Você está na página 1de 36

901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.

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

Mr.Mohanlal Sachwani, Advocate for the Applicant in Criminal


RevisionApplicationNo.534of2015.

Mr.Rajnath Pathak, Advocate for the Applicant in Criminal


RevisionApplicationNo.533of2015.

Ms.RebeccaGonsalvez,AdvocateforRespondentNo.1.

Mr.S.V.Gavand,APPfortheRespondentState.

CORAM : A.M.BADAR,J.

DATE : 12thAPRIL2017.

avk 1/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:00 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

ORALJUDGMENT:

1 Both these revision petitions are being disposed of

withthiscommonjudgmentandorderasfactsinvolvedinboth

these revision petitions are identical and both revision

petitioners/accusedarebeingprosecutedbytheCBIonsimilar

factsconstitutingvariousoffences.

2 CriminalRevisionPetitionNo.533of2015isfiledby

Kersi Viraf Mehta against whom a supplementary chargesheet

dated11thAugust2015isfiledbyrespondent/CBIon11 thAugust

2015whichhasresultedinregistrationoftheSpecialCBICase

No.78of2015againsthimforoffencespunishableunderSections

120B,420and471oftheIPC.Bythisrevisionpetition,revision

petitioner / accused no.4 Kersi Mehta is challenging the order

dated17th November2015passedbythelearnedSpecialJudge

(CBI)forGreaterMumbairejectinghisapplicationatExhibit117

filedbyhiminvokingtheprovisionsofSection300oftheCodeof

Criminal Procedure with a prayer for dismissal of the said CBI

SpecialCasebearingno.78of2015.

avk 2/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:00 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

3 CriminalRevisionPetitionNo.534of2015isfiledby

revision petitioners / original accused no.1 Ashish Sadarangani

and original accused no.2 Nilesh Sadarangani, who along with

other accused are facing trial for offences punishable under

Sections120Breadwith409,420,and471oftheIPC,soalso

under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. By this revision petition, these revision

petitioners/accusednos.1and2inSpecialCBICaseNo.3of2004

arechallengingtheorderdated7thNovember2015passedbythe

learned Special Judge (CBI) Mumbai, thereby rejecting their

application at Exhibit 110 filed by invoking Section 300 of the

Cr.P.C.withtheprayerfordismissaloftheCBISpecialCaseNo.3

of2004.

4 Thoughimpugnedorders,rejectingapplicationswhich

aretitledasapplicationsunderSection300oftheCr.P.C.filedby

revisionpetitioners,werepassedondifferentdatesinbothcases,

the learned Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai, has assigned same

reasons for rejecting both applications filed by the revision

avk 3/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:00 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

petitioners in two different CBI cases. The relevant portion

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

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:00 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

5 Heard.Admit.Heardfinally,byconsentofparties.

6 The learned advocate appearing for revision

petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No.534 of 2015 after

narrating facts of the prosecution case argued that business of

revisionpetitionerswasalreadygoingonandtheyhadalready

availedcreditfacilityfromthebank.However,forenhancingthe

limitofthatcreditfacility,theyhadbonafidelygivenadditional

collateral security in the form of lease deeds executed in their

favourbyPowerofAttorneyholderKersiVirafMehta(therevision

petitioner in other revision petition). This act on the part of

revisionpetitioners/accusedpersonswasbonafide.Theoffence

hadanoriginfromthePowerofAttorneyandnooriginalPowerof

Attorney is seized. He further argued that material on record

showsthatrevisionpetitioners/accusedneverinducedorcheated

the bank. Even other property of revision petitioners was

mortgagedwiththebankandasontoday,noduesofthebankare

outstanding. It is further argued by the learned advocate for

avk 5/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:00 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

revisionpetitioners/accusedthattheprosecutingagencyi.e.the

CBI was well aware about prosecution of both revision

petitioners/accusedattheinstanceofKherwadiPoliceStationin

thecriminalCaseregisteredonthebasisofinvestigationintothe

FIRlodgedbyHomiSanjana.Forthispurpose,relianceisplaced

on order dated 24th March 2005 passed on Bail Application

No.39of2005bythelearnedSpecialJudge,GreaterMumbai,and

theorderdated6thApril2004passedinR.A.No.3of2004i.e.Bail

Application No.61 of 2004 by the learned Special Judge, CBI,

GreaterMumbai. Withthis,thelearnedadvocatefurtherargued

thatinfactacompositechargesheetoughttohavebeenfiledby

the prosecuting agency instead of prosecuting the revision

petitioners/accusedattheinstanceofKherwadiPoliceStation

and the CBI. The main thrust of the argument of the learned

advocate for revision petitioners / accused is to the effect that

havingtriedforoffencespunishableunderSections465,467,468,

471,420readwith34and120BoftheIPCbeforethelearned

Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Bandra, in Criminal Case

No.364/P/2002andtheiracquittalthereinon30 th January2013

avk 6/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:00 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

bythesaidcourt,therevisionpetitioners/accusedcannotnowbe

triedonsamefactsbythelearnedSpecialJudge,CBI,inSpecial

CaseNo.3of2004andassuch,inviewofbarofSection300of

Cr.P.C.,SpecialCaseNo.3of2004needstobedismissedatthe

threshold itself. It is further argued that alleged offences are

arisingoutofoneseriesofactssoconnectedtogetherastoform

thesametransactionandthereforerevisionpetitioners/accused

oughttohavebeentriedinonlyonetrial.

7 Ihavealsoheardthelearnedadvocateappearingfor

revisionpetitioner/accusedinCriminalRevisionPetitionNo.533

of2015. Bydrawingmyattentiontothechargeleveledagainst

thepetitionerintheSpecialCasebytheCBI,hearguedthatthere

is no question of committing the offence as stated in the said

chargesheetbytherevisionpetitioner. Therevisionpetitioner/

accusedhadnotusedforgeddocumentsnorapproachedthebank

and requested for disbursement of loan. He reiterated the

submissionsadvancedbythelearnedadvocateappearinginthe

another revision petition and contended that in view of bar of

avk 7/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:00 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

Section 300 of the Cr.P.C., the Special CBI Case against the

Revision Petition bearing no.78 of 2015 also needs to be

dismissed.

8 Thelearnedadvocateappearingfortherespondent/

CBI i.e. the prosecuting agency vehemently argued that bar of

Section300oftheCr.P.C.isnotapplicabletocasesinhand.She

argued that Criminal Case bearing No.364/P/2002 in which

revision petitioners / accusedwere triedandacquitted wasfor

totally different offences. Offences alleged against revision

petitioners/accusedinboththeserevisionpetitionsaretotally

distinct.Asoffencesarenotidenticalandasrevisionpetitioners/

accusedwerenottriedforoffencesallegedagainsttheminSpecial

CBICaseNos.3of2004and78of2015,thereisnoquestionof

applicationofbarofSection300oftheCr.P.C.Forthispurpose,

the learned advocate for the prosecuting agency has placed

reliance on judgment and order of acquittal of revision

petitioners/accusedinCriminalCaseNo.364/P/2002decidedon

30th January2013andcontendedthatitwasrelatingtoforgery

avk 8/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

andcheatingofHomiSanjanatheinformantthereinaswellas

the officers from the office of the SubRegistrar. Allegations

therein were to the effect of preparation of forged Power of

AttorneyofthefirstinformantHomiSanjanaandpreparationof

forged Income TaxClearance Certificate forgetting lease deeds

registeredinfavourofrevisionpetitioners/accusedinCriminal

RevisionPetitionNo.543of2015. Thelearnedadvocateforthe

CBIbyplacingrelianceonjudgmentoftheHon'bleApexCourtin

matterof AshokSadaranganiandAnothervs.UnionofIndia

and Others1 vehemently argued that revision petitioners /

accusedinCriminalRevisionPetitionNo.534of2015hadearlier

approached the Hon'ble ApexCourt withaprayerforquashing

proceedingsintheSpecialCBICaseNo.3of2004onthebasisof

settlement of dues of the bank by them, but the Hon'ble Apex

Courtconsideringthenatureofoffence,waspleasedtodismiss

thatwritpetition.ThelearnedadvocatefortheCBIfurtherplaced

relianceonjudgmentoftheHon'bleApexCourtinthematterof

Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and

1 (2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 321

avk 9/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

Anr.2fordemonstratingscopeandapplicabilityfortheprincipleof

double jeopardy envisaged in Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C. and

contendedthatinthecaseinhand,revisionpetitioner/accused

no.2NiteshSadaranganiwasnotevenprosecutedforcommission

oftheoffenceandassuch,hecannotinvokeSection300ofthe

Cr.P.C.ShefurtherarguedthatthejudgmentinthematterofKolla

VeeraRaghav Rao vs.GorantlaVenkateswaraRaoandAnr.3

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

chargesheets which has resulted in registration of Special CBI

2 AIR 2012 SC 2844


3 2011 (2) SCC 703

avk 10/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

CasesbearingNos.3of2004and78of2015.Ihavealsoperused

impugned orders passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI,

Mumbai, rejecting applications for dismissal of both criminal

cases.

10 At the outset, it needs to be mentioned here that

revisionpetitioners/accusedhaveinvokedrevisionaljurisdiction

ofthiscourtwhichisrequiredtobeexercisedsparinglywhenitis

shownthatthereismanifesterroronthepointoflaworglaring

defectofprocedurewhichhasresultedinmiscarriageofjustice.

Accordingtolearnedadvocateappearingforrevisionpetitioners/

accused,thelearnedSpecialJudge,CBI,hascommittederrorof

lawinnotapplyingtheprovisionsofSection300(1)oftheCr.P.C.

tocasesinhandandhascommittedillegalityinnotdismissing

bothcriminalcasespendingagainstrevisionpetitioners/accused.

11 In other words, it is case of revision petitioners /

accused that they have fundamental right of protection from

double jeopardy. Considering arguments advanced by both

avk 11/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

parties, provisionsofArticle 20(2)oftheConstitution ofIndia,

Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 26 of the General

ClausesAct,1897arerequiredtobeexaminedinthelightoffacts

oftheinstantcases.

Article20(2)oftheConstitutionofIndiareadsthus:

Article20(2) Nopersonshallbeprosecutedand
punishedforthesameoffencemorethanonce.
Section300(1)ofCr.P.C.readsthus:

300.Persononceconvictedoracquittednottobe

triedforsameoffence

(1)ApersonwhohasoncebeentriedbyaCourtof

competentjurisdictionforanoffenceandconvicted

or acquitted of such offence shall, while such

convictionoracquittalremainsinforce,notbeliable

tobetriedagainforthesameoffence,noronthe

same facts for any other offence for which a

different charge from the one made against him

might have been made under sub section (1) of

section 221, or for which he might have been

convictedundersubsection(2)thereof.

avk 12/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

Section26ofGeneralClausesAct,1897,readsthus:

26. Provisionastooffencespunishableundertwo

or more enactments. Where an act or omission

constitutes an offence under two or more

enactments,thentheoffendershallbeliabletobe

prosecuted and punished under either or any of

those enactments, but shall not be liable to be

punishedtwiceforthesameoffence.

12 Perusal of these provisions shows that a person is

protectedfromdoublejeopardy.Theseprovisionsoflawprotects

apersonandarebasedonmaximNemodebetbisvexari.These

provisionsincorporatesalutaryruleofcriminaljurisprudencethat

no person can be vexed twice on same facts constituting one

offence.TheseprovisionsoflawwereinterpretedbytheHon'ble

ApexCourtinthematterof Sangeetaben(supra) reliedbythe

learnedadvocateappearingfortheprosecutingagency.Paragraph

24ofthesaidjudgment,soalsorelevantportionfromparagraph

26thereofneedsreproduction.Theyreadthus:

avk 13/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

24. Inviewoftheabove,thelawiswellsettled
thatinordertoattracttheprovisionsof Article20(2)
oftheConstitutioni.e.doctrineofautrefoisacquitor
Section300 CodeofCriminalProcedureor Section71

IndianPenalCodeor Section 26 ofGeneralClauses


Act,ingredientsoftheoffencesintheearliercaseas
wellasinthelattercasemustbethesameandnot
different. The test to ascertain whether the two
offences are the same is not identity of the
allegationsbuttheidentityoftheingredientsofthe
offence. Motive for committing offence cannot be
termedasingredientsofoffencestodeterminethe
issue. The plea of autrefois acquit is not proved
unlessitisshownthatthejudgmentofacquittalin
thepreviouschargenecessarilyinvolvesanacquittal
ofthelattercharge.
26. ................................................................
Sameremainedthepositionsofarasthejudgment
in KollaVeeraRaghavRaov.GorantlaVenkateswaraRao&
Anr. (2011) 2 SCC 703, is concerned. It has been

heldthereinthatoncetheconvictionunder Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been

recorded, the question of trying a same person


under Section 420 Indian Penal Code or any other
provisionofIndianPenalCodeoranyotherstatute

avk 14/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

is not permissible being hit by Article 20(2) of the


Constitution and Section 300(1) Code of Criminal
Procedure.

Itis,thus,seenthat,forapplicabilityofprinciplesofprotection

fromdoublejeopardy,thetestiswhethertheformeroffenceand

theoffencenowchargedhavethesameingredients,inthesense

that the facts constituting the one are sufficient to justify a

conviction of the other and not that the facts relied on by the

prosecutionarethesameintwotrials. Pleaofdoublejeopardy

cannotbeheldtobeprovedunlessitisshownthattheverdictof

acquittalofthepreviouschargenecessarilyinvolvesanacquittal

ofthelatter.Keepinginmindtheseprinciples,letusnarratefacts

whichhaveresultedininstitutionofboththeserevisionpetitions.

13 Revision petitioners / accused nos.1 and 2 namely,

Ashok and Nitesh had taken on lease the immovable property

belongingtoHomiSanjanaon29th December1999.Inall,five

lease deeds came to be executed by the revision petitioner /

accused Kersi Mehta on the basis of allegedly forged Power of

avk 15/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

Attorneyexecutedbyownersofthatland. Oneoftheowners,

namely, Homi Sanjana,then lodgedaFIRin the matter on 2 nd

June2000whichhasresultedinregistrationofCrimeNo.236of

2002withKherwadiPoliceStationforoffencepunishableunder

Section465,467,468,471,420readwith34and120Bofthe

IPC. According to the prosecution case, in that matter, Homi

Sanjanaandhisfamilymemberswereownersoflandsituatedin

Aksa Village, Kandivali and Malad area of Mumbai. Revision

petitioner Kersi Mehta was acquainted with informant Homi

Sanjanaandhisfamilymembers.HeforgedaPowerofAttorney

by showing that Homi Sanjana and his family members had

authorized him to deal with those immovable properties by

PowersofAttorneydated11th January1996and24th December

1999.OnthebasisoftheseforgedPowersofAttorney,according

to the prosecution case, five lease deeds dated 29 th December

1999 were executed in favour of revision petitioners / accused

no.1AshokSadaranganiandaccusedno.2NiteshSadarangani.In

themeanwhile,informantHomiSanjanareceivedaletteron4th

April2000fromtheAdditionalCollector,Mumbai.Onthebasisof

avk 16/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

thisletter,firstinformantHomiSanjanamadeinquiryandcameto

knowthatrevisionpetitioner/accusedKersiMehtahadprepared

forgedPowerofAttorneyandleasedoutpropertyownedbythem

by various lease deeds dated 29th December 1999 in favour of

revision petitioners / accused no.1 Ashok Sadarangani and

accused no.2 Nitesh Sadarangani. It further transpired during

investigation of this crime that for getting those lease deeds

registeredwiththeofficeoftheSubRegistrar,Mumbai,accused

persons forged Income Tax Clearance Certificate and submitted

thatcertificatepurportedtobeissuedunderSection230Aofthe

IncomeTaxActtotheofficeoftheSubRegistrarandgotallthose

fiveleasedeedsregisteredon30 thDecember1999.Itwascaseof

the prosecution that subsequent to registration of those lease

deeds,revisionpetitioners/accusedno.1AshokSadaranganiand

accused no.2 Nitesh Sadarangani mortgaged the leased out

immovablepropertiestothebankandobtainedcashcreditfacility

ofRs.125LakhapartfromImportLetterofCreditforRs.100Lakh.

Oncompletionofinvestigation,accusedinCrimeNo.236of2002

were chargesheeted and resultantly Criminal Case

avk 17/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

No.364/P/2002cametoberegistered.RevisionpetitionerAshok

Sadaranganiwasaccusedno.3andrevisionpetitionerKersiMehta

was accused no.6 in that criminal case. Revision petitioner /

accused Nitesh Sadarangani was shown as absconding accused

andwasnotputtotrial. Alongwiththeseaccused,someother

personswerealsoarraignedasaccusedinthatcriminalcase.It

was tried by the court of the competent jurisdiction i.e. the

Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Bandra, Mumbai, and all

accused persons in that criminal case came to be acquitted of

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

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

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

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

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

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

punishable under Section 471 r/w. 34 of


IndianPenalCode?
5 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
cheated the complainant by dishonestly
inducinghimtodeliverthelandsbelongingto
him situated at Aksa, MaladW, Kandivali in
Mumbai to the accused no.3Ashok
Sadarangani and absconding accused Nitesh
Sadaranganiwiththehelpofforgedpowerof
attorneys and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 420 r/w. 34 of
IndianPenalCode?
6 DoesprosecutionprovethataccusedNo.1,3,6 Notproved.
and 7 along with deceased accused no.2
HarishNanalalJoshi,andabscondingaccused
Nitesh AshokSadarangani,Babu @Surato
MadhusudanDas,DharmendraSinghandRaju
Shrivastav,duringtheabovementionedperiod
and places agreed with accused no.3Ashok
Sadarangani and no.6 Kersy Mehta, the
conspiratorstodoanillegalacti.e.execution
of forged powerofattorneys, Income Tax
ClearanceCertificateandfiveleasedeedsand
besides the above said agreement you did
someactsinordertocheatthecomplainant
Homi Sanjana and his family members, in
pursuance of the said agreement to commit
theoffenceofforgeryandcheatingpunishable
withimprisonmentfortwoyears,sevenyears,
ten years andimprisonmentforlifeandfine

avk 21/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

andtherebycommittedanoffencepunishable
underSection120BofIndianPenalCode?
7 Whatorder? Asperfinal
order.

Perusal of these pointsfordetermination assuch goestoshow

that the said prosecution which commenced from the first

information report lodged by Homi Sanjana was in respect of

allegedlyforgedPowersofAttorneyandallegedlyforgedIncome

TaxClearanceCertificateunderSection230AoftheIncomeTax

Actanduseofthoseforgeddocumentsbyaccusedthereinforthe

purpose of cheating the first informant as well as his family

members.

15 Nowletusexaminefactsofthechargesheetfiledby

the CBI in these cases which have resulted in registration of

Special Case No.3of 2004andthe supplementary chargesheet

against revision petitioner / Kersi Mehta which has resulted in

registrationofSpecialCBICaseNo.78of2015.Thecriminallaw

wassetinmotioninthesecasesbytheChiefVigilanceOfficerof

the Union Bank of India by lodging the FIR with the CBI.

avk 22/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

According to the prosecuting agency i.e. CBI, accused persons

after securing credit facility from the bank had utilized such

facilitiesinadishonestandfraudulentmannerbyopeningLetters

ofCreditinrespectofforeignsuppliersofgoodswithoutactually

bringinggoodsbutinducingthebanktonegotiatetheLetterof

Creditsinfavourofforeignsuppliersandalsomisusingcashcredit

facility availed by them. In order to appreciate case of the

prosecution in CBI Special Case No.3 of 2004 as well as CBI

SpecialCaseNo.78of2015,itisappositetoreproducerelevant

portions of the chargesheet containing allegations against

accusedpersons.Thosereadthus:

1. ............on the allegation that during the


period between 2000 and 2002 at Mumbai A1
NiteshSadarangani,ProprietorofM/s.AnupImpex
andhisfatherA2AshokSadarangani,Proprietorof
M/s.Challenger Imports, in connivance with A3
R.K.Daruwalla, the then Branch Manager, Union
BankofIndia,CumbalaHillRoadBranch,Mumbai,
andotherunknownofficialsofthebank,obtained
various credit facilities from Union Bank of India,
CumbalaHillRoadBranch,Mumbai,inthenamesof
their proprietorship firms by submitting forged

avk 23/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

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.

2.That, in pursuance of the above said criminal


conspiracy A1 Nitesh Sadarangani opened CD
A/c.No.36646inthenameofhisproprietorshipfirm
M/s.Anup Impex with Union Bank of India,
Cumbala Hill Road Branch, Mumbai on
04/08/1999.(A3)R.K.Daruwallaallowedtoopen
the account on the introduction of director of
M/s.NiteshAmusementPvt.Ltd.Whichwasalready
maintainingCDA/c.No.36640withthebankwhich
was not even six months old on 7/01/2000 A1

avk 24/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

Nitesh Sadarangani submitted application for


workingcapitalcreditfacilitiesfromUnionBankof
IndiaundertheLiberalTradeFinanceSchemeofthe
bankagainstcollateralsecurityofaplotoflandat
Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali of the alleged market
value of Rs.1121 Lakhs. The application was for
availing cash credit (Hypothecation of Stock and
Book Debts) of Rs.150 Lakhs, Letter of Credit of
Rs.125 Lakhs and Letter of Guarantee of Rs.20
Lakhs. In pursuane of the above said criminal
conspiracytheproposalofNiteshSadaranganiwas
processedandrecommendedbyA3R.K.Daruwalla
who was then functioning as Branch Manager,
Union Bank of India, Cumballa Hill Road Branch,
Mumbai, forwarded a processing note on
21.02.2000recommendinglimits. Basingon such
recommendationthethenDeputyGeneralManager,
Union Bank of India, Mumbai (S) sanctioned the
creditfacilitiestoM/s.AnupImpexon24/02/2000
i.e.HypothecationofRs.150Lakhs,Import,LC(DA
up 180 days) for Rs.125 Lakhs with a margin of
10% to 15% and Letter of Guarantee for Rs.20
Lakhs with a margin of 25% i.e. the personal
guaranteeofA1NiteshSadaranganiandcollateral
securityofequitablemortgageoflandCTSNo.118,

avk 25/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

S.No.147, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali(W)


admeasuringtototalareaof16025sq.meterswith
1.33 FSI worth Rs.11,21 Crores in the name of
Mr.Ashok Sadarangani and other terms such as
personal guarantee of Mr.Nitesh Sadarangani
declaration to the effect that Goods / Book debts
chargetothebankarefreefromanyencumbranceis
tobe obtainedfromtheborrowed,creditfacilities
should be released only after obtaining security
documents,branchshouldmonitortheoperationof
theaccountonweeklybasis,andalsoconfirmeasy
marketabilityofcollateralpropertyandothersusual
termsandconditionsincaseofCCHypothecation
andincaseofL/C'slimitofRs.125.00Lakhssecurity
has mentioned as goods under L/C and margin
shouldbeobtained10%+15%bywayofdeposit
and in case of bank guarantee of Rs.20.00 Lakhs
securityofcounterguaranteeofthefirm.

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

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

other accounts of his sister concerns opened and


operated by him and his family members in the
samebranchofthebank.Itisalsoreflectsthat,the
CreditEntriesintheaccountaremostlybywayof
cash deposits. However it reflects that A3
R.K.Daruwalla has failed to monitor the same
accountproperly.

5. That after the credit facilities were sanctioned


the bank opened 1) Letter of Credit No.NIOH
40925/CH/00forUS$94948IR4462556.00,2)LC
No.NIOH 40926/CH/00 for US$ 112937 IR
5308077.00 & 3) LC No.NIOH 40927/CH/00 for
US$53216IR2501152.00onbehalfofA1Nitesh
Sadarangani favouring M/s.New Country Medical
SuppliersLLC.Dubaiforimportofhouseholdarticles
and toys. All the L/C's were matured on
18/01/2001. TheabovereferredLettersofCredit
were opened on 25 days DA (Document against
Acceptance) basis. Against the above referred
LettersofCredit,the documentswerereceivedby
Union Bank of India from bankers of foreign
suppliers,whichweredulyacceptedbyA1Nitesh
Sadarangani. On acceptance of the documents on
4.1.2001byA1NiteshSadarangani,UnionBankof

avk 27/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

India remitted the payments to National Bank of


Dubai, the bankers of foreign supplier M/s. New
Country Medical Supplies Co. LLC. After the
documents were accepted by A1 Nitesh
SadaranganiandasaconsequenceLettersofCredit
were paid by the bank to the bankers of foreign
supplier. The documents of M/s.Anup Impex
accepted by A1 Nitesh Sadarangani, were in fact
handed over by A2 Ashok T. Sadarangani stating
that the same have been signed by A1 Nitesh
Sadarangani when the Accountant Ms.Padma
Subramani objected in this regard A3
R.K.Daruwalla,theBranchManagerintervenedand
instructed Ms.Padma Subramani to accept the
documents.

6. That, it is further revealed that A1 Nitesh


Sadaranganividehisletterdated16.01.2001tothe
Shipping Company M/s.Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
requesting them to hold the consignment at Nava
ShevaandmoveitbacktoSalalah.Accordinglythe
consignments were sent back to Salalah Port and
from Salalah Port the same container was sent to
Jebel Ali Port. From Jebel Ali Port the same
containerwasdispatchedon12.2.20012toanother

avk 28/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

firm M/s.Art Import, Mumbai, under same seal


number, thereby indicating that the container was
not destuffed and it contained the same goods,
which were initially loaded into it by M/s.New
CountryMedicalSuppliesCo.LLCanddispatchedin
favourofM/s.AnupImpex.Thecontainerarrivedat
NavaShevaon17.2.2001andwhennoonecame
forwardtoclaimthecontaineritwasopenedand
afterexaminationbytheCustoms,itwasautioned.
When the container was opened it was found to
contain only household scraps and not the goods
originally declared in the documents, which were
acceptedbyA1NiteshSadarangani. Thefactthat
A1NiteshSadaranganiredirectedtheconsignment,
afteracceptanceofthedocumentsclearlyindicates
dishonestintentiononhispart.Asperrequirement
ofL/Cfinances,theimporterisexpectedtofilein
the copy of Bill of Entry and thereby report the
arrival of consignment against which finance has
been given by the bank. Bills of Entries were not
submittedbyA1NiteshSadarangani,Proprietorof
M/s.AnupImpexinallthe3L/Cs.

9. Itisfurtherrevealedthataftersanction ofthe
creditfacilitiesA2AshokP.Sadarangani,Proprietor

avk 29/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

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.

14. It isfurtherrevealedthat M/s.ArtImport


failed to claim the consignments. Therefore the
consignments were opened and after examination
bytheCustomswereauctioned. Itwasfoundthat
the consignments contained household scrap and
nothouseholdarticlesandtoysaswasdeclaredin
the documents sent by M/s.New Country Medical
Supplies Co. LLC. The fact that A2 Ashok T.
Sadarangani directed the consignments to be
divertedafterhehadacceptedthedocumentsand
thuscausedthepaymenttobemadebythebankto
bankers of foreign supplier, indicates dishonest
intentiononhispart.Hisknowledgeaboutthereal
contentsofthecontainerscanalsobeinferredfrom
his conduct and the sequence of events that had
taken place with his knowledge and as per his
instructions.AsperrequirementofL/Cfinancesthe

avk 30/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

importer is expected to file in the copy of Bill of


Entryandtherebyreportthearrivalofconsignment
againstwhichfinancehasbeengivenbythebank.
Bills of Entries were not submitted by M/s.Anup
Impex and M/s.Challenger Imports in all the six
L/Cs.

17. Thus, by adopting modus operandi as


above, A1 Nitesh Sadarangani, Proprietor of
M/s.Anup Impex, A2 Ashok T. Sadarangani,
Proprietor of M/s.Challenger Imports and A3
Mr.R.K.Daruwalla, the then Branch Manager of
Union Bank of India, Cumballa Hill Road Branch,
Mumbai,enteredintoacriminalconspiracytocheat
the Union Bank of India and thereby cheated the
Union Bank of India, Cumballa Hill Road Branch,
Mumbai,tothetuneofRs.375.94lacs.

16 It is, thus, clear from allegations made by the

prosecuting agency i.e. CBI in the chargesheet that revision

petitioners /accusedpersonsarefacingtheprincipalchargeof

indulgingincriminalconspiracyofcheatingUnionBankofIndia

and as a result of that conspiracy, cheating the Union Bank of

IndiatothetuneofRs.375.94Lakh.

avk 31/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

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

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

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.

18 It is, thus,seen that the SpecialCBICases Nos.3of

2004and78of2015andCriminalCaseNo.364/P/2002decided

on 30th January 2013 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,

Mumbai, are in respect of two different offences. Offences

involved in these two sets of cases are not identical. Even

allegationsoffactsinthesetwomattersareentirelydifferent.By

nostretchofimaginationitcanbesaidthatinthesetwosetsof

cases, offences are the same warranting application of the bar

prescribed by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. or under Section 26 of

General Clauses Act. Previous criminal case initiated at the

instanceofHomiSanjanawasforcheatingHomiSanjanaandhis

familymembersbypreparationofforgedPowersofAttorneyand

avk 33/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

executionofleasedeedsbyusingthoseforgedPowersofAttorney

fortransferringlandsinfavourofcoaccusedandpreparationof

forgedIncomeTaxClearanceCertificateandusingthereofforthe

purposeofcheating.Presentcasesinitiatedattheinstanceofthe

ChiefVigilanceOfficeroftheUnionBankofIndiaareinrespectof

securing credit facilities by accused persons and utilizing these

creditfacilitiesinadishonestandfraudulentmannerforcheating

theUnionBankofIndiatothetuneofRs.375.94Lakh. Though

some oftheaccusedpersonsincasesinhandandthecriminal

case decided by the Metropolitan Magistrate are same, by that

itselfitisnotpossibletoholdthatoffenceinboththesecasesare

sameorarisingoutofsamefacts. Factsconstitutingconspiracy

andcheatingHomiSanjanaandhisfamilymemberssoalsothe

Income Tax Officer and the SubRegistrar by forging Powers of

AttorneyandIncomeTaxClearanceCertificatearenotingredients

ofindulginginconspiracyandcheatingtheUnionBankofIndia.

ForgingPowersofAttorneyandgettingleasedeedsregisteredon

the basis of forged Powers of Attorney might have facilitated

commission of offence of cheating the Union Bank of India by

avk 34/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

usingthoseleasedeedsandpropertiescoveredbythembutboth

theseoffencesaredistinctonesandfactsoftheoffenceregistered

attheinstanceoftheChiefVigilanceOfficeroftheUnionBankof

Indiaaretotallydifferentfromthefactsofoffenceregisteredat

theinstanceofHomiSanjana.Thosedonotfallinthecategoryof

same offence within the meaning of either Section 300 of the

Cr.P.C.orunderArticle21(2)oftheConstitutionofIndia.Section

218oftheCr.P.C.providesthatforeverydistinctoffenceofwhich

apersonisaccused,thereshallbeaseparatechargeandevery

suchchargeshallbetriedseparately.Inthisview,thejudgmentin

the matter of Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (supra) cited by the

learned advocate for the revision petitioners /accused is of no

application.

19 In the result, no error of law can be seen from

impugned order rejecting the plea of double jeopardy by the

learned Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai, raised by these revision

petitioners.

avk 35/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::


901-REVN-534-2015-533-2015.doc

20 Therefore,revisionpetitionsaredevoidofmeritand

aredismissed.

(A.M.BADAR,J.)

avk 36/36

::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 01:50:01 :::

Você também pode gostar