1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1533 OF 2010 Mrs.Kamal Nagesh Malage Petitioner versus The Union of India through CBI-ACB, Mumbai Respondent None for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Shinde for the respondent. Mr.S.A.Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 20th August 2011 PC : 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated 27th November, 2009 passed by the Special Court for Greater Mumbai rejecting the application for discharge filed by the petitioner. 2. The Petitioner (accused no.4) along with her husband (accused no.3) who had secured credit facilities from the Punjab National Bank and two officers of the Punjab National Bank is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 120-B, 420 of Indian Penal Code and under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The proceedings under Prevention of Corruption Act are against one of the Bank Officers. It is alleged that two bank officers (accused nos. 1 and 2) abused their official position and entered into criminal conspiracy with the borrowers, (accused nos.3 and 4) to sanction cash credit limit, term loan etc. to 2 M/s. Morval Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Amit Engineering. The Petitioner herein is the Director of M/s.Morval Engineering Pvt. Ltd.. Based on the search report dated 16th January, 2004 given by accused no.5 in respect of the properties to be mortgaged to the complainant bank stating that there is no encumbrance on the property sought to be mortgaged, Punjab National Bank, according to the prosecution, proceeded to sanction different loan facilities to accused nos.3 and 4 and in the process the bank is defrauded to the extent of Rs.91.41 lacs. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that she is a house wife and she had never taken active part in the business of company although she was a Director of the company. Her further contention is that the business of the company was solely carried on by her husband, who has been arrigned as accused no.3. It is her case that she has been falsely implicated in the case and the prosecution has not attributed any specific role against her. She, therefore, prayed that the order of learned Special Judge, CBI-ACB, Mumbai passed in Special Case No.29 of 2007 rejecting petitioner's application for discharge be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be discharged accordingly. 4. The respondent has filed their affidavit-in-reply. The stand of the respondent is that all the accused hatched a conspiracy and by supplying false information to the bank disbursed lakhes of rupees. As far as petitioner is concerned, it is contended that the petitioner had signed the loan documents as a Director of the company. The loan documents contain bogus address of the company from where the company never transacted. It is contended in the affidavit-in-reply that by using bogus documents the accused have cheated the bank for lakhs of rupees. The respondent contends that there is no perversity in the order rejecting the petitioner's application for 3 discharge. 5. The conduct of the petitioner to avoid liability and to secure bank loan without there being proper procedure and documentation speaks of their mental state. Bank account was opened and huge financial facilities are availed though the property had already been mortgaged by other bank. The prosecution in the above scenario cannot be said to be unreasonable or without any iota of record. There is no perversity in the order of learned Special Judge. Hence, petition is dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)