Twenty-three years after he was arrested on charges of corruption and 10 years after his retirement, R Narsimhan, former employee of the Bank of Baroda (BoB), can heave a sigh of relief.
The Bombay high court recently discharged him from a case of corruption and criminal conspiracy holding that “the officer, who acts upon the directions of his superiors, despite his own opinion being made known, cannot be prosecuted for an act done upon the directions of his superiors”.
The offence was allegedly committed in September 1987 when Narsimhan was posted as senior vice president of the BoB in New York. The allegation against him was that he, along with his colleagues, had increased the credit limit for a company Kulmer Inc, a New York-based private firm, from US$ 1 million to US$ 5 million. It was also alleged that based on the recommendations made by Narsimhan, various facilities were enhanced and granted to Kulmer. As per the CBI, that sought Narsimhan’s prosecution, he had increased the company’s credit limit despite the firm being classified as “doubtful credit limit” by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) of USA.
In 1999, however, the Central Vigilance Committee that had carried out the departmental inquiry against the bank official, had exonerated him of all charges. The chairman and managing director of BoB declined to grant sanction for Narsimhan’s prosecution to the CBI and it therefore served him a chargesheet after his retirement in February 1999.
However, after going over the documents placed before the court by Narsimhan’s advocate Yusuf Iqbal, Justice Roshan Dalvi observed that in 1987, when Narsimhan became the senior vice president of the bank, he had recommended increasing the credit limit for the company as it had shown improvement in its stability. When Kulmer showed no sign of improvement, Narsimhan also withdrew the increased credit limits he had recommended.
After the departmental inquiry against Narsimhan was concluded by exonerating him, the bank denied the CBI for his prosecution in 1998. The prosecution of a public officer requires sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. “The CBI is a watchdog for that purpose; it cannot be a bloodhound to persecute a public officer in place of prosecuting him,” Justice Dalvi said. Inferring that there is no prima facie case of conspiracy or corruption against Narsimhan, the court discharged him from the case.
