PRAJAKTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed by original accused No.3, invoking the constitutional powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated

(2.) 3.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur below Exhibit-126 in Special Case (ACB) No.12/2015, whereby her application under Section 227 and 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C .), for discharge, came to be rejected. 2. Heard learned Advocate Shri RR Deshpande holding for Advocate Mrs. Priyanka R. Deshpande, for petitioner; learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri SB Deshpande for Union of India and learned APP Shri PK Lakhotiya for Respondent-State.

(3.) Learned Advocate for petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Judge did not appreciate the facts of the case properly. In fact, there is no evidence against the accused No.3 for framing the charge. The various authorities relied on by the advocate for the petitioner were not considered. There was no common intention or conspiracy between the petitioner and the other accused. She has been arrayed only because she is a sister of accused No.4 (presently an MLA) and is wife of accused No.2, the Managing Director of accused No.1 company. Though she is also a Managing Director of accused No.1-company, but she had not actively participated in any proceedings of the company. It was further submitted that, initially, FIR dated 25.3.2014 was filed alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 , read 120-B of IPC , however, investigation was handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation and then charge sheet was filed on 29.6/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 468 , 469 , 471 , 120-B of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention ofCorruption Act and, therefore, Special Case was registered before the Special Court. It is the prosecution case that the complainant and another bank had sanctioned loan of Rs.33.53 crores and cash credit of Rs.6.46 crores in favour of accused No.1 between 10.9.2009 to 29.12.2009 for the purpose of an unit. Accused No.4 had executed a registered mortgage-deed in favour of the bank on 30.7.2009 before Sub-Registrar, Shirur Anantpal as security for the loan. Accused No.5 had given consent to the said deed being brother of accused No.4. The present petitioner had executed independent consent deed in favour of the Bank on 14.1.2010 as she was not a party to the mortgage- deed.