BANK OF BARODA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Y.N.Ravani, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 C.B.I. Mr.K.T.Dave, learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.3. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the matter is taken for final hearing today.

(2.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- Bank of Baroda- original complainant / informant has prayed for an appropriate order directing respondent No.1- C.B.I. to investigate various offences committed by Satkar Fertilizers, Shailesh Natwarlal Shah, Shri Rameshchandra Narayan Parwal, Usha Engineering Works, Shreyas Equipments Pvt. Ltd., Shri Krishna G.Somani, Govind G.Somani, Ushaben G.Bhandari, Hitesh G.Somani, Mamta Jhavar, Bhavna H.Lahoti, Satkar Cement Co. Ltd. and other persons purportedly acting as suppliers/ purchasers materials of machineries and the invocies, book, debts, the pollution control board permission dated 10.04.2003, Ministry of Fertilizers letter dated 04.07.2002, the sale deeds dated 20.10.2002 deposited with the Bank, the transactions fraudulently made by Dilip Gendalal Somani, Bhavnaben Dilipbhai Somani, Mamtaben Govindbhai Somani and others in the transactions relating to equitable mortgage / execution of sale deed and leasing back of the property by the mortgagor to their respective husband / relative and all other connected transactions covered under the criminal complaint under reference in the petition and the offences revealed subsequently involving bank funds of Rs.2.95 Crores and the securities created in favour of the Bank on the basis of fake / suspicious documents and other fraudulent acts of inducing the Bank to lend and disburse the money which it would not have lent had the correct position, within the knowledge of such persons been disclosed to the Bank.

(3.) It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Nationalized Bank and earlier filed criminal case No. 281 of 2004 in connection with various transactions in the account of Satkar Fertilizers and others for the purpose of huge amount of Rs.2.95 Crores and the said complaint came to be filed before the learned J.M.F.C., Vadodara against the persons named in the said complaint under Sections 403, 405, 406, 420, 463, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. with regard to dishonest misappropriation of property, criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, making a false documents, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document. That the learned JMFC, Vadodara took the cognizance and issued process against the accused persons. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner Bank that subsequently additional facts / aspects / offences have been involved and in view of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines the Bank approached CBI to investigate the matter. However, the CBI advised the petitioner Bank to withdraw the said complaint. It is submitted that the petitioner Bank also submitted application below Exh.29 before the learned Magistrate in the said complaint seeking permission for CBI investigation. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the amount of scam involved is Rs.2.95 Crores, and as per CVC guidelines case relating to bank fraud amounting to more than Rs.1 crores shall be investigated by the CBI Economic Branch. However, CBI has advised that it can investigate the said offence only after withdrawal of the aforesaid criminal case. However, it is apprehended by the Bank that if the criminal complaint / case pending in the trial Court is withdrawn, same would tantamount to acquittal of accused persons. Therefore, it is submitted that insistence on the part of the CBI to withdraw the aforesaid criminal case is not justified. Even learned Trial Court has committed an error in rejected the application below Exh. 29. It is submitted that even the application submitted by the accused persons below Exh.23 to discharge is also rejected by the learned trial Court. Mr.Thakar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner Bank has heavily relied upon the decision of the learned Single Jude of this Court dated 20.12.2005 in the case of Bank of Baroda v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation rendered in Special Criminal Application No. 1699 of 2005 in support of his prayer to direct the CBI to investigate the offence.