A.M. Thipsay, J.

1. Heard.

2. As an affidavit in reply had already been filed, by an order dated 14th November 2014, it was decided that the petition shall be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

3. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

4. By consent, heard finally.

5. The petitioner is one of the accused in C.R.No.38 of 2003 which is in respect of offences punishable under sections 465 IPC, 467 IPC, 468 IPC, 471 IPC, 474 IPC, 420 IPC read with section 120B of the IPC. Though all the accused allegedly involved in the matter have not yet been arrested, investigation has been completed, and a charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant and one Tahir Ahmed Khan who are the only two accused in the said case, that have been arrested so far. The petitioner had made an application for discharge, as contemplated under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), but the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate before whom the case is pending, rejected the same by an order dated 17th May 2012. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner moved the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision, but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the revision. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and its inherent powers.

6. I have heard Mr.Prabhanjay Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have heard Ms.S.S. Kaushik, learned APP for the State. With their assistance, I have gone through the application and the annexures thereto, which include a copy of the charge-sheet. I have also gone through the counter affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is absolutely no case for proceeding against him. It is submitted that the accusation levelled against him, is groundless.

8. I have carefully gone through the facts. They can be best taken from the counter affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer. In brief, they may be stated as under.

9. In the month of August 2002, one Tahir Ahmed Khan (Accused no.1) claiming to be the proprietor of M/s.Makhdoom Polymers, approached the Bank of India, Saki Naka Branch for grant of a term loan of Rs.22.50 lakhs for purchasing extruder machinery, and working capital limit of Rs.20 lakhs. It was represented that the machinery was to be installed in the premises of the said accused situate at Gala No.4, Shriguppi Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Road, Saki Naka, Mumbai 400072. One Al-Abid Ahmed Khan brother of the said Tahir Khan, and one Imam Hussain Pathan offered themselves as the guarantors in respect of the loan obtained by the said Tahir Ahmed Khan. After completing the formalities, such as submission of project report, acceptance of the guarantee given by the guarantors etc, loan of Rs.42.50 lakhs was sanctioned in favour of the said Tahir Ahmed Khan. Later on, the Bank realized that Tahir Ahmed Khan had played a fraud upon the bank, and had obtained the loan fraudulently by giving false information, and by providing false documents. Among other things, it was realized that a pay order issued by the Bank of India in favour of M/s.M.R.Engineering Works, whose quotation had been submitted by Tahir Ahmed Khan, was actually got encashed by the said Tahir Khan himself, and that, a bogus account had been opened by him in the said name.

10. It is not necessary to go deeper into the matter, so far as the case against the said Tahir Khan is concerned, inasmuch as there clearly exists a prima facie case of the alleged offences against him.

11. What is the case against the applicant may now be examined. The applicant is a professional Chartered Accountant. The allegation against him is that he had filed the Income Tax Returns of the said Al-Abid Ahmed Khan brother of Tahir Ahmed Khan in which false particulars and false information, was given. It may be recalled that the said Al-Abi