1408crra312.07.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 312 OF 2007 Mrs. Renuka w/o Bipin Mehta, aged about 42 yrs., Occp. Household, r/o 5, Keshariyanath Co-op. Housing Society, Nikalas Mandir Rd., Itwari, Nagpur :: APPLICANT -: Versus :- Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) MM Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. :: RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R. M. Daga, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Shyam Ahirkar, Special Counsel for the respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 14TH AUGUST, 2009. P. C. : 1. The applicant is facing trial in Special Criminal (CBI) Case No. 1 of 2006 in the Court of Ad-hoc District Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The applicant had filed discharge application below Exh. 114. That application came to be decided by order dated 14/11/2007 and it was rejected. Against the said order, this revision application is filed. 2. I have heard learned Advocates on both sides. The applicant is running proprietary firm by name M/s Sheetal Industries and according to the prosecution, various forged letters of credit were sought to be encashed and debited through the Bank account of the firm M/s Sheetal Industries, held by the applicant in the capacity as a proprietor of the said firm. 1408crra312.07.odt 2/3 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Daga for the applicant pointed out that an amount of Rs. 1 Crore and odd was credited concerning the impugned letters of credit in the account of applicant in the year 1999 and on the very day they came to be transferred to another account. He also pointed out that the First Information Report came to be filed in the year 2002 and soon thereafter protest cum complaint came to be filed by the applicant stating that she is not involved in the matter and all the transaction concerning letters of credit through the account of M/s Sheetal Industries took place behind her back and she has no involvement in the said transaction. The discharge application has been rejected by observing that the applicant was one of the beneficiary of the said letters of credit being credited to her account. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant further submitted that letters of credit came to be credited on a day and the amount thereof had been taken out by transferring the amount to some other account, and therefore, no benefit is secured by the applicant, whatsoever, and this is how the applicant is innocent and is required to be discharged. 5. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, the said account to which letters of credit were credited was an account of the proprietary firm, and therefore, it was expected of the applicant to keep control over the said account. The above argument of the learned Advocate for the applicant could have been accepted if the applicant would have lodged the complaint herself with the concerned authorities or the police protesting the credit of the said amount soon after the 1408crra312.07.odt 3/3 said amount was credited to her account. Her silence since 1990 till lodgment of the F.I.R. speaks volume and i.e. how the question of discharge will have to be attended to. 6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the silence on the part of the revision applicant speaks for itself and i.e. the basis for not entertaining this application for discharge. No interference is required in the impugned order. Hence, the revision application is dismissed. Stay granted so far as the trial is concerned, stands vacated. JUDGE wwl