NANDKISHORE SHANKARLAL TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 397 read with Sections 401 & 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the impugned order dated 12.3.2010 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court in G.R. Case No. 2670 of 2003 (R.C. No. 24 of 2002) praying for quashing the proceedings under Section 420/120B Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The F.I.R. was lodged alleging that Adhip Dutta, Asit Kumar Chowdhury and Amal Ghosh were posted and functioning as Finance Manager, Accountant and Officer Manager of Jute Corporation of India, Kolkata and also as Secretary, member and employee of the Board of Trustees of Jute Corporation of India, Provident Fund respectively. Prosenjit Daw, the then Deputy Manager, (Merchant Banking) UTI Bank Ltd. 7/1, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata, and M/S. Home Trade Ltd., `Raj Kutir', 2B, Pretoria Street, Kolkata having its registered office at 124A, Sohrab Half, 21, Sasoon Road, Pune, Maharashtra, during the year 2002 entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves with the intention to cheat Jute Corporation of India Contributory Provident Fund Trust (hereinafter referred to as JCICPF Trust) and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, a sum of Rs.82,51,130/- was misappropriated by them showing purchase of 12% IDBI Bonds 2007. But, the said Bonds were never purchased and the entire amount was credited to the account of the said M/S. Home Trade Ltd. by the accused persons thereby causing loss to the `JCICPF Trust' and consequential gain to themselves. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that in accordance with the guideline as laid down in Government of India Notification No. G 20015/29355 dated 7.7.1998 duly published in the gazette on 11.7.1998 and conveyed to the Secretary, JCICPF Trust, Kolkata by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, any surplus amount can be invested in different securities by the Board of Trustees. The investment committee of the Board of Trustees of JCIPF Trust decided in the meeting dated 22.4.2002 to invest Rs.83,00,000/- in 12% I.D.B.I. Bonds 2007 through U.T.I. Bank. It has also been alleged that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy. Prosenjit Daw, Deputy Manager, UTI Bank vide its letter dated 22.4.2002 quoted Rs.82,51,130/- including accrued interest amounting to Rs.6,38,630/- for the purchase of 12% I.D.B.I. Bonds 2007 for a total face value of Rs.75,00,000/-. The settlement date was 23.4.2002 and the Bonds were to be delivered physically. Subsequently, a cheque bearing No. 155599 dated 22.4.2002 for Rs.82,51,130/- was written by Shri Amal Ghosh, office Manager and jointly signed by Sri A. Dutta and Ashit Kumar Chowdhury was issued from the account of JCICPF Trust in favour of U.T.I. Bank Ltd. bearing account No. 005010200016302. The receipt of the said cheque for purchase of 12% I.D.B.I. Bonds 2007 was acknowledged by Prosenjit Daw of UTI Bank vide letter dated 22.4.2002. The said account number maintained with the UTI Bank Ltd., Kolkata 700 007 was found to be in the name of M/S. Home Trade Ltd. with their Pune address and Shri Sanjay Agarwal was the Director and Chairman of the said Company. The amount of the said cheque was duly credited in the account of Home Trade Ltd. maintained with the UTI Bank and subsequently withdrawn also, but, IDBI Bond 2007 was not purchased by M/S. Home Trade Ltd. or delivered by the UTI Bank to JCICPF Trust for which the said cheque was issued causing thereby loss of Rs.82,51,130/- to the said JCICPF Trust, Kolkata.

(3.) The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he is an Advocate and as professional Company Secretary was engaged by M/S. Home Trade Limited, International Infotech Park, Tower No. 3, 5th floor, Vashi, Navi, Mumbai. C.B.I./A.C.B., Kolkata registered Case No. RC-24/2002-Kolkata on 30.7.2002 under Sections 420/120B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (c) & (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on some source information against Prosenjit Daw and four others. In the said F.I.R. the petitioner herein was not named. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted under Section 420/120B Indian Penal Code against six accused persons bearing G.R. Case No. 2670 of 2003. In the said charge sheet the accused/petitioner was arraigned as accused No. 5 and he was not arrested during investigation. On 12.3.2010 the learned Trial Court proceeded to frame the charge in a piece-meal manner against the accused No. 1 only indicating that the other accused persons were the co-conspirators.