The judgment establishes the legal principle that the provisions of CrPC related to arrest, extradition, and investigation empower the investigating agency to obtain a warrant of arrest for a person evading investigation and connected with the offense.

JUDGMENT

Tirthankar Ghosh, J. - The revisional application has been preferred against the order dated 2-8-2019 passed by the Ld. Judge, Special (CBI) Court No. 4 in-charge of Special (CBI) Court No.2, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in connection with RC (CBI) Case No. 05 of 2016. The present revisional application refers to an open-dated non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner to enable the Interpol to issue Red Corner Notice in connection with CBI, BS & FC Case No. RCBSK2016E0005.

2. The first information report was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the General Manager, State Bank of India (as leader of a consortium of 25 banks) with the Superintendent of Police, CBI, BS & FC, Kolkata.

3. The gist of the allegations in the complaint as reflected from the application made by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) before the Special Court is to the effect that the directors, promoters, company secretary along with the officials who looked after the day to day affairs of M/s. Sri Ganesh Jewellery House (I) Ltd. entered into a conspiracy with unknown officials of nationalized banks and foreign companies, who in furtherance of the said conspiracy cheated a consortium of 25 banks during the period 2012 to 2014, by availing credit facilities of 4047.50 crores from a consortium of 25 banks, including 20 nationalized banks in the name of the accused borrower company causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 2672 crores (excluding interest) as on the date of NPA out of which the share of 20 nationalized banks is Rs. 2223.13 crores. It has been further alleged that the accused persons forged/got forged certain documents for the purpose of cheating and used such forged documents as genuine. The public servants of the nationalized banks abused their respective official position in as much as they caused undue pecuniary advantage to the accused borrower company and others.

4. Before dealing with the issue raised in the revisional application, it would be pertinent to state that the present petitioner preferred an Application for quashing of the proceedings relating to RC (CBI) Case No. 05 of 2016 being CRR 3200 of 2017, wherein a Coordinate Bench was pleased to hold by an order dated 20-9-2017 as follows:-

"In view of the fact that the petitioner has substantial shareholding in the company to whom loan had been dishonestly advanced by a nationalized bank by the employees of the bank in abuse of their official position I am of the opinion that there is no illegality in registration of FIR in the instant case and commencement of investigation thereon. Extent of complicity of the petitioner may be gone into in the course of such investigation. It is open to the petitioner to join the investigation in accordance with law. In the event investigation results in filing of police report against the petitioner, it shall be open to him to agitate his grievances before the trial Court in accordance with law, if so advised."

5. It would also not be out of place to state that at the time of admission of the instant revisional application on 1-11-2019 a coordinate Bench was pleased to observe as follows:-

"Without going into the rival contentions of the parties at this stage and in view of the fact that the Revisionist wishes to participate personally in the investigation being conducted by the C.B.I., the warrant of arrest already communicated to the authorities in the United Arab Emirates, shall stand modified to a limited extent to allow the Revisionist to leave United Arab Emirates only by air to city of Kolkata by a direct flight, on a commercial airline and to no other destination.

It is made clear that in the event, the revisionist Kamlesh Parekh seeks to leave the United Arab Emirates for any other destination, United Arab Emirates Authorities are requested to arrest him in the UAE and to deport him to India.

Mr. Dastoor, the learned counsel for the Revisionist, undertakes before this Court, on behalf of his client,