Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.31 seconds)

C.B.I vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal on 31 October, 2013

4.1. Commenting on the investigation, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the First Information Report itself was not registered based on any complaint by the bank. No preliminary enquiry was conducted. The occurrence was said to have taken place during 1990 - 1991 and the case was registered after 3 years. The statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., of Raju (A4), Santhammal (A5) and Venkatachalapathy (A3) were recorded by the XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate. However, those statements were suppressed by the Investigating Officer, and those materials were not placed before the sanctioning authority. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal1, it is held that the prosecution is under the obligation to place 1 AIR 2014 SC 827 Page 9 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/07/2025 01:10:04 pm ) Criminal Appeal No.327 of 2016 the entire record before the sanctioning authority, and the Court has to be satisfied that the authority has applied its mind.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 250 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs J.S. Khanna, Etc. on 21 October, 1971

4.2. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the appellant (A1) complied with all the requirements at the time of sanctioning the loan, and the loan was secured by immovable properties. The entire dues of the bank were settled after the properties were auctioned by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Merely because the appellant did not conduct a pre-sanction inspection, this alone would not amount to criminal misconduct and can at best be considered a mere irregularity. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India (UOI) and another Vs. Major J.S. Khanna2, mere irregularities will not constitute criminal misconduct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 46 - J M Shelat - Full Document
1