D.M. NETERWALA Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent -State. The above Petition challenges the Orders passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Margao, in case no.237/S/1999/II and the Order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Margao, in Criminal Revision Application no. 94/2010 framing charges against the Petitioners.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution -Respondent herein, that the Accused nos. 1 to 7 including the Petitioner herein who are the Directors of Midwest India Industries Limited with their common intention fraudulently induced the Complainant and others to invest and to part cash as deposits offering high rate of interests as incentives and quoted a sum of Rs.24,47,466/ - as deposits through the agents and misappropriated the same and they also issued cheques towards repayment of the deposits with interest which were dishonoured and closed down their principal office at Hyderabad without proper notice to the depositors. All the witnesses to the statements have disclosed the names of the Directors of the aforesaid Company and the name of the Accused no.3 as Director of the said Company figures in the statement dated 12.11.1998 of one Shri Anthony Furtado. The Brochure which the Company also circulated to invite investments in their said Company also show that the Petitioner -Accused no.3 was one of the Directors of the said Company Mid West Finance Limited. The charge which has been framed against all the Accused including the Petitioner herein is for committing an offence punishable under Section , read with of the Indian Penal Code and Section of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Petitioner filed an application to drop the charges against him before the learned J.M.F.C., which came to be rejected by Order dated 15.10.2010. The revision preferred against the said Order before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in CRIR no. 44/2010 also came to be rejected.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State -Respondent, has supported the impugned Orders. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that even a strong suspicion is sufficient to framed charge against the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that there is a brochure which was circulated before the investment and the name of the Petitioner was figuring as a Director. Apart from that, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that in the resolution of the Company produced for the purpose of deciding about the repayment of the amounts, the Accused -Petitioner was very much present. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that at the stage of framing of charge, the High Court cannot go into the aspect of the intention of the Accused and, as such, the above Petition deserves to be rejected.