KAMAL PAREKH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Kamal Parekh, by filing the instant application under section 482 of the Cr. PC sought for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 8. 6. 06 arising out the Hare Street P. S. Case no. G/dd No. 476 dated 24. 9. 02 under sections 120b/420/409/468/471/477a IPC as against him.

(2.) THE backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows: on the basis of police enquiry an FIR was registered under sections 120b/420/409/468/471/477a IPC on 24th September, 2002 against the Indus Ind Bank and 15 other brokers. In 2001 the petitioner was honorary President of the Calcutta Stock Exchange and had resigned on 30. 3. 01. The Finance Ministry action taken report (ATR) 2004 tabled in Parliament in December 2004, debunks SHCIL - Biyani nexus in the rolling settlement transactions. On 10th January, 2003 the respondent under mala fide intention arrested the petitioner who was bailed out on 15th July, 2003. There was no allegation against the petitioner either in the complaint or in the FIR. On 8. 6. 06 the respondent just filed the charge-sheet in the Court of learned CMM, calcutta. No document. not even the statements recorded under section 161 of the Cr. PC was filed along with the charge sheet. Bank correspondence and records so far as the same relate to the dishonour of the cheques were not even included in the list of documents in the charge-sheet and the alleged prime accused Indus Ind bank had been rescued due to unknown reasons. The present petitioner was falsely implicated on the allegation that the petitioner withheld information about the dishonour of the margin money cheques so CSE could not terminate trading terminal of brokers in time. It was further alleged that on 7th March, 2001 the petitioner released 2. 40 crores from Biyani securities Pvt Ltd. margin money account to release Rs. 34. 80 crores on due date of pay-out obligation to SHCIL in settlement No. 2001516 dated 7. 3. 01. The respondent police authority did not mention a single word about any reason, fact or evidence in support of the charges in the entire charge-sheet as well as any documentary evidence in the list of documents filed with it.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 is a Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. , referred to as SHCIL. It is a Government Organization and a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondent No. 3, Calcutta Stock Exchange, referred to as CSE, is a limited company registered under the Company Act and is recognized to function as Stock Exchange under the Securities Contract Act 1956. It has been working under the strict control and direction of SEBI (Securities Exchange Board of India Ltd.) since 1992. The Surveillance committee control daily margin position of each broker everyday throughout the market time. If there is shortage, the manager takes margin money cheque and gets it cleared from the bank and thereafter allow a broker to do further trading through CSE trading terminal. For immediate clearing there is Indus Ind bank branch in CSE compound having account of all brokers and CSE. The committee is headed and controlled by E. D. and SEBI only. The Settlement Committee control trading transactions pay-in, pay-out obligation, auctions and entire trading of the Exchange. It is also headed and controlled by E. D. and sebi only. The entire function of the CSE i. e. the stock transactions, settlement of pay-in, pay-out and auctions of transaction, cancellation of the transaction, collection of margin money from member brokers, daily regular dealing with the bank is managed and handled only by the Executive Director, Management Committee, Settlement committee and surveillance officers under the strict control and direction of the SEBI.