Karnataka High Court
Mr Sridhar Subasri S/O S.P.S. Sharma vs Cbi/Bs & Fc/Bangalore on 5 August, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5466 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
Mr. Sridhar Subasri,
Son of S.P.S.Sharma,
Aged about 56 years,
Occupation: Management Consultant,
Resident of 128, Srila Heights,
East Marredpalli,
Secunderabad 500 026,
Andhra Pradesh.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri N. Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
CBI/BS & FC/
Bangalore.
...RESPONDENT
(By Shri P. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate)
*****
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire
criminal proceedings in C.C.No.9051/2006 on the file of the
2
XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore,
against the petitioner.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time on the ground that he has engaged a senior counsel, and the senior counsel is otherwise engaged on this day and that the matter may be called next week.
The plea for adjournment is rejected and the petition is considered on merits.
2. It is seen that the petitioner herein has been arrayed as Accused No.2 in C.C.No.9051/2006 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan (Special) Magistrate for CBI Cases at Bangalore. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inclusion of his name in the charge-sheet and prosecution launched against him for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC. It is clear 3 that the prosecution is an abuse of process of law and his name has been included unnecessarily, without any prima facie evidence whatsoever. It is in this background that the present petition is said to be filed.
3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that the matter is ripe for trial and the petition ought to be rejected.
While incidentally, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that a case was registered by the CBI against one Ramesh Gelli - Accused No.1 who was the then Chairman and Managing Director of the erstwhile Bank namely Global Trust Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the GTB', for brevity), now known as the Oriental Bank of Commerce and as against the present petitioner - Accused No.2 was working as an Executive Director of the GTB under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and substantive offences thereof, based on the complaint received from one 4 A.K. Mishra, Chief Vigilance Officer of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Head Office, New Delhi.
4. It is claimed that one C.V.R. Rao - Accused No.6, the Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer of M/s. Shonkh Technologies International Ltd., had requested the erstwhile GTB, Bangalore Branch for a corporate loan of Rs.40 crore to meet their long term working capital requirements. This was said to be recommended favourably by the head of the M.G. Road Branch, Bangalore one V. Janardhanan - Accused No.3, on 12.02.2001 and the proposal was forwarded to the corporate office of the bank. It is alleged that this proposal was forwarded without appraising the requirements of the borrower firm properly and without referring to the financial statements and the expertise of the company. Thereafter, on 26.02.2001, the committee of the Board of the erstwhile GTB headed by its Chairman and Managing Director Ramesh Gelli, had sanctioned overdraft limits of Rs.4,000 lakh in favour of the company. It was stipulated that 20,00,000 shares of the 5 borrower firm had to be pledged as collateral security, for the credit facilities sanctioned. However, this fact had not been conveyed to the borrower firm by the branch, while conveying the sanction to the borrower firm, even though the same was mentioned in the sanction letter issued by the corporate office.
It is further stated that M/s. Shonkh Technologies International Ltd., had entered into an agreement with M/s. Goldfish Computers Pvt. Ltd., by which the latter firm was to identify a suitable strategic technical partner for M/s. Shonkh Technologies International Limited by way of equity participation in the company. M/s. Shonkh Technologies International Limited was to provide an advance of Rs.3700 lakh to M/s. Goldfish Computers Private Limited to ensure the best deal in the acquisition / sourcing.
Accordingly, the GTB is said to have released the sum of Rs.3700 lakh, by debiting the current account of the company and creating a temporary overdraft of Rs.3697 lakh in its current account and remitted the funds, by transfer, into the 6 account of M/s. Goldfish Computers Pvt. Ltd. Maintained at the Fort Branch, Mumbai, of the erstwhile Global Trust Bank. This transfer was given the value date of 12.03.2001. The cash credit limits, which were sanctioned by the corporate office, were subsequently released on 30.04.2001, to the extent of Rs.3850 lakh, which was transferred to the current account of the company, to clear the overdrafts released as above. It is further contended that the transfer of Rs.3700 lakh into the account of M/s. Goldfish Computers Private Limited was used to clear the outstanding in the account of that firm, which was already overdrawn by Rs.3698.20 lakh as on 12.03.2001. This debit had occurred due to the issue of two cheques, aggregating to Rs.3700 lakh favouring M/s. Partner Fincap and Management Services Limited. It was alleged in the complaint that M/s. Goldfish Computers Private Limited and M/s. Partner Fincap & Management Services Ltd., were group companies of Shri Ketan Parekh - Accused No.5.
7
Further, under the garb of financing M/s. Shonkh Technologies International Limited, the Corporate office of the erstwhile GTB had sanctioned credit facilities indirectly to M/s. Goldfish Computers Private Limited. It is further alleged that the proposal for financing M/s. Shonkh Technologies International Limited was prepared by the erstwhile GTB, M.G. Road Branch, Bangalore only in the first week of April 2001, i.e., after the disbursement of the credit facilities. For the loans advanced to M/s. Shonkh Technologies International Limited, the loan documents had been executed by Prashanth Kumar - Accused No.7, the Director of the company.
The investigation had revealed that funds which were transferred from the account of M/s. Shonkh Technologies International Limited to M/s. Goldfish Computers Private Limited and thereafter, to M/s. Partner Fincap & Management Services Ltd., were utilized for conducting transactions in the share market. The top management of the erstwhile GTB, 8 headed by Ramesh Gelli - Accused No.1 was alleged to have aided the siphoning off of funds, to the group companies of Accused No.5. Further, the branch had obtained the pledge of only 14,00,000 shares of the company, instead of 20,00,000 shares, as was stipulated in the sanction letter. These 14,00,000 shares were held in the name of M/s. Spectrum Com Pvt. Ltd. (3,00,000 shares), M/s. Churuwalal Exports Pvt. Ltd. (7,50,000 shares), and M/s. Saral Website Exim Pvt. Ltd. (3,50,000 shares). No documents were executed to indicate that these shares were pledged to secure the advances released to M/s. Shonkh Technologies International Ltd. Hence, the chances of recovering the funds of the bank were very remote.
The investigation conducted had revealed that Sridhar Subasri - petitioner herein, had exerted undue pressure on the branch heads of the erstwhile GTB, M.G. Road Branch, Bangalore, Fort Branch, Mumbai and Nariman Point Branch, Mumbai, for ensuring that the interest of Accused No.5 was 9 facilitated, by the grant of huge credit facilities in the account of M/s. Shonkh Technologies International Limited. The investigation also established that the petitioner was more interested in ensuring that Ketan Parekh did not default in his payments to the stock market, to the detriment of the interests of the erstwhile GTB. Documentary evidence is available to show that Accused No.2 - petitioner had put up the credit proposal of M/s. Shonkh Technologies International Ltd., before the committee of Board of the erstwhile GTB, on 26.02.2001 and that he was very much present in the meeting on the said date. Oral evidence was available to establish that he had made a presentation, seeking sanction of credit facilities to the borrowing firm. Oral evidence was also available to establish that it was he, who was instrumental in authorizing the temporary overdraft in the account of M/s. Goldfish Computers Private Limited in the Fort Branch, Mumbai, on 12.03.2001, which, in turn, had unleashed the chain of events, which resulted in the huge losses suffered by the M.G. Road Branch, 10 Bangalore. There was oral evidences of three witnesses that it was the petitioner who had given instructions to open the overdraft of Rs.37 crore in the account of M/s. Goldfish Computers Private Limited and also that it was the petitioner who had instructed K.V. Rao, P.S. Ramakrishna and S.R. Kalluraya to release the pledge of shares, respectively, of M/s. Shonkh Technologies International Limited, from the Fort Branch, Mumbai, and the Nariman Point Branch, Mumbai, of the bank for exposure of those two branches, in the group accounts of Ketan Parekh.
The petitioner also had instructed Accused No.3 to disburse the funds without complying all the terms of sanction. In this regard, Accused No.3 had explained that since then, GTB was a private limited bank, he was not able to withstand the pressure from the top executives of the bank, namely the petitioner and based on his instructions, he had released the funds. One other witness M.V. Nageshwara Rao, the Executive 11 Vice President, had explained that the funds were released without his knowledge and the branch manager did not report to him regarding the disbursal. Investigation had also revealed that at the time of sanction of Rs.40 crore as overdraft / cash credit in favour of M/s. Shonkh Technologies Ltd, the Corporate office of the then GTB, was not in possession of the proposal from the local branch. The proposal was received only in the second week of April 2001, i.e., after the actual disbursement of loan facility, which took place on 31.03.2001. Two e-mails sent by M.N. Ravichandran on 1.4.2001 to V. Janardhanan, the head of branch, M.G. Road, Bangalore, seeking clarification on the loan proposal of M/s. Shonkh Technologies International Limited, proved that the basic details of the company was not available at the time of sanction and the same was furnished by the branch after the disbursement. Further, V. Janardhanan had stated that the proposal was forwarded antedate as per the instructions of the Executive Director - the petitioner.
12
The petitioner therefore had taken undue interest to ensure that the credit limit was sanctioned to M/s. Shonkh Technologies Limited on 26.02.2001 itself and because of his intervention, the proposal was prepared within few hours and put up to the committee of the Board on 26.02.2001.
Therefore, in the light of these assertions and allegations, the involvement of the petitioner prima facie appears to be established and therefore, there is no warrant to quash the proceedings at this stage.
The petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS