SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A. S. GADKARI, J
Vyomesh Mahipatray Shah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 896 OF 2020



Advocates:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Aabad Ponda, Mr. Sajal Yadav, Mr. Shulabh Sexena, Mr. Maitri Yadav
For the Respondent: Mr. Pravin Chavan, Mr. Amit Palkar

The absence of prima facie evidence of knowledge or criminal intent against accused suffices to quash charges in embezzlement cases.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, Article 227 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 227 and 482 - Challenge to an order issuing process against accused for various IPC offences and the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act - Allegations of embezzlement and misappropriation of funds - Court found no prima facie case against Petitioners, highlighting their role as bonafide sellers without knowledge of illegalities and that prosecution's assertions were based on conjectures. (Paras 1, 13, 15)

(B) Burden of Proof - Accused's awareness of crime - The Court established that mere allegations or irregularities do not suffice to establish culpability, emphasizing valid commercial transactions may be misconstrued in criminal proceedings. (Paras 12, 15)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the order issuing process against them for charges related to large-scale embezzlement and illegal diversion of funds meant for public upliftment. Evidence suggested Petitioners executed legitimate business transactions without awareness of any wrongdoing.

Findings of Court:
The court highlighted the absence of sufficient evidence to suggest any criminal involvement or the knowledge of illegal transactions by the Petitioners, ultimately allowing their petition for discharge.

Issues: Central issue was whether sufficient evidence or prima facie case existed to frame charges against the Petitioners for financial misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient for criminal liability; the prosecution must provide concrete evidence of knowledge or intent correlated with the alleged crimes.

Result: Petitioners' plea for quashing the Order for issuance of process allowed.

By the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 4 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.P.C .”), the Petitioners, Original accused Nos.9, 10 and 11, have impugned Order dated 15th March, 2017, issuing process against them in the alleged offence under Sections 3 4, 109, 120B, 201, 406, 409, 411, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act , 1988 (for short, “Benami Act”) bearing C.R. No.336 of 2015 dated 18th July, 2015, originally registered with Dashisar Police Station and subsequently investigated by the State CID, Konkan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai and Order dated 24th January, 2020, thereby rejecting the Application filed by the Petitioners under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C . for their discharge from the said offences.

2 Heard Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr. Chavan, learned Special P.P. for the Respondent State. Perused entire record annexed to the Petition.

3 The prosecution case in brief is that-

(i) The accused No.5-Shri. Ramesh N. Kadam (A-5), when was the Chairman of Sahityaratna Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Development Corporation (for short, “SLASDC”) during the period from 13th August, 2012 to 12th December, 2014, committed embezzlement and/or defalcation of approximately Rs.312 crores of Government funds and through his various institutions/entities, diverted those funds for purchase of properties. There are in all 27 accused persons in present crime.

(ii) As far as the Petitioners are concerned, the first charge- sheet was filed against them on 18th February, 2017, bearing Court Case No.12 of 2017. A supplementary charge-sheet has been filed against the Petitioners on 13th January, 2020.

(iii) As per the first charge-sheet dated 18th February, 2017, it is the allegation against the Petitioners that, during the period from 2009 to 2015, the Petitioners connived, conspired with the main accused and the then Chairman and public servant of SLASDC in misappropriating funds of SLASDC to the tune of Rs.111 crores, which were earmarked to be used for the upliftment of Matang Community and dishonestly diverted the said amount from Mr. Ramesh Kadam (A-5) controlled institutions like Joshaba Madhyavarti Grahak Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Mumbai (for short, “Joshaba”), Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Backward Class Co-operative Spinning Mill Limited, Paithan, Aurangabad (for short, Spinning Mill Ltd.) and Mahalakshmi Dudhautpadak Co-operative Society (for short, Dudhautpadak Society) by effecting false, fabricated, fictitious and fraudulent entries in Comral Realty Private Limited (for short, Comral Ltd.) and Hubtown Limited (for short, “Hubtown Ltd.”) books of account and showed them as true while submitting accounts to the Registrar of Companies and diverted the said amount along with the amount diverted from the Metri Sugar and Trading Private Limited (for short, ‘Metri Ltd.’) (which was allegedly the amount misappropriated from SLASDC) into the account of Comral Ltd. and Hubtown Ltd. respectively and misappropriated an amount of Rs.111 crores and knowingly retained the misappropriated amount with them and also cheated other share-holders of Comral Ltd. and Hubtown Ltd. for their wrongful gain and wrongful loss to SLASDC and thereby the Petitioners committed an offence under various Sections of the said Acts.

(iv) As per the supplementary charge-sheet dated 13th January 2020, it is the allegation against the Petitioners that, the Petitioner No.1 is the Managing Director of Hubtown Ltd. (formerly known as “Akruti City Limited”, [for short, “Akruti Ltd.”]) and he along with his relatives have 67% shares in the said Company. Petitioner No.1 also had rights of financial transactions of the said Company. Petitioner No.1 also had 50% of shares in Comral Ltd. (formerly known as “Kamla Shanti Realty Private Limited, [for short, Kamla Shanti Ltd.]).

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top