Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 1552
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
NANDLAL CHATURVEDI - Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and another - Respondents
Cri. W. P. No. 1327 of 2015
Decided on : 12-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Maitreya G. Shukla
For the Respondent: Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Indian Penal Code – Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 – Constitution of India - Article 227 – Petitioner has preferred this petition – Challenging the order passed by the Special Court in CBI Special Case, below Exhibit – Section 106 – First Information Report – Cheating – First Information Report (FIR) was registered for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code along with section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Accused were officers of Central Bank of India – They entered into a criminal conspiracy and others, the object of which was to cheat Central Bank of India by opening letter of credit –Held, Applying the aforesaid principles enunciated in several decisions, to the present case, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the proceedings in the present case cannot be quashed on the ground of settlement – Accused in the present case charged for the commission of offence under Indian Penal Code as well as under the Prevention of Corruption Act – Clear role was attributed to the applicant – CBI conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet – Special Court has rejected the application for discharge preferred by petitioner stating that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner – Role played by petitioner has been narrated hereinabove – Crime of this nature would definitely fall in the category of offences which travel for ahead of personal or private wrong – Court cannot be a silent or a mute spectator to allow the proceedings to be quashed – Alleged offence is against the society – Allegations were investigated by CBI and the charge-sheet has been filed – Merely on account of no dues certificate issued by way of one time settlement for the convenient amount, proceedings would not be quashed – Applicant has played vital role in the crime – Proceedings against some of the public servants are still pending – According to prosecution the petitioner was instrumental in commission of offence – It was he who made applications to the Bank for letters of credit – Petition dismissed.
1. Rule. Heard both sides for final disposal.
2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29th January, 2015, passed by the Special Court in CBI Special Case No. 45 of 2001, below Exhibit – 106.
2-A. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :
(a) First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 5th May, 1993 vide R.C.No. 33(A) for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code along with section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(b) Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 9 were officers of Central Bank of India. They entered into a criminal conspiracy with Dinesh Chaturvedi (Accused No. 11), S. N. Chaturvedi, Narendra Chaturvedi (Accused No. 20/applicant) and others, the object of which was to cheat Central Bank of India by opening letter of credit.
(c) The accused availed letters of credits from the Central Bank of India on the basis of bogus transaction and discounted the letters of credit with other banks and diverted the amounts received to their sister concerns. The accused did not paid the amount to the Central Bank of India on maturity and caused loss to the Bank.
(d) Accused S. N. Chaturvedi (accused No. 10) and Dinesh Chaturvedi (accused No. 11), opened current account with Central Bank of India, as a directors of M/s Sidan Holdings Private Limited and the petitioner (accused No. 20), opened account with Central Bank of India as Director of M/s Lotrose Trading Private Limited. Accused No. 11 authorized the petitioner to handle account of M/s Sidan Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
(e) Petitioner had opened LCs on 13th March, 1991 for Rs. 1,50,33,000/-, on 16th March, 1991 for Rs. 1,50,30,000/-, on 10th June, 1991 for Rs. 1,50,74,000/-, and on 11th June, 1991 for Rs. 1,50,74,000/-. On behalf of Sidan Holdings Pvt. Ltd. All the LCs were favouring M/s Lotrose Trading Pvt. Ltd. All these LCs were bogus against transactions and the amount against these LCs on maturity were not paid to the bank and loss was caused to the complainant bank. On completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
3. The petitioner applied for discharge before the Sessions Court on the ground that the dues of the bank were paid off and that the bank had issued no dues certificate and as such there was no liability on behalf of the petitioner. The application was rejected on 29th January, 2015.
4. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner can be summerised as under :
(a) The Central Bank of India had entered into a settlement proposal with Mr. S. N. Chaturvedi (accused No. 10) and Director of M/s Anand Intechs Limited, M/s Sunain Investments Pvt. Ltd., M/s Sidan Holding Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Shrishma Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Settlement has been finalized for an amount of Rs. 3,35,00,000/-, as a full and final settlement towards the outstanding liabilities of the companies and that the settlement amount has also been paid to the Bank.
(b) The liability of the Bank as far as M/s Sidan Holdings Pvt. Ltd., accused No. 5 towards the Central Bank has been settled and nothing further remain to be paid to the Bank as far as the petitioner is concerned.
(c) Central Bank of India issued no dues certificate to Mr. S. N. Chaturvedi and hence no liability towards Central Bank of India exists.
(d) For satisfying the liability of Central Bank of India, the case against the accused Mr. S. N. Chaturvedi who is accused No. 10 has been quashed by this Court by order dated 29th January, 2014.
(e) The petitioner being a Director of M/s Sidan Holdings Pvt. Ltd. whose liability to the Central Bank of India has been satisfied in full in accordance with the settlement stands on the similar footing as that of Mr. S. N. Chaturvedi. Accused Nos. 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 have been discharged by this Court as the amounts towards LCs showing their involvement have been paid.
(f) No purpose would be served by prosecuting the petitioner as several other accused who attr
