PREM KUMAR PARMAR Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the CBI.

(2.) This is a petition directed against the order on charge dated 26.7.1999 as well as the charge framed on the same date itself. The order on charge was passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The charge framed against the petitioner reads as under:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has, in the course of arguments on 14.9.2006, indicated that the entire loan amount taken from the Bank (Punjab National Bank, New Rajinder Nagar Branch) has been realised and there is nothing due from the petitioner company i.e. M/s Parmar Alum Pvt. Ltd. The learned counsel for the CBI submitted a report dated 14.12.2006 with regard to the verification regarding realisation of the loan amount by M/s Parmar Alum Pvt. Ltd in RC5/89/EOU-IV/CBI/NEW DELHI. It is stated in the said report that a verification was carried out from the Punjab National Bank, New Rajender Nagar Branch and that it has been confirmed by the bank that M/s Parmar Alum Pvt. Ltd has paid the loan amount and nothing is pending against the "firm". The letter from the Bank and the statement of account which was obtained from the bank are enclosed with the report and the same are on record. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, shows that the bank is not interested in pursuing the matter against the bank inasmuch as the entire amount has been recovered. According to the petitioner, this is also indicative of the fact that the petitioner never wanted to cheat the bank and, in any event, the petitioner had provided sufficient collateral security to recover the entire amount of the loan. He submits that the offence punishable under Section 420 is also compoundable. But, there is no representative from the Bank present in Court from whom it could be ascertained as to whether the Bank is willing to compound the offence.