) The learned Special Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had also occasioned to deal with the issue and is of the opinion that repayment of loan as well as payment of loan through One Time Settlement does not absolve criminal liability for cheating the bank.

                  c) The learned Special Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in:

                  (i) State represented by Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam v. Eluri Srinivas Chakravarthy & Ors.,( 2025 SCC Online SC 1215)

                  (ii) Central Bureau of Investigation v. M/s. Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. & Ors.,( 2025 INSC 1359 (SLP (Crl.) Nos.11108 of 2022))

6. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

                  a. Upon considering the rival submissions and upon considering the entire material on record, there are only two issues before this Court, viz.,

                  1. Whether sufficient documents were collected by the Investigating Agency regarding entire payment of the loan by the present petitioners to the Bank prior to submission of the charge sheet?

                  2. Whether such repayment of the entire loan absolves the petitioners from criminal liability as alleged in the charge sheet?

7. FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

ISSUE No.1

                  “Whether sufficient documents were collected by the Investigating Agency regarding entire payment of the loan by the present petitioners to the Bank prior to submission of the charge sheet?”

                  1.1) It is evident that during the course of investigation, the CBI has collected as many as 517 documents, including Document Nos.483 and 484. Document No.483 is a letter addressed by the Managing Director, Bhimavaram Hospitals Limited, to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Bhimavaram Branch, Bhimavaram, informing that they are in the process of repayment of term loans and cash credit facilities availed from the Bank. Document No. 484 is a correspondence of the State Bank of India in favour of the Bhimavaram Hospitals regarding the approval of their proposal to liquidate the total dues of loan under certain terms which was agreed by the Bhimavaram Hospitals Ltd.

                  1.2) At the time of filing the present criminal revision case, the petitioners also filed relevant documents through a Memo, vide USR No.26049 of 2019 dt.05.07.2019, which contains a certificate dt.21.01.2010 issued by the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, certifying that M/s.Bhimavaram Hospitals Limited has fully repaid the amount due to them including interest.

                  1.3) Charge sheet was submitted by the CBI on 14.05.2011. On a plain perusal of Documents Nos.483 and 484 as well as the “No Due‟ Certificate filed along with the Memo, it is crystal clear that before submission of the charge sheet, the Bhimavaram Hospitals has already repaid the loan and the documents collected by the CBI at the time of investigation has also reflected the same fact.

                  1.4) Therefore, I am of the view that the Investigating Agency has collected sufficient documents prior to submission of the charge sheet to show that petitioners had repaid the entire loan amount, but they have not mentioned it in the charge sheet. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.

                  ISSUE No.2:

                  “Whether such repayment of the entire loan absolves the petitioners from criminal liability as alleged in the charge sheet?”

                  2.1) In the case of K.Bharati Devi & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr (supra1), the first accused (A.1) has availed credit facility from complainant bank, subsequently he could not repay the loan and as such, it was declared as non performing asset (NPA). Thereafter, the complainant bank approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the amounts and also lodged a complaint before the CBI resulting in submission of charge sheet. After filing charge sheet, the accused therein approached the bank in proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and offered one time settlement, the same was accepted by the bank resulting in payment of loan amount under one time settlement. On the basis of such fact, the criminal proceeding was sought to be quashed before the High Court, which was declined by the High Court, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

                  2.2) In the said judgment, at paragraphs 29, 44 and 45 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that,

                  “29. This Court specifically noted that though it is alleged that certain documents had been created by the appellant therein to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled, the power of quashing could be exercised. This Court found that in view of a compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank, it was a fit case where a technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of the criminal proceedings. This Court found that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuance of the same would be an exercise in futility.

                  .…

                  44. The facts in the present case are similar to the facts in Sadhu Ram Singlas wherein a dispute between the borrower and the Bank was settled. In the present case also, undisputedly, the FIR and the charge-sheet are pertaining to the dispute concerning the loan transaction availed by the accused persons on one hand and the Bank on the other hand. Admittedly, the Bank and the accused persons have settled the matter. Apart from the earlier payment received by the Bank either through equated monthly installments (EMIS) or sale of the mortgaged properties, the borrowers have paid an amount of Rs 3,80,00,000 under OTS. After receipt of the amount under OTS, the Bank had also decided to close the loan account. The dispute involved predominantly had overtures of a civil dispute.

                  45. Apart from that, it is further to be noted that in view of the settlement between the parties in the proceedings before DRT, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. In our view, continuation of the criminal proceedings would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice.”

                  2.3) In the case of Suresh C. Singhal and Others v. State of Gujarat and Ors (Supra2), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in deciding the similar issue, observed at paragraphs 20 and 22 of the judgment as follows:that,

                  “20. Now, coming to the case in hand, we have already observed that the dispute involved is primarily of civil nature. The aggrieved party, if any, would have been the Bank which has no grievance against the Appellants. Further, no loss has been caused to the Bank as is apparent from the calculations presented by the appellants before this Court. Not only the principal amount has been returned but an amount over and above thereto, on the basis of the settlement, has been received by the Bank. The case is at the very initial stage with the charge sheet having been filed. Keeping in view the observations made by this court in Narinder Singh (supra), in the facts of this case, it can safely be said that the criminal case which has been sought to be projected and proceeded with against the Appellants has an overwhelming and pre-dominant civil character arising out of pure commercial transaction where the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves.

                  .....

                  22. This Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), also observed that the stage and timing of the settlement play a crucial role in determination as to whether to exercise power under Section 482 of the CrPC 1973 or not. It was observed that cases where settlement has arrived at either immediately or in close vicinity after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceeding/investigation. Likewise, in cases where charge is framed but the evidence is not yet started or is at the infancy stage, the High Court may exercise its power by showing benevolence after prima facie assessment of circumstances and material mentioned.”

                  2.4) In the case of Hemant S. Hathi v. CBI (supra3) the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed that when accused has an intention to deposit the defalcated amount by protecting public money along with interest, there would be no purpose for denial of granting relief to direct quashment of all proceedings. At paragraph 11 of the said judgment held as under:

                  “11. The perusal of the orders passed in the proceedings of this case as noted hereinabove, it is apparent that since inception, this Court was of the view that if the petitioners are ready to deposit the amount as settled in OTS and public money comes back to lender banks, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not serve any useful purpose. The tenor of the proceedings apparently indicate peculiarity, with intent to protect the public money and interest and to get deposited the defalcated amount. In furtherance, the consensus has been arrived at as indicated above. In this view, in the peculiar facts and situation of the present case, discretion as prayed, deserves to be exercised for granting the relief, as prayed and to direct for quashment of all the proceedings.”

                  2.5) In the case of N.S.Gnaneshwaran etc., v. The Inspector of Police and another (supra4) the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in the similar occasion, has observed at paragraph 9 of the judgment that,

                  “9. In our view, allowing the present criminal proceedings to continue would serve no meaningful purpose, particularly when the dispute between the parties has already been resolved through a full and final settlement. The settlement between the parties having taken place after the alleged commission of the offence and there being no continuing public interest we see no justification for allowing the matter to proceed further.”

                  2.6) In the case of Dr.P.Madan Mohan Rao v. State of A.P., (supra7) a coordinate Bench of the High Court of Judicature, A.P., at Hyderabad, has observed that the petitioner therein obtained a loan from the bank by submitting bogus invoices for purchasing medical equipment and thereafter not purchased the same and hence, filed charge sheet which does not state that there was wrongful gain to the petitioner and wrongful loss to the bank on account of the loan transaction. Mere misrepresentation or concealment of facts does not constitute cheating if intention to cause wrongful loss or to obtain wrongful gain is absent.

                  2.7) The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI has submitted that there are instances of repayment of loan amount by Bhimavaram hospitals but the same cannot be taken into consideration at the time of framing of charge. He submits that at the time of framing of charge, the learned court below must confine itself about the documents collected by the Investigating Agency before filing of the charge sheet. Though the documents are material for deciding the case on merits, they cannot be considered material for deciding an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

                  2.8) In support of his contention, he cited the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State represented by Inspector of Police, CBI v. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi and others (supra8) wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court following the judgment of a three- judge bench in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendranath Padhi ((2005) 1 SCC 568 has observed that documents which are not collected during the course of investigation cannot be considered or looked into or relied upon in exercising the power under section 239 Cr.P.C. At paragraphs 26, 26.1, 26.2 and 26.3 observed that,

                  “26. We do not intend to refer to too many precedents on a well- established proposition of law on the method and mode of exercising jurisdiction by a magistrate under section 239 of the CrPC. It is correct that Union of India v.Prafulla Kumar Samal and another8 lays down the standard for discharge of an accused under section 239 of the CrPC. The application of the principle for the documents relied upon by the special court and the High Court is both debatable. Discharge under the CrPC is salutary, and the magistrate, through the expression used in these sections, is under an obligation to discharge the accused where, from the chargesheet and the appended documents, it is noticed that the trial of such charges is worthless. Therefore, to sustain the exercise of discretion, the order of discharge conforms to the requirements of these sections.

                  26.1 The jurisdiction conferred on the magistrate by section 239 of the CrPC is appreciated from the language of the said provision. In a civil suit, the triable issues of fact or law are culled from a material proposition of fact or law affirmed by one party and denied by the other, and the issue in a civil suit is an admixture of a case to parties to the lis. In contrast, section 239 of the CrPC, which deals with the trial of warrant cases by a magistrate, confines the examination to the final report and documents sent with it under section 173 of the CrPC. The allegations in the FIR, transformed through investigation and the collection of evidence, are shaped into a final report. This receives the attention of the magistrate to decide whether the charge so presented against the accused is groundless.

                  26.2 The salutary duty fastened on the magistrate is exercised not only for aborting unwanted and groundless prosecutions, but also for ensuring the continuation of prosecution of a final report with documents presenting a triable charge. Considering the importance of either discharging the accused or continuing the prosecution, the magistrate neither acts as a post office nor conducts a mini-trial of the report and the documents before it while exercising the power under section 239 of the CrPC. Stated briefly, the learned magistrate, in sufficient measure, examines the report and documents while taking a decision for discharge or for proceeding with the prosecution. We propose to examine whether the order impugned before us withstands the scrutiny and requirement of this Court.

                  26.3 However, since the order of discharge is amenable to the jurisdiction of the revisional court, the order of discharge must speak for itself, and only a warranted conclusion is arrived at by the magistrate. The deviation from the discretionary limits definitely attracts the supervisory jurisdiction of the revisional courts. The issue of whether discharge is warranted or trial is continued depends on the circumstances of each case.”

                  2.9) The learned Special Public Prosecutor has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. and Others (supra9), wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has categorically held that even in cases of one time settlement, the allegations contained in the charge sheet, and the specific findings therein regarding the procurement of loans by submitting obligating documents through misrepresentation to the bank, cannot be absolved.

                  2.10) It is well settled that while considering a petition for quashment of the charge sheet or while deciding an application for discharge, the Court is required to look into only those documents which were relied upon by the prosecution at the time of filing of the charge sheet. This position of law has been consistently laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, inter alia, in K. Bharati Devi (supra 1) and Suresh C. Singhal (supra 2). In the said decisions, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has categorically held that where the entire loan amount has been settled between the complainant bank and the accused through a One Time Settlement, continuation of criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise. Moreover, after payment of loan along with the entire interest, no loss has been caused to the bank.

                  2.11) Further, in the case of Hemanth S. Hati (supra 3), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has proceeded further and directed quashment of the criminal proceedings upon fulfillment of the condition of deposit of the entire loan amount.

                  2.12) In the case of Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi (supra 8), while following the three Judge Bench decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendranath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, observed that at the stage of framing of charge, the accused does not have a right to produce material or documents. However, in the present case, the documents regarding repayment of the loan were already collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Inspite of such repayment, the charge sheet was filed. Thus, the principle laid down in State of Orissa v. Debendranath Padhi is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, it is distinguishable.

                  2.13) In Central Bureau of Investigation v. M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. and Others (supra 9), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of quashment passed by the High Court, on the specific observation that one time settlement arrived at between the parties does not cover the actual amount due to the Bank and there was a huge deficit more than Rs.5 crores.

                  2.14) In the instant case, it is alleged that Bhimavaram Hospitals availed credit facility of Rs.50 lakhs and a term loan of Rs.100 lakhs from the State Bank of India for taking over existing liabilities of the Central Bank of India, Bhimavaram Branch, which was duly approved. The allegation is that the said facilities were obtained by using bogus documents in conspiracy with certain bank officials, without proper verification of bills and dues. However, during the course of investigation, sanction for prosecution against the bank officials was not accorded by the Vigilance Commission and consequently, they were not charge sheeted. The present petitioners, being the Managing Director and other policy decision makers of Bhimavaram Hospitals, alone were charge sheeted by the CBI vide Charge Sheet No.3/2011, dated 14.05.2011. It appears that during the course of investigation, though there are allegations, Bhimavaram Hospitals had repaid the entire loan amount along with interest. In this regard, the Investigating Agency has collected Documents Nos.483 and 484. Therefore, the repayment was within the knowledge of the CBI and that the loan was finally repaid and to that effect, “No Due‟ certificate dated 21.01.2010 was also issued by the State Bank of India. More surprisingly, the loan account never became a non performing asset (NPA) of the bank.

                  2.15) The charge sheet was submitted by the CBI under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It appears to this Court that the charge sheet was submitted on 14.05.2011. The case before the CBI was registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 10.06.2009. During the course of investigation, the petitioner remitted/repaid the entire loan amount along with interest. Finally, a “No Due‟ certificate was issued by the bank on 21.01.2010. It juxtapose that before the submission of the charge sheet, the account had already been settled. There are no instances or evidence collected by the CBI to show that the bank suffered any loss by any act or action of the present petitioners.

                  2.16) To justify a prima facie offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, there are certain ingredients which the prosecution must have to be proved. They are:

                  (i) Dishonest inducement by the accused to deceive the victim;

                  (ii) By such deception, the victim was induced to deliver any property to the accused or to make, alter, or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security;

                  (iii) Such inducement should be ended by illegal gain to the accused and illegal loss to the victim;

                  2.17) On the basis of the above ingredients under Section 420 IPC, it appears that the said ingredients are very much missing in the charge sheet submitted by the prosecution.

                  2.18) In these circumstances, it is crystal clear that the charge sheet does not disclose the prima facie ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, as there is neither wrongful loss caused to the State Bank of India nor wrongful gain accrued to Bhimavaram Hospitals. Mere allegations of use of bogus bills or documents for availing a loan, in the absence of any resultant wrongful loss, do not constitute offences under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. In case of an offence under Section 120-B I.P.C., it is essential to prima facie establish that the alleged conspiracy resulted in wrongful loss to the bank. In the present case, there is no material to show that the bank suffered any loss due to the acts of the petitioners. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered.

8. CONCLUSION:

Under the above observation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charge sheet submitted by the CBI is groundless. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned order, dt.22.06.2012, passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, in Criminal M.P. No.466 of 2012 in C.C. No. 812 of 2011 is set aside and the petitioners are discharged from the criminal case under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed.