RAJESH JASHWANTLAL PARIKH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present Criminal Misc. Application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is a businessman and carrying on business in Mumbai since about 25 years by now and same business is in the name and style of A.C. Enterprise as Karta, dealing in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics packaging materials as well as also a Proprietor of A.C. Pharmachem which is also dealing in pharmaceutical packaging materials and commission agent. Neither petitioner nor proprietary concerns have taken any loan till date from any bank or financial institution and business particularly is being done over a period of more than 25 years. One Mr. Manoj V. Patel, the then Director of Phar East was known to the petitioner and on account of personal relationship, petitioner was taken as non-functioning Director in the said Phar East and the company was situated in Godhra, District Panchmahal in State of Gujarat. On account of petitioner being in Mumbai, it was not possible for him to attend a single meeting of Board of Directors nor petitioner had taken any remuneration out of the said company as a director and as such he was not in day-to-day functioning and affairs of the company nor in charge of administration of Phar East. Petitioner on account of such situation then had resigned on 14/7/1995 as Director of the said company and necessary forms before the Registrar of Companies have also been filled, precisely form No.32, and his resignation has been recognized. It is the case of petitioner that respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint on 3/7/2002 before Superintendent of Police, CBI, SPE at Gandhinagar alleging various transactions entered into by Phar East and its sister concerns namely M/s. Patson Pharma Ltd. and M/s. Haloes Manufacturing and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner is neither concerned with transactions related to Phar East company nor was concerned with aforesaid two sister concerns, except mere director, petitioner was not connected with any activity of the company. It has been alleged that transactions have taken place during the period commencing from 7/12/1994 to 12/6/1997 and respondent No.2 during the aforesaid period gave financial assistance under RMA scheme (Raw Material Assistance). Under the said scheme, benefits were provided in the form of financial assistance to the company. On the basis of written complaint, respondent No.1 has registered a First Information Report (FIR) on or before 6/7/2002 in which name of the petitioner has been mentioned as accused since petitioner had no role to play in the alleged commission of crime.

(3.) It is further case of the petitioner that subsequently, charge-sheet came to be filed by respondent No.1 in the jurisdictional Court and at that time, for the first time, name of petitioner has been mentioned as accused No.18. Even during the course of investigation and upon submission of the charge- sheet, relevant statements with regard to transaction about Phar East merely mention that financial assistance taken by Phar East, in turn the company has also made repayment. During the period when petitioner was director only upto July 1995, outstanding balance mentioned as 'NIL' in Table No.2 under head of "Details of Payment received/ adjusted by NSIC, Ahmedabad" on internal page 16 of the charge-sheet and according to petitioner, it is quite clear that there was no outstanding amount payable to respondent No.2 by the company even during his tenure of directorship upto July 1997. According to petitioner, even on the basis of the material which has been gathered during the course of investigation, no specific role has been attributed to petitioner nor it has been alleged even in the written complaint except mere fact that petitioner was a director of the company for the period commencing from 1994 to 1997. In fact, as can be seen from Form No.32, petitioner was Director of the company only upto 14/7/1995 and not upto 1997 and as such, ex-facie even apart from this, there is no specific attribution against petitioner even indirectly playing role in commission of the alleged crime. According to petitioner, the complaint is lodged only with a view to recover outstanding amount.