Authority: Calcutta High Court, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction, Appellate Side

Order Date: 25.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Central Bureau of Investigation (Petitioner) vs. Anju Barman (Opposite Party). Counsel for CBI: Mr. Anirban Mitra. Counsel for the opposite party: Mr. Subir Banerjee, Mr. Sandip Bandyopadhyay, Mrs. R. Basu Ray.
  • Background: On 06.01.2005, an Assistant General Manager of UCO Bank lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, alleging fraud by Kamal Kumar Chakraborty (Senior Manager, UCO Bank) between 31.07.2000 and 15.05.2003. The fraud involved sanctioning cash‑credit limits under the “UCO Traders Scheme” to non‑existent farms/companies, accepting false or over‑valued collateral, resulting in a loss of Rs 4,68,26,000 to UCO Bank.
  • Allegations against Anju Barman: She, together with Chakraborty, allegedly obtained multiple financings by creating a fictitious farm, M/S S.P. Industries, using forged financial statements. The farm’s address was the residential premises of the borrower, with no commercial activity or stock. A stock editor’s verification confirmed non‑existence of the farm.
  • Loan Details: A cash‑credit limit of Rs 20,00,000 was sanctioned on 12.09.2002 by Chakraborty. Outstanding amount later stood at Rs 16,32,000. Anju Barman repaid Rs 14,34,000 as a one‑time settlement; the bank issued a “no dues certificate” on 06.11.2009.
  • Security Offered: Title deed No. 6688 of 2002 (42 decimal land valued at Rs 15,00,000) and five fixed‑deposit certificates of Rs 1,00,000 each were mortgaged.
  • Charges Filed: Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
  • Trial Court Decision: Discharged Anju Barman from the cheating charge (IPC section 420) but framed charges under sections 120B, 467, 468, 471.
  • CBI’s Revision Arguments: Argued that the settlement does not absolve criminal liability; cited several Supreme Court judgments and CRR 918/2020. Emphasised alleged falsified financial statements and the existence of a fraudulent loan of Rs 20,00,000, settled for Rs 14,34,000.
  • Opposite Party’s Defense: Asserted genuine collateral, full repayment, issuance of a no‑dues certificate, and absence of dishonest intent (mens rea). Highlighted that the loan was sanctioned after due diligence and that settlement was a private compromise without court leave.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The High Court held that cheating under IPC section 420 requires dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. The presence of genuine collateral and the settlement demonstrated no such intent. A contractual dispute or reduced settlement does not constitute cheating. The court referenced precedents (V.Y. Jose vs State of Gujarat (2009), Hiralal Hari lal Bhagwati vs CBI (2003), etc.) confirming the necessity of mens rea.
  • Other Charges: The court noted that allegations of forging documents and using false statements may pertain to sections 120B, 467, 468, 471 and will be adjudicated at trial.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed the revision petition (CRR 2493 of 2019) and upheld the trial court’s discharge of Anju Barman from the cheating charge under IPC section 420.
  • No interference was ordered; the charges under sections 120B, 467, 468, 471 remain pending for trial.

Topics: Criminal Law, Banking Fraud