Karnataka High Court
T. Kanna Rao vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 4 February, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7123/2021
BETWEEN:
T. KANNA RAO,
S/O T. SUBBA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI KRISHNA STOCKIST AND
TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED,
NO.1-8-5, I. PANGIDI,
KOVURU MANDAL,
WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH -534342
RESIDING AT 1ST FLOOR,
VENKATA RAMANA RESIDENCY,
TTD KALYANA MANDAPAM ROAD,
BEHIND ANAND RESIDENCY,
DANAVAIPETA,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARMA-533103.
(AS PER CHARGE SHEET)
NOW RESIDING AT NO.103,
KADIYALA APARTMENTS,
PRAKASHAM NAGAR,
RAJAHMUNDRY,
ANDHRA PRADESH- 533101. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B. ADINARAYANA, SENIOR COURNSL FOR
SRI PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
BANK SECURITIES AND FRAUD BRANCH,
NO.36, GANGANAGAR, BELLARY ROAD,
BENGALURU-560032.
REP. BY STANDING COUNSEL FOR CBI IN THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPECIAL COUNSEL)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
SPL.C.C.NO.36/2020 ARISING OUT OF RC.NO.1(E)/2018 FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B READ WITH
420, 468, 471 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) OF
P.C ACT AND SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCES THEREOF, NOW
PENDING BEFORE THE XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
BENGALURU (CCH-47).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Spl.C.C.No.36/2020 arising out of R.C.No.1(E)/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 120B read with 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and substantive offences thereof, now pending before the XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore.
3
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Counsel for the respondent.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that FIR in R.C.1/E/2018-CBI/BSFC/BLR is registered and the matter is investigated and the charge-sheet is filed invoking the offence punishable under Sections 120B read with 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The main allegation against the petitioner, who is accused No.2 in the charge-sheet is that he is a promoter and Managing Director of M/s. Sri Krishna Stockist and Traders Pvt. Ltd. He is also proprietor for M/s. Sri Krishna Traders which was converted into Sri Krishna Agro Process India Ltd. during last year. He was one of the partners of M/s.Sri Laxminarayana Traders which are into trading of agriculture commodities mainly into maize, paddy and cereals etc. He is also kartha for M/s. T.Kanna Rao (HUF), which is into trading of neem seeds and maize. He obtained the term loan of Rs.80 Crores from IFCI Limited fraudulently in connivance with Sri V.C. Rammohan-accused No.5, Sri V. Rosi Reddy-accused No.7, Sri Y. Amar Simha Reddy-accused No.8 and others for the purpose of 4 construction of godowns and those loan amounts were diverted by him for other purposes and did not construct the godowns. It is also an allegation that he obtained false and forged work estimate, work progress and work completion certificates from Sri T. Srinivas-accused No.11 and submitted for obtaining the loan. False utilization certificates and promoters contribution certificates from Sri S.V.R. Sastry-accused No.10, statutory auditor for accused No.1 were obtained by him and by using them induced the IFCI Limited to part with the loan amount in favour of accused No.1. In conspiracy with other co-accused, he got prepared inflated valuation reports of six landed properties situated in West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh and by using them as genuine induced IFCI Limited and obtained undue loan facilities of term loan of Rs.8 crores from IFSC Limited. He got prepared false bearer cheques of Canara Bank through T.Surendra-accused No.12, Sri M.V.S.Pavan-accused No.13 and Shri P.V.R.Prasad-accused No.14 on which the signatures of the receivers of the funds were forged. The same were presented to Canara Bank, Rajahmundry and withdrew the loan amount in cash and used the amount for purpose other than for which it was sanctioned.
5
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court when the warrant was issued after filing of the charge-sheet and the Trial Court granted bail invoking Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and the same has been cancelled by this Court in Crl.P.No.2852/2020 and this petitioner is in custody from 27.07.2021 and the offences are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life and also triable by the Special Court. The learned counsel submits that the allegations mainly against this petitioner is that he obtained the loan inflating the value of the properties and no specific allegation with regard to creation of the documents and forging of documents and matter requires trial and no need of custodial trial and hence he may be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel submits that the Trial Court did not appreciate the fact which reflected in the order sheet that the petitioner after he was enlarged on bail regularly appeared before the Trial Court. The learned counsel submits that before this Court also the petitioner though represented through counsel, but unfortunately the counsel did not appear before the Court. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court paragraph 6 Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Court order. Hence, prayed this Court to enlarge him on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned Special Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that earlier this petitioner had approached this Court invoking Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the same was dismissed. After dismissal of the petition, the petitioner did not appear and assist the Investigating Officer. However, the charge-sheet was filed and thereafter non-bailable warrant was issued and the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court and filed the application and bail was granted. Hence, the respondent had approached this Court and this Court allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and cancelled the bail. Now the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the charge- sheet has already been filed and he would co-operate for trial. But the Court has to take note of the criminal act indulged by the petitioner and he not only inflated the value of the property, but he also forged the signature at the instance of accused Nos.12 and 13 i.e., Canara Bank cheques and availed the amount. Apart from that, the amount obtained is Rs.80 Crores and while taking the loan also inflated the rate of the property of 7 the value more than 216 Crores and 253 Crores even though distress value is less than 10 Crores. When such being the facts and when specific allegation is made against him for forging of documents and using of forged documents and availed the benefit of loan and loan also not repaid by the petitioner and though it is not punishable with death of imprisonment for life, the Court has to take note of the gravity of the offence and the seriousness of the allegations made against the petitioner.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Counsel appearing for the respondent and having taken note of the factual aspects of the case, it is not in dispute that earlier 438 petition was filed and the same was rejected. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had approached the Trial Court after filing of the charge-sheet and bail was granted. It is also not in dispute that this Court cancelled the bail granted by the Trial Court and while canceling the bail granted by the Trial Court, this Court in paragraph No.6 taken note of the seriousness of the offence and in paragraph No.6 has observed that the allegation against the respondent is that he and other accused persons furnished false documents, fabricated the balance sheets and false valuation reports for 8 sanction of loan and thus caused loss to the extent of more than Rs.80 Crores i.e., 80,00,93,046.08 as on 30.09.2017 to Industrial Financial Corporation of India Limited and also taken note of the non-appearance of the petitioner before the Court regarding issuance of the notice by the CBI and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not exercised the discretion properly while granting bail and the filing of the charge-sheet cannot be a sole ground for granting bail and discretion has to be exercised if Court finds that the prima facie material about commission of the offence do not exist. It is further observed that indeed the Court below imposed condition that CBI can seek for cancellation of bail in case of violation of the conditions but fails to take note of the relevant factors into consideration while granting bail. The Court also while canceling the bail comes to the conclusion that ignored the important aspect such as conduct of the petitioner remaining away during the investigation and possibility of his non-availability for trial. These are the factors which should have been considered by the Trial Court. Therefore, exercise of discretion for granting bail does not appear to be proper. This Court while canceling the bail comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court ignored the conduct of the 9 petitioner in remaining away and apart from that also observed that possibility of his non-availability for trial. When such an observation is made by this Court and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he would appear before the Court and assist the Trial Court for trial cannot be accepted. This Court has already formed an opinion while canceling the bail that it is not a case for exercising the discretion and his presence is required for trial. When such being the observations made by this Court while cancelling the bail and also this Court has to take note of the gravity of the offence and the accusation made in the charge-sheet against the petitioner.
7. The Apex Court in the case of KUMER SINGH v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 6 SCJ 227 in paragraph No.13.1 has categorically held that while granting bail, the Court has to take note of the consideration of the facts of the case, nature of the allegations, gravity of the offences and role attributed to the accused and this aspect also has to be kept in mind while exercising the discretion. When such being the factual aspects of the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion again in favour of the petitioner since serious allegation of fabrication of cheques 10 and utilization of the said cheques has been alleged against the petitioner. Apart from that, loan was secured based on the inflated documents and specific allegation is made that he indulged in fabrication of documents along with accused No.12 and 13 and loan also not repaid and apart from that, this Court has clearly observed that non-availability of this petitioner for trial is also the ground for cancellation of bail and hence it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD