Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
doc
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION
CRIMINALREVISIONAPPLICATIONNO.534OF2015
ASHOKTAHILRAMSADARANGANI&ANR. )...APPLICANTS
V/s.
C.B.I.(E.O.W.)ANDANR. )...RESPONDENTS
AND
CRIMINALREVISIONAPPLICATIONNO.533OF2015
KERSIVIRAFMEHTA )...APPLICANT
V/s.
C.B.I.(E.O.W.)ANDANR. )...RESPONDENTS
Ms.RebeccaGonsalvez,AdvocateforRespondentNo.1.
Mr.S.V.Gavand,APPfortheRespondentState.
CORAM : A.M.BADAR,J.
DATE : 12thAPRIL2017.
avk 1/36
ORALJUDGMENT:
withthiscommonjudgmentandorderasfactsinvolvedinboth
petitioners/accusedarebeingprosecutedbytheCBIonsimilar
factsconstitutingvariousoffences.
2 CriminalRevisionPetitionNo.533of2015isfiledby
dated11thAugust2015isfiledbyrespondent/CBIon11 thAugust
2015whichhasresultedinregistrationoftheSpecialCBICase
No.78of2015againsthimforoffencespunishableunderSections
120B,420and471oftheIPC.Bythisrevisionpetition,revision
dated17th November2015passedbythelearnedSpecialJudge
(CBI)forGreaterMumbairejectinghisapplicationatExhibit117
filedbyhiminvokingtheprovisionsofSection300oftheCodeof
SpecialCasebearingno.78of2015.
avk 2/36
3 CriminalRevisionPetitionNo.534of2015isfiledby
Sections120Breadwith409,420,and471oftheIPC,soalso
petitioners/accusednos.1and2inSpecialCBICaseNo.3of2004
arechallengingtheorderdated7thNovember2015passedbythe
Cr.P.C.withtheprayerfordismissaloftheCBISpecialCaseNo.3
of2004.
4 Thoughimpugnedorders,rejectingapplicationswhich
aretitledasapplicationsunderSection300oftheCr.P.C.filedby
revisionpetitioners,werepassedondifferentdatesinbothcases,
avk 3/36
incorporatingreasonsforrejectionofapplicationsfordismissalof
CBISpecialcasescanbefoundinparagraph7inbothimpugned
orders.Forthesakeofconvenience,relevantportionofparagraph
7oftheorderdated7th November2015passedinSpecialCase
No.3of2004needsreproductionanditreadsthus:
7. ............................................................................
From the present chargesheet it appears that the
complaintisdifferent.Hereinthiscasecomplainant
isVigilanceOfficer,UnionBankofIndia,whofiled
complaintbeforeCBI,EOW,Mumbai,on30.06.2003
andoffencebearingRCNo.8/E/2003wasregistered
foroffencepunishableunderSection120BIPCr/w
420and471oftheIPCandSection13(2)r/w13(1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
AllegationsareinrespectofuseofforgeLeaseDeed
andPowerofAttorneyforthepurposeofcollateral
security submitted before Union Bank of India by
accusedcausingwrongfullosstothetuneofRs.3.78
crores. Though the accused are same but the
offences are different and complaint are also
different.Natureofoffencearealsodifferent.
avk 4/36
5 Heard.Admit.Heardfinally,byconsentofparties.
revisionpetitionerswasalreadygoingonandtheyhadalready
availedcreditfacilityfromthebank.However,forenhancingthe
limitofthatcreditfacility,theyhadbonafidelygivenadditional
favourbyPowerofAttorneyholderKersiVirafMehta(therevision
revisionpetitioners/accusedpersonswasbonafide.Theoffence
hadanoriginfromthePowerofAttorneyandnooriginalPowerof
showsthatrevisionpetitioners/accusedneverinducedorcheated
mortgagedwiththebankandasontoday,noduesofthebankare
avk 5/36
revisionpetitioners/accusedthattheprosecutingagencyi.e.the
petitioners/accusedattheinstanceofKherwadiPoliceStationin
thecriminalCaseregisteredonthebasisofinvestigationintothe
FIRlodgedbyHomiSanjana.Forthispurpose,relianceisplaced
No.39of2005bythelearnedSpecialJudge,GreaterMumbai,and
theorderdated6thApril2004passedinR.A.No.3of2004i.e.Bail
GreaterMumbai. Withthis,thelearnedadvocatefurtherargued
thatinfactacompositechargesheetoughttohavebeenfiledby
petitioners/accusedattheinstanceofKherwadiPoliceStation
and the CBI. The main thrust of the argument of the learned
havingtriedforoffencespunishableunderSections465,467,468,
471,420readwith34and120BoftheIPCbeforethelearned
No.364/P/2002andtheiracquittalthereinon30 th January2013
avk 6/36
bythesaidcourt,therevisionpetitioners/accusedcannotnowbe
triedonsamefactsbythelearnedSpecialJudge,CBI,inSpecial
CaseNo.3of2004andassuch,inviewofbarofSection300of
Cr.P.C.,SpecialCaseNo.3of2004needstobedismissedatthe
arisingoutofoneseriesofactssoconnectedtogetherastoform
thesametransactionandthereforerevisionpetitioners/accused
oughttohavebeentriedinonlyonetrial.
7 Ihavealsoheardthelearnedadvocateappearingfor
revisionpetitioner/accusedinCriminalRevisionPetitionNo.533
of2015. Bydrawingmyattentiontothechargeleveledagainst
thepetitionerintheSpecialCasebytheCBI,hearguedthatthere
chargesheetbytherevisionpetitioner. Therevisionpetitioner/
accusedhadnotusedforgeddocumentsnorapproachedthebank
submissionsadvancedbythelearnedadvocateappearinginthe
avk 7/36
Section 300 of the Cr.P.C., the Special CBI Case against the
dismissed.
8 Thelearnedadvocateappearingfortherespondent/
Section300oftheCr.P.C.isnotapplicabletocasesinhand.She
petitioners/accusedinboththeserevisionpetitionsaretotally
distinct.Asoffencesarenotidenticalandasrevisionpetitioners/
accusedwerenottriedforoffencesallegedagainsttheminSpecial
CBICaseNos.3of2004and78of2015,thereisnoquestionof
applicationofbarofSection300oftheCr.P.C.Forthispurpose,
petitioners/accusedinCriminalCaseNo.364/P/2002decidedon
30th January2013andcontendedthatitwasrelatingtoforgery
avk 8/36
andcheatingofHomiSanjanatheinformantthereinaswellas
AttorneyofthefirstinformantHomiSanjanaandpreparationof
registeredinfavourofrevisionpetitioners/accusedinCriminal
RevisionPetitionNo.543of2015. Thelearnedadvocateforthe
CBIbyplacingrelianceonjudgmentoftheHon'bleApexCourtin
matterof AshokSadaranganiandAnothervs.UnionofIndia
accusedinCriminalRevisionPetitionNo.534of2015hadearlier
proceedingsintheSpecialCBICaseNo.3of2004onthebasisof
Courtconsideringthenatureofoffence,waspleasedtodismiss
thatwritpetition.ThelearnedadvocatefortheCBIfurtherplaced
relianceonjudgmentoftheHon'bleApexCourtinthematterof
avk 9/36
Anr.2fordemonstratingscopeandapplicabilityfortheprincipleof
contendedthatinthecaseinhand,revisionpetitioner/accused
no.2NiteshSadaranganiwasnotevenprosecutedforcommission
oftheoffenceandassuch,hecannotinvokeSection300ofthe
Cr.P.C.ShefurtherarguedthatthejudgmentinthematterofKolla
reliedbylearnedadvocatefortherevisionpetitioners/accused
hasbeenconsideredinthematterofSangeetaben(supra)andit
isheldthatwhenoffencesareentirelydifferent,evenifthereare
someoverlappingfacts,thenthebarofSection300(1)ofCr.P.C.
hasnoapplicability.
9 Ihavecarefullyconsideredtherivalsubmissionsand
alsoperusedmaterialplacedonrecordincludingthecopyofthe
judgmentandorderofacquittalofrevisionpetitioners/accused
inCriminalCaseNo.364/P/2002. Similarly,Ihavealsoperused
avk 10/36
CasesbearingNos.3of2004and78of2015.Ihavealsoperused
cases.
revisionpetitioners/accusedhaveinvokedrevisionaljurisdiction
ofthiscourtwhichisrequiredtobeexercisedsparinglywhenitis
shownthatthereismanifesterroronthepointoflaworglaring
defectofprocedurewhichhasresultedinmiscarriageofjustice.
Accordingtolearnedadvocateappearingforrevisionpetitioners/
accused,thelearnedSpecialJudge,CBI,hascommittederrorof
lawinnotapplyingtheprovisionsofSection300(1)oftheCr.P.C.
tocasesinhandandhascommittedillegalityinnotdismissing
bothcriminalcasespendingagainstrevisionpetitioners/accused.
avk 11/36
ClausesAct,1897arerequiredtobeexaminedinthelightoffacts
oftheinstantcases.
Article20(2)oftheConstitutionofIndiareadsthus:
Article20(2) Nopersonshallbeprosecutedand
punishedforthesameoffencemorethanonce.
Section300(1)ofCr.P.C.readsthus:
300.Persononceconvictedoracquittednottobe
triedforsameoffence
(1)ApersonwhohasoncebeentriedbyaCourtof
competentjurisdictionforanoffenceandconvicted
convictionoracquittalremainsinforce,notbeliable
tobetriedagainforthesameoffence,noronthe
convictedundersubsection(2)thereof.
avk 12/36
Section26ofGeneralClausesAct,1897,readsthus:
26. Provisionastooffencespunishableundertwo
enactments,thentheoffendershallbeliabletobe
punishedtwiceforthesameoffence.
protectedfromdoublejeopardy.Theseprovisionsoflawprotects
apersonandarebasedonmaximNemodebetbisvexari.These
provisionsincorporatesalutaryruleofcriminaljurisprudencethat
offence.TheseprovisionsoflawwereinterpretedbytheHon'ble
learnedadvocateappearingfortheprosecutingagency.Paragraph
24ofthesaidjudgment,soalsorelevantportionfromparagraph
26thereofneedsreproduction.Theyreadthus:
avk 13/36
24. Inviewoftheabove,thelawiswellsettled
thatinordertoattracttheprovisionsof Article20(2)
oftheConstitutioni.e.doctrineofautrefoisacquitor
Section300 CodeofCriminalProcedureor Section71
heldthereinthatoncetheconvictionunder Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been
avk 14/36
Itis,thus,seenthat,forapplicabilityofprinciplesofprotection
fromdoublejeopardy,thetestiswhethertheformeroffenceand
theoffencenowchargedhavethesameingredients,inthesense
conviction of the other and not that the facts relied on by the
prosecutionarethesameintwotrials. Pleaofdoublejeopardy
cannotbeheldtobeprovedunlessitisshownthattheverdictof
acquittalofthepreviouschargenecessarilyinvolvesanacquittal
ofthelatter.Keepinginmindtheseprinciples,letusnarratefacts
whichhaveresultedininstitutionofboththeserevisionpetitions.
belongingtoHomiSanjanaon29th December1999.Inall,five
avk 15/36
Attorneyexecutedbyownersofthatland. Oneoftheowners,
June2000whichhasresultedinregistrationofCrimeNo.236of
2002withKherwadiPoliceStationforoffencepunishableunder
Section465,467,468,471,420readwith34and120Bofthe
Sanjanaandhisfamilymemberswereownersoflandsituatedin
Sanjanaandhisfamilymembers.HeforgedaPowerofAttorney
1999.OnthebasisoftheseforgedPowersofAttorney,according
no.1AshokSadaranganiandaccusedno.2NiteshSadarangani.In
themeanwhile,informantHomiSanjanareceivedaletteron4th
April2000fromtheAdditionalCollector,Mumbai.Onthebasisof
avk 16/36
thisletter,firstinformantHomiSanjanamadeinquiryandcameto
knowthatrevisionpetitioner/accusedKersiMehtahadprepared
forgedPowerofAttorneyandleasedoutpropertyownedbythem
registeredwiththeofficeoftheSubRegistrar,Mumbai,accused
thatcertificatepurportedtobeissuedunderSection230Aofthe
IncomeTaxActtotheofficeoftheSubRegistrarandgotallthose
fiveleasedeedsregisteredon30 thDecember1999.Itwascaseof
deeds,revisionpetitioners/accusedno.1AshokSadaranganiand
immovablepropertiestothebankandobtainedcashcreditfacility
ofRs.125LakhapartfromImportLetterofCreditforRs.100Lakh.
Oncompletionofinvestigation,accusedinCrimeNo.236of2002
avk 17/36
No.364/P/2002cametoberegistered.RevisionpetitionerAshok
Sadaranganiwasaccusedno.3andrevisionpetitionerKersiMehta
andwasnotputtotrial. Alongwiththeseaccused,someother
personswerealsoarraignedasaccusedinthatcriminalcase.It
chargesleveledagainstthemvidejudgmentandorderdated30th
March2013.
14 ForapplyingtheprovisionsofSection300(1)ofthe
Cr.P.C.tocasesinhand,onewillhavetoexaminewhatwerethe
chargesinthatcriminalcasebearingno.364/P/2002. Following
werethepointsfordeterminationframedandansweredbythe
learnedMetropolitanMagistrateinthesaidcase:
1 DoesprosecutionprovethataccusedNo.1,3,6 Notproved.
and 7 along with deceased accused no.2
HarishNanalalJoshi,andabscondingaccused
Nitesh AshokSadarangani,Babu @Surato
avk 18/36
MadhusudanDas,DharmendraSinghandRaju
Shrivastav,committedcriminalconspiracyand
in furtherance oftheir common intention,in
between 24121999 to 09052000 at the
office of Additional District Collector, New
Administrative Building, BandraE, Mumbai,
and in the office of SubRegistrar, Bandra
fabricated certain documents, two Powerof
Attorneys dated 11011996 and 24121999
andtheaccusedno.6KersiMehta,forgedthe
signature of complainant Homi
DinshawSanjana, his wife Phiroza and his
twosonsBerzinandPesiiSanjanatosupport
acertainclaimortitle,toshowthetitleover
thelandbelongingtothecomplainantandhis
family members, situated at VillageAksa,
MaladW, Kandivali, Mumbai, and submitted
theforgedPowerofAttorneystotheofficeof
AdditionalDistrictCollector,andtheaccused
no.3and6alsoforgedandgotexecutedfive
leasedeedsshowingtransactiondated2912
1999,andsubmittedthemintheofficeofSub
Registrar, Bandra on 03122000 for
registrationandthattheaccusedno.1and2
fabricated and forged Income Tax Clearance
Certificateu/Sec.230AofIncomeTaxActfor
the registration of lease deeds and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
Section465r/w.34oftheIndianPenalCode?
2 DoesprosecutionprovethataccusedNo.1,3,6 Notproved.
and 7 along with deceased accused no.2
HarishNanalalJoshi,andabscondingaccused
Nitesh AshokSadarangani,Babu @Surato
MadhusudanDas,DharmendraSinghandRaju
Shrivastav,committedcriminalconspiracyand
in furtherance of their common intention,
duringtheabovementionedperiodandplaces
avk 19/36
forgedandsubmitteddocumentspurportingto
bevaluablesecuritywithintentiontocheatthe
complainant Homi Sanjana and his family
members and also government officers and
thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 467 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal
Code?
3 DoesprosecutionprovethataccusedNo.1,3,6 Notproved.
and 7 along with deceased accused no.2
HarishNanalalJoshi,andabscondingaccused
Nitesh AshokSadarangani,Babu @Surato
MadhusudanDas,DharmendraSinghandRaju
Shrivastav,committedcriminalconspiracyand
in furtherance of their common intention,
duringtheabovementionedperiodandplaces
and forged the above mentioned documents
i.e. two PowerofAttorneys, Income Tax
Clearance Certificate and five lease deeds
purporting to be valuable security intending
that, those shall be used for the purpose of
cheatingthecomplainant,hisfamilymembers
and government officers and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
Section468r/w.34ofIndianPenalCode?
4 DoesprosecutionprovethataccusedNo.1,3,6 Notproved.
and 7 along with deceased accused no.2
HarishNanalalJoshi,andabscondingaccused
Nitesh AshokSadarangani,Babu @Surato
MadhusudanDas,DharmendraSinghandRaju
Shrivastav,committedcriminalconspiracyand
in furtherance of their common intention,
duringtheabovementionedperiodandplaces
used as genuine,forgeddocumentsi.e. two
PowerofAttorneys, Income Tax Clearance
Certificate and five lease deeds, which you
knewatthetimewhenusedthemtobeforged
documentsandtherebycommittedanoffence
avk 20/36
avk 21/36
andtherebycommittedanoffencepunishable
underSection120BofIndianPenalCode?
7 Whatorder? Asperfinal
order.
allegedlyforgedPowersofAttorneyandallegedlyforgedIncome
TaxClearanceCertificateunderSection230AoftheIncomeTax
Actanduseofthoseforgeddocumentsbyaccusedthereinforthe
members.
15 Nowletusexaminefactsofthechargesheetfiledby
registrationofSpecialCBICaseNo.78of2015.Thecriminallaw
wassetinmotioninthesecasesbytheChiefVigilanceOfficerof
the Union Bank of India by lodging the FIR with the CBI.
avk 22/36
after securing credit facility from the bank had utilized such
facilitiesinadishonestandfraudulentmannerbyopeningLetters
ofCreditinrespectofforeignsuppliersofgoodswithoutactually
bringinggoodsbutinducingthebanktonegotiatetheLetterof
Creditsinfavourofforeignsuppliersandalsomisusingcashcredit
SpecialCaseNo.78of2015,itisappositetoreproducerelevant
accusedpersons.Thosereadthus:
avk 23/36
propertydocumentsascollateralsandutilisedsuch
facilitiesinadishonestandfraudulentmanner,by
opening Letters of Credit on foreign suppliers of
goods without actually bringing in any goods but
inducingthebanktonegotiatetheLetterofCredits
in favour of foreign suppliers as also by misusing
Cash Credit Facility. The Credit Facilities were
allegedlymisutilisedbyA1NiteshSadaranganiand
hisfatherA2AshokSadaranganiincollusionwith
the then Branch Manager A3 R.K.Daruwalla of
Union Bank of India, Cumbala Hill Road Branch,
Mumbai. Thus, by aforesaid criminal acts of
accusedpersons,awrongfullossofRs.3.78crores
hasbeencausedtoUnionBankofIndia.
avk 24/36
avk 25/36
4. ThattheCashcreditHypothecationFacilitywas
released by the branch on 31032001 in the
AccountNo.40043ofM/s.AnupImpex.Itisfurther
revealed that Cash Credit Facility availed by A1
AshokSadarangani,ProprietorofM/s.AnupImpex,
wasmisutilisedbytransferringthefundstovarious
avk 26/36
avk 27/36
avk 28/36
9. Itisfurtherrevealedthataftersanction ofthe
creditfacilitiesA2AshokP.Sadarangani,Proprietor
avk 29/36
ofM/s.ChallengerImports(AccountNo.40047),was
misutilized by transferring the funds to various
other accounts of his sister concerns opened and
operated by him and his family members in the
samebranchofthebank.Itisalsoreflectsthat,the
CreditEntriesintheaccountaremostlybywayof
cashdeposits.
avk 30/36
petitioners /accusedpersonsarefacingtheprincipalchargeof
indulgingincriminalconspiracyofcheatingUnionBankofIndia
IndiatothetuneofRs.375.94Lakh.
avk 31/36
17 Sofarasrevisionpetitioner/accusedKersiMehtais
concerned,allegationagainsthimreflectedinthesupplementary
chargesheetfiledagainsthimbytheCBI,whichreadsthus:
ThatfurtherinvestigationrevealsthatShriAshokT.
Sadarangani (A2) has introduced SB Account
No.78093 with United Bank of India, Khar (W),
Branch,Mumbai,whichwasopenedinthenameof
ShriKersiVirafMehta(A4).Further,ShriAshokT.
Sadarangani (A2) was also having SB
A/c.No.46507inthesamebankandhehadissued
threedifferentchequesinfavourofShriKersiViraf
Mehta(A4)duringtheperiodbetweenApril2000
to May 2000. The details of the cheques are as
under:
1. Cheque No.048521 dated 13.04.2000 for
Rs.3,15,000/ issued in favour of Shri Kersi Viraf
Mehta(A4).
2. Cheque No.048522 dated 18.04.2000 for
Rs.85,000/ issued in favour of Shri Kersi Viraf
Mehta(A4).
3. Cheque No.682387 dated 08.05.2000 for
Rs.10,000/ issued in favour of Shri Kersi Viraf
Mehta(A4).
Thus, Shri Kersi Viraf Mehta (A4) received
avk 32/36
Rs.4,10,000/.
That further investigation revealed that Shri Kersi
VirafMehta(A4)sentletterdated24.02.2000and
02.03.2000 for allowing separate ceiling share to
landownersinrespectofpropertyatVillageAkseas
wellaspropertyatMahavirNagar,VillageKandivali.
Healsosentletterdated22.03.2000forpermission
forsaleofnonvacantlandatvillageKandivali.
2004and78of2015andCriminalCaseNo.364/P/2002decided
allegationsoffactsinthesetwomattersareentirelydifferent.By
nostretchofimaginationitcanbesaidthatinthesetwosetsof
instanceofHomiSanjanawasforcheatingHomiSanjanaandhis
familymembersbypreparationofforgedPowersofAttorneyand
avk 33/36
executionofleasedeedsbyusingthoseforgedPowersofAttorney
fortransferringlandsinfavourofcoaccusedandpreparationof
forgedIncomeTaxClearanceCertificateandusingthereofforthe
purposeofcheating.Presentcasesinitiatedattheinstanceofthe
ChiefVigilanceOfficeroftheUnionBankofIndiaareinrespectof
creditfacilitiesinadishonestandfraudulentmannerforcheating
theUnionBankofIndiatothetuneofRs.375.94Lakh. Though
some oftheaccusedpersonsincasesinhandandthecriminal
itselfitisnotpossibletoholdthatoffenceinboththesecasesare
sameorarisingoutofsamefacts. Factsconstitutingconspiracy
andcheatingHomiSanjanaandhisfamilymemberssoalsothe
AttorneyandIncomeTaxClearanceCertificatearenotingredients
ofindulginginconspiracyandcheatingtheUnionBankofIndia.
ForgingPowersofAttorneyandgettingleasedeedsregisteredon
avk 34/36
usingthoseleasedeedsandpropertiescoveredbythembutboth
theseoffencesaredistinctonesandfactsoftheoffenceregistered
attheinstanceoftheChiefVigilanceOfficeroftheUnionBankof
Indiaaretotallydifferentfromthefactsofoffenceregisteredat
theinstanceofHomiSanjana.Thosedonotfallinthecategoryof
Cr.P.C.orunderArticle21(2)oftheConstitutionofIndia.Section
218oftheCr.P.C.providesthatforeverydistinctoffenceofwhich
apersonisaccused,thereshallbeaseparatechargeandevery
suchchargeshallbetriedseparately.Inthisview,thejudgmentin
application.
petitioners.
avk 35/36
20 Therefore,revisionpetitionsaredevoidofmeritand
aredismissed.
(A.M.BADAR,J.)
avk 36/36