2011 (3) Supreme 654
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Sushil Suri — Appellant
versus
C.B.I. & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1109 of 2011
(Arising Out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.6113 of 2009)
Decided on : 6-5-2011
(2009) 6 SCC 351; AIR 1960 SC 866; (2001) 8 SCC 570; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; (1992) 4 SCC 305 – Relied upon
(2008) 9 SCC 677; (2003) 4 SCC 675 – Distinguished
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Charge-sheet prima facie not disclosing commission of offences under the charged sections – Exercise of power u/s 482 not warranted. (Para 17)
(2009) 6 SCC 364 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B r/w section 120A(2) – Mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of crime u/s 120A(2) alone is enough to bring about a conviction – Proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary. (Para 17)
1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 – Relied upon
(d) Interpretation of Judgment – A word or sentence should not be picked up from the judgment divorced from the context in which the said question arose for consideration. (Para 20)
(2005) 4 SCC 649; (2002) 3 SCC 496 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This case relates to Banking frauds.
Finding of the Court:
It is not a fit case for exercise of power u/s 482, Cr.P.C. or Article 142 of the Constitution.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
D.K. Jain, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against judgment dated 21st May 2009 delivered by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Misc. Case No.3842 of 2008, in a petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”). By the impugned judgment, a learned Single Judge of the High Court has declined to quash the Chargesheet filed against the appellant and other directors of a Company, namely, M/s Morpen Laboratories Ltd. (for short “the Company”) for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”).
3. Briefly stated, the facts, material for adjudication of the issue, arising in this appeal, are as follows:
A source information was received by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “the CBI”) that in the year 1999 two Chartered Accountants, namely, Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar, had dishonestly and fraudulently opened/caused to be opened several fictitious accounts in some banks in the names of certain concerns, with an intention and object to facilitate the diversion of bank finance availed by various public limited companies for the purpose other than what had been stated in the loan application. On the basis of the said information, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the afore-mentioned Company and its directors. The relevant portion of the FIR reads thus:
“That in June 1999, S/Sh. K.B. Suri, Sushil Suri and Smt. Kanta Suri, the Executive Directors of M/s. Morepen Labs Ltd. having their office at 416-418, Antriksh Bhawan (sic), 22, K.G. Marg, New Delhi, conspired together and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy they, dishonestly and fraudulently made an application to Punjab & Sind Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi for Hire-Purchase Finance to the tune of `300 Lacs, by submitting fake and forged purchase orders, invoices and bills relating to supply of machineries and equipments to be installed in their factory/works situated in Distt. Solan (HP). That the above Executive Directors of the company, dishonestly, fraudulently and in conspiracy with other accused persons submitted to the bank, fake and forged invoices of fictitious/non-existent supplier i.e. M/s. R.K. Engineers, M/s. Teem Metals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Malson Impex, made accommodation payments representing as genuine advance payments to suppliers and thereby caused the bank to release funds to the tune of `300 lacs towards cost of machineries and equipments and pay orders in various amounts issued by the bank for the purpose of making payments to suppliers. These amounts were then fraudulently deposited in several fictitious accounts of S/Sh. Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar at Corporation Bank and Canara Bank and encashed. The bank finance raised by the company on the pretext of procurement of machineries and equipments were not used for the purpose stated in the application for loan, instead the bank loan was diverted by the above Executive Directors, in collusion with S/Sh. Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar, for other undisclosed non-business purposes.
That during the year 1998 also the above Executive Directors of M/s. Morepen Labs Ltd. had adopted a similar modus-operandi in collusion with some other unknown persons/Chartered Accountants and applied for bank finance to the tune of ‘200 lacs for purchase of machineries and equipments with an object to divert bank finance for undisclosed non-business orders, invoices and bills of fictitious suppliers, i.e. M/s. B.K. Chemi-Plant Industries and M/s. Flexon Hose and Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. and caused the bank to release loan of ‘200 lacs for the purpose of procurement of machineries and equipments to be installed in their factory works situated in Distt. Solan (HP). The bank loan thus released by Punjab & Sind Bank (Hire-Purchase Branch), Connaught Circus, New Delhi was not actually used for the purpose stated
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar
Dinesh Dutt Joshi v. State of Rajasthan
Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana
Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab
Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Rumi Dhar (Smt) v. State of West Bengal
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.