The court affirmed that a director's criminal liability cannot be presumed without direct evidence of involvement in fraudulent activities; mere involvement in a company implicated in fraud is insufficient to establish guilt.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH BANERJEE, J.

1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’, the petitioner seek setting aside of the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-07, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi, Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ in CC No.375/2019 whereby charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 120B read with Sections 420 /468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, Hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’ and under Section 13(2) read with Section13(1)(d) of the Prevention of corruption Act, Hereinafter referred to as ‘PCAct

2. Briefly encapsulated, based on a written complaint of the Deputy General Manager, Corporation Bank, Zonal Office, Delhi (South), Hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’, an FIR bearing no. RC-09/A/2017 dated 21.06.2017 came to be registered wherein it was alleged that in March 2013, one Sumit Mittal, projecting himself to be the proprietor of M/s. Shree Balaji Overseas, Hereinafter referred to as ‘borrower firm’, approached the Bank seeking working capital finance of Rs.600 lakhs. The said loan proposal was sanctioned by the Bank on 19.04.2013, stipulating hypothecation of stock-in- trade and EMG of property bearing no.A-68, measuring 138.17 sq. mtrs., situated at Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi, in the name of Sh. Sat Narayan Mittal. Pursuant thereto, on 26.04.2013, the Vasant Kunj branch of the Bank disbursed a Corp. Vyapar Loan of Rs.600 lakhs to the account of the borrower firm.

3. However, during inspection certain suspicion arose. As such, the Bank initiated an internal inquiry and it was found that the loan was applied based on forged and fabricated documents, which were not verified before sanctioning of the loan, and the title documents of the property which was offered as collateral were also found to be fabricated, as also the said loan was sanctioned in violation of various Circulars and Guidelines. It also emerged that the borrower firm and its proprietor were fictitious/ non- existent, as also that the said Sumit Mittal, along with certain senior bank officials at the Vasant Kunj Branch, CCPC and ZLCC, Delhi (South), and other private person had entered into criminal conspiracy to unlawfully get a loan of Rs.600 lakhs sanctioned based on those false and fabricated documents. The investigation also revealed that the loan amount was siphoned out within a period of twenty days through the accounts of various fake firms opened in the name of different impersonators, companies against accommodation entries and self-withdrawal. M/s. Kabir Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Hereinafter referred to as ‘Company, was one of those entities which received Rs.87,50,166/- from the loan account of the borrower firm. The petitioner herein and Mr. Shyam Lal are stated to be Director of said M/s. Kabir Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

4. Thereafter, with the aforesaid findings, chargesheet dated 25.03.2019 was filed and vide order dated 07.09.2022 charges were framed against the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

5. Mr. Aashul Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his submissions and contended that:-

i. No individual act/ role has been attributed to the petitioner in the entire chargesheet as there is no material on record indicating direct/ indirect ties of the alleged offence with the petitioner. In as much as, neither the petitioner receive