Bombay High Court
J. J. Gowda vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 8 February, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 4 21-ia-364-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 364 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2023
Mr. J. J. Gowda ..Appellant.
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. Murtaza M. Khokhawala a/w. Megha Puralkar for Appellant.
Mr. Kuldeep Patil for CBI/Respondent No.1.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent No.2.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 8 FEBRUARY 2023
PC :
1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of
Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2023. The Applicant has challenged the
Judgment and order dated 20/12/2022 passed by learned Special
Judge (CBI), Greater Bombay, in CBI Special Case No.8 of 2001.
The Applicant was convicted for commission of offence punishable
under sections 120B r/w. 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. and
was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of
Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one
Digitally
month. He was also convicted for commission of offence
signed by
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2023.02.09
12:44:14
+0530 Gokhale
2 of 4 21-ia-364-23
punishable U/s.409 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I.
for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of
payment of fine to suffer S.I. for one month. The Applicant was
also convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.13(1)(d)
r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was
sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-
and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one month. All
the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case is that the applicant was a Branch
Manager of Canara Bank, Dahisar (E) Branch. He had allowed the
bill discounting facility to one Damania. The said Damania was the
accused No.2 in this case, but he had passed away and, therefore,
only the applicant faced the trial. The allegations are that the
applicant had allowed the bill discounting facility to said Damania;
that facility was misused and the amounts transgressing the limit
were utilized by Damania. The allegations are that the applicant
did not report this transgression to the Circle Office, as was
required under the procedure.
3 of 4 21-ia-364-23
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
evidence of Divisional Manager Mr. Baliga shows that, most of
these facts were reported to the Circle Office except a few
instances. This shows that there was no criminal intention on the
part of the applicant. Most of the amount was also paid back by
Damania and, therefore, the bank has not really suffered any loss
in this transaction. He further submitted that the applicant was on
bail during trial. Even after his conviction, he was granted bail
U/s.389 of the Cr.p.c. The applicant is 75 years of age. The Appeal
is not likely to be decided within a short period.
4. Learned Special Counsel for the CBI opposed this
application on merits. However, he conceded that the sentence
imposed is short and the applicant is aged person.
5. I have considered these submissions. The issues raised by
learned counsel for the applicant will have to be decided at the
final hearing stage. However, the sentence imposed is short and
the Appeal is not likely to be decided within that period. The
Applicant was on bail during trial and even after his conviction he
4 of 4 21-ia-364-23
was granted bail U/s.389 of the Cr.p.c. Therefore, considering all
these factors, the applicant can be granted bail pending his appeal.
6. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.79 of 2023, the Applicant is directed to
be released on bail on his furnishing P. R. bond in
the sum of Rs.30000/- with one or two sureties in
the like amount.
ii) The Application is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
