YASHWANT CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Amit Misra, learned counsel for C.B.I., learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The revision has been filed against the order dated 26.7.2017 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ghaziabad rejecting the discharge application of revisionist under Sec. 239 Crimial P.C., 1973 in Criminal Case No. 1018A of 2009, State Vs. Yashwant Chaturvedi, under sections 120B, 468, 471, 420, 409 IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that on the basis of material submitted with the charge sheet, offences under sections 468, 471, 420, 409 and 120-B Penal Code are not made out against the revisionist; that the revisionist was Director of M/s Vidiani Engineers Ltd., Mathura (hereinafter referred as "VEL"), which company was involved in manufacturing of engineering equipments; that the company of revisionist obtained various amounts, as loan from different financial institutions and banks etc.; that the creditors of Company M/s Fortis Financial Services Limited filed a Company Petition No. 125 of 1998 against the Company of revisionist, in which vide order dated 12.1.2006 of this Court, the application for winding up of Company was allowed; that the revisionist moved an application for recall of order dated 12.1.2006, which is pending for disposal and order has been reserved after hearing of arguments before the Company Judge; that in above Company Petition vide order dated 19.10.2006 this Court, upon taking cognizance of the offence under Sec. 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 and taking into account the fact that Directors are not available, handed over the matter to C.B.I. for registering and investigating the case; that the scope of above order was limited according to which, the C.B.I. was required only to finding out addresses of Ex-Directors, arresting them and bringing them to the Court and also for finding out the exact location where the misappropriated money has been parked; that the C.B.I. exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging F.I.R., registering the case and upon completion of investigation, in submitting the charge sheet against the revisionist and others before the Magistrate for the offences under sections 468, 471, 420, 409 and 120-B IPC; that subsequent to passing of order dated 19.10.2006 by the Company Judge directing C.B.I. to investigate in the matter, the revisionist has made payment of almost all the dues of the financial institutions in furtherance of one time final settlement, except certain amounts are due towards IDBI with which negotiations with regard to one time final settlement are going on; that the revisionist is hopeful of recall of order dated 12.01.2006 of the Company Judge under which the investigation was handed over to C.B.I. vide order dated 19.10.2006 of the Court; that in case, the above order dated 12.01.2006 is recalled, the entire proceedings including the subsequent order of investigation dated 19.10.2006 will come to an end; that the revisionist has not committed any offence of cheating, forgery or embezzlement and has not entered into any criminal conspiracy with co-directors or the Charted Accountant of Company VEL; that the learned Magistrate failed to consider the material on the case diary and without considering the material available on record, has rejected the application in mechanical manner; that the statement of Chief General Manager of IDBI under Sec. 161 Crimial P.C., 1973 shows that everything was done in good faith and in accordance with rules, which indicates that no offence have been committed by the revisionist; that the learned Magistrate has acted wrongly in not going through the evidence collected by the C.B.I. and in rejecting the application merely by saying that there is sufficient evidence for framing of charges against the revisionist, which is wrong and incorrect; that the impugned order is wrong on facts and law and is liable to be set aside.