P V NARASHIMA Vs. STATE (CBI/SPE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Chief Metropolitan Magistrate having taken cognizance of offence punishable under Section 120 -B read with Sections 195/469/471 IPC against the petitioners and Mr. K.L. Verma and Larry J. Kolp, directed the issuance on non - bailable warrants against them, returnable after execution on or before the 14th October, 1996. On a petition having been filed by the petitioners, Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao and Mr. K.K. Tiwari, for the grant of anticipatory bail pursuant to such non -bailable warrants having been issued by the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, this Court by order dated 9th October, 1996 had directed that in the event of their arrest on the basis of the non -bailable warrants issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioners in each of the said cases will be admitted to bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/ - each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/ Superior Officer. Duration of this bail was only upto 14th October, 1996. Sh. K.L. Verma, one of the accused in the said case, filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India and by order dated 13th October, 1996 the Apex Court directed that the anticipatory bail will ensure till the regular Court decided the question of grant of bail and for a week thereafter. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 5th November, 1996 held that the accused persons were not entitled to bail and subject to the orders of the superior Court/Courts they were directed to surrender before the Court on or before 13th November, 1996. Accused Sh. Chandraswami and Sh. K.N. Aggarwal were already in custody and their bail application having been rejected, they were directed to be produced before the Court on the same date. Being aggrieved by the said order, all the petitioners have filed these petitions for the grant of bail.

(2.) THE contention of Mr. R.K. Anand, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao, is that the allegations against Mr. Rao are false. All that has been done by Mr. Rao is that he has attested the signatures of one George D. Mclean and it is not the case of the prosecution that the signatures of Mr. George D. Mclean on the said documents were forged. According to him, therefore, there was no case made, out against Mr. P.V. - Narasimha Rao. Mr. Anand has referred to me the charge sheet filed in the Court to contend that the only allegation against Mr. Rao was that on a copy of the statement of accounts in First Trust Corporation Limited (FTCL), St. Kitts allegedly in the name of Mr. Ajeya Singh S/o. Mr. V.P. Singh, signatures of Mr. George D. Mclean were attested by Mr. R.K. Rai, the then Consul General of India, New York at the instance of Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao; that it is nobody's case that signatures of Mr. George D. Mclean were forged on the said documents. All that has been said is that the copy of statement of accounts and other related bank documents were forged and the signatures of Mr. Mclean having been attested on these documents by Mr. Rai at the instance of Mr. Rao, shows that Mr. Rao was a part of the conspiracy to defame Mr. V.P. Singh and to have him convicted for an offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and/or Prevention of Corruption Act. It is submitted by Mr. Anand that no offence under Section 195, IPC has been made out and even in the original FIR, the only offence which is alleged to have been committed by Mr. Rao was under Section 193, IPC and it was only with a view to harm Mr. Rao that Section 195 has been added in the charge -sheet filed on 26th September, 1996, as Section 195 is non -bailable whereas Section 193 is bailable. It is also his submission that the investigation in the case is over; the case is more than seven years old and nothing is to be recovered now from the petitioner and as such he is entitled to be released on bail. He has also referred to the statement of some of the witnesses recorded by the Central Bureau of Investigation during investigation to contend that none of the said witnesses has in his statement stated that Mr. Rao was a part of the conspiracy to have Mr. Ajeya Singh and Mr. V.P. Singh convicted for an offence under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Even Mr. V.P. Singh in his statement recorded before the Central Bureau of Investigation on 4th June, 1996 has stated that "as I was in opposition, all these forged documents were fabricated for the sole purpose of harming my reputation and the reputation of my son before the general elections in 1989 and for the same purpose these were got published in the newspapers and even placed in the Parliament by Mr. Edward Fleiro, the then Minister of State (Finance)". Mr. Ajeya Singh also in his statement recorded on 23rd December, 1993 has stated that "the documents given by him (George D. Mclean) are total forgeries to harm my and my father's reputation." Mr. Ajeya Singh was given a notice only under Section 33(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and while an enquiry under Section 40 of the Act is judicial in nature, an enquiry under Section 33(2) is not judicial and, therefore, it could not be said that the documents alleged to have been forged at the instance of Mr. Rao were intended to be used in some judicial proceedings with a view to convict Mr. V.P. Singh for offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) VIJAY Bahuguna, Sr. Advocate, appearing for Mr. K.K. Tiwari, has argued almost on the same lines. It is submitted by him that Mr. Tiwari was a Minister of State for External Affairs only from August, 1988 to April, 1989 whereas the document s which have been alleged to have been collected by Mr. Tiwari were faxed only on 5th October, 1989. It is submitted by him that even the personal staff of Mr. Tiwari was not interrogated and no averment has been made that he had ever seen the passport of Mr. Ajeya Singh from where his signatures were alleged to have been forged on the documents with the First Trust Corporation Limited.