RAJENDRA SINGH SETHIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner along with one Amarjit Singh formerly General Manager Punjab National Bank Limited is sought to be prosecuted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and the charge sheet against him has been produced before the court. Earlier the bail has been refused to the petitioner a number of times by courts below and this court. This is a matter which has been frankly conceded by Mr. Ram Jethamalani but despite that he urges before me that this bail petition must be considered as, after the last bail application was rejected, fresh circumstances have come into existence and fresh developments have taken place.

(2.) It may at the outset be stated that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate after duly hearing the parties and after due consideration of the points involved has declined to charge the petitioner for offences under Sees. 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code. Charges have been framed against the petitioner and his co-accused only under Section 420 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. An elaborate order dated 13/3/86 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in this regard is the subject-matter of revision as both the accused have filed separate revision petitions against the said order and the state has also come up in reyision as it is feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate in so far as he declined to charge the petitioner and his co-accused. under Sections 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code.

(3.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised before me I may at this stage reproduce the relevant facts. The petitioner Rajendra Singh Sethia was the Chairman of ESAL Group of Companies since April 1977 and was controlling all the financial matters of all the companies on this Group. His co-accused Amarjit Singh was posted as the Genera] Manager at the London Branch of Punjab National Bank and both of them were quite close to each other. ESAL (Commodities) Ltd..19/20, Noel Street, London had various accounts with Punjab National Bank at London including 'Dollars Merchanting Accounts' which was being operated by the petitioner as well, and in his capacity as the chairman of the ESAL Group of Companies was not only responsible for the transactions entered into but was also the beneficiary of the same.