CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. BHUPEN CHAMPAKLAL DALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution case against the accused is under 17 distinct and separate transactions albeit of similar nature. Accused Nos. 1 & 13 are the brokers involved in the transactions. Accused Nos. 2 & 4 are the recipient and beneficiaries of the transactions. The other brokers involved in the transactions are accused Nos.4, 5, 10 (since deceased) and 14 (since deceased). The other accused involved in the transactions are employees of accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 13 besides the employees of the Bombay Mercantile Bank Ltd. (BMC Bank). The bank employees have been discharged or dead.

(2.) The prosecution has sought to show the transactions of monies of BMC Bank which was sought to be invested by BMC Bank in Government of India (GOI) securities with Bank of India (BOI). These monies have instead of BOI been diverted into the accounts of accused Nos.2 & 4 under the transactions shown to be brokered by accused Nos.1 & 13 on behalf of the BMC Bank. Accused Nos. 2 & 4 are shown to have transferred part or full of the amounts appropriated by them in their bank accounts to accused Nos.5, 10 or 14.

(3.) The prosecution has charged each of the accused with having committed offences under Sections 120B, 409, 411, 420, 463, 465, 467 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code. There are separate charges under the aforesaid sections against each of the accused separately and independently. 101 charges have been framed. Each of them need not be separately considered. It would be prudent to consider the aforesaid charges together against the accused separately. For considering the essential charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC, it would have to be seen whether any and if so which, accused have done or caused to be done any illegal act under the aforesaid 17 transactions in agreement with some or all of them. If that is not seen the individual acts of the accused would have to be considered to see whether any offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property obtained upon misappropriation by any of the accused is done and by whom. Similarly it would have to be seen if any, some or all of the accused have in the course of the aforesaid 17 transactions or any of them cheated any party and dishonestly induced any person to deliver any property to them constituting the offence of cheating. Further it would have to be seen whether any or all of the accused has/have committed any forgery of any document or official record intending to cause damage or injury to the public or anyone. It would consequently have to be seen whether such forgery is of any valuable security or a document purported to be so and used for the purpose of cheating. It would further have to be seen whether such forged document was used as genuine knowing it to be forged by any or some or all of the accused upon seeing the case of cheating and misappropriation alongside the case of receiving property thus misappropriated by any of the accused. It would also have to be seen whether the statutory presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act would be required to be drawn against any, some or all of them.