PURSHOTTAM DAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under section 482 Cr. P. C. has arisen in the following circumstances : Banshidhar Ganga Prasad and Vastra Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur were two sister concerns holding accounts with the Bani Park, Jaipur Branch of the United Commercial Bank during the years 1969 to 1971. It is alleged that the petitioner and his son Vinod Kumar Agrawal and one Ajay Kumar Bansal, who were operating on behalf of the aforesaid concerns entered into a criminal conspiracy with Singha Ram Sharma Manager of Messrs. Economic Transport Organisation to cheat the United Commercial Bank by tendering fare bills and M. T. R.s in the said bank and inducing it to purchase them and advance money against them though the fare bills and M.T.R.s were not backed by goods. When the bills and the M.T.R.# were sent to the destination banks for collection by the Bank, some 78 of them during the months of Jan. to May, 71, were not retired by the drawee and were received back as unpaid. It was then that it was discovered that the bills and M.T.R.s were not backed by goods and in this manner the Bank was cheated to a time of Rs. 4 26,174. 87 p.

(2.) Singha Ram Sharma has turned as approver and was granted pardon by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Originally, Miss Walia Manager of the United Commercial Bank, Bani Park, Jaipur, was also suspected to be one of the co-conspirator as she had allowed the advances on her own authority and did not even send a statement of return of unpaid bills to the head office where a check is maintained on such advances. But the C.B.I. which investigated the case found that Miss Walia was not involved in the conspiracy. After investigation, the C.B.I. filed a challan on 13-1-75 in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, against three persons, Purshottam Das Agrawal, Vinod Kumar Agrawal and Ajay Kumar Bansal, under sections 120 B read with 420 and 420 IPC. The statement of the approver is being recorded. It appears that the case is likely to be committed to the court of session under section 306 Cr. P.C. by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) The contention of the accused is that it was not a conspiracy but it was an arrangement to provide credit facility to the two concerns. Credits are allowed by the banks to the trading concerns on their general reputation in the Market Such advances are bonafide and subsequent non-recovery does not make the initial advance fraudulent or dishonest and no inference of a conspiracy to cheat is permissible. Such matters are purely of civil character and do not in any way attract criminal liability and indeed a suit for Rs. 12 lacs and odd has been filed by the Bank against the accused. The bank in this case had at no time made a grievance that the goods covered by the M.T.R.s in question did not exist nor did the bank over demand the goods alleged to be covered by a particular M.T.R. As a matter of fact, the evidence of the approver is false as the stock register of the Economic Transport Organisation shows the receipt of all the goods covered by the disputed M.T.R s and further transport charges have been recovered from the firms in question. The M.T.R.s were genuine and goods were covered by them existed. In a few letters, the petitioners did of course state that goods will be sent in a couple of days but it did not prove that the goods were not subsequently sent. Such accommodations are frequently asked for and granted by the commercial firms. In the suit which the bank has filed, it has no where alleged that any false or dishonest representation was made or that it had been cheated. Even after some of the M.T.R.s were not retired, the Bank has been making overdrafts to the petitioner who has furnished extra securities by pledging immovable properties as well. It is not possible for the prosecution then, to make allegations of conspiracy and cheating. The petitioner also has filed a statement showing bill purchase account of the two concerns from 23-3-71 to 11-5-71. During this period 33 bills were presented to the bank. The total value of which was Rs. 17,44,227.94 out of which only an amount of Rs. 4, 26,174/- is disputed. Out of the several M.T.R.s the prosecution has picked up only the disputed amount. In a business transactions like this which involved about rupees two crores in the two years it is possible that out of the several M.T.R.s some may not be retired by the drawees and in the circumstances it cannot be said that the concerns tried to cheat the bank specially when the Economic Transport Organisation had issued M.T.R.s and has also charged fare. It was also submitted thally that the goods are still lying piled up in the Economic Transport Organisation against the disputed M.T.R.s.