NATVARBHAI PITAMBERBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by one of the persons accused of the offences punishable under sections 167, 407, 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code as described in the F.I.R. dated 6.6.2003 which is registered in Visnagar Police Station as C.R. No.176 of 2003. The petitioner has admittedly been one of the founding members and directors of the co-operative society named as SHREE KARMAMVIR SANKALCHAND CASTOR COMPLEX CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. and the offences alleged against the accused persons arise from transaction of loan to that society by a co-operative bank called "VISNAGAR NAGARIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD., VISNAGAR". Both these institutions are, for the sake of convenience and brevity, described hereinafter as "the Society" and "the Bank" respectively. It is alleged in the said F.I.R. that the accused No.1 in the list of the accused persons also happened to be the chairman of the bank and, by virtue of his influence and position in both the institutions, the Society was granted by the Bank loans of crores of rupees from time to time. Ultimately, there was a debit balance in the account of the Society totalling to about Rs.6.82 crores. The allegations are to the effect that on the one hand such lending by the bank was in violation of the banking regulations and on the other hand such borrowing by the Society was in violation of the relevant provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and the bye-laws of the Society itself. Such advances were not secured by sufficient securities and the bank, on whose behalf the complaint is filed, has, by virtue of such transactions, faced closure of its operations and the funds of thousands of its depositors are practically lost.

(2.) There is no dispute about the fact that four persons named as accused Nos.1 to 4 in the F.I.R. were elected for the day-to-day running of business of the Society and the petitioner was a member of the board of directors since inception. It is also not in dispute that the main accused person, who is alleged to have been the chairman of the bank and against whom several other cases are filed, had approached this court by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer to quash the aforesaid F.I.R. registered as C.R. No.176 of 2003 and several other F.I.Rs; and that petition of that petitioner is dismissed by an elaborate order dated 19.6.2003 of this Court (Coram: D.P.Buch, J.) in which the following pertinent observations are made:-

(3.) It may be pertinent to note here that to the above list of offences alleged against the accused persons, section 120-B has been added afterwards by Yadi No.2225/03 dated 19.6.2003 and it is also not in dispute that similar petition by the present petitioner also for the purpose of quashing the F.I.R. presently in question has been admittedly withdrawn after arguments at full length.