R B ARORA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. made by the petitioner an accused in case FIR No. 2/1987 -CBI (SIU-X)dated 26th May, 1987, seeks quashing of (a) proceedings against him based on a charge sheet, filed on 18th November, 1993 and (b) order dated 25th November, 1993 whereby cognizance of alleged offences was taken against him.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that an amount of rs. 3. 75 crore was advanced to M/s. Keming Tools Co. Ltd. by c. V. Madan, erstwhile Branch Manager of state Bank of Patiala, Janakpuri, Delhi without any appraisal and sanction of competent authority. Later, the assistance of the petitioner was allegedly sought by M/s. Keming Tools Co. Ltd. for regularization of the said loan and with that end in view an amount of Rs. 10,002/-was paid to the petitioner by co-accused Satish Kumar Chopra. On an inquiry being held into the transaction, based on the report of such inquiry, a fir No. 2/1987 -CBI (SIU-X) under Sections 120b/420/468/471ipc was registered against C. V. Madan and others. The petitioner was however, not named in such FIR. In the course of investigation, co-accused S. K. Chopra was arrested and a disclosure made by him led to the arrest of the petitioner on 12th May, 1988. A charge sheet was eventually filed by cbi on 23rd December, 1989 in FIR no. 2/1987-CBI (SIU-X) under sections 120b/420/468/471 IPC read with section 5 (2) and 5 (1) (d) against C. V. Madan and others. The petitioner was not named as accused in that charge sheet. Subsequently, on 27th november, 1992 a sanction from the Manager, reserve Bank of India, kanpur was obtained to prosecute the petitioner under relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 and another charge sheet came to be filed on 18th November, 1993 naming the petitioner as one of the accused therein. On filing of such charge sheet, the court concerned took cognizance of the offences on 25th November, 1993 and summoned all the accused including the petitioner to appear and face trial.

(3.) PURSUANT to summons, the petitioner made his appearance before the court concerned. On llth April, 1994 he filed an application pleading that he could not be proceeded against for commission of alleged offences in view of bar of limitation. This application remained pending for quite sometime and the same was ultimately dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 29th november, 2004. On petitioner raising the plea of limitation, an application for condonation of delay was filed on behalf of CBI on 25th July, 1996 but that application was later not pressed and the same was accordingly dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 29th November, 2004.