1 wp2135.2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2135 OF 2010 Ms. Celvita Fernandes ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Prashant Sawardekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : FEBRUARY 02, 2011 P.C. 1. This petition challenges the order dated 8th April, 2010 passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the revision application filed by the Petitioner against the order of the trial court dismissing her application for discharge. 2. The Petitioner is one of the accused in C.C. No. 1841 of 2000 instituted on the basis of F.I.R. No. 114 of 1993 dated 15th November, 1995 by the G.B. C.B. CID Mumbai on the basis of the report filed by one Laxman Narayandas Gokalgandhi. The 2 wp2135.2010 allegations in the F.I.R. are that during the period May 1996 to 15th November, 1996 one Ross James Canter, one Simon Peter Belmonte (both foreigners), Praful Gandhi and other persons floated a fictitious and bogus company by name Bodycare India Private Limited. The company invited deposits from public on the assurance that it would provide kits for manufacturing products at home which produces would be bought back by it and then sold it in the open market. The deposit was to be made against the production kit provided to Customer who were to be known as Sub Contractors. Several persons fell prey to this attractive scheme and deposited amounts with the company totalling to more than 30 Crores. Then, one day everybody found that company had shuttered down its office and vanished. 3. The complainant is one such depositors. He alleged in his complaint that on learning about the scheme, he had visited the company M/s. Bodycare India Private Limited and approached Ms. Fernanedes, General Manager of the company. She introduced him to one Ms. Binny Brahmabhatt, Marketing 3 wp2135.2010 Representative of the company who gave demonstration of the product. He was later introduced to one Ms. Manisha Shah for signing the contracts. 4. The Petitioner seeks to contend that there is no allegation in complaint of misrepresentation by her so as to attract the criminal liability. She also points out that there was one more "Fernandes" working in the company. perusal of the record however, shows that there is sufficient material on record to connect the petitioner to the offence in the complaint. The police have recorded statements of other victims of fraud. One such victim is Ms. Farida Merchant. In her additional statement she has stated that the petitioner used to control and supervise all the office activities and was very close to the Directors of the Company. She also stated that the petitioner was in contact with the Foreign Directors even after they left. She was conducting all the business of foreign Directors. All the cheques and cash were handled by the petitioner. The Sessions Court found that this material is sufficient to bring the petitioner 4 wp2135.2010 within the region of suspicion entitling the court to frame charge against her. 5. There can be no infirmity with the above view taken by the Sessions Court. The prosecution must get an opportunity to prove its case by leading evidence. It can not be said that there is no case whatsoever made out against the petitioner. Hence, petition is dismissed. 6. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clarified that the Court of learned Magistrate shall decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by this order. [Judge]