Back
2019 Supreme(All) 621
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD BENCH AT LUCKNOW
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Vikram Kothari - Appellant
Vs.
State Thru C.B.I./BSANDFC, New Delhi - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 3561 of 2019
Decided on : 13-05-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Pranjal Krishna, Adv., Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that framing of charges cannot be postponed based on pending investigation against other accused and that the material available before the court can only be supplied to the accused as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Criminal Case - Setting aside of orders by Special Judge, C.B.I. Anti-Corruption (Central), Lucknow - Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the requirement of evidence for framing charges and the procedure for supplying material to the accused as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside orders passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Anti-Corruption (Central), Lucknow and for direction to conduct the trial instituted on a police report. The C.B.I. registered a case against the petitioner and others under various sections of IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act based on allegations of cheating and misuse of credit facilities. The trial court had taken cognizance and issued summons against the accused. The petitioner filed applications for CFSL reports of handwriting of the accused and for deferring the framing of charges until the reports were available, which were rejected by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had rightly rejected the petitioner's applications for postponement of framing charges and for providing CFSL reports, emphasizing that framing of charges cannot be postponed based on pending investigation against other accused and that the material available before the court can only be supplied to the accused as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's request for CFSL reports and postponement of framing charges based on pending investigation against other accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court was right in rejecting the petitioner's applications, emphasizing that framing of charges cannot be postponed based on pending investigation against other accused and that the material available before the court can only be supplied to the accused as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 6.3.2019 and 30.4.2019 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Anti-Corruption (Central), Lucknow and a direction to the Special Judge, C.B.I. Anti-Corruption (Central), Lucknow for conducting the trial instituted on a police report, Criminal Case No.1051 of 2018 (C.B.I. vs. Vikram Kothari and others) as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The C.B.I. registered a case on 18.2.2018 under Sections 120-B, read with Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘PC Act’) on the basis of written compliant dated 18.2.2018 of Brijesh Kumar Singh, Deputy General Manager/Regional Head, Bank of Baroda, Kanpur against M/s Rotomac Global Private Limited (for short ‘M/s RGPL’), Vikram Kothari, Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s RGPL, Smt. Sadhana Kothari W/o Shri Vikram Kothari, Director of M/s RGPL, Shri Rahul Kothari S/o Shri Vikram Kothari and Director of M/s RGPL, Kanpur and unknown bank officials and private persons.
3. Allegations in the FIR are that M/s RGPL and its Directors had cheated Bank of Baroda, International Business Branch (IBB), The Mall, Kanpur for Rs.456.63 crores and also did not repay loan amount to six other banks (Total amount Rs.2919.39 crores) mentioned in the FIR. It is alleged that the Directors of M/s (RGPL) also misused the packing credit facilities sanctioned by the bank for Rs.15.50 crores disbursed on 25.1.2012 for executing export order of US Dollars 41.82 lakhs. Out of this amount, M/s RGPL utilised Rs.5.35 crores for import of Gems and Jewelery from M/s Madrid Implex. They had also misused the packing credit limit for the export order for M/s Star Com Resources Pte. Singapore for supply of wheat of 15700 metric tonne US Dollars which was disbursed on 26.5.2014 (Rs.14.60 crores) and 30.5.2014 for Rs.19.12 crores. It is further alleged that M/s RGPL were routing the transactions through Pacific Global and M/s Bunge for which discount of 1.865% was deducted by the overseas importer without having business transactions, as such it was being done as mercantile trade. They have also mis-utilised packing credit facility availed for executing export orders and later on packing credit was adjusted form other parties not related to export transactions.
4. The C.B.I. after investigation of the case, has submitted the charge sheet on 19.5.2018 against six accused, including the petitioner, under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. The charge sheet mentions that further investigation is pending against Smt. Sadhana Kothari, Brijesh Shankar Mishra, CFO of M/s RGPL, Sri Manoj Upadhyaya and other persons including the officials of the Bank of Baroda. It is further sated that after completion of the investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., supplementary charge sheet would be filed before the Court.
5. The trial court had taken cognizance on 7.6.2018 and issued summons against the accused. On 10.12.2018, the petitioner filed an application before the trial court for making available the documents. It was said that handwritings of Pavan Gupta, Umesh Kumar Gupta and Manoj Upadhyay had been sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi (for short ‘CFSL’) and the reports of the handwritings of these accused were yet to come and the charge sheet has been filed without waiting for handwriting reports. It was prayed that the petitioner should be provided CFSL reports of handwriting of the above persons in compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. The trial court vide order dated 6.3.2019 rejected the application on the ground that since the report of the CFSL is not part of the charge sheet and it was not yet been filed by the prosecution and it is not part of the record, therefore, the report cannot be given to the peti
