VISHNU GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

(2.) The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1851/2019 of Peroorkada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. He is the 2 nd accused in the above case. Initially, this case was registered at Museum Police Station as Crime No.1677/2019, and the case was subsequently transferred to the Peroorkada Police Station. The first accused is a private limited company, namely Suntec Business Solution Private Limited. The second accused, who is the petitioner herein is the Assistant Manager of the company. Accused numbers 3 to 5 are the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Finance Officer, and Finance Manager of the 1st accused company. The case is registered alleging offences punishable under section 420 , 406 r/w 34 IPC .

(3.) The prosecution case is that the petitioner and other accused committed criminal breach of trust, cheating etc. The defacto complainant is the Manager of FCM Travel Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. The allegation is that the company of the defacto complainant and the accused entered into an agreement in the business of providing foreign exchange services, such as currency notes, travelers' cheque, and traveler's cards. The specific case of the prosecution is that the second accused and the others with intend to obtain wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the defacto complainant, entered into an agreement with the FCM Travel Solutions (lndia) pvt ltd in the business of providing foreign exchange services such as currency notes, traveler cheque, and traveler cards. ln the agreement, it is shown that the accused 2 and 5 are having the authority to transact foreign exchange between companies. ln pursuance of the authorization letter and agreement the second accused from 06.04.2019 till 25.06.2019, on different occasions, transacted foreign currency worth Rs.3,43,54,184/- and after that only repaid Rs.2,54,44,914/- to the FCM Travel Solutions (lndia) Pvt. Ltd. When the balance outstanding (amounting to the tune of Rs.89,69,270/-) is demanded, the accused 2 to 5 asked them to approach the first accused, that is, the company. Subsequently, the representatives of FCM Travel Solutions (India) Pvt.Ltd approached the accused, the CEO of the company, and the accused 1, 4 & 5 stated that the second accused had transacted the same without the knowledge or consent or concurrence of the company. Thereby the defacto complainant company has incurred a loss of Rs.89,69,270/- in total. It is the case of the prosecution that certain conditions of the agreement are violated. It is also the case of the prosecution that some amount is due to the complainant.