Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Parag Raman Hangekar, a chartered accountant, filed a criminal revision application against the order of the Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge-3), Nagpur dated 12.04.2018, which rejected his application for discharge. The applicant was implicated in a case involving siphoning of funds from Wasankar Wealth Management Pvt. Ltd. (WWML Company). The prosecution alleged that the applicant, as chartered accountant of one Kanungo and WWML Company, suggested investments and thereby aided in siphoning funds. The applicant contended that there was no prima facie case against him as he had no role in the alleged offences. The learned senior counsel for the applicant argued that the statements of witnesses Naresh Shrimal Chandan, Dimple Kanungo, and Dheeraj Shah did not show any diversion of funds by the applicant. He further submitted that Sections 45 and 58B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and Sections 24(1) and 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 were not attracted, and there was no evidence of conspiracy or abetment. The learned APP for the State pointed to a chart showing alleged siphoning by the applicant. The court, after hearing both sides, found that the applicant's role was limited to professional advice as a chartered accountant and that there was no specific role attributed to him in siphoning funds. The court held that the material on record did not constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to frame charges against the applicant. Consequently, the court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order, and discharged the applicant from all offences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge - Prima Facie Case - Sections 227, 239 CrPC - Applicant sought discharge contending no prima facie evidence - Court held that mere professional advice as chartered accountant without specific role in siphoning funds does not constitute sufficient material to frame charge - Discharge allowed (Paras 3-8). B) Criminal Conspiracy - Abetment - Sections 120B, 109 IPC - Allegation of conspiracy and abetment against chartered accountant - Court found no evidence of conspiracy or abetment as applicant only suggested investment - Held that conspiracy not established (Paras 5-8). C) Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Sections 45, 58B - Liability of professional advisor - Applicant not involved in deposit acceptance or siphoning - Held that sections not attracted (Para 5). D) Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Sections 24(1), 27 - Liability of professional advisor - No evidence of applicant's role in securities fraud - Held that sections not attracted (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant, a chartered accountant, is entitled to discharge for lack of prima facie evidence connecting him to the alleged siphoning of funds and offences under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.04.2018 passed by the Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge-3), Nagpur is set aside. The applicant is discharged from all offences.
Law Points
- Discharge
- Prima Facie Case
- Criminal Conspiracy
- Abetment
- Chartered Accountant Liability
- RBI Act Sections 45 and 58B
- SEBI Act Sections 24(1) and 27
