B SANJEEVA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner-accused prays for bail in RC No. 3(A)/96-ACU-1 under Section 120B read with Sections 409, 420 Indian Penal Code and Sections 7,11 and 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(c))d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) . The prosecution case, as alleged in the FIR that the present petitioner as well as the other accused persons entered into a conspirary with M/s. Karsan Limited with the object to cheat and frauding National Fertilizer Limited (NFL) - a company - Government of India Undertaking to the extent of $ 38 million equivalent to 133 Crores of Rupees, in the matter of import of 2.00 lakhs MTs. of Urea in as much as 100% advance payment was made contrary to the normal practice adopted in the similar contracts, without safeguarding the interests of the company by containing insurance cover against non-performance and non- delivery of urea by M/s. Karsan Ltd. and also without opening a letter of credit. It is further alleged that this petitioner has received a sum of Rs.32.00 lakhs which was deposited in the account of three companies owned or controlled by him.

(3.) . It is mainly contended by Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the investigation as far as this petitioner is concerned, is complete and now the investigation is to be done in foreign countries; that Sections 7,11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act do not apply as the petitioner is not a public servant; that the role alleged to the petitioner is that he introduced co-accused Sambasiva Rao to the officers of the NFL and it is the NFL who entered into the deal with Karson Ltd.; that neither Section 409 nor Section 420 can be applied to the petitioner; that NFL has acted through the Managing Director and not at the behest of the petitioner; that the petitioner has not figured any where and he is not concerned with the deal between NFL and Karson Ltd. and the petitioner is not concerned either with NFL or Karson Ltd.; that petitioner has no control over the funds of NFL; that if the petitioner is the reciepant of Rs.32.00 lakhs, it is gratus/gift and no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner; that by the act of introducing the co-accused to the officers of NFL it can not be said that any conspiracy has been hatched by this petitioner; that who defrauded NFL, if at all it is so, certainly not the petitioner; that the passport of the petitioner is already with the CBI. As against this, it is submitted by Mr. Lal, learned counsel for CBI that in the FIR the petitioner is not the one amongst the 14 persons shown as the accused in the FIR; that as far as this petitioner is concerned, the conspiracy is right from the stage of introducing the co-accused Sambasiva Rao to the officers of NFL; that accused sent local telephone calls to the Managing Director of NFL while in Delhi whereas he sent 18 calls from Hyderabad between May 1995 to April 1996 to the MD of NFL and also calls sent to Karsan Ltd.; I hat the statement of witness D. Mallesham Goud dated 9.6.1996 suggests the receipt of Rs.32.00 lakhs by this petitioner in connection with the deal between NFL and Karsan Ltd.; that the public fund of Rs.l33 Crores is involved and the booty has been shared by all involved including the petitioner; that the offence relates to the economy of the nation; that it is to be investigated as to where the money has gone; that at this stage, it is difficult to say as to which of the accused has committed which particular offence but Sections 409, 420 and 120B Indian Penal Code are attracted; that illegal money has been received by the petitioner; that there is likelihood of the petitioner tempering with the prosecution evidence as he is an influential person; that the source and distribution of booty was agreed not to be disclosed; that the relief of bail can not be granted as the investigation is still not completed.