B. RAGHUVIR ACHARYA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals under Section 10 of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1992') are preferred by accused Nos.1 and 3 against the judgment and order dated 6th September, 2001 passed by the Special Court in Special Case No. 8 of 1994 in [RC5(BSC)/93 -Bom], convicting and sentencing them.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: In September, 1991, an investment of Rs.65 crores came to be made by four subscribers, who applied for purchase of CANCIGO units floated by (Canbank Mutual Fund (hereinafter referred to as 'CMF'), a fund created by Canara Bank. The Andhra Bank and Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited ('ABFSL' for short) made an investment of Rs. 33 crores. Two other transactions were made by the Sahara India and Industrial Development Bank of India ('IDBI' for short) worth Rs.32 crores.

(3.) FURTHER case of the prosecution is that accused No.3 got Andhra Bank to subscribe for the CANCIGO units of Rs.11 crores and got ABFSL to subscribe for the CANCIGO units of Rs.22 crores. The above CANCIGO units worth Rs.33 crores were purchased in the name of Andhra Bank and ABFSL though the consideration amount for purchase of such units was paid by accused No.3. Accused No.3 got the CANCIGO units purchased in the name of Andhra Bank and ABFSL so as to ensure that he could claim brokerage falsely from CMF. Further, the case of the prosecution is that although the consideration of Rs.33 crores was paid by accused No.3, the brokers stamp on the applications were affixed in order to induce CMF to pay brokerage to accused No.3. The said accused No.3 applied for brokerage as a broker in the said transaction of Rs.33 crores when, in fact, he was not so appointed either by Andhra Bank or by ABFSL. The investment of Rs.33 crores came from accused No.3 for which he was not entitled to claim brokerage as he had not acted as a broker for the said transactions. Similarly, in September, 1991, accused No.3 did not procure business from Sahara India and IDBI and, yet, he claimed and received the brokerage in conspiracy with accused No.1 and accused No.2. It was alleged that accused No.3 never acted as broker in any of the aforesaid transactions but claimed and received the brokerage in conspiracy with the rest two accused.