1 cr-wp-2363-09 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. W.P. NO. 2363 OF 2009 Aarti Mehra ..Petitioner Vs. CBI (BS&FC) and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. Shirish Gupte Senior Advocate with Mr. Madhukar Haramwar for Petitioner Mr. D.A.Nalawade with Mr.A.S. Gadkari Advocates for Respondent No. 1. Smt. U.V. Kejariwal APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : OCTOBER 01, 2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER : NOVEMBER 16, 2010 ORDER: 1 In this petition, the original petitioner/accused no.5 Aarti Mehra has prayed for discharge. There are eight accused in this case. Accused no.1 is the husband of the petitioner and accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 are bank officials. Accused no.6 was the proprietor of M/s. Aditi 2 cr-wp-2363-09 Trading. Accused no.7 was the Proprietor of Kailas Enterprises and accused no.8 is concerned with Balaji Trading. Thus, accused nos.2 to 4 are Bank Officials and the rest are directors/proprietors of various companies or firms. The applicant is facing prosecution under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 etc. of IPC. Some of the other accused being public servants are also facing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution case is that accused nos.1, 5, 6 to 8 with the help of bank officials i.e. accused nos.2 to 4 obtained credit facilities on the basis of bogus claims or bogus documents. As far as accused no.5 is concerned, it is further the prosecution case that she inter alia discounted Bills of Exchange without conducting any real or genuine business with M/s. Paper Line Corporation. 2 It is the prosecution case that accused no.1 Somesh Mehra husband of petitioner Aarti Mehra had floated different companies including (1) Dhansukh Finevest Pvt. Ltd., (2) Colius Papers Converters Pvt. Ltd., (3) Ginak Investment Pvt. Ltd., (4) M/s. Parca Paper Industries Ltd., (5) M/s. Kailash Enterprises, (6) M/s. Orient International of which applicant-accused no.5 is sole proprietor and (7) Ramus Yarn Processor Pvt. Ltd. According to the prosecution, the petitioner Aarti Mehra and her husband accused no.1 Somesh Mehra were Directors of M/s. 3 cr-wp-2363-09 Ramus Yarn Processor Pvt. Ltd. (RYPPL). They were enjoying certain credit facilities with Oriental Bank of Commerce since 1991. 3 In the year 2000, the account of the company was taken over by Bank of Maharashtra from Oriental Bank of Commerce and in spite of transfer of account to Bank of Maharashtra accused no.2 Sharma discounted bills of the associate concerns of M/s. Ramus Yarn Processor Pvt. Ltd. namely Dansukh Finvest Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Colius Papers Converters Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ginak Investment Pvt. Ltd. from Oriental Bank of Commerce. 4 The name of M/s. Ramus Yarn Processes Pvt. Ltd. was changed into M/s. Colius Papers Converters Pvt. Ltd. which is evident from the statement of Mr. Deven Shah It is the prosecution case that M/s. Colius Papers Converter Pvt. Ltd. enjoyed finance from a consortium of banks comprising of Oriental Bank of Commerce and Bank of Maharashtra which facts are not denied by the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the accused had mortgaged plant and machinery belonging to M/s.Ramus Yarn Processor Pvt. Ltd. to M.S.F.C. but the said plant and machinery was again furnished as collateral security to Oriental Bank of Commerce which was accepted by Oriental 4 cr-wp-2363-09 Bank of Commerce and term loan of Rs.81 lakhs was sanctioned for purchase of oven to M/s. Colius Paper Converters Pvt. Ltd. The said amount was disbursed against the sale invoices issued by one M/s. R.M. Corporation. It is revealed in the investigation that M/s. R.M.Corporation was a bogus firm and it was not in existence. It is contended that after the funds were released, accused no.1 transferred Rs. 9.40 lakhs to an associate concern M/s. Hike Finance Pvt. Ltd. with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kalbadevi Branch. 5 M/s. Orient International is sole proprietary firm of petitioner- accused no.5. This fact is not denied by the petitioner. The petitioner had requested Oriental Bank of Commerce for discounting two bills for value of about Rs. 10 lakhs drawn on M/s. Paperline Enterprises. The bills were discounted by accused no.6 Sharma-Bank Official without obtaining proper documents. Witness Smt. Prabhakar, Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce has stated that she received two letters dated 24.4.2002 from Orient International. These letters were signed by the petitioner. In the said letters the petitioner had requested to discount two Bills of Exchange of Rs.5,09,015/- and Rs. 4,90,262-50. Accused no.2 S.K. Sharma had initialed thereon giving instructions that both the bills be discounted. Thereafter, credit for the amount of Rs.5,09,015/- 5 cr-wp-2363-09 and some other amount was given. This Bill of Exchange of Rs. 5,09,215/- was submitted by the petitioner in connection with business done by her firm with Paperline Enterprises. This Bill of Exchange pertained to invoice No.1 dated 19.4.2002 of Rs. 5.09 lakhs. It is interesting to note that the Invoice submitted with the Bill of Exchange purported to be of Paperline Enterprises shows that the address of Paperline Enterprises is the same as that of Colius Paper Converters Pvt. Ltd. The Invoice pertains to dispatch dated 19th April, 2002. Mr. Kamlapat Surana was the proprietor of Paperline Enterprises. His statement shows that he stopped the business of Paperline Enterprises in December, 2001. He has further stated that he has stopped all sale and purchase activities before December, 2001. He has not purchased any material for Paperline Enterprises during April/May, 2002. 6 The material on record shows that there was no actual delivery of any goods to Paperline Enterprises or any transaction by Orient International with Paperline Enterprises in the year 2002. In fact, statement of Kamlapat Surana shows that he gave the land and shed of Paperline Enterprises on rent to accused no.1 Somesh Mehra i.e. 6 cr-wp-2363-09 husband of petitioner in December 2001 and thereafter he has not done any business in the name of Paperline Enterprises with anybody. The statement of Mr. Deven Shah shows that the factory premises of Mr. Kamal Surana was taken on rent by Colius Papers Converters and from the said premises only business in the name of Colius Paper Converters was done during the tenure of Mr. Deven Shah i.e. during 2000-2004. It may also be stated that the address of Rakesh Patel who is supervisor in Colius Papers Converters Ltd. is the same address as Paperline Enterprises. 7 It is revealed that M/s. Orient International had not conducted any genuine business with M/s. Paperline Enterprises but bills were got discounted by the petitioner from the bank on the basis of fictitious transactions with Paperline Enterprises. The substantial portion of funds so disbursed by the Bank was transferred by the petitioner accused no. 5 to another associate account of Somesh Mehra, accused no.1 namely M/s. Hike Finance. There are no documents to show any genuine business between M/s. Paperline Enterprises and M/s. Orient International. The bills were discounted and money was obtained by the petitioner from the bank and used for other sister concerns of accused no.1. 7 cr-wp-2363-09 8 I have gone through the statements of witnesses Shanta Prabhakar, Dinesh Nair, Kamlapat Surana and others. The material on record reveals that accused no. 5 has illegally obtained financial benefit from the Bank with the help of bank officials. The material further shows that accused no. 5 has also sought credit facilities and got amounts sanctioned illegally which was utilized by her in associate concerns of accused no.1. Credit facilities were availed by the petitioner and her husband accused no. 1 on the basis of false and bogus documents. Moreover, the petitioner procured money from the bank without any actual business transactions. It appears from the record that the petitioner has shown false business transactions with different companies and utilized funds with the connivance of bank officials. It further appears from the record that accused nos.2, 3 and 4 abused their official position in the bank in order to give financial benefit to the petitioner and her husband. Discounted cheques were issued without sufficient balance, yet they were cleared. Thus, there is sufficient material on record to frame charge against the petitioner. It cannot be said that the allegations made against the petitioner are baseless and groundless. There is sufficient material to proceed, hence, no case is made out for discharge. 8 cr-wp-2363-09 9 Petition is rejected. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]