ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Gupte, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Sachin chandarana and Ms. Rajlakshmi Nair for the petitioner-bank and Mr. Nitin Pradhan with Mrs. Khot, Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Mr. Shinde, the learned APP appears for the State.

(2.) The petitioner-bank is aggrieved by the order dated 29/6/2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, thereby rejecting the application filed under section 457 of Cri. P. C. for the return of property.

(3.) The petitioner is a Scheduled Bank and respondent No. 3 had opened a Current Account as a/c. No. 623505379545 with the petitioner in the name of his firm M/s. Suriyaa International. He had initially presented for discounting two bills of exchange for an aggregate amount of Rs. 5,62,50,000/- which were drawn on and accepted by the respondent No. 4 and co-accepted by Dena Bank. The said two bills of exchange were honoured by Dena Bank and encashed on 2/2/2005 and 5/2/2005. During the period from December, 2004 to march, 2005 the respondent No. 3 submitted the petitioner 27 bills of exchange drawn by him, accepted by respondent No. 4 and co-accepted by Dena Bank and requested for finance by discounting the same. The bank agreed to the discount of the said 27 bills of exchange and after obtaining confirmation and co-acceptance from Dena bank disbursed an aggregate sum of Rs. 36,65,75. 000/- from time to time to respondent no. 3, less the applicable discounting charges. On or about 15/3/2005 the petitioners came to know from their branch office at Vashi that bills of exchange co-accepted by Dena Bank's Thakurdwar branch was dishonoured for payment by the said bank and, therefore, as a matter of abundant precaution the petitioner-bank addressed the letter dated 15/3/2005 to dena Bank with details of 27 bills of exchange drawn by respondent No. 3, accepted by respondent no. 4 and co-accepted by Dena Bank and requested the bank to re-confirm the said bills. Dena Bank by its letter dated 17/3/2005 replied the said letter and stated that the signatures of the officers co-accepting the bills were forged and, therefore, it denied its liability to make payment to the petitioner-bank. This made the petitioner to file a police complaint on 21/3/2005 through its Nariman Point branch with the Cuffe Parade Police Station alleging that fraud has been played by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In the course of investigations by the police, the bank accounts of respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 in different banks came to be frozen and report of the balance amount in each of the account frozen was submitted to the learned additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Application No. 129/n/2005 was filed on or about 29/6/2006 before the learned addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for return of the amount lying in the frozen accounts held by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and/or the members of their families and/or the various firms established by them. The amount prayed to be refunded came to Rs. 7,99,48,000/ -. This application came to be opposed by respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 on various grounds and mainly on the ground that while the complaint arising from C. R. No. 27 of 2005 (C. C. No. 130/pw/2005) was pending, there was prima facie material before the court to hold that the amount lying in the frozen accounts was a stolen property.