Bombay High Court
M/S Capman Financials Ltd. vs State Cbi. on 21 October, 2010
Bench: V.M. Kanade
1
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 437 OF 2009
1. M/s Capman Financials Ltd., )
a Company incorporated under )
the Companies Act 1956, having )
its Office address at C/o 11-A, )
Anupam Consultants, 66, Tamarind)
Lane, 3rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai- )
400 023. )
ig )
2. Suresh Chandra Kookada )
Aged 50 years, Indian Inhabitant )
of Bombay Occupation Service, )
residing at 301, Labh Samruddhi, )
85 Bajaj Road, Vile Parle (W), )
Mumbai - 400 056 )
)
3. Sharad Saboo )
Age 49 years, Indian Injhabitant )
of Bombay, Occupation service )
residing at B-40/01, Yogi Nagar )
Borivali (West), Mumbai 400 091 ) ..... Applicants
(Orig accused Nos.
2, 3 and 4.)
v/s
State CBI. ) .... Respondent
(Orig. Complainant)
Mr. Vijay Pradhan, Senior counsel with Mr. Ajay Khandhar
and Mr. Himanshu V. Pradhan i/b M/s Ajay Khandhar & Co.
for the applicants.
Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader (O.S.) for CBI -
Respondent No.1
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:55 :::
2
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
Mrs. V.R. Bhonsle, APP for the State.
CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J.
DATE : 21st October, 2009
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.438 OF 2009
1. M/s Networth Stock Broking )
Limited, a company registered )
under the Companies Act, 1956 )
having its Office address at 2nd )
Floor, D.C. Silk Mills Compound, )
Kondivita Road, Andheri (East)
ig )
Mumbai 400 059. )
)
2. Suresh Pukhraj Jain )
Age 45 years, Indian Inhabitant )
of Bombay, Occupation Business )
residing at 701, Vasant Vihar, )
th
10 Floor, Santacruz (East), )
Mumbai - 400 055 ) .... Applicants.
(Org. accused Nos.5
and 6)
V/s
The State (CBI) ) ....Respondent
(Org. complainant)
Mr. Shrikant Bhatt, Senior Counsel, Mr. Ajay Khandar and Mr.
Himanshu V. Pradhan, Counsel i/b Ms/ Khandar & Co. for the
applicants.
Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP with Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa for CBI -
Respondent No.1.
Mr. V.R. Bhonsle, APP for the State.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:55 :::
3
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J.
DATE : 25th October, 2010.
JUDGMENT:
1. Both these applications can be disposed off by a
common Judgment since applicants in both these
applications have challenged the order passed by the Special
Judge in Misc. Application No.316 of 2008 in Special Case No.
72 of 2009 and on the application below Exhibit-14 in Special
Case No.72 of 2009.
2. Applicants in Criminal Revision Application No.437 of
2009 are original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and applicants in
Criminal Revision Application No.438 of 2009 are original
accused Nos. 5 and 6. All the accused had filed applications
for discharge before the Special Court. However, the said
applications were dismissed by two separate orders both
dated 9/4/2009.
3. Brief facts are as under:-
4. An FIR was registered dated 22/06/2004 by CBI.ACU.VI
at New Delhi for the offence punishable under section 120-B
of the Indian Penal Code read with section 13(2) read with
section 13(1)(d) and (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
against Shri Praveen Chand Mohnot, Assistant Vice
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
President, Department of Investments, UTI Mumbai & Senior
Vice President, UTI, Mumbai on deputation and accused No.2
- M/s Capman Financials Ltd., accused No.3 - M/s Nethworth
Stock Broking Ltd., accused No.4 - M/s Nethworth Finance
Services Ltd. Mumbai and accused No.5 - Renaissance
Securities Ltd., Mumbai. In the complaint, it was stated that
reliable information was received that Shri Praveen Chand
Mohnot, while he was posted and functioning as Assistant
Vice President, Department of Investments UTI, Mumbai and
Senior Vice President on deputation to ISL,
Mumbai during period from 10/01/1989 to 31/03/1998,
Belapur, New
abused his official position as public servant and amassed
assets to the tune of Rs 22,92,034/- by corrupt and illegal
means which are disproportionate to his known sources of
income. It was alleged in the FIR that Praveen Chand
Mohnot - accused No.1 entered into criminal conspiracy,
abused his official position as public servant and rendered
undue advantage by giving substantial business to M/s
Renaissance Securities Ltd and M/s Networth Stock Broking
Firm Ltd. between July, 1996 and June, 1998. It was further
alleged that an amount of Rs 12,75,531/- was credited in the
account of Shri Kishanmal Mohnot, father of Shri Praveen
Chand Mohnot in 1997 from the accounts of M/s Capman
Financial Services Ltd. - original accused No.2, M/s Networth
Finance Ltd. and other firms and it was also disclosed that
Shri Atul Hanwatchand Bhansali, Sub broker of M/s
Renaissance Securities Ltd. paid on 07/07/1997 an amount
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
of Rs 2.5 lakhs to the seller of the flat (D-1, Sunita
Apartments, Peddar Road, Mumbai) directly on behalf of Shri
Praveen Chand Mohnot and, therefore, the accused had
committed an offence punishable under section 120-B and
under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) & (e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Charge-sheet was filed
on 14/12/2005 and in the final charge-sheet, offences
punishable under sections 120-B and 13(1)(d) were dropped
and so far as applicants herein are concerned, only charges
which were levelled against them were under section 109 of
the Indian Penal Code i.e abetment read with section 13(2)
read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act.
5. Applicants in both the Revision Applications filed
applications for discharge. In the application No.437 of 2009
filed by original accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 i.e. M/s Capman
Financials Ltd & other Directors it was submitted that there
was no dealing between the said applicants and the UTI
wherein the accused were then employed. It was submitted
that there was no dealing whatsoever between applicants
and accused No.1 at any time. It was also submitted that
applicant No.2 had no business relationship with UTI where
accused No.1 was working. It was further submitted that the
applicant No.2 was not even registered as share broker and,
as such, could never have done any business or dealings
with the UTI. It was also submitted that applicant accused
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
No.2 - Company was never empaneled with the UTI to do
any stock broking business or dealings with UTI. It was
further submitted that this fact was admitted by CBI. It was,
therefore submitted that linking of the personal loan
transaction between father of accused No.1 Kishanmal
Mohnot and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had no relevance
whatsoever. It was further submitted that the transaction
was fully disclosed in the Books of Accounts and Income-tax
Returns of the applicants and the loan had been repaid fully
by the borrower Kishanmal Mohnot. It was further alleged
that the applicant No.1 was a Company carrying on business
of advancing short term/long term loans and credit to
individuals either on securities or on guarantees or even
without securities as per Memorandum of Articles of
Association of the Company which was established with the
sole objective of being a Financial Company.
6. So far as the applicants in Criminal Application No.438
of 2009 are concerned, they are original accused Nos. 5 and
6. They had also filed an application for discharge. In the
application for discharge it was submitted that the allegation
of criminal misconduct, though it was mentioned in the FIR,
was not found in the charge-sheet which was filed against
accused No.1, the gist of allegations against these applicants
- original accused Nos. 5 and 6 is as under.
One Premchand Surana (co-brother of accused No.1),
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
Shri Suresh Pukhraj Jain - accused No.6 and Shri Rajendra S.
Mutha were the Directors of the applicant - Company. The
said Shri Premchand Surana, co-brother of the public servant
- accused No.1 resigned from the directorship of the
applicant - company on 17/06/1997. The said company was
empaneled with UTI on 24/05/1996 as a share broker.
During the course of investigation, it was noted that an
amount of Rs 4,75,000/- was transferred from Account No.
11611 of the applicant - company to the Current Account of
one M/s Bahubali Investments Limited on 07/04/1997 and
02/05/1997. Shri S.P. Jain - accused No.6 was the Director of
M/s Bahubali Investments Limited. Thereafter, the said
amount of Rs 4,75,000/- was transferred from the account of
Bahubali Investment Ltd to the joint Account No.141534
standing in the name of Shri S.P. Jain and his wife Kanta Jain.
During the course of investigation, it was also noticed that
the amount of Rs 4,75,000/- and Rs 3,00,000/- was
transferred to Account No.440547 in the name of Shri
Kishanal Mohnot, father of accused No.1 by issuing a cheque
signed by Smt. Kanta Jain and subsequently the said amount
was given by Shri Kishanmal Mohnot to Smt. Anju Mohnot
deposited in the joint Account No.438853 of accused No.1 for
purchase of Flat D-1, Sunita Apartments, Peddar Road,
Mumbai. It was alleged that the accused No.1 while
functioning in the department of market operation as a
dealer in UTI during the period from 24/05/1996 to
27/11/1998 had allotted substantial business to the applicant
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
- company to the tune of Rs 23,19,63,782/- and, therefore,
applicant - company abetted accused No.1 in acquisition of
the flat by routing Rs 3,00,000/- to his wife, who, in turn,
issued a cheque for the same amount in favour of her father-
in-law, which was further transferred into the joint Account
of accused No.1 and his wife and was paid in favour of the
flat owner Smt. Pramila S. Parmar for purchasing the said
flat.
7.
It was firstly submitted that since the charge under
section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and 13(1)(d) of the
criminal misconduct had been dropped by CBI in the Final
Report, the question of receiving any amount in any manner
by abusing official position of the public servant by accused
No.1 by giving substantial business to the applicant -
company was irrelevant and the said question did not arise.
It was secondly submitted that since the charges under
section 13(1)(d) and 120-B were dropped, the question of
abetment under section 109 against the applicants did not
arise. Thirdly, it was submitted that the payment of Rs
4,75,000/- was made by the applicant - company to Bahubali
Investments Limited in its normal course of business and the
said Bahubali Investments Limited was also a separate entity
and, therefore payment made by the applicant - company to
Bahubali Investments Limited could not in any manner be
related to payment made by Bahubali Investments Limited in
the personal account of Smt. Kanta Jain. It was then
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
submitted that there was no question of abetment in respect
of acquisition of the property by accused No.1 which was
allegedly disproportionate to his known sources of income
under section 13(1)(e).
8. On the other hand, Shri Nalawade, the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent invited my attention to
the affidavit in reply filed by CBI and was at pains to point
out how the amount was paid by the applicants - original
accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and original accused Nos. 5 and 6
for the purpose of purchasing the Flat at Peddar Road. It
was submitted that, therefore, the applicants had abetted
the public servant in acquiring the property and, therefore,
were liable to be charged for the offence punishable under
section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 13(1)
(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was further
submitted that there was material on record to show that
Shri Kishanmal Mohnot to whom the loan was given by
applicants - original accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 did not have any
source of income and the said loan was given without any
security and the loan was repaid only after the FIR was
lodged. It was therefore urged that the original accused
Nos. 2, 3 and 4, therefore, were liable for the offence of
abetment for the purpose of helping the public servant -
accused No.1 in acquiring the property. Similar allegations
were made against original accused Nos. 5 and 6. It was
alleged that the amount of Rs 4,75,000/- was paid by
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
accused Nos. 5 and 6 to M/s Bahubali Investments Limited
which money thereafter landed in the account of wife of
accused No.1. It was also alleged that substantial business
was given by accused No.1 to accused Nos. 5 and 6 and in
return the said amount was paid by these accused to
accused No.1 indirectly.
9. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the applicants and the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the CBI at length. I have given my anxious and
thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the
learned Counsel on either side.
10. Before taking into consideration rival submissions, it will
be necessary to keep in mind the powers of the court while
deciding the application for discharge filed under section 227
of the Criminal Procedure Code.
11. In the present case, applicants are not relying on their
own documents and have contended that even if the case of
CBI is accepted at its face value, the ingredients of offence
of abetment are not attracted against the applicants in so far
as charge of 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act is concerned. The law on this point is very
succinctly laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment
in State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh 1 in which it has been
observed in para 4 as under:-
1 AIR 1977 SC 2018
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
"4. ...............If "the Judge considers that there
is not sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused, he shall discharge the accused and
record his reasons for so doing", as enjoined by
S.227. If, on the other hand, "the Judge is of
opinion that there is ground for presuming that
the accused has committed an offence which-
.......... .............. ........... .............
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall
frame in writing a charge against the accused",
as provided in S. 228. Reading the two
provisions together in juxtaposition, as they
have got to be, it would be clear that at the
beginning and the initial stage of the trial the
truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which
the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be
meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be
attached to the probable defence of the
accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that
stage of the trial to consider in any detail and
weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts,
if proved, would be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused or not. The standard
of test and judgment which is to be finally
applied before recording a finding regarding
guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
to be applied at the stage of deciding the
matter under S. 227 or S. 228 of the Code. At
that stage the Court is not to see whether there
is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused
or whether the trial is sure to end in his
conviction. Strong suspicion against the
accused, if the matter remains in the region of
suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his
guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the
initial stage if there is strong suspicion which
leads the Court to think that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an
offene then it is not open to the Court to say
that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. The presumption of the
guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the
initial stage is not in the sense of the law
governing the trial of criminal cases in France
where the accused is presumed to be guilty
unless the contrary is proved.........................."
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, it will now
have to be seen whether the prosecution has made out a
case for framing charge against the applicants.
13. It is an admitted position that though, initially, in the
FIR it was alleged that the public servant - accused No.1 had
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
committed an offence punishable under section 13(1)(d),
13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code, when the charge-sheet was filed, the charge under
section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code has been dropped against all the accused. The
only charge, therefore, which is sought to be leveled against
the applicants herein is that of abetment of the public
servant in respect of section 13(1)(e) which is possession of
assets which are disproportionate to the known sources of
income of the public servant.
14. In this context, therefore, it will be necessary to
examine provisions of section 109 of the Indian Penal Code
and section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. Section 13(1)(e) of the
P.C. Act reads as under:-
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public
servant.- (1) A public servant is said to
commit the offence of criminal
misconduct,-
(a)..............
(b)..............
(c).............
(d)............
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is
in possession or has, at any time during
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
the period of his office, been in
possession for which the public servant
cannot satisfactorily account, of
pecuniary resources or property
disproportionate to his known sources of
income.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this
section, "known sources of income"
means income received from any lawful
source
intimated
and
in
such receipt
accordance
has
with
been
the
provisions of any law, rules or orders for
the time being applicable to a public
servant."
Perusal of the said sub-clause (e) clearly discloses that what
is made punishable under the said section is the possession
of pecuniary resources or property at the time when the
offence is registered against him or at any time during the
period of his office he has been in possession of pecuniary
resources or property. It is a well settled position in law that
mere possession of the property; movable or immovable, is
not an offence but if the public servant is not in a position to
give explanation satisfactorily about possession of the
movable or immovable property in the context of his known
sources of income, only then the offence is complete.
Another feature which has to be noticed from the said sub-
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
section 13(1)(e) is that the public servant or any other
person on his behalf who is found to be in possession of
movable or immovable property can be prosecuted under
this sub-section.
15. In this context, it has to be noted that neither against
his father-in-law nor his wife nor co-brother, charge of
section 13(1)(e) is leveled and they are not made accused in
this case.
16. So far as the applicants are concerned charge which is
leveled against them is of abetment under section 109 of the
Indian Penal Code. Section 109 reads as under:-
"109. Punishment of abetment if the
act abetted is committed in
consequence and where no express
provision is made for its
punishment.- whoever abets any
offence shall, if the act abetted is
committed in consequence of the
abetment, and not express provision is
made by this Code for the punishment of
such abetment, be punished with the
punishment provided for the offence.
Explanation.- An act or offence is said
to be committed in consequence of
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
abetment, when it is committed in
consequence of the instigation, or in
pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the
aid which constitutes the abetment."
17. So far as applicants in Criminal Application No.437 of
2009 are concerned, it is an admitted position that applicant
No.1 - original accused No.2 is a Finance Company engaged
in the business of providing finance
term loans and credit to individuals.
i.e. short term/long
It never had any
business dealings with the Unit Trust of India. Neither the
accused No.1 nor UTI at any point of time had any business
transaction with original accused No.2 - M/s Capman
Financial Ltd. What is alleged against the said applicants is
that the Company had given a loan to the father of the
public servant - accused No.1 of an amount of Rs 3 lakhs
and it was transferred by applicant No.3 on 11/04/1997 from
the account of M/s Capman Market Ltd to the account of M/s
Capman Financial Ltd and, thereafter, three cheques
amounting to Rs 3 lakhs, Rs 2 lakhs and Rs 1.25 lakhs were
issued from the account of M/s Capman Financial Ltd on
11/04/1997, 27/5/1997 and 09/06/1997 in favour of Shri
Kishanmal Mohnot, father of accused No.1. The cheque of
Rs 3 lakhs was issued by applicant No.3 Shri Sharad Saboo
as a Director of M/s Capman Financial Market Ltd. The
cheque of Rs 2 lakhs was issued by applicant No.2 Shri
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
Suresh Chandra Kookada, as a Director. The cheque of Rs
1.25 lakhs was jointly issued by applicant Nos. 2 and 3.
Further, the cheque of Rs 75,000/- was issued by Shri Sharad
Saboo - applicant No.2 in favour of Kishanmal Mohnot in his
personal capacity on 23/05/1997 from his personal account.
These cheques were deposited in personal account of Shri
Kishanmal Mohnot at Central Bank of India, New Marine
Lines, Mumbai on various dates.
18. It is the case of CBI, as found in affidavit in reply filed
by them, that Shri Kishanmal Mohnot has no tangible
sources of income after his retirement from the Bank of
Rajsthan in 1988 and he received retirement benefits to the
tune of Rs 3.44 lakhs on 27/01/1995. According to CBI, there
was no substantial regular transaction until March, 1997 in
both the accounts which were standing in the name of
Kishanmal Mohonot and suddenly the balance in his account
was increased from 17/04/1997 to 17/06/1997. It is an
admitted position that in the account of M/s Capman
Financial Ltd., the said transaction was reflected as personal
loan given to Mr. Kishanmal Mohnot and it was reflected in
their Balance Sheet/Income-tax Returns for 1988-99 to
2003-04. No loan document was executed between M/s
Capman Financial Ltd. or Sharad Saboo and Shri Kishanmal
Mohnot. According to CBI, the said amount of Rs 6.25 lakhs
and Rs 75,000/- was transferred by Shri Kishanmal Mohnot
to joint account of Shri Praveen Chand Mohnot and his wife
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
Smt. Anju Mohnot and which amount was utilized for
acquisition of property i.e. Flat at D-1, Sunita Apartments,
Peddar Road, Mumbai. Since this was the only allegation
leveled against M/s Capman Financial Ltd and its two
Directors, the question is whether prima facie there is any
material to indicate that they had abetted the offence
committed by the public servant - accused No.1.
19. Reverting back to the provisions of section 13(1)(e) of
under this
the P.C. Act, it has to be noted that what is made punishable
section is the possession of property
disproportionate to the known sources of income which
cannot be satisfactorily accounted and not the acquisition of
the property. In the present case, admittedly, since the
offence of section 13(1)(d) has been dropped by the
prosecution, it is not their case that money belonging to the
public servant - accused No.1 was in possession of M/s
Capman Financial Ltd. and it was routed back to the public
servant - accused No.1 for the purpose of purchasing the flat
at Peddar Road. Even otherwise, so far as M/s Capman
Financial Ltd. are concerned, no favour has been made on
behalf of accused No.1 to the said applicants and,
admittedly, there was no business transaction between the
two. M/s Capman Financial Ltd. - accused No.2 is a Finance
Company and is in the business of giving finance i.e. short
term/long terms loans. It is an admitted position that the
said amount has been repaid to them in 2003 and the loan
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
account has now been closed. There is no material on
record to indicate even otherwise that M/s Capman Financial
Ltd. had knowledge that the said amount would be utilized
for purchasing the property which could not be accounted
satisfactorily. In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept
the submission of the prosecution that on the basis of this
material, it can be said that they have abetted public servant
for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e). If such an
interpretation is given to the provisions of section 13(1)(e), it
would lead to absurd consequences.
government servant may purchase property from builder or
A corrupt
buy jewelery from jewelery shop or purchase number of
assets from different persons. The said person who is
carrying on business of selling the property or jewelery etc.
is not expected to know whether the person buying the
property is legally entitled to buy it or the finance which is
being provided by Finance Company to the public servant is
used for legitimate purchase of the property. In my view,
therefore, viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that
charges which are leveled against the applicants M/s
Capman Financial Ltd. cannot be sustained even if the
allegations made in the charge-sheet are accepted. It is
interesting to note that neither the wife of the public servant
nor his father Shri Kishanmal Mohnot are made accused
either for abetment or for offence under section 13(1)(e).
The submissions made by Shri Vijay Pradhan, the learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants,
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
therefore, will have to be accepted. The Special Judge has
overlooked this aspect of the case and has erred in
dismissing the discharge application filed by the applicants.
20. The impugned order passed by the Special Judge
therefore will have to be set aside and quashed and the
discharge application filed by the applicants will have to be
allowed. Criminal Application No.437 of 2009 is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (b).
21. So far as Criminal Application No.438 of 2009 is
concerned, charges leveled against applicants therein are
that accused No.1 had given substantial business to
applicant Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. original accused Nos. 5 and 6 and
in return for favour shown by accused No.1, accused No.6 -
Suresh Pukhraj Jain abetted accused No.1 for acquisition of
the said flat by routing Rs 3 lakhs to his wife.
22. In this case also, admittedly, no charge under section
13(1)(d) and section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was
leveled against these applicants. The prosecution, after the
F.I.R. was filed, on their own dropped these charges since
there was no material on record to show that accused No.1
had shown favour to the applicants and, they, in turn, had,
therefore, issued cheque to the accused as motive or reward
for showing the said favour. Since the charge of
conspiracy under section 120-B and criminal misconduct
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
under section 13(1)(d) has been dropped, it has to be seen
whether there is any material to show that these applicants
had committed offence of abetment under section 13(1)(e).
23. In this context, it has to be noted that the applicant -
company had made payment of Rs 4,75,000/- to one M/s
Bahubali Investments Ltd. It is an admitted position that the
said company is a separate legal entity from the applicant -
company and its Directors. By making payment to the said
M/s Bahubali Investments Ltd which is a separate legal
entity, applicants cannot be said to have committed any
offence whatsoever. It appears that the said M/s Bahubali
Investments Ltd, thereafter, paid an amount of Rs 3 lakhs to
Smt. Kanta Jain and this amount was used for purchasing the
said flat at Peddar Road. Even if the said allegation made by
CBI is accepted, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be
proved that the applicants by making payment to M/s
Bahubali Investments Ltd to the tune of Rs 4,75,000/- had
abetted the public servant in purchasing the said flat at
Peddar Road. Viewed from any angle, therefore, in my view,
offence of abetment against these applicants therefore is not
made out. The impugned order passed by the Special Judge
dismissing the discharge application filed by the applicants,
therefore, will have to be set aside and quashed.
24. Applicants therefore are discharged from the offences
punishable under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
with section 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. Application No.438 of 2009 is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (b).
25. Both the aforesaid criminal revision applications are
accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and
disposed off.
ig (V.M. KANADE, J.)
REVN437/2009
REVN438/2009
