Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2017 (7) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (7) TMI 1436 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Discharge of accused persons by the trial court.
2. Allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery.
3. One Time Settlement (OTS) and its impact on criminal liability.
4. Examination of material evidence by lower courts.
5. Applicability of legal precedents in quashing criminal proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Discharge of Accused Persons by the Trial Court:
The trial court discharged the accused persons on the grounds that there was no allegation of forged documents causing loss and that the One Time Settlement (OTS) indicated no intention to cheat the bank. The court opined that the dispute was of a civil nature and that the bank had already exhausted civil remedies. This discharge was upheld by the revisional court and the High Court.

2. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy, Cheating, and Forgery:
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleged that the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Bank of Baroda by availing various credit facilities using false documents as genuine. The investigation revealed that the accused misused funds amounting to several crores and did not repay the bank. Specific instances included the misuse of Export Packing Credit (EPC) and other facilities, submission of fake export orders, and non-compliance with the required documents for releasing funds.

3. One Time Settlement (OTS) and Its Impact on Criminal Liability:
The trial court heavily relied on the OTS to discharge the accused, suggesting that the settlement indicated no intention to defraud. However, the Supreme Court opined that the OTS only addressed civil liability and could not wipe out criminal liability. The court emphasized that the OTS could not be used to negate the criminal charges of conspiracy, cheating, and forgery.

4. Examination of Material Evidence by Lower Courts:
The Supreme Court found that the lower courts did not adequately examine the materials placed on record along with the charge sheet. The trial court's finding that there was no material indicating collusion to cheat the bank was deemed incorrect and perverse. The Supreme Court noted that there was overwhelming evidence of forged documents and misuse of bank funds, which the trial court failed to consider.

5. Applicability of Legal Precedents in Quashing Criminal Proceedings:
The Supreme Court referred to several precedents to emphasize that criminal proceedings involving serious allegations of fraud and forgery could not be quashed merely based on a civil settlement. Cases like Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., Ashok Sadarangani v. Union of India and Ors., and Rumi Dhar v. State of West Bengal and Anr. were cited to support the view that criminal liability persists despite civil settlements. The court highlighted that such cases have a societal impact and cannot be treated as private disputes.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court, revisional court, and High Court, directing the trial court to frame charges and proceed with the trial. The court clarified that the observations made were prima facie and based on the charge sheet, and the trial court should not be influenced by these findings while deciding the case on merits. The appeal was allowed, and the trial was to be concluded within a year.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates