SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1899

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Prakash D. Naik, J.
Rana Kapoor - Appellant
Versus
Centra Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3294 of 2021
Decided On : 03-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate, Ashul Agarwal, Advocate, Rhythm Aggarwal, Advocate, Rahul S. Agarwal, Advocate, H.S. Venegavkar, Advocate, Arfan Sait, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Sec. 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires prior approval for investigations into offenses by public servants only when those offenses are related to their official functions, and such approval can be validly granted by the Board of Directors of the concerned organization.

Headnote:

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - INVESTIGATION AND SANCTION - Sec. 17-A, Sec. 7, Sec. 11, Sec. 12 of P.C. Act, Sec. 120-B, Sec. 420 of IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Sec. 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates prior approval for investigations into offenses committed by public servants in discharge of their official duties. The court interpreted that the approval obtained from the Board of Directors of Yes Bank was valid, and the investigation was not rendered void ab initio as claimed by the petitioner. The court emphasized that Sec. 17-A is designed to protect public servants acting in good faith, not those acting with ulterior motives, which influenced its decision to reject the petitioner's claims.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Rana Kapoor, former MD and CEO of Yes Bank, challenged the CBI's investigation into allegations of corruption and conspiracy related to a loan sanctioned to Avantha Group Companies. He argued that the investigation was conducted without the necessary prior approval as required under Sec. 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the approval from the Board of Directors of Yes Bank was valid and that the investigation did not violate Sec. 17-A. It concluded that the allegations against the petitioner involved serious offenses that were not protected under the provisions of the P.C. Act, as they did not relate to the discharge of his official duties.

Issues: Whether the CBI's investigation was valid without prior approval under Sec. 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and whether the actions of the petitioner were in the discharge of his official duties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Sec. 17-A requires prior approval for investigations into offenses by public servants only when those offenses are directly related to their official functions. The approval from the Board of Directors was deemed sufficient, and the petitioner’s actions were found to be outside the scope of his official duties.

Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's application and upheld the validity of the CBI's investigation, allowing the proceedings to continue.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The petitioner has invoked Article 227 of Constitution of India and Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and sought following reliefs.

<WXY>a. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside and the order dtd. 14/8/2021 passed by the Ld. Special Judge whereby the Ld. Special Judge dismissed the Application filed by the petitioner for seeking directions to the CBI not to proceed in the matter in non-compliance of approval, as contemplated under Sec. 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari and/or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, necessary orders and directions thereby declaring that the investigation, including custody of the petitioner conducted by the CBI in the present matter is without valid sanction is illegal, void ab-intitio and no est in the eyes of law.

c. To further direct the respondent not to proceed in the matter in non-compliance of a proper approval, as contemplated under Sec. 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.</WXY>

2. The First Information Report (for short 'FIR') was registered by Respondent No.1/CBI on 12/3/2020 vide R.C. BA1/2020/A0004 for offence under Ss. 120-B r/w 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sec. 7, 11 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for Short ' P. C. Act') against Shri. Rana Kapoor (Petitioner) then MD and CEO of Yes Bank Ltd., Shri. Gautam Thapar, Smt. Bindu Rana Kapoor and others.

3. The brief allegations in the FIR are as follows:

<WXY>(a) The FIR bearing No.RC BA1/2020/A0004 was registered by CBI/ACB, Mumbai on 12/3/2020 for offence under Sec. 120B r/w 420 of Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 7, 11 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C.Act' for short);(b)It is alleged that the applicant was the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of YES Bank Limited ('YBL'). He had obtained illegal gratification in the form of property in prime location in New Delhi at much less then realizable market value belonging to M/s. Avantha Reality Limited ('ARL') for a loan taken by ARL from YBL for extending concessions, relaxations and waivers in the already existing credit facilities provided to Avantha Group ('AG;) Companies and for advancing new/additional loans to them. The petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with his wife Smt. Bindu Kapoor and Mr.Gautam Thapar-Promotor of AG Companies, for the purpose of obtaining illegal gratification;

(c) Information reveals that M/s. Avantha Holding Limited had obtained credit facilities from ICICI Bank Ltd and Development Credit Bank ('DCB') against collateral security of the immovable property at 40, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi. This property is owned by ARL and is lavish bungalow spread over an area of 1.2 acres approximately in prime location in Delhi. The valuation of the property in the loan books of ICICI Bank was done at Rs.550.00 crores. M/s. Avantha Holding Ltd and ARL are part of AG Companies;

(d) Information reveals that there was principal outstanding ofRs.350 crores to ICICI Bank and Rs.30.00 crores to DCB in March-2016 against charge of the above property; (e) As a part of conspiracy, YES Bank sanctioned loan of Rs.400.00 crores to ARL in March-2016 as lease rental discounting (LRD) for a period of ten years. In lease rental discounting, the discounted values of future lease rentals proposed to be received by the borrower by leasing its properties are sanctioned as loan amount. For this purpose ARL is stated to have entered into lease rental agreement with M/s. BILT Graphics Paper Pvt. Ltd ('BGPPL'), another AG Company. As per agreement, lease rental of Rs.65.00 crore per annum was payable by BGPPL to ARL. The lease rental agreement was executed on 22/3/2016, just two days prior to sanction of loan of Rs.400.00 crores by YES Bank to ARL;

(f) Earlier the aforesaid property was leased to M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd (BILT) on a lease rent. The proposed increase of rent of Rs.1.02 c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top