YAGNESH MANSUKHBHAI JOSHI Vs. PRAVINCHANDRA MAGANLAL MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of First Information Report being C.R.No.I-10 of 2010 filed with Gandhinagar Zone Police Station.

(2.) SHORT facts are that a complaint was filed by the original complainant-present respondent No.2 in the capacity of In-Charge Regional Manager, Gujarat Industrial Co.Op.Bank Ltd., Surat region, before the CID Crime, Economic Cell, Gandhinagar Zone Police Station, against 65 persons being C.R.No.I-10 of 2010 for the alleged offences punishable under Secs.406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec.46 of the Banking Regulation Act. It was inter alia alleged that the petitioner with other accused persons in connivance with Shri A.K.Raval, Bank Officer in utter disregard to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and in complete violation of Banking Rules, with ulterior and oblique motive as well as with dishonest intention fraudulently and illegally advanced and caused to be disbursed loans causing huge loss to the bank thereby putting the confidence instilled in the bank at stake of the depositors consisting of Cooperative societies, trusts, Senior Citizens, retired employees, middle class people, widows and pensioners.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned advocate, Mr.K.J.Panchal, for the respondent No.2 original complainant that because of act, commission and omission on the part of the petitioner and other accused who have taken huge loans by conniving with original accused, Shri A.K.Raval, the bank has been put to a heavy loss and for which, Board of Directors including the petitioner are responsible. IT is further submitted on the basis of inspection report dated 20-9-2008, Shri V.A.Das, Executive Director, Reserve Bank of India, vide notification under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (AACS) suspended the entire Board of Directors on 16-8-2008 applying Section 35A read with Sec.36-AAA of banking Regulation Act, 1949 and presently the administration is being handled by the Administrator appointed by Reserve Bank of India. According to him, role of the present petitioner is specifically narrated in the FIR. IT is further submitted that correct valuation of the properties mortgaged with the bank by way of securities were not shown and the accounts of persons who have taken or to whom loans were sanctioned became Non-Performing Accounts and by not disposing of and adjusting the properties put by the borrowers as security towards loan, they were shown under the had of Non-Banking Assets. IT is further submitted that by showing such properties in said Non-Banking Assets, the loan account of the borrowers would be credited and Non-Banking Assets Account with the bank would be debited thereby showing dues and loan accounts of borrowers as settled and then closed. IT is further submitted that during the tenure of the present petitioner as Director, the Board of Directors in conspiracy with accused No.1 and borrowers of the bank sold the property of Rs.60,48,000/- in Rs.16,50,000/- as per the authorization given by the Executive Committee in its meeting on 31-1-2006 to the Vice Chairman Shri Parmanand Bardolia and one Shri Amrutlal Gonavala thereby causing huge loss of Rs.43,98,000/- to the bank and wrongful gain to one Shri Bhagwandas Zariwala group. IT is further submitted that another instance involving the petitioner is that at the time of disbursement of loan to Praful Shah to the tune of Rs.4.00 crores and Navin Thakkar group to the tune of Rs.16.00 crores in 2001, lands of Laxmipura area were put by securities by these two persons and whey their loan accounts became Non-Performing Accounts, their properties were shown Non-Banking Assets on 11-3-2005 and the Executive Committee consisting of the petitioner in the capacity of Director took a decision to sell the said land to one Giriraj Corporation on 3-1-2006 in Rs.13.00 crores without following proper procedure of sale by making a show of inviting acquaintances and associates at the auction. IT is further submitted that the petitioner in collusion with the borrowers disbursed loans by acting against the interest of the bank and its depositors thereby actively participating in alleged commission of offences by remaining present in the crucial and important meetings and by said act, omission and commission of the Board of Directors including the present petitioner, a huge loss of Rs.7.00 crores was caused to the bank in one such transactions. IT is submitted that if the petitioner was innocent, he ought not to have raised objections and ought not to have signed the resolutions when crores of rupees were sanctioned. According to him, since the entire case is totally dependent upon the documentary evidence, it is a matter of trial. IT is therefore requested that the present petition requires to be dismissed. He has also relied on the following decisions: