Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Kalpesh Jayram Koshti, filed a Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenging the order dated 27 September 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai, refusing to discharge him from CBI Special Case No.4/2018. The prosecution case was that the Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai, registered an FIR under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code on 31 August 2017 based on a written complaint by Shri D.G. Kallatti, Deputy General Manager of CBI, against M/s Ashoka Property Developers, M/s Ashish Communication Systems, its Directors/Guarantors, and thirteen others, including two bankers and the applicant as accused no.11. The complainant alleged that the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy in 2011 to cheat the Central Bank of India, Peddar Road Branch, Mumbai, to the tune of Rs.17 crores by creating false and fabricated documents and dishonestly suppressing material information regarding immovable properties offered as collateral security. Insofar as the applicant was concerned, the prosecution alleged that he was the owner of M/s Ahmedabad Express Newspaper, and with malafide intentions instructed his employee Ravikumar Ashokkumar Bhil to open bank accounts and manipulate transactions to make accommodation entries. Ravikumar Bhil accordingly opened two bank accounts in the name of M/s Ahmedabad Sales Corporation in ING Vyasa Bank and M/s Hindustan Enterprises. The applicant sought discharge on the ground that no prima facie case was made out against him. The Sessions Judge rejected the application. The High Court, after considering the material on record, held that at the stage of framing of charges, the court is not required to weigh the evidence meticulously but only to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The allegations, if taken as true, disclosed a prima facie case against the applicant for the offences alleged. The court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and dismissed the revision application.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge - Section 227 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - The court examined whether the material on record disclosed a prima facie case against the applicant for the offences alleged. Held that at the stage of framing of charges, the court is not required to weigh the evidence meticulously but only to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The allegations of conspiracy and fabrication of documents, if taken as true, constitute a prima facie case. (Paras 1-8) B) Criminal Conspiracy - Cheating - Forgery - Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC - The prosecution alleged that the applicant, as owner of a press, instructed an employee to open bank accounts and manipulate transactions to create accommodation entries as part of a conspiracy to cheat the bank. Held that the role attributed to the applicant, if proved, would attract the said offences. (Paras 2-4) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 read with 401 CrPC - Scope - The revisional court examined the correctness, propriety, and legality of the order refusing discharge. Held that the order was not perverse or illegal and did not warrant interference. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Sessions Judge erred in refusing to discharge the applicant from CBI Special Case No.4/2018 under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Application, upholding the order of the Sessions Judge refusing to discharge the applicant.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
- Prima facie case
- Standard of proof at framing of charges
- Criminal conspiracy
- Cheating
- Forgery
