Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Mazidur Rahaman Omani @ Mazidur ... vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 31 August, 2016
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi C.R.R. 1577 of 2016 Md. Mazidur Rahaman Omani @ Mazidur Rahaman
-Vs-
Central Bureau of Investigation
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saibal Mondal
For the CBI : Mr. Ashraf Ali
Heard on : 31.08.2016
Judgement on: 31.08.2016
Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-
Petitioner has prayed for discharge from the instant case being Case No. RC 5E 2003-Kol dated 25th December, 2003 corresponding to Special Case No. 9 of 2005 under Sections 120B/420/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The gist of the allegation in the FIR is to the effect that a cash credit limit to the tune of Rs.80 lakhs was extended to one M/s. R.O.B. Exporters Private Limited, Kolkata on furnishing of various collateral fraudulent securities. It is further alleged that brothers of the petitioner namely, Md. Atiur Rahaman Omani and Md. Azizur Rahaman Omani are the Directors of the said company and that they had entered into a conspiracy with the Chartered Accountant and representative of the valuers as well as bank officials of State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Ballygunge for illegally obtaining the aforesaid cash credit facility. It is alleged that collateral securities were furnished by Md. Atiur Rahaman Omani and the petitioner signed on the deed of guarantee submitted to the bank by his brothers. It has been further alleged that the deeds were forged and fabricated as the mortgaged properties had not been lawfully conveyed by the original owners.
It is strenuously argued that there is nothing on record to show that the deeds furnished by way of equitable mortgage were forged and fabricated documents.
It appears that one of the deeds submitted with the bank to create equitable mortgage was in respect of a property which was purportedly gifted by the petitioner in favour of Md. Atiur Rahaman Omani. It appears that the petitioner was never the lawful owner of the said property and the gift was, therefore, a void one. That apart, it appears that the petitioner had also signed the personal guarantees executed in favour of the bank.
The prosecution case against the accused persons including the petitioner is to the effect that the purported deeds which did not create any title in favour of the petitioner were dishonestly accepted by the bank officials pursuant to a criminal conspiracy as valuable securities to extend the cash executed by credit facility. Petitioner also played a role in the said conspiracy by countersigning the personal guarantees of his brothers in favour of the bank and was instrumental in creating a fraudulent deed of gift in favour of one of his brothers in respect of a property mortgaged to the bank although he was not the owner of the said property. It is, therefore, not possible to conclude that the petitioner was not connected with the fraudulent transaction in question and the charge-sheet against him cannot be said to be without any merit.
Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of discharge referring to the petitioner.
The trial court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly, dismissed.
Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) akd