The Bombay high court (HC) last week rejected bail pleas of a city-based trader and his son, who were sentenced to life imprisonment for defrauding a nationalised bank using forged documents to obtain a credit facility. A special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court had on April 26, convicted the trader, Manoharlala Ahuja, 65, his son Amit, 39, and four others for various offences, including forgery of valuable security, under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Five of the six convicts, including the father-son duo, were sentenced to life imprisonment for using forged documents to obtain credit facility from the bank. The court also imposed a fine of ₹3 crore on the duo. The penalty was ordered to be paid to the bank as compensation, under section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The father-son duo had approached the HC seeking bail during the pendency of their appeals; suspension of sentence and stopping recovery of the compensation amount.

They argued that no specific charge was framed under section 467 of the IPC and, therefore, their conviction and sentencing to life imprisonment was unwarranted.

The bench, led by justice BP Dharmadhikari, noticed that the charges framed against the accused were unambiguous, and the omission to mention section 467 of the IPC was mere inadvertent. “The first part of the charge gives necessary facts revealing that the intention was to invoke section 467 IPC only.”

The bench also noticed that the charge contained all relevant facts — the father-son duo approached the bank on August 28, 2000, for various credit facilities and deposited forged title deeds of certain properties situated at Versova. They claimed the property belonged to one MP Arneja, but later it became clear that the property belonged to one Anusaya Shaha.

The duo had claimed that a full settlement amount had already been paid to the bank. Hence, they demanded to stop the recovery of the compensation amount.

The bank, while opposing the plea, stated that against the total dues of ₹2.61 crore, the amount of ₹1.25 crore was accepted in a settlement to protect the bank’s commercial interests. This action, the bank claimed, did not result in waiver of its right to recover the balance amount.

The HC accepted the bank’s contention. It said, “The bank appears to be justified prima facie in submitting that the arrangement then made on the civil side and steps taken to protect commercial interests [of the bank], do not preclude it from taking the benefit under section 357 of the CrPC.”

Source link

Read the Order here:

 

Share this Document :

Picture Source :