CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. HARSHAD S MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are 22 accused facing trial in this case. 3 of them have been discharged. 3 of them have expired. 14 out of the 22 are public servants from banks and financial institutions. 8 are brokers who are private individuals. The main banks involved in this case are State Bank of Saurashtra (SBS), State Bank of India (SBI). The other banks and other financial institutions involved in a smaller part of the case are Canara Bank Financial Services & National Housing Bank (Canfina), (NHB), UCO Bank, Indian Bank (IB) and Small Industrial Development Bank of India (SIDBI). Accused No.1 (A1) who was at the material time Chief Manager of the Funds Management Cell (FMC) of SBS is the prime accused. Accused No.8 (A8) who was bank officer in the securities division of SBI is his counter part. Both these accused have entered into various transactions by and between SBS and SBI in which the broker A2 (since deceased) was involved. Large funds extending hundreds of crores of rupees have been paid off / transferred / siphoned off by the acts of these two accused in the account of A2. A2 had opened personal current account in SBS as well as SBI. His account in SBS is the best testimony to the transactions. His account in SBI does not reflect these transactions. The fact that the monies passed from SBI into his account has been admitted by SBI in earlier litigations more specially MP No.52 of 1993 which shall be considered presently.

(2.) Accused No.8 has been the key person in SBI involved in the transactions that resulted in funds being transferred to A2. Accused No.1 has been the key person in SBS involved in the transactions that resulted in funds being transferred to A2. A2 has since expired. He has been the recipient of the proverbial divine justice. This case is, therefore, not as much concurred with what has been ultimately transferred to A2 if the roles of A1 and A8 for imputing upon them the criminal liability is made out.

(3.) The prosecution case, therefore, is essentially of criminal conspiracy between these accused and / or criminal breach of trust by them as public servants as it involved entrustment and / or control and transfer of monies of the aforesaid two banks in illegal and irregular manner by A1 and A8 with A2. The prosecution case is also of falsification of accounts by these accused, forgery, cheating, forging valuable security, receiving stolen property as contained in certain registers, credit and debit vouchers and issue of cheques by these accused on behalf of their respective banks.