9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, there is no merit in this application - the present revision application is rejected. - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 82 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2018 - MR M.G. GIRATKAR, J. For The Applicant : Anand Jaiswal, Sr. Adv. and Poyush M. Shukla, Advocate For The Respondent : N.B. Jawade, APP JUDGMENT 1. Admit. 2. Heard finally with the consent of parties. 3. The present revision application is against the order of Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge-3) Nagpur, dated 12.04.2018 by which he has rejected the application for discharge filed by the applicant. 4. The applicant filed application for discharge. It is the contention of the applicant that, he has nowhere connected for the alleged offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... established. The other sections like abetment, etc, are also not attracted against him and therefore, he is entitled for discharge. 6. Heard Shri Jawade, learned APP for non applicant/State has pointed out the chart filed along with the reply. As per the chart, this applicant siphoned the amount of main accused to various persons/companies. In all total, he has siphoned an amount of ₹ 23,08,00,000/- (Rs.Twenty Three Crores and Eight lacs). Learned APP has also pointed out the statements of Naresh Chandan, Dimple Kanungo and Dheeraj Shah. According to him, all these statements show the involvement of the applicant to siphon the huge amount from the account of WWML Company. The learned APP has submitted that day by day, Investigating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion needs no consideration. Hence I pass the following order. ORDER The application stands dismissed 8. The main accused Prashant Wasankar, Bhagyashree Wasankar and others started accepting amounts from the depositors without prior permission of SEBI. After maturity, they did not return respective amounts of the depositors. Therefore, the depositors come forward and lodged reports. As per submissions of learned APP, such amount is more than ₹ 250 Crores. While framing the charge, the Court has to see the prima facie materials on the basis of charge-sheet. 9. The statement of Naresh Chandan shows that he was not knowing WWML Company. He had purchased shares about 2,65,000 @ ₹ 445/- per share from Kanungo. Some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uly 2013 and told him that he is an Accountant in Wasankar (WWML Company) and Wasankar (WWML Company) wanted to invest ₹ 50 crores of the said Company. Wasankar (WWML Company) consented to purchase 50 crores shares @ ₹ 235/- per share. It was decided that Wasankar (WWML Company) agreed to purchase shares of ₹ 47 lakhs. MOU was reduced into writing. The applicant signed on that MOU as a witness. 10. 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. Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
