- 1 - cra180.11 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.REVISION APPLN NO.180 OF 2011 Mrs Madhubala V.Seth .. .. Applicant vs The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Ms.Rekha Singala for Applicant Mr.S.A.Shaikh APP for State Mr.Mandar Goswami for Respondent No.2 CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J DATE: 13th September,2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Accused- Applicant and learned APP representing the parties. 2. The Applicant questions the propriety of order below Exhibit 58 in CBI Special case No.13 of 2009 dated 5.4.2011 rejecting the Applicant's prayer for discharge. - 2 - cra180.11 3. The prosecution case indicate that in the network and collusion with the Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, financial facilities were availed by the Applicant's husband to which the Applicant introduced herself as a guarantor and confirmed the same. In order to secure the loan facilities, the Applicant offered Life Insurance coverage policies worth Rs. 65,00,000/- favouring her in her maiden name as Indu Navinchandra Thakkar. The investigation revealed that signatures on the Policies and bank documents were different. The handwriting did not match. The Officers and husband of the Applicant and several others were charge sheeted. 4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that there are four cases. In one of the case she was not supplied with the charge sheet and the learned Judge desired - 3 - cra180.11 to frame charges. Having pointed that charge sheet copy was belated supplied to her. She says that handwriting expert report generates her assertion as its hall mark of her husband's connivance with bank officers in procuring the loan. Consequently, she is not responsible for such fraud caused with the bank. There is no single piece of evidence that the Applicant has visited the bank at any time. 5. It is a matter of record that the principal borrower is husband of the Accused Applicant and the Accused-Applicant submitted the LIC policy of Rs.65,00,000/- as security which has been found to be forged documents The allegation of her husband's connivance with bank officials cannot be gone into at this stage. It is a matter of record again that relations between the Applicant and her husband were - 4 - cra180.11 not severe nor were strained. It is not one case against the Applicant but she has facilitated identical arrangements at least primarily in other 8 to 9 cases with different banks with same modus operandi. 6. The learned Judge has rightly rejected the Application as there was sufficient material to frame charge and proceeded against the Applicant. The suspicion in respect of the documents would not weigh at this stage when marshaling thereof is inhibit. Application lacks merit. Dismissed. K.U.Chandiwal,J