LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-135

HOMI RAJVANSH Vs. DIRECTOR OF C B I

Decided On February 06, 2009
HOMI RAJVANSH Appellant
V/S
DIRECTOR OF C.B.I. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as "cr. P. C. ") seeking directions to be issued to the central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "cbi") not to continue with the investigation in RC No. 7/e/2006/cbi/eow/mum registered at bombay on a complaint received by it from National Agricultural Coop. Marketing federation of India (hereinafter referred to as "nafed") as it is incompetent to hold the investigation of the case as no part of offence to which the petitioner is accused, had taken place within the jurisdiction of Bombay.

(2.) PETITIONER, an IRS officer, had joined NAFED as Additional Marketing director. As part of diversification, NAFED entered into Public Private partnership/tie up business with private entrepreneurs in procuring domestic marketing and international trade of agricultural and non-agricultural items from 2003-2004 onwards. Under this programme, NAFED entered into a tie up business with accused M/s. Swarup Group of Industries (hereinafter referred as "sgi"), Crystal Plaza, New Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai " 400053. SGI was extended facility for carrying out export business of iron ore.

(3.) ON 26. 3. 2004, NAFED received a proposal from SGI signed by its proprietor and authorised signatory, accused G. S. Srivastava and accordingly a Memorandum of understanding (hereinafter referred as "mou"), containing the terms and conditions of the Agreement, was executed between the two. NAFED released substantial amount to SGI on four different dates for the purposes of export of iron ore. Another MOU dated 24. 04. 2004 was executed between NAFED and SGI by virtue of signatures made thereon by the petitioner as Divisional Head of finance and Accounts, even before the letter dated 28. 04. 2004 was received from sgi informing NAFED therein that another contract with the same buyer for export of iron ore was entered into by them and sought extension of the earlier MOU on the existing terms and conditions. Thereafter NAFED released funds on different dates in favour of the SGI. However, SGI failed to make payments against the invoices as detailed in the complaint. SGI is alleged to have misappropriated the funds released by NAFED for purposes other than that for which they were advanced. NAFED suffered a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 149. 50 Crores approximately.