TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d inflated balance sheet to avail over draft facilities of Rs. 250 Lakhs which resulted in a wrongful loss to the Bank. The prosecution witnesses LW3, LW19 and LW21 have given statements that M/s. Fountainhead communication and the A1 are two separate registered entities having distinct and different line of business namely events management and advertising respectively and working from the same address. The petitioner though was a director rested herself with the advertisement writing and did not involve in the general company affairs. 4. Insofar as the documents are concerned the prosecution has filed two sets of documents one set has furnished to the Registrar of Companies during different years to prove the admitted document and another set of documents contains the alleged inflated and fudged, unsigned documents produced before the bank for the purpose of obtaining loans. As per, 161 Cr.PC statement, the petitioner was a Director of M/s. Fountainhead limited taking care of its day today activities and not in-charge and responsible for the conduct of M/s. Eventus Integrated Management Pvt Ltd, the signatures of the petitioner found in different documents are those signatures w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntus Integrated Management Pvt Ltd/A1 did not keep its promise to regularize the over dues and became NPA on 30.06.2010. The Directors of A1 company cheated Indian Bank by submitting fudged balance sheet and bogus statement, resulting in loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs. 236.98 lakhs. 6. The respondent/CBI, SCB conducted thorough enquiry and filed charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.PC againt M/s. Eventus Integrated Management Pvt Ltd./A1, Suresh Pillai/A2, the petitioner/A3 and T.R. Narayanan/A4, the then Branch Manager for the offences punishable under Section 120B r/w.420, 468, 471 and Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Ac, 1988. During the course of investigation the accused 1 to 4, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, the accused submitted fabricated glossy, fudged and unsigned balance sheet for the years 2003 to 2005. The A4 working as a public servant abused his official capacity by showing undue favour without verifying the genuineness of the documents, which was submitted by A2 and A3/petitioner, simply forwarded without application of mind thereby caused a loss to the tune of Rs. 239 lakhs to the Indian Bank. 7. Before filing charge sheet by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thur one of the Director was not implicated, though he also signed as Director, on the same footing the petitioner may be discharged. The prosecution has adopted pick and choose method, not impleading one of the Directors who had signed as Director and the petitioner who had not signed has been implicated as one of the accused. The bank official/A4 who allegedly conspired in the alleged offence has already been discharged by this Court, therefore, the theory of conspiracy also goes out. Viewing from any angle, the petitioner is liable to be discharged from this case. 11. The contention of the prosecution is that A1/company availed overdraft facility of Rs. 250 lakhs by submitting glossy, unsigned, fudged and inflated balance sheet which resulted in a wrongful loss to bank and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/A3 is a Director of A1 company. The documents and the statement of witnesses would clearly show that the petitioner signed several documents in the capacity of Directors of A1 company. 12. The case of the petitioner is that one of the Director Atul Mathur was signed and he was exonerated, on the same footing the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only a loan transaction and the dispute involved is civil in nature and no criminal liability can be attributed against the petitioner. As per, the final report and statement of witnesses, the Court can decide that there is no prima facie materials available for framing of charges against the petitioner and there is no vicarious liability in Criminal law and standing before the trial would be futile exercise. 15. The learned counsel for the prosecution would submit that petitioner/A3 is one of the Director of A1 Company i.e, M/s. Eventus Integrated Management Pvt Ltd., the petitioner along with her husband A2/Suresh Pillai another Director of A1 Company signed in most of the vital documents including that of various forms submitted for obtaining loan from the Indian Bank and availed credit facility from Indian Bank, George Town branch by submitting glossy, fudged, inflated and unsigned balance sheets. The petitioner had knowledge regarding the process of application and obtaining overdraft facilities of Rs. 250 lakhs would show the intention of the petitioner and other accused to cheat the Bank, there are ample documents available to show that the petitioner had the knowledge of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel and perused the entire records, even in the charge sheet there are specific allegations raised against this petitioner also. Further, the investigation reveals that from the statement of witnesses and material documents containing the memorandum of association of the Company, wherein the petitioner and her husband has been shown as Directors of the Company. The petitioner had requisite knowledge regarding process of application to obtain overdraft facility of Rs. 250 lakhs from the Indian Bank. The petitioner had the knowledge of submitting inflated value in the book debts, thereby persuaded the Bank authorities and manged to get the required amount of loan, there are ample evidence available on record to show that the petitioner is one of the Director of A1 Company and she has been actively participated its day to day activities along with her husband. When there is specific allegations raised against the petitioner at the stage of framing of charges, this Court has to look into as to whether the prima facie materials are available to proceed the case against the petitioner. At this stage, if there is a strong suspicion is available against the accused, the Court cannot conduc....