1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.394 OF 2009 Tarachand Sohanlal Jain ...Applicant. v. The C.B.I. & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.S.M.Kamtam i/by M/s. Law Global, advs., for the Applicant. Mr. Mandar Goswami a/w Ms. Revati M. Dere, advs., for the respondent no.1/CBI. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, APP for the Respondent No.2/State. Ms. Selvi Laxman i/by Smt. Rathina Maravaram, advs. for the Respondent No.3. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 20th July, 2010 P.C.: 1 Leave to amend the name of the respondent no.3. Amendment be effected immediately. 2 On a report lodged by the respondent no.3/Central Bank of India, Andheri, CBI has registered the case under Section 120(B), 420, 468, 471 of the I.P.C. and Section 13(2), 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against seven persons and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and it was registered as R.C. No.33(A)/93 (Sessions Case No.44/01). The petitioner, who is accused no.16 in the said case seeks to quash the said proceeding as far as he is concerned. According to him, he was director of S.S.V. Enterprises, 2 which had discounted two Letters of Credit on 21.3.91, payment of which was due on 24.6.91. According to him about both the Letters of Credit, payment has been actually made to the Central Bank of India/respondent no.3. Mr.C.G.Aher, Branch Manager of the respondent no.3/Bank has filed his affidavit wherein he has clearly stated that the amount against two letters of credit nos. 415 and 416 issued on 25.3.91 was crystalised on 24.6.1991 and same was finally paid on 5.7.1991. Affidavit is supported by the statement of accounts. It appears that F.I.R. was lodged on 5.5.93, i.e., long after payment was already received by the bank. It appears that there was delay of only 11 days in making the payment as due date was 24.6.1991 and payment was finally made on 5.7.1991. In view of this, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3/Bank has no objection to quash the proceeding as against the petitioner/accused no.16. The learned counsel for the CBI, on instructions from Mr.A.S.Rao, police inspector, CBI and in view of the facts noted above makes a statement that Court may pass appropriate order. 3 In view of the above circumstances, petition is allowed and the proceeding in the Sessions Case No.44/2001 before the 3 Special Judge, ACB to the extent of accused no.16 Tarachand Sohanlal Jain stand quashed. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)