9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1516 - HC - Companies LawRejection of application for discharge filed by the applicant - It is the contention of the applicant that, he has nowhere connected for the alleged offences registered against him - sufficient ground for framing the charges existed - Held that - From the perusal of the statements of the Chetna Naresh Chandan, Dimple Kamlesh Kanungo and Dheeraj B. Shah clearly show that the applicant himself played a leading role to invest the amounts of Wasankar (WWML Company). Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no sufficient material to frame the charge. Learned ASJ-3 (Special Judge) rightly rejected the application for discharge. Therefore, there is no merit in this application - the present revision application is rejected.
Issues:
1. Application for discharge rejected by Special Judge (ASJ-3) Nagpur. 2. Allegations of siphoning funds from Wasankar Wealth Management Prt. Limited (WWML Company). 3. Role of the applicant in diverting funds and conspiracy with main accused. 4. Prima facie evidence to frame charges against the applicant. 5. Statements of witnesses supporting involvement of the applicant. 6. Decision of the learned ASJ-3 and rejection of discharge application. 7. Appointment of special prosecutor and trial timeline. Analysis: 1. The revision application challenged the rejection of the discharge application by the Special Judge (ASJ-3) Nagpur, dated 12.04.2018. The applicant contended that there was no connection to the alleged offenses and no prima facie case to frame charges against him. 2. The applicant, a Chartered Accountant, was accused of siphoning funds from WWML Company. The defense argued that the applicant had not played a significant role in diverting funds and that no specific allegations were made against him. The defense highlighted provisions of the RBI Act and SEBI Act to support the lack of evidence against the applicant. 3. The prosecution, represented by the learned APP, presented evidence suggesting that the applicant had siphoned a substantial amount from WWML Company to various individuals and entities. The prosecution emphasized the statements of witnesses implicating the applicant in the fraudulent activities of the main accused. 4. The learned ASJ-3, in the order dated 12.04.2018, found prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in siphoning funds and conspiring with the main accused. The judge concluded that there was sufficient material to frame charges against the applicant, leading to the dismissal of the discharge application. 5. Witness statements, including those of Naresh Chandan, Dimple Kanungo, and Dheeraj Shah, provided details of the applicant's active role in facilitating investments and fund transfers on behalf of WWML Company. These statements supported the prosecution's case against the applicant. 6. The court upheld the decision of the learned ASJ-3, emphasizing the applicant's significant involvement in the financial transactions under scrutiny. The rejection of the discharge application indicated that there was substantial evidence to proceed with framing charges against the applicant. 7. The appointment of a special prosecutor and the timeline set for the trial, with an expectation of completion by September 2019, indicated the seriousness and complexity of the case. The rejection of the revision application signaled the continuation of the trial proceedings without additional costs imposed. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the intricate financial fraud case involving the applicant's alleged role in siphoning funds from WWML Company. The detailed analysis of witness statements and legal arguments led to the rejection of the discharge application, setting the stage for further trial proceedings under the supervision of a special prosecutor.
|
