ARUN AGARAWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the Court was as follows By this revisional application dated 6.10.2005 under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenge is made to the Order No. 68 dated 5.7.2005 passed by the learned Judge, 1st Special Court, Alipore in Special Case No. 6 of 1998 rejecting the petitioner's petition under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) The charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and another on the allegation that during 1992-93 the petitioner and another entered into criminal conspiracy with one A. K. Agarwal and defrauded the Punjab and Sind Bank to the tune of Rs. 2.21 crores. Sometime in 1988 a company in the name and style of M/s. Eureka Wires Limited was incorporated as Private Limited Company and the present petitioner was shown as one of the Directors. The said company was converted into a Public Limited Company in the name and style of M/s. Eureka Wires Limited with effect from 5.3.1992. On the application of the petitioner and another accused the credit limits were sanctioned to the company. Investigation discloses that the petitioner introduced and got opened a current account on 18.12.1992 in the name of M/s. Steel and Alloy Products in Chowringhee Branch of Punjab and Sind Bank through his employees Ravi Kant Pandey and Srimani Mishra and in connivance with another accused diverted a sum of Rs. 6,24,430/- from the current account of the company to the account of M/s. Steels & Alloys Products which was a fictitious firm. The petitioner again got opened another fictitious current account through his employees in the name of a fictitious firm namely M/s. Continental Supplier and diverted a huge sums of money. Similar current accounts were opened in the name of some other fictitious firms whereby Rs. 28,08,670/- and Rs. 14,92,640/- were again diverted from the cash credit account of M/s. Eureka Wires Limited. Another diversion was made in respect of Rs.27,60,200/- to another account. In this way the Bank was defrauded. Charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 I.P.C and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) In the context of the aforesaid allegations it is submitted that the learned trial Court was moved with a petition praying for discharge of the present petitioner under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that allegations in the charge-sheet would indicate a civil dispute arising out of contractual obligation, that the credit facilities were allowed to the petitioner against piedgement of goods worth Rs. 1.50 crores which is still lying in the custody of the bank, that there is no iota of evidence on record leading to any reasonable conclusion of conspiracy, that the matter being purely of civil nature, bank did not lodge any complaint and bank instituted a civil suit, and accordingly the proceeding as against the petitioner was liable to be terminated by order of discharge.