SHRISH DUTT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A written report by one Ratnu Devi, Wife of Late Mewa Ram, dated December 10, 1988, made to the Vigilance Commissioner, Jammu, resulted in a preliminary inquiry. In the written report, it was stated that officials of the State Financial Corporation visited the house of Late Mewa Ram for the purpose of ascertaining whereabouts of Late Mewa Ram, his status and properties held by him. At that time, it transpired to Ratnu Devi that some persons have taken loan in the name of Late Mewa Ram. She held out that one Ashwini Kapoor is one of those who have taken such loan. The preliminary inquiry, on the written report, resulted in filling of a First Information Report, whereon investigations were made, which ultimately led to filling of a charge sheet. In the charge sheet, accused no. 1, Ashwini Kapoor, was held out to be the principal conspirator. In addition to that, it was contended that accused no. 2, Sham Kumar Gupta; accused no. 3, Kulbir Singh Salathia; accused no. 4, Surinder Singh Sodi; accused no. 5, R. S. Kotwal; accused no. 6, Suresh Dutt and accused no. 7, S. C. Chopra, were also conspirators and the conspiracy resulted in loss to a public institution, namely, the State Financial Corporation. It was contended that accused nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6 made papers resulting in disbursal of the loan. It was stated that the purported loanee, Mewa Ram, though died in 1991, accused no. 7 in 1996, wrote a letter to the Registering Authority for cancellation of the hypothecation, which letter also contained purported signatures of Mewa Ram. It was stated that, while apprising the credit worthiness of Mewa Ram and his purported guarantors, accused nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 reported that Mewa Ram and his purported guarantors hold properties, but the investigation has revealed that they do not, in fact, hold such properties. So far as accused no. 1 is concerned, it was held out that guarantors stated that they signed documents as guarantors at the request of accused no. 1.

(2.) BY the judgment and order under revision in these three revision applications, the Court of Special Judge, Anti -corruption, Jammu, has taken cognizance against accused nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 and has refused to take cognizance against accused nos. 4 and 7.

(3.) IN the revision filed by accused no. 1, it is his contention that the charge sheet would not show that there is any allegation that accused no. 1 did anything, which can be said to be a part of the chain of conspiracy leading to the loss complained of. The learned counsel submitted that there is no allegation that any of these documents, said to have been executed by Late Mewa Ram, was fabricated by his client.