The court upheld that substantial evidence exists for charges of financial misconduct against the Applicant, justifying refusal of discharge.

JUDGMENT :

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sagar Tilak, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Amit Munde, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2.

2. The challenge in this Criminal Revision Application is to the Order dated 25^th April 2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, ACB, Pune below Exhibit-48 in Special Case No. 640/2023. By the impugned Order, the said Application bearing Exhibit-48, filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (“Cr.P.C”) for discharge from the offence punishable under Sections 120-B , Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and under Section 13 (2) read with Sections 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Applicant i.e. Accused No.6-Mrs. Kanchan Anil Satpute has been rejected.

3. It is the main contention of Mr. Tilak, learned Counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant is working as a Teacher and she has been made accused as she is the wife of main accused- Anil Anand Satpute. Learned Counsel submits that the Applicant had advanced loan from time to time to said company and the aggregate amount of loan advanced is of Rs.1.99 Crores. He submits that the amounts which are reflected in the account of Nishad Audio Visuals i.e. the proprietory concern of the Applicant are in fact repayment of the said loan made by M/s Duplex Industries Limited, a company wherein husband of the Applicant- Anil Anand Satpute and father-in-law of the Applicant i.e. Late Anand Vishnu Satpute were the Directors (“Said Company”). He therefore submits that the Applicant is not involved in the crime as alleged and there is no material against the Applicant and therefore, the Applicant be discharged.

4. On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr. Munde, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2- CBI, ACB, Pune that the offence is very serious where the main accused i.e. Anil Anand Satpute, husband of the present Applicant alongwith the present Applicant and other Accused are involved in siphoning of funds of State Bank of India to the tune of Rs.206.81 Crores for the financial years 2010 to 2013. He submits that the Applicant’s involvement is about Rs.5.08 Crores. He points out relevant material and submitted that no case is made out for discharge.

5. Before considering rival submissions, at the outset, it is necessary to note that as per the case of the Applicant, she is a Teacher and no material is pointed out showing the availability of huge fund to the extent of Rs.5.08 Crores (or even Rs.1.99 Crores as per the contention of the Applicant) with the Applicant. Therefore, the contention that the Applicant had advanced such a huge loan to the said company, whose Directors were the husband and father-in-law of the Applicant, is without any basis.

6. As per the contention of the Applicant, the Applicant through her proprietory concern i.e. Nishad Audio Visuals have advanced aggregate loan of Rs.1.99 Crores to Duplex Industries Limited i.e. the said Company where the Applicant’s husband and father-in-law were the Directors. In this background of the matter, it is required to note the brief facts of the case, as set out in the Charge-sheet.

(i) The instant case has been registered u/s 120-B r/w Sec. 420 of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 on 12.03.2020 on the basis of complaint dated 11.03.2020 lodged by Mrs. Sudha Ratna B G, Deputy General Manager, SAMB-II, Mumbai, against Mr. Anil Anand Satpute, Managing Director and Mr. Anand Vishnu Satpute, Director of M/s Duplex Industries Ltd.; M/s Duplex Industries Ltd., Pune; unknown public servants of State Bank of India and unknown others. It has been alleged that Mr. Anil Anand Satpute, Managing D