AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Petitioner was the Managing Director (between 1973 and 1991) and thereafter. Chairman of the Second Respondent-Madhavpura Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Limited (hereinafter "the Bank") having its registered office at Shahibaug, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The Bank was operating under the provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter "the Societies Act") and was also subject to other laws, such as the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. On 13.3.2001, the Reserve Bank of India, noticing the critical financial situation of the Bank, made a requisition to the Central Registrar under Section 48(7) of the Societies Act, to appoint an Administrator to manage the affairs of the Bank. Accordingly, an Administrator took over the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lice Station to State CID (Crime). The Petitioner was arrested and remanded to police custody for some time in connection with the said investigation. 4. On 2.5.2001, the High Court of Gujarat made an order in the Public Interest Litigation (Special Civil Application No. 2617/2001) directing, inter alia, that the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter "the CBI"), with the cooperation of the State CID (Crime), conduct an investigation into the deeds and misdeeds of the respondents, including the Petitioner. The investigation was also to go into the question of mismanagement on the part of the Bank and the concerned officers, who were found to have been involved in the criminal acts. The Petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ef Metropolitan Magistrate took the view that the CBI was conducting investigation under the order of the High Court with respect to specific offences of fraud and misappropriation pertaining to the Mumbai Branch, and since further offences committed pertaining to the Ahmedabad Branch had come to light the Bank was justified in filing different complaints. Further, according to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the investigation by the CID (Crime), Ahmedabad was in no way contrary to the order of the High Court (dated 2.5.2001) since the CID (Crime), Ahmedabad could coordinate its investigation with those investigations being carried on by the CBI, Mumbai. 8. On 24.12.2002, the Petitioner filed Special Criminal Application Nos. 94....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sides. The main plank of the Petitioner's argument is that C.R. No. 67/2001 was the FIR in respect of the offences alleged and, therefore, it was not legally permissible for any other complaints to be filed in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed in the course of the said transaction. 11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed heavy reliance on the observations of this Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (hereinafter "T.T. Antony"). In the written submissions tiled on behalf of the Petitioner, reliance was placed on a number of judgments, most of which are not of much assistance. 12. In the light of the record and the submissions made before us, we are not satisfied that the Petitioner's case falls within ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Ahmedabad Police, were not in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, nor were they alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence as the ones alleged in First C.R. No. 67/2001. Page 2295 14. There is a further distinction in that while First C.R. No. 67/2001 pertained to cases concerning one Ketan Parikh and entities associated with him in the crime, the subsequent complaints pertained to other parties. Further, the FIR being investigated pertained only to criminal acts relating to the Mandvi Branch (Mumbai), while the subsequent complaints being investigated by the State Police pertained to criminal acts at the Shahiba....