Back
High Court Of Delhi
RAJENDRA SINGH SETHIA - Appellant
Versus
STATE THROUGH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.B.I., NEW DELHI - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 548 of 1985
Decided On : 06/17/1985
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 173(2) - SECTION 173(5) - SECTION 167(2) - SECTION 167(8) - SECTION 309(2) - SECTION 11 OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 - SECTION 120B READ WITH SECTIONS 420, 467, 468 AND 471 INDIAN PENAL CODE - SECTION 420 AND 471 READ WITH SECTION 467 INDIAN PENAL CODE - BAIL - INVESTIGATION - COGNIZANCE - POLICE REPORT - DOCUMENTS - STATEMENTS - OFFENCES COMMITTED OUTSIDE INDIA - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - PASSPORT - FORGED DOCUMENTS - FRAUD - CHEATING - CONSPIRACY - FOREIGN EXCHANGE - BANK LOANS - WINDING UP - EXTRADITION - JURISDICTION - FURTHER INVESTIGATION - DETENTION - ACCOUNTS - CIVIL DISPUTE - SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCE - LIKELIHOOD OF FLEEING FROM JUSTICE - TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE - FAIR TRIAL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Indian national based in the U.K., was arrested in India for offences related to a criminal conspiracy to defraud banks and institutions of millions of pounds sterling. The F.I.R. alleged that the petitioner, along with others, conspired to obtain loans from banks by submitting false and forged bills of exchange and shipping documents. The petitioner was arrested and a charge sheet was filed against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and using forged documents. The petitioner filed a petition for bail, arguing that the investigation was not completed within the mandatory period of 90 days as prescribed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and that the police report filed in the case was incomplete as it did not include all the documents and statements required under Section 173(5) of the CrPC. The petitioner also argued that the sanction order for prosecution of offences committed outside India was invalid, and that the CMM's order extending his detention beyond the 90-day period was illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the police report filed in the case met the requirements of Section 173(2) of the CrPC, as it contained the particulars required by the statute. The court also held that the provisions of Section 173(5) of the CrPC, which require the police to forward along with the report all documents and statements of witnesses, do not mean that the police report is incomplete if it does not include all such documents and statements. The court further held that the sanction order for prosecution of offences committed outside India was valid, and that the CMM's order extending the petitioner's detention beyond the 90-day period was legal. The court also rejected the petitioner's argument that the case was a civil dispute and not a criminal offence, and held that the petitioner was not entitled to be released on bail.
Issues: 1. Whether the police report filed in the case met the requirements of Section 173(2) of the CrPC? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 173(5) of the CrPC, which require the police to forward along with the report all documents and statements of witnesses, mean that the police report is incomplete if it does not include all such documents and statements? 3. Whether the sanction order for prosecution of offences committed outside India was valid? 4. Whether the CMM's order extending the petitioner's detention beyond the 90-day period was legal? 5. Whether the case was a civil dispute and not a criminal offence? 6. Whether the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The police report filed in the case met the requirements of Section 173(2) of the CrPC, as it contained the particulars required by the statute. 2. The provisions of Section 173(5) of the CrPC, which require the police to forward along with the report all documents and statements of witnesses, do not mean that the police report is incomplete if it does not include all such documents and statements. 3. The sanction order for prosecution of offences committed outside India was valid. 4. The CMM's order extending the petitioner's detention beyond the 90-day period was legal. 5. The case was not a civil dispute and was a criminal offence. 6. The petitioner was not entitled to be released on bail.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner along with Amarjit Singh is facing trial for offences under Ss. 120b read with Ss. 420. 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code. and also for substantive offencepunishable under Ss. 420 and 471 read with S. 467 Indian Penal Code. The charge sheet under S. 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short the Code ) was filed on 29-5-1985 in. the Court of the. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (for short the CMM ), during the pendency of the present petition which is under S. 439 of the Code.
( 2 ) AN F. I. R. being R. C. No. 1185 was registered on 1-3-1985 at 5. 00 P. M. against the petitioner and others under Ss. 120b, 420, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code. This was under S. 154 of the Code. It is mentioned in this F. I. R. that the petitioner, an Indian national, based in the U. K. (London) was the Managing Director of certain group companies and during the period 1982-1984 conspired with certain employees. namely, Ashish Banarjee and Rajender Kumar Batodia and certain officials of the Punjab National Bank, Union Bank of India and Central Bank of India and other institutions based in U. K. and some other countries to defraud these banks institutions to the tune of millions if pound sterlings. It is then said that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, these banks and institutions were dishonestly induced by the petitioner and his associates to extend loans to the group of companies controlled by the petitioner in respect of alleged contracts with the Nigerian National Supply Corporation and other African Bodies which did not have sufficient foreign exchange reserve required prior to the grant of such loans. It was then stated that such loans were reported to have been obtained on the strength of false representations regarding the value of assets held by the petitioner to meet the amounts of the loans.
( 3 ) THE petitioner was arrested on 1-3-1985 itself at about 10. 15 P. M. outside Maurya Sheraton Hotel, New Delhi, where lie was staying. His room in the hotel was searched One passport being No. W-900509 in the name of R. K. Dugar in which the photograph of the petitioner had been pasted was recovered. Certain other documents including one return air Ticket of Swiss Air ex-Calcutta Delhi-Bombay Cairo-Genevanew York-Geneva-Bombay-Calcutta, and travellers cheques of the value of US $ 5001- were also recovered. These documents were again in the name of R. K. Dugar. During the course of investigation, Amarjit Singh, the then General Manager of the Punjab National Bank Branch at London, was also arrested on 16-3-1985 at New Delhi. He was staying in Maharani Guest House, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, at that time. During the course of search of his room in the guest house, certain documents were recovered one of which was a photo album which showed that Amarjit Singh and the petitioner were quite close to each other. Investigations revealed that apart from other bills, the petitioner in conspiracy with Amarjit Singh co-accused had also submitted false and forged bills to the tune of US $ 10. 4 millions drawn on In-House Company based at Hongkong. The charge sheet which has been filed in the present case relates to the offences committed in respect of these transactions involving US $ 10,4 millions.
( 4 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner was the Chairman of Esal Group of Companies since 28-3-1977. Amarjit Singh had been posted to the Punjab National Bank Branch London and had been working in various capacities including that of the General Manager since 30-6-1980. The principal company in this group was Esal (Commodities) Ltd. London (for short esal ) which had various accounts with the Punjab National Bank at London. One of the accounts was. Dollars Merchanting Account. Amarjit Singh had issued specific instructions to all officers of the Punjab National Bank giving guidelines in respect of loan accounts etc. He had strictly warned his staff that no facilities even
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
