[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.3519 OF 2008 M/s.Concept Financial and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. M/s.Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. ..Respondents ... Mr.P.D.Desai Advocate for Applicants Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 23, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 23, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 23, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are facing prosecution in CC No.265/SS/2004 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. The said case is under Section 420 r.w. 34 of IPC. The case of the complainant is that the applicants along with others took loan of Rs.1 crore from his finance company. At the time of entering into the loan agreement, securities in the form of various share certificates and other [-2-] documents were given by the applicants. At the time of taking loan when share certificates were handed over, it was represented by the accused that all the shares were genuine and negotiable and they were liquid assets like gold. However, thereafter, there was default on the part of the accused persons in paying the amount, hence, the company decided to sell the shares given by the accused persons. When they tried to sell the shares of Pentafour Company Ltd. they were informed that the shares were not transferable as the said shares were registered in the name of accused no.2 in his capacity or position of being Non-resident Indian and as such shares were not liquid i.e. they were not transferable or saleable. The grievance of the complainant is that at the time of taking loan, the said shares had been handed over by the accused persons to them stating that shares were genuine and they were as liquid as gold, however, lateron the complainant found that they could not sell the said shares. Thus, it is the case of the complainant that the applicants have cheated the complainant and made false representations and obtained loan of Rs.1 crore. Looking to the facts stated in the complaint wherein all the facts are [-3-] reflected, in my opinion, a case has been made out under Section 420 r.w. 34 of IPC, hence, no fault can be found with the order of the learned Sessions Judge in rejecting the application for discharge as there is sufficient material to proceed. No interference is called for, hence, application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]