IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUJANA KALASIKAM, J.
Sukesh Gupta - Appellant
Versus
State and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 4396 of 2023
Decided On : 13-08-2024
ORDER :
(Sujana Kalasikam, J.)
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 (A.1) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.7 of 2015 on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 465, 471, 477-A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Section 13 (2) r/w.13 (1) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The facts of the case are that the General Manager of the 2nd respondent-M/s.Mineral and Metal Trading Corporation (MMTC) who is the defacto complainant gave complaint alleging certain irregularities with regard to the gold transactions committed by the officials of MMTC in connivance with private persons causing wrongful loss to a tune of Rs.194.4 Crores to MMTC and alleged the following irregularities :
(ii) MMTC, Hyderabad did not collect the mandatory 5% extra additional security for keeping the forex open.
(iii) MMTC Hyderabad continued to supply gold to M/s. MBS Group against BGs and FDRs without covering the exposure by taking additional securities.
(iv) Debit/credit notes of huge amounts were passed without any narration.
(v) Vendor account and foreign currency loan account were falsely prepared/fudged to conceal the out standings pertaining to MBS.
(vi) Laid down office procedure before issue of gold on loan, was not adhered to in majority of the cases.
(vii) Bank statements giving details of buyer's credit liability and forward cover certificates from the banks were manipulated/fudged to conceal the actual liability against MBS and to get the accounts cleared by the statutory auditors on 31.03.2012.
(viii) that officials of MMTC Hyderabad were communicating in parallel with MBS for recovery of outstanding dues. A mail dated 02.02.2012 sent to MBS Jewellers enclosing there with a statement showing Rs.181.39 crore as recoverable from the party is indicative of the fact that RO Hyderabad deliberately concealed this exposure from the CO. GM, Hyderabad, and DGM (Fin.) vide their letter dt. 23.02.2012, confirmed to Corporate Office that all loan transactions are fully covered and overall exposure is to the tune of Rs.43.44 crore, thereby again concealing the actual liability.
(ix) A quantity of 500 kg gold was taken from Standard Chartered Bank, London as Supplier's Credit for 90 days and it was issued to MBS Group in Jan. 2012 and was duly priced/fixed upto 31.03.2012 with value/payment dates in April 2012. This position of outstanding liability was not revealed in the books of accounts as on 31.03.2012. To offset the liability against this transaction, MMTC Hyderabad made outright gold sales to other parties and the money so collected was utilized to repay the earlier outstanding loans of MBS. For which outright gold sales, buyer's credit was taken in MMTC'S account, thereby deferring the payment obligation.
(x) MMTC's own funds amounting to Rs.37 crore was utilized, source of which could not be traced.
(xi) In April 2012, it was agreed by Corporate Office to re-commence business with M/s. MBS subject to their depositing Rs. 10 crore by 24.05.2012 and Rs.5 Crore by 31.05.2012 (total cash deposit of Rs.15 crore) besides MBS depositing jewellery to cover the outstanding dues of Rs.43.44 crore. Business was to commence with infusion of fresh funds by M/s. MBS Group after the deposit of Rs 10 crore which was to be adjusted against the dues. Despite these clear instructions dt 24.05.2012 of Corporate Office, MMTC Hyderabad issued 35 Kgs gold adjusting Rs.10 crore deposited towards outstanding to MBS Group on 2
Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Limited & Others
Omkar Nath Mishra and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another
Sushil Sethi vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh
Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely due to the existence of a civil dispute; serious allegations warrant a trial to determine criminal liability.
The court ruled that prima facie evidence supports the allegations against the petitioner, affirming that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised cautiously and not for merit as....
Criminal conspiracy in terms of Section 120-B of the Code is an independent offence. It is punishable separately.
The offence under Sec. 3 of the PML Act is a stand-alone offence, and the finality of the adjudication proceedings and the discharge of the accused by the trial Court can impact the continuation of c....
The court ruled that the CBI lacked jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioners due to insufficient evidence linking them to the alleged crimes as transporters, not exporters.
The court affirmed that allegations of misappropriation and cheating warranted further investigation, emphasizing the High Court's limited role in assessing cognizable offences.
PMLA proceedings against new accused via supplementary complaint need no pre-cognizance hearing under BNSS Section 223 if original cognizance pre-exists; money laundering offence independent, prosecu....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.