Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh vs State Of Gujarat And Anr.

2. The Petitioner was the Managing Director (between 1973 and 1991) and thereafter. Chairman of the Second Respondent-Madhavpura Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Limited (hereinafter "the Bank") having its registered office at Shahibaug, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The Bank was operating under the provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter "the Societies Act") and was also subject to other laws, such as the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. On 13.3.2001, the Reserve Bank of India, noticing the critical financial situation of the Bank, made a requisition to the Central Registrar under Section 48(7) of the Societies Act, to appoint an Administrator to manage the affairs of the Bank. Accordingly, an Administrator took over the management of the Bank. In the meanwhile, due to the inability of the Bank to repay its depositors, there was a public outcry, and a Public Interest Litigation (Special Civil Application No. 2617/2001), was filed before the High Court of Gujarat. It prayed inter alia, for action being taken against those responsible for the adverse financial situation of the Bank, and also for directions to the Bank to repay all the monies of the Bank's depositors, account holders, share holders etc. It was alleged in the Special Civil Application that the main branch at Shahibaug (Ahmedabad) and the Mandvi Mumbai Branch (Mumbai) were involved in a large economic scam, which involved inter alia, advancing large sums of money to persons of dubious antecedents without taking steps to verify their creditworthiness in violation of applicable banking procedures and regulations. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was arrayed as a party (Respondent No. 8) in the said writ petition.

4. On 2.5.2001, the High Court of Gujarat made an order in the Public Interest Litigation (Special Civil Application No. 2617/2001) directing, inter alia, that the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter "the CBI"), with the cooperation of the State CID (Crime), conduct an investigation into the deeds and misdeeds of the respondents, including the Petitioner. The investigation was also to go into the question of mismanagement on the part of the Bank and the concerned officers, who were found to have been involved in the criminal acts. The Petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by the CID (Crime) on the request of the CBI.

5. On 18.5.2001, the CBI registered a First Information Report (hereinafter "FIR") vide Crime No. RC4 (E) of 2001 in which the averments made in First C.R. No. 67/2001 were reproduced and the investigation arising out of First Page 2293 C.R. No. 67/2001 was taken over by the CBI. On 10.8.2001, although the Petitioner was granted bail in the crime being investigated by the CBI, he continued in custody consequent to an order of detention (dated 7.5.2001) made under the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter "PASA"). This order of detention was quashed by the Gujarat High Court on his writ petition and from 7.12.2001, the Petitioner was released on bail.

6. On 19.6.2002, the Bank filed thirteen individual party-wise complaints under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 471 read with Section 120B IPC, in which the Petitioner was joined as an accused. On 3.7.2002, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed the Deputy inspector General of Police, CID Branch (Economic Cell) to investigate the said complaints under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "CrPC") and submit the necessary report in all the thirteen complaints.

8. On 24.12.2002, the Petitioner filed Special Criminal Application Nos. 949 and 951/2002 challenging the said order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. On 1.1.2003, the Petitioner filed Special Criminal Application Nos. 3. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of 2003 for quashing the individual complaints filed against him. On 14.2.2003, the Petitioner filed a Civil Application No. 1159/2003 in Special Civil Appeal No. 2617/2001 seeking directions to the CBI to investigate all the deeds and misdeeds of the Petitioner in respect of the Bank. This application was subsequently withdrawn by the Petitioner. On 20.2.2003/13.2.2003, the Petitioner withdrew Special Criminal Application Nos. 949 and 951/2002 and Special Crl. Application Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of 2003 filed by him challenging the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 18.12.2002. On 3.9.2003, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of Mandamus and Certiorari (Special Criminal Application No. 907/2003) to quash all the subsequent complaints filed against him. This petition was also subsequently withdrawn.

Page 2295

16. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6200/2004 is directed against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 8.4.2004 declining to grant bail to the Petitioner. Having perused the order and the record, and in light of the submissions made before us, we are not satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. The order of the High Court appears to be justified. We find no reason to interfere.

17. In the result, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 3462-3472/2004 are found to be without merit and are hereby dismissed. Special Leave Petition No. 6200/2004 is also dismissed.