@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
A.V. Chandrashekara, J.@mdash1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. Any how, petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. cannot be
dismissed for default. Hence, heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records.
2. Present revision petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed by the learned Special Judge dealing with CBI cases
in Spl. C.C. No. 33/2011 on 25.03.2013 in CCH-49, Bangalore City. Petitioners are accused Nos. 12, 14 and 15 in the said case registered by
the respondent -CBI for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467 & 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w.
13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of these petitioners came to be dismissed by a considered order passed by the Special
Judge dealing with cases arising out of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. Case on hand relates to the fraud that was detected in Union Bank of India, Avenue Road Branch, Bangalore. Accused No. 15 - M/s. Kusum
Alloys is a Private Limited Company of which accused No. 14 - Shri. Atma Ram Kejriwal is the Managing Director and accused No. 12 - Ashok
Kumar Kejriwal is the Director. It is alleged that they had availed huge loans by forging and fabricating bills and invoices. After conducting
thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against 15 persons.
5. While considering the said application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., learned Judge of the trial Court has made a detailed analysis of the
statements of CW-69 - N. Nazeer Ahammed, CW-70 - Mohammed Altaf @ Babu And CW-73 - Anand Chopra - the chartered Accountant of
M/s. Kusum Alloys Limited. Infact, learned Judge has sifted the entire materials on record in order to know whether there exists a prima-facie case
to proceed further to frame the charge. Relevant discussion is found in paragraph Nos. 28, 29, 42 and 43 of the impugned order. The contents of
the paragraphs are reproduced below:
28. In the statement of C.W. 69 N. Nazeer Ahammed, it is stated that, he started his carrier as broker for scrap metals during the year 2000 and
he has not supplied any material to M/s. Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and in the year 2005, A12 approached him to get some bills in the name of
M/s. Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd., for which he asked for one percent commission and A12 accepted and then he approached one Akbar Ali
(A10), who is his friend to provide bills/invoices in the name of M/s. Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and that, half percent will be paid to Akbar Ali
and Akbar Ali accepted the deal and brought the bills in the name of M/s. Raiyaan Steels, M/s. Agson Steels, M/s. Arman Steels and M/s.
Rounakh Electrical Equipments (India) and the same were handed over to A12, who in turn gave the commission amount of Rs. 5 lakh. In his
statement, it s also stated that, he introduced one Mohammed Altaf used to go and collect the cheques/pay order and also used to hand over the
cash after the withdrawal of the amount from Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., City Branch, Bangalore to A12. It is further stated in his statement
that, there was no single transaction of materials to M/s. Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and the entire transactions were begun which was done only
on the instructions of A12.
29. In the statement of Mohammed Altaf @ Babu (C.W. 70), it is stated that, he knows Akbar Ali and he came to know A12 through Naseer
Ahammed and Naseer Ahammed took him to Unity Building where the office of A12 was situated and afterwards, along with Naseer Ahammed,
he use to visit Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, for collecting the money by cash and handed over the same to A12 and some times to Smt. Kalavathi,
the employee of A12. In his statement, it is also stated that, he use to sign on the back of cheques for encashment of the cheques. It is further
stated that, he has signed the blank cheque books of the firms viz., M/s. Arman Steels, M/s. Agson Steels, M/s. Raiyaan steels and M/s. Rounakh
Electrical Equipments (India) as and when required by Akbar Ali (A10) and Naseer Ahammed with withdrawal of the amount. In his statement, it
is also stated that, the account of M/s. Arman Steels in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., stands in the name of Sri. Syed Hafeez, but the photo
affixed to the account opening form and other documents are of Sri. Mohammed Arif (A6), who is the younger brother. It is also stated that, as
per the Bank records, the account in the name of M/s. Agson Steels in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., stands in the name of Sri. Akbar Basha,
but the photograph affixed to the same is that of his younger brother Mohammed Akbar (A7) and the name of his brother was changed as Akbar
Pasha as per the instructions of Late M.Y. Kaleel to facilitate A12 for withdrawing the money. In his statement, it is also stated that, the account in
the name of M/s. Raiyaan Steels in Tamilnadu Mercantile bank stands in the name of Mohammed Shabir as per the bank records, but the
photograph and signatures affixed to the same is that of Mohammed Yahya (A5) who has impersonated as Mohammed Shabir. Likewise, in the
statement, it is also stated that, the account in the name of Rounakh Electrical Equipments (India) in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., stands in the
name of Ansar Pasha as per the bank records, but the photograph affixed in the bank record is that of Nizam, who is a carpenter.
42. In the application of A12, A14 and A15, it is contended that, the above said accused have not committed any offence and there is no material
to frame charge against them. As stated above, A12 and A14 are the Director and Managing Director of M/s. Kusum Alloys Ltd., and A15 in
M/s. Kusum Alloys Ltd. It is the case of the prosecution that, A12 transferred above Rs. 524 lakh frequently collected in cash from the term loan
account of M/s. Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore through third parties to Shri Anand Chopra, M/s. Chopra and Co., Chartered
Accountants, Chopra House, 133, Canning Street, Kolkata, during the period beginning from October 2005 to January 2006 in several
installments. The said amount was routed through the accounts of M/s. Top Ten Agent Pvt. Ltd., No. 14/2, Old China Bazar Street, Kolkata and
12 others held at M/s. Royal Bank of Scotland, Kolkata and Central Bank of India Kolkata. It is revealed that, Rs. 301.50 lakh was transferred to
the account of M/s. Kusum Alloys Ltd., Bangalore held at Union Bank of India, Chandra Nagar Branch, Palakkad, Kerala and later transferred to
the account of M/s. Kusum Alloys Ltd., Bangalore held at Vijaya Bank, JC Road Branch, Bangalore towards the repayment of outstanding
liabilities in accordance with one time settlement reached between the parties and the remaining Rs. 239 lakh was transferred to the account of
M/s. Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. held at Citibank, MG Road Branch, Bangalore, and the same was fraudulently shown as share capital
mobilized. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that, out of the loan amount, Rs. 301.50 lakh was transferred to the account of M/s. Kusum
Alloys Ltd., Bangalore, held at Union Bank of India, Chandranagar Branch, Palakkad, Kerala and later, transferred to the account of M/s. Kusum
Alloys Ltd., Bangalore, held at Vijaya Bank, JC Road Branch, Bangalore, towards repayment of outstanding liabilities of M/s. Kusum Alloys Ltd.,
and Rs. 239 lakh was transferred to the different account of M/s. Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd., held at Citi Bank, MG Road Branch, Bangalore
and the same was fraudulently shown as share capital mobilized.
43. At this stage, there is the statement of Anand Chopra (C.W. 73), wherein it is stated that, he is the partner of M/s. Chopra and Company and
it was stated in 1973. It is further stated that, he knows A2, A3 and also A12 and A14 very well. It is further stated that, Ashok Kejriwal (A12)
requested him to arrange for passing money to an extent of 5.40 Crores approximately an various occasions during October 2005 to January
2006 by way of cash to facilitate him in routing the funds and also to send Rs. 3.01 Crore to M/s. Kusum Alloys Ltd., and Rs. 2.39 Crore to M/s.
Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd., from IDBL, the Federal Bank Ltd., ABN Amro, Central Bank of India, Kolkata. It is further stated in his statement
that, there is no other business transaction between them and the funds were routed through the accounts of the following companies to the account
of M/s. Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Kusum Alloys Ltd., through their Bank accounts. The details are as follows.
In his statement, it is further stated as follows;
On being asked how the funds of Rs. 5.40 crores were sent to me by Shri Ashok Kejriwal, R/o Bangalore, in this regard I state that Shri Ashok
Kejriwal, R/o Bangalore used to inform me over phone about the cash details and later it was delivered by a third party at my office i.e., Chopra
House, 133, Canning Street, Kolkata, but I do not have the knowledge about such persons, who had delivered the monies. However, I have
received cash on various occasions varying from Rs. 25 lacs to Rs. 50 lacs between October 2005 to January 2006. Subsequently, the said
amount was routed to various Companies mentioned above. Further, I also stated that all the Directors in the aforesaid Companies are my
family/friends/relatives/clients. I also state that Shri. Ashok Kejriwal promised us that he will account these monies received from various
Companies as share investments, in his Company i.e., M/s. Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Kusum Alloys Ltd., and complete all the
required formalities of issue of shares, allotment of shares and physical transfer of shares, which he never did, inspite of my repeated reminders.
Further, the shares of M/s. Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Kusum Alloys Pvt. Ltd., were not received by the said Companies at any point
of time.
6. The scope of revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is very much limited. On going through the discussion made by the learned Special Judge in
the above paragraphs, it is clear that no apparent illegality or perversity is found to invoke the revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court. Serious
allegations are made against these petitioners.
7. Admittedly, petitioner No. 1 is the son of petitioner No. 2 and these petitioners are the persons who are incharge of M/s. Kusum Alloys Limited
and since the Manager and other staff of the Bank were hand in glove with these petitioners, Section 120-B of IPC is invoked. Since the Bank
staff are public servants, section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is also invoked.
8. In this view of the matter, no good grounds are made out to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed at the
admission stage.
