The main legal point established in the judgment is the involvement of the accused in a criminal conspiracy to cheat and cause loss to the bank through irregular transactions, violating RBI circulars.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Shinde, J.

1. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

2. By way of above Writ Petition, the Petitioner, who is original accused No. 5, challenges the order dated 04.05.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge for CBI/The Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay (CR 51) by which order the Criminal Revision Application Nos. 1045 of 2016, 1212 of 2016 and 371 of 2017 filed by original Accused Nos. 2, 5 and 3 came to be dismissed, and resultantly the order dated 01.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai rejecting the applications for discharge filed by the Petitioner and other accused under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be confirmed.

3. The facts giving rise to filing of the present Writ Petition can in brief be stated thus:-

The Petitioner herein is original accused No. 5 in FIR bearing NO. RC 8/E/2010 registered at the instance of the officer of the Reserve Bank of India by Respondent No. 2-CBI for the offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner herein i.e. the Original accused No. 5 Shri Kishor Deshpande, General Manager and accused No. 4 Smt. Bhavana Jadhav, Assistant General Manager of CKP Co. Op Bank Ltd. by joining hands in glow with accused No. 3 Smt. Nipha Sheth, a broker and accused No. 1 Shri Milind Ghag trustees of Aadhar Charitable Trust, Navsarjan Foundation and Aroyanidhi Charitable Trust as well accused No. 2 Smt. Sujal Desai, Chartered Accountant had violated the guidelines and circulars of RBI dated 19.04.2001 and 20.04.2002 and invested huge amount in Non SLR Securities (Non Statutory Liquidity Ratio) which was resulted into huge loss to the said bank. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 3 Smt. Nipa Sheth is the Director of a firm which is on the Panel of the CKP Co. op Bank Ltd. as a broker since 2003. By virtue of aforesaid RBI Circular it was not possible to deal directly with accused No. 3 - the broker by the Urban Cooperative Banks for the investment in Non SLR Securities, therefore at the instance of accused No. 3, Smt. Sujal Desai - accused No. 2, who was the chartered accountant, has floated the aforesaid three charitable trusts and appointed accused No. 1 Milind Ghag as the trustee of the said trusts. Accused No. 3 generated funds from her firm Trust Capital Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. and from such funds the aforesaid trusts have purchased Non-SLR Securities and, sold the same to the CKP Co. op Bank Ltd. at a higher price. During the course of investigation it is revealed that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in collusion with each others committed a conspiracy to cheat and to cause loss to the CKP Co. op Bank through irregular sale/purchase transactions of Non-SLR Securities such as Zero Coupon Bonds (ZCB) by violating RBI guidelines.

4. After completing the investigation, the CBI filed charge sheet against the Petitioner and other accused before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai and it is numbered as CC No. 283/PW/2011. Thereafter the Petitioner and other accused have filed applications under Section 239 of the Cr. P.C. before the Trial Court for discharge, which applications, as stated herein above, came to be rejected by the Trial Court. Against the said order, the Revision Applications filed by the Petitioner and other accused came to be rejected by the Special Judge for CBI/ Additional Sessions Court. Hence this Petition.

5. It is the case of the Petitioner-Original Accused No. 5 that being General Manager he had discharged his duties in accordance with rules and regulations and he had not committed any offence. It is his case that the CBI has failed to collect any incriminating evidence against him. He has no role in purchasing the bonds. It is further the case of the Petitioner that he is not an alone person who has taken decision for i