TARAMATI SADANAND PATHAK Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms.Taramati Pathak, the Applicant who appears in person, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and the learned APP.

(2.) By this application, the applicant seeks the following prayers:-

(3.) According to Ms.Pathak, the applicant who appears in person, she has come across some new material (documents) after the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 were discharged from the said case. She urged that the said new documents are incriminating and throw light on the complicity of the discharged respondents. She submitted that the said documents were suppressed by the respondent no.1 - bank, when respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 were discharged by this Court. She urged that as there was suppression of vital documents, the Judgment and Order of this Court discharging the respondent no.1 - bank and respondent nos.2 and 4, as well as the order of the Apex Court, dismissing the SLP, preferred by the applicant, are a nullity. She submitted that in her re-examination certain new documents have come on record, which will show the fraud committed on the Court, by the discharged respondents. She relied on the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v/s State of Punjab and Others (2014) 3 SCC 92 in support of her submission. According to her, this Court under Section 398 r/w Section 300(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can order an enquiry into the fraud committed by the discharged respondents, so that they are arraigned as accused alongwith the respondent no.3 - Pramod Barve. The applicant placed reliance on certain documents which are annexed to the application and 3 documents which were tendered by her, during the course of arguments on 16 th September, 2016. The applicant submitted that she has been re-examined by the trial Court and that she has also filed an application under Section 319, which is pending adjudication before the trial Court. According to her, although the said application is pending before the trial Court, an enquiry under Section 398 r/w 300(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure can only be ordered by this Court which discharged the respondents and not by the trial Court.