CAPMAN FINANCIALS LTD Vs. STATE CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these applications can be disposed off by a common Judgment since applicants in both these applications have challenged the order passed by the Special Judge in Misc. Application No. 316 of 2008 in Special Case No. 72 of 2009 and on the application below Exhibit-14 in Special Case No. 72 of 2009.

(2.) APPLICANTS in Criminal Revision Application No. 437 of 2009 are original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 438 of 2009 are original accused Nos. 5 and 6. All the accused had filed applications for discharge before the Special Court. However, the said applications were dismissed by two separate orders both dated 9-4-2009.

(3.) APPLICANTS in both the Revision Applications filed applications for discharge. In the application No. 437 of 2009 filed by original accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 i.e. M/s Capman Financials Ltd and other Directors it was submitted that there was no dealing between the said applicants and the UTI wherein the accused were then employed. It was submitted that there was no dealing whatsoever between applicants and accused No. 1 at any time. It was also submitted that applicant No. 2 had no business relationship with UTI where accused No. 1 was working. It was further submitted that the applicant No. 2 was not even registered as share broker and, as such, could never have done any business or dealings with the UTI. It was also submitted that applicant accused No. 2 - Company was never empaneled with the UTI to do any stock broking business or dealings with UTI. It was further submitted that this fact was admitted by CBI. It was, therefore submitted that linking of the personal loan transaction between father of accused No. 1 Kishanmal Mohnot and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had no relevance whatsoever. It was further submitted that the transaction was fully disclosed in the Books of Accounts and Income-tax Returns of the applicants and the loan had been repaid fully by the borrower Kishanmal Mohnot. It was further alleged that the applicant No. 1 was a Company carrying on business of advancing short term/long term loans and credit to individuals either on securities or on guarantees or even without securities as per Memorandum of Articles of Association of the Company which was established with the sole objective of being a Financial Company.