9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited, M/s Neutrino Power Systems Private Limited, M/s Akhila Power Products Private Limited, etc and thereafter, transferred the said loan amount back to M/s Servomax India Private Limited directly or indirectly on the basis of dummy bills. On suspicion, the erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad engaged a forensic auditor i.e., M/s Deloitte to conduct forensic audit. It was found that M/s Servomax India Private Limited fudged its debtors list with inflated receivables from non-existing entities or related parties or companies floated by its own employees to avail loan facility fraudulently. Both sales and purchase transactions were made with companies floated by the employees as shareholders/directors. Funds were diverted without actual trade/sales. Thus, M/s Servomax India Private Limited used the LC facilities through the said companies and thereby, involved in diverting/siphoning of funds. 4. The specific allegations that are directed against the petitioner/accused No.1 are that he was a key person holding the position of Managing Director and C.E.O. of M/s Servomax India Private Limited and is responsible for divergence of the proceeds of crime. He committed the offence of mone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was made as the accused failed to co-operate with the investigating agency during the course of investigation and did not reveal the information with regard to divergence of the proceeds of crime. The learned Standing Counsel also stated that as the predicate agency i.e., CBI has not filed charge sheet till date, the scope of filing supplementary charge sheet was thus kept open. The learned Standing Counsel also stated that the original documents were submitted to the Court on the same day of filing of charge sheet, but without verification, the charge sheet was returned on technical reasons and thus, the compliance of Section 167 Cr.P.C. by filing the charge sheet within time is done and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for statutory bail. However, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is otherwise. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the following pertinent dates, which are not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel. Petitioner/accused No.1 was arrested on 18.01.2022. Charge sheet was filed on 17.3.2022 (58th day). Charge sheet was returned on the same day. Bail petition was filed on 19.3.2022 (60th day). Bail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the date of his remand. Learned counsel, contradicting the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the investigation could not be completed within time due to non-cooperation of the accused, stated that the petitioner appeared before the office of Enforcement Directorate and submitted more than 1,200 pages of documents to prove that the transactions were all legitimate and more than that, what further co-operation the investigating agency requires is not known. 11. In continuation of his submission that when no charge sheet is on record on expiry of 60th/90th day as the case may be, the accused is entitled to default bail, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Achpal @ Ramswaroop and another Vs. State of Rajasthan (2019) 14 SCC 599. 12. In the above case, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed by the Police. However, the said report was filed by a Police officer lower in rank than that of A.S.P which is contrary to the order passed by the High Court. The Magistrate having noted the infirmity, returned the charge sheet to the Police for due compliance. Thus, as on the date of expiry of 90th day, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the police. The further custody of such person ought not to be guided by mere suspicion that he may have committed an offence or for that matter, to facilitate pending investigation. 19. In the present case, as on the 90th day, there were no papers or the charge-sheet in terms of Section 173 of the Code for the Magistrate concerned to assess the situation whether on merits the accused was required to be remanded to further custody. Though the charge-sheet in terms of Section 173 came to be filed on 5-7-2018, such filing not being in terms of the order passed by the High Court on 3-72018, the papers were returned to the investigating officer. Perhaps it would have been better if the Public Prosecutor had informed the High Court on 3-7-2018 itself that the period for completing the investigation was coming to a close. He could also have submitted that the papers relating to investigation be filed within the time prescribed and a call could thereafter be taken by the Superior Gazetted Officer whether the matter required further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code or not. That would have been an ideal situation. But we have to consider the actual effect of the ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of Punjab {(2020) 10 SCC 616} , dealing with similar question which arose in an application for default bail under the UAPA, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, after considering the various judgments on the point, observed thus: "A conspectus of the aforesaid decisions would show that so long as an application for grant of default bail is made on expiry of the period of 90 days (which application need not even be in writing) before a charge-sheet is filed, the right to default bail becomes complete. It is of no moment that the criminal court in question either does not dispose of such application before the charge-sheet is filed or disposes of such application wrongly before such charge-sheet is filed. So long as an application has been made for default bail on expiry of the stated period before time is further extended to the maximum period of 180 days, default bail, being an indefeasible right of the accused under the first proviso to Section 167(2), kicks in and must be granted." This decision in Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, {(2020) 10 SCC 616} ensures that the rigorous powers conferred under special statutes for curtailing liberty of the accused are not exercised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24 hours. The said provision reads as under:- "Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty- four hours.-No police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty- four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate' s Court." 17. Therefore, in normal course, as soon as the case is registered, it has to be investigated into and in case, the investigation is in progress, narrating the circumstances of the case in writing and the grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded, the officer incharge of the Police Station or the investigating Officer is under obligation to transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the relevant diary and at the same time has to forward the accused. 18. Coming to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., it reads as under:- "The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestigating agency to complete the investigation within 24 hours and in cases, where it is not possible, having regard to the gravity of the offences, the investigating agency is bound to complete the investigation either within 90 days or within 60 days depending upon the offences made out. There is no provision in the entire Code of Criminal Procedure authorizing any of the Courts to extend such period. The above provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure are aimed at ensuring expeditious investigation, fair trial and more so, to safeguard the life and personal liberty of the citizens against whom accusation is made. 20. In the case on hand, it is clearly brought on record that the petitioner/accused No.1 was arrested on 18.01.2022, the charge sheet was filed on 17.3.2022 and it was returned on the same day. It is also brought on record that on the 60th day (19.3.2022), the petitioner moved an application for grant of bail invoking Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The said application stood dismissed on 30.5.2022. It is also clearly brought to the notice of this Court that the charge sheet was re-presented on 31.5.2022. 21. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
