PRAMOD PARMESHWARLAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three revision applications challenge the order dated 24th August 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Criminal Revision Application No. 529/2007 thereby allowing the revision filed by respondent No. 2 herein and setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai whereby learned Magistrate had discharged the accused No. 1 - Pramod Banka and accused No. 4 Rani Agarwal. By the impugned order the learned revisional Court has also directed to frame charge under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) against accused No. 2 - Vijaykumar Agarwal.

(2.) THE Apex Court by its order dated 11th May 2011 has directed the present revisions to be disposed off within a stipulated period. As such I had heard the learned counsel for the parties at length on 4th and 5th July 2011. However, noticing that on an earlier occasion the parties had agreed to settle the matter, as could be reflected from the order passed by Hon'ble Justice Bhatia on 24th March 2011,1 thought it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the parties to explore the possibility of settlement. Accordingly, matter was adjourned to 11th July 2010. On 11th July 2011, at the request of the parties, the matter was again adjourned to 19th July 2011. However, since on 19th July 2011, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 expressed his client's unwillingness to settle the matter, I had pronounced the order in the Court thereby making rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

(3.) THAT the accused No. 1 - Mr. Pramod Banka was President (Finance); accused No. 2 - Mr. Vijaykumar Agarwal was the Director; accused No. 3 - Mr. Naval Sharma (subsequently dropped) was Executive (Finance) and accused No. 4 - Rani Agarwal was the authorized signatory of a public limited company, namely, Creative Outerwear Limited (hereinafter referred to as "COL" for short). It is the case of the complainant that the complainant was in need of Rs. 50 lakh. It is his case that through one financial consultant, namely, Miss Anjali Malik, the complainant came in contact with accused No. 2 Vijaykumar Agarwal. Said Vijay Kumar approached the accused and requested to advance him an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs for a short period. It is the contention of the complainant that after deliberations, the accused No. 2 Vijaykumar Agarwal consented to advance an amount of loan to the complainant in lieu of security of 19,000 shares of a company Sesa Goa Limited, which shares were owned by the complainant. Accordingly, an agreement was entered into between the parties. A cheque of Rs. 50 lakhs was given to the complainant on 21st August 1995. It was agreed between the parties that the said loan was to be repaid within a period of six months along with interest at the rate of 27% per annum. It is the case of the complainant that the cheque was handed over to the complainant at his residence and, at the same time, he entrusted 19,000 shares valued at Rs. 400/- each having cumulative value of Rs. 76 lakhs by way of security. THAT a memorandum was entered into on 22nd August 1995. It is further case of the complainant that though the complainant repaid the loan along with interest by the bankers cheque, out of 19,000 shares pledged with them, the accused returned to him only 15,000 shares and retained 4,000 shares with them. It is his further case that in spite of repeated and regular correspondence with the accused, the shares have not been returned to him. It is his further case that accused No. 4 - Rani Agarwal got 4,000 shares transferred in the name of COL. The complainant, therefore, filed a criminal complaint alleging that the shares which were entrusted in the custody of accused persons were not returned by them, as such, they committed an offence under Section 406 read with Section 114 of I.P.C.