Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Philomina Dias vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And Anr on 16 June, 2023

Author: Prakash D. Naik

Bench: Prakash D. Naik

2023:BHC-AS:16167

                                                                                      1-WP-1047-2022.doc




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1047 OF 2022

                    Philomina Dias                                    ...Petitioner

                              Versus

                    Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr.            ...Respondents
                                                      ....
                    Mr. Sanjeev Kadam i/by Mr. Akhilesh Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                    Mr. Bharat Mirchandani h/f Mr. Hiten Venegavkar for Respondent No.1-
                    C.B.I.
                    Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent No.2 - State.

                                                              ....

                                             CORAM      :        PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
                                             DATE       :        16th JUNE, 2023.

                    PER COURT:

                    1.        The Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 01.03.2022 passed

                    by the learned Special Judge (CBI) in C.B.I. Special Case No.4 of

                    2008 rejecting the application for discharge.

                    2.        The case of the prosecution is as follows :-

                              The CBI, EOW, Mumbai had registered the case bearing No.

                    R.C. 14/E/2017/CBI/EOW/Mumbai dated 31.08.2017 for the

                    offences punishable under Sections 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for

                    short 'IPC') r/w Sections 420, 468, 468, 411 and 471 of IPC and

                    Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against



                    Sajakali Jamadar                        1 of 6




                ::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2023                          ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2023 21:19:36 :::
                                                                 1-WP-1047-2022.doc




 present applicant/accused No.11 Philomina Dias, on the basis of

 written complaint received from D.G. Kallatti, the DGM of Central

 of India against M/s. Ashok Property Developers and M/s. Aashish

 Communications System and its Director/Guarantor 1) Ashok

 Kumar Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Aashish Communication Systems;

 3) Philomina Dias (Applicant/Accused No.11), 4) Shrikant Shankar

 Pawar, Proprietor of M/s. Dattaguru Construction and M/s. Shree

 Enterprises; 5) Manita Rajesh Agarwal, owner of M/s. Naman

 Sales; 6) Sanjay Kumar Yadav, owner of M/s. Grace International

 and Promoter/Director of M/s. Ashok Infra Energy Project Ltd; 7)

 Nitin Ashok Maniyar; 8) Hitendra Virendra Gangwar, M/s. Rachana

 Valuers & Surveyors; 9) Mehul @ Sadashiv D. Pandey; 10)

 Janardan D. Pande; 11) Kalpesh Jayram Koshti; 12) Arvind Atma

 Sethi (Bankar); 13) Subhas K. Roy (Banker and 14) Ramesh Madan

 Patel that they entered into criminal conspiracy in the year 2011-

 12, cheated the Central Bank of India, Peddar Road Branch,

 Mumbai and Mumbai Main Officer, Mumbai of its funds to the tune

 of Rs.17 Crores balance of outstanding Rs.32,52,30,749/- by

 creation of false and fabrication of documents, dishonestly

 suppressing the material information, offering immovable property

 as collateral security by over valuation for availing credit facility

 and also mis-utilization of credit facility.

 Sajakali Jamadar                   2 of 6




::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2023                    ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2023 21:19:36 :::
                                                                   1-WP-1047-2022.doc




 3.        Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, there is

 no evidence to frame charge against the Petitioner. The Petitioner

 was the guarantor and the properties which were furnished as

 collateral security and the documents relating to those properties

 were not fabricated. The Petitioner had not participated in the

 crime. She was not aware about the credit facilities which were

 alleged to be taken on the basis of alleged fabricated documents.

 She is the wife of the co-accused. The co-accused is the borrower.

 Although it is alleged that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was

 transferred into the account of the Petitioner, there is no document

 on record to show that such amount has been credited into the

 bank account of the Petitioner. The Petitioner did not receive any

 amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which could be termed as proceeds of

 crime.

 4.        Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submitted that the

 Petitioner had acted in connivance with the co-accused. There is

 charge of conspiracy. The Petitioner is the wife of co-accused Ashok

 Kumar Singh. Properties were given as collateral security for loan

 facility availed by the co-accused.         She is the beneficiary of the

 crime proceeds for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-.                 At the stage

 discharge, the Court is not required to hold a detailed roving

 inquiry. The prosecution has made out prima facie case to proceed

 Sajakali Jamadar                   3 of 6




::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2023                      ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2023 21:19:36 :::
                                                                  1-WP-1047-2022.doc




 against the Petitioner. Learned Special Judge has considered these

 aspects and rejected the application for discharge. At this stage,

 the defence of the accused cannot be considered.

 5.        Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 has relied upon the

 following decisions:

           i.       Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Hari Singh Ranka
           and Ors. passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1289 of 2017 arising
           out of Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.5857 of 2017 passed
           by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Judgment and Order
           dated 18th July 2017.

           ii.      Sushil Sure Vs. C.B.I. & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.
           1109 of 2011 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Cri.)
           No.6113 of 2009 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
           Judgment and Order dated 6th May, 2011.

 6.        Perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court and

 the documents on record. The Petitioner is the wife of accused. It

 is not in dispute that, she stood as guarantor.            The documents

 relating to the property which has been kept as collateral security

 were not fabricated.          Although it is alleged that the amount of

 Rs.3,00,000/- has been transferred into the account of the

 Petitioner, the prosecution has not been able to justify as to which

 account of the Petitioner, the said amount is transferred. There is

 no cogent evidence to establish even prima facie to show that the



 Sajakali Jamadar                      4 of 6




::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2023                     ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2023 21:19:36 :::
                                                               1-WP-1047-2022.doc




 Petitioner is beneficiary of the proceeds of crime.          The written

 complaint which was treated as FIR alleged that, Petitioner is the

 wife of Mr. Ashok Singh. She stood guarntor for overdraft facility.

 Out of the three properties mortgaged as collateral security, the two

 properties were owned by the Petitioner and one property was

 owned by the Ashok Kumar Singh. However, there is no dispute

 with regards to the properties mortgaged in this account. Ashish

 Kumar Singh, son of Ashok Kumar Singh Applied for overdraft

 facility for an amount of Rs.2.75 Crores. The Petitioner and Ashok

 Singh were guarantors of said facility. Four properties were given

 as security by way of mortgage in this account.              Out of four

 properties, three properties were owned by Petitioner and one

 property owned by Mr. Ashok Singh. However, there is no dispute

 with regards to the properties mortgaged in this account.

 Statement of Vilas Patkar refers to the fact that, Petitioner is having

 bank account in Syndicate Bank with Ashok Kumar Singh and

 beneficiary of Rs.3,00,000/- from account of Grace International

 owned by Sanjay Yadav. The Bank statement of Petitioner with

 Syndicate Bank is produced by learned Advocate for the Petitioner

 and contended that the said statement does not show any entry of

 Rs.3,00,000/- being credited from Grace International to account of

 Petitioner. Nothing incriminating was produced by prosecution to

 Sajakali Jamadar                  5 of 6




::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2023                  ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2023 21:19:36 :::
                                                                     1-WP-1047-2022.doc




 support transfer of proceeds of crime to Petitioner. The evidence on

 record does not attribute any other overt act to the Petitioner

 having participated in the crime or connivance with the co-accused

 in the alleged transaction. It is true that, at the stage of discharge,

 the Court is not called upon to conduct a roving inquiry. However,

 to frame charge there has to be prima facie evidence which is

 lacking in the present case qua the Petitioner.                        In these

 circumstances, the Petitioner is required to be discharged from the

 impugned proceedings.

                                      ORDER

i. Writ Petition No.1047 of 2022 is allowed; ii. The order dated 01.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI) in C.B.I. Special Case No.4 of 2008 is quashed and set-aside.

iii. The Petitioner is discharged from the proceedings in CBI Special Case No.4 of 2008 pending before the Special Court, C.B.I. at Greater Bombay.

iv. Petition is disposed off accordingly.




                                                     (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)




 Sajakali Jamadar                        6 of 6




::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2023                        ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2023 21:19:36 :::