JAMSHEED M PANDAY @ JIMMY PANDAY Vs. SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT CENTRAL BEREAU OF INVESTIGATION ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is accused No.3 in C.C.No.31722/2005 pending on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Court for CBI cases), Bangalore. This petition has been filed to set aside an order dated 01.10.2011 passed in the said case rejecting the applications filed by the accused seeking their discharge in the case.

(2.) Canara Bank filed a complaint which was investigated and a police report was filed under S.173(2) of Cr.P.C., wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.3 i.e., Ex-Director of the Company, M/s. Great Western Industries Limited, which has been arrayed as accused No.1. It has been alleged that the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused with the aim of dishonest cheating of the complainant-Bank to avail additional enhanced credit facilities by way of suppressing material fact of availing credit facilities with Times Bank Limited, Chennai during the period of 1997-2001. Specific allegations of acts of conspiracy has been enumerated in the charge sheet filed for the offences punishable under S.420 r/w 120 B of IPC. The Trial Court has noticed in brief, the contents of the charge-sheet, in para 11 of its Order.

(3.) The petitioner filed an application in the Trial Court seeking discharge from the case. Accused Nos.2, 4 to 7 also filed applications seeking discharge from the case, on the ground that, there is no material collected by the prosecution and placed on record against them for the alleged offences. The prosecution through the public prosecutor has filed objections to the said applications. Learned Trial Judge having considered the prosecution record, finding that, "there are serious allegations as against the accused for the commission of alleged offences under Ss.120 B and 420 IPC and by observing that the truth and proof of which can be ascertained after recording of the evidence and specifically on marking the exhibits, finding prima-facie case as having been made out by the prosecution so as to frame charges against accused Nos.1 to 7 for both the offences," the applications filed by accused Nos.2 to 7, seeking their discharge from the case was dismissed by a common Order. Assailing the said Order, accused No.3, in so far as he is concerned, has filed this criminal revision petition.