1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 08*" Day of March 2010 0
BEFORE . .. _
THE i-lON'BLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD R.~=xfP'I1M.E.V: '
CRL.RP.NO.1080/2009 " '
BETWEEN:
KANTA MEHTA, =
W/O LATE PRAVEEN MEH*F--.,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, "
R/AT BANDRA (WEST)
MUMBAI ~ 50 '
'I».V..".eETITIONER
1 [B9'S'ri'3!»KLzIrIw..f0%'
' M."!3.Siu:Iil KU'maF,";5\.FiVS.]
AND: . . , . _ .
.IcEI\:TI.§A.;I BaUfE2'EAU'~I«V
I.1BELLAR~;..-IROAD, --
'B_ANGALORE."-A,' '
AA/EST'IGATIoN
~ _ ..RESPONDENT
_ , [By'S.f_I.."'RavI Shankar for
":-Sci Ashok Haranahalli Associates, Advs}
TI§{IS"'oRL.RE IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF THE
' .Ci=I.--I>,ACIv.PRA,I'II\I'G.TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08-10--2009
PASSED'-av T'H.EE XVII ADDITIONAL C.M.M., BANGALORE IN
N
o.2I7:o/jI:=998 (AI\INExuRE~A).
T%:IIS"'"CRL.RP COMING ow' FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Accused No.2 is in revision against the order dated
8.10.2009 in CC No.2:£.70/1998 on the fife of the XVII
O
2
Additionai Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangaiore,
rejecting her appiication filed under Section 245 of
2. Petition is posted for admission after .
respondent-CB2 who are duiy represented |Ve’ar4_n»eti-._,
Standing counsel Sri.Ravi Shankarfg
3. Considering the naturejof charge ‘ieveiie’d”aga’inst ” i
the petitioner and other atten-din”g–.cir.curnsta*nr:esV§as aiso
the grounds urged agai”nst_,’th’e_Viirh}pu:gin_ed%”order, satisfied,
the matter requires..conisideraftio_n;:f~_. 3 ~ 2 if ‘
4.eeimisieuainigiiea.
consent,”it_:is..ftaken up for finai disposai.
For4″‘ap_oreci-atAi’onV”of the contentions urged against
‘xi””and’-‘:i..fori..,”ithe._imp’ug”n’ed order, a brief reference to the
raiciuiiai a_tri$& iiisjnecessa ry;
‘oasis of source information, the officers of
registered the FIR in Cr.|\io.RC.8(A)/93 SIU (X) and
“‘-igorifimienced investigation regarding grant of financial
Hassistance to a business estabiishment under the name
M/s.Surajmai Diamonds Private Limited. The Investigating
Officer noticed that the company was in export business
if
4
trial Court on 29.9.2005. Infact, at that time, she and
Sri.Diiip Mehta, were applicants seeking dischajrge},:”The
order dated 29.9.2005 was impugned
Cr|.R.P.|\£o.2303/2005 and this..~~Co.u&rt.’.4’h’§v”4″‘o’rde’raidatedx’ A’
20_.8.2008 allowed the petition:”i«and.:lset
passed by the trial Court..L’-…VHowe’.ter;_the’imatter was”
remanded to the trial CoLs–r:tV.g’for’–».,gAconsi”deirati<in of the
grounds urged iight of the
prosecution alieg__atio:n'.' ' rcumstances, on
remand .,,hafS'. passed by the trial
Court. …. ll'
Advocate appearing for the
petitionerawo_uid..draiN attention to certain facts which
'9 V' _ are Andi;-~.in "dispute'." """
~ VV9.i”V”_’i=4I/s~.{S’urajmai Diamonds Private Limited was in
e><y'l5'ort"–p.u'si.ness from 1979 and had infact transacted and
V 'exip_orted Diamonds worth Rs.1,23 Crore. On 12.2.1988
'7t:h'e'Ai'=irm applied to UCO Bank, Bangalore, for credit facility
9 V' to Rs.200 Iakhs which was as a financial assistance for
post shipment. While submitting its profile, it included the
Provisional Balance Sheet of December, 1987,
is ,,-'
..7L-xw~/
ix
S
countersigned by the Chartered Accountant showing profit
of Rs.28.3O lakhs. The loan was granted and finally an
amount of Rs.134 lakhs was released. The export Ly-!4ell'ded,
as expected, net profit of Rs.28 lakhs and
realised by the Bank. In seqt:,eV|g_to it,"'ttl*ei'_':FiVrmv'_'again"»
applied for re–grant of further l'»i:nar_icia:i a'ssista'nce:"it0.'{'t.ije
extent of Rs.134 lakhs, whv§'ch4«..was 'granted
In terms of which, the comp:a'ray_'h.ad exported_fi?Diamonds
and due to certain eye–nt'ualiAty,%.:.gi'ts"profit"realisation became
difficult. At this junctutte,'CsatflisC.'lillig%ii:yva'g'hted that while
granting had insisted upon
and 'for the export. ECGC would
show thatmit for export value realisation
gug,a_%ra'Vnlteed State undertaking in the name of Export
C.reoit_i(Ru-arantee Corporation, an entity of the Central
.<3oyern'm'ent;~,""V
The contention of the petitioner is that whatever
be the financial assistance, it was given as a post export
finance and was backed by the guarantee coverage of
Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) and hence
there was no lack of security for the amount advanced as
loan nor it shows any net to indicates to defraud the Bank
9
reasons, did not yieid positive returns from the business
point, yet the Bank had not been in any way pregudiced as
the guarantee issued by the ECGC was enforced_”a:n’du§9t)’0/p
of the ioan advanced was reaiised Eeavingltia
Rs.38,99,536/- The question is :w’he’t’i1er’faii.ure:’ofV:s’econd
business transaction exporting
exporting finance was the fra.u”‘duient act rofj”_:theVg4″acc’used,’VV
Darticularlv the Petitioner he~reii-i.:c.:’:'”‘fuVfiere isno d’ivspute the
export transaction appea._rs But,
the Bank has, rgriaterial is avaiiabie
to hold pe§titio_neAAr-“r’es.poru:siiAbleV”for.:su,c’h negative resuit in a
business ‘
16;”-f”_iu’rie_ ci’1a.rg.e»* against the petitioner and
‘Vco.-Direct-orisvv are punishabie under Sections 320, 468
Necessariiy the ingredients, which
offences should has to be estabfished, but
asfmi se-e.fr’o;m the materiais coiiected during investigation
‘ arid made the basis for raising the charge, falis short of
the Iegai arsenal to indict accused 940.1 Sri.DiEip
‘ if “”l’i4ehta as aiso the petitioner. Ail it shows is it may indicate
misconceived business proposition but since the Bank has
not suffered any loss. The trial Court before whom these
10
aspects were urged deciined to consider it on the ground
the balance sheet filed to appiy for the ioan reiates
period during which petitioner was the Director».iV.:+hAe5.’m–a’ino”.
and important ground so far as the_pet_i_tion_e’r”is*«.1éio.nVcer’i1Vedic_
is that she was not the director when io’an’i’was sa’ncti0Vi=.«ed;.t_’
On facts which are not contrVoverted”vh’v
she has resigned on No.32
submitted to the comp’e.tent’«–_ai;.tif’.o’r’ity-go”since then she
ceased to be a4D–irecto:ri”‘an–df:is”thegrieiforeiatisolved of the
iiabiiities .__vEavi’fjAt'”.’.(‘i_’t’VVf:i”‘(‘)VV1V;1’i 4.10.1988. The
transacti_o_nV_ é6.10.1988 and was
undout3ted!y’ resignation from the post
of Director-n_’_4 to hold that even if there
is nojmaterial toproceed against the company in question
incharge at that reievant point of time,
Qucertawinixy ‘~p’e’titioner was not one to be arraigned or
V . indiVc’tedi«._’:a.iovn’g with others for the offence indicated above.
svatisfied that the petitioner has made out a case
.’ ind’ic’ating that the materiai is too feebie, insufficient to
“make out a prima facie case to put her to triai for the
offence indicated above. She is therefore entitied to
discharge.
11
17. At this stage, it is also brought to my notice that
Sri.Diiip Mehta the other accused also died in the moVn’Lfh”o.f
Atari! 2008, infact much before the eariier petitio_n”‘ca!fr;~e._:tVo;_:vA’
be disposed of by this Court. Since, he is as Exp’ i
have held that the petitioner iyoulidégégfjbe-_
discharge, further proceedings»’beforethe tria¥i.»CfoVt:,’rt«’migst”
naunafly ternunate as the cuiy.§th¢r accased SrLDHu)
Mehta is dead.
18. With these._0bseririatpionjsfithhe petition is disposed
of. of thiemcharges ievelied against
her andvrin’-the’rfacjtszi”an’d.’«circumstances of the case
proceeding terr_ninateA”as””‘the charge against the other
‘ “‘accu”s.ead isuabagted. “””
Sd/er
JUDGE
mv*
Hb