CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. R S PAI
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-109
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
April 03,2002
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Appellant
VERSUS
R.S.PAI
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
JOGENDRA SINGH VS. C.B.I. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-3-120] [REFERRED TO]GOURESH MEHRA VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2010-10-134] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. REV. FR. VARGHESE THEKKEKARA [LAWS(KER)-2023-1-187] [REFERRED TO]
PINTU SINGH TOMAR VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-291] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-6-83] [REFERRED TO]
A Chinnanan VS. State [LAWS(MAD)-2004-11-61] [REFERRED TO]
M.P. MATHEW VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SCB THIRUVANANTHAPURAM [LAWS(KER)-2021-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY SINGH CHAUTALA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2018-8-373] [REFERRED TO]
VINAYAK S. SHETTY VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-4-241] [REFERRED TO]
DULAL GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAJALAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2007-1-51] [REFERRED TO]
SUJITH T. VS. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN POLICE STATION [LAWS(KER)-2019-10-70] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR KUMR SETH VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2008-4-77] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGYASHREE PRASHANT WASANKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
ALEKSANDER KURGANOV VS. STATE [LAWS(BOM)-2021-2-75] [REFERRED TO]
ISTAKUDDIN MONDAL ALIAS HARADHAN MONDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2004-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR GULATI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-3-125] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS. KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL [LAWS(SC)-2020-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA KUMAR AMIN VS. CBI [LAWS(SC)-2015-1-40] [REFERRED]
SHANKAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2019-12-275] [REFERRED TO]
AZUKA VS. STATE OF U.T. [LAWS(P&H)-2020-3-212] [REFERRED TO]
IQBAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2005-10-67] [REFERRED TO]
BANSILAL S KABRA VS. GLOBAL TRADE FINANCE LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2010-7-140] [REFFERD TO]
ROOP KISHORE DARGAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-6-37] [REFERRED TO]
GANGU SURYABHAN JADHAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-4-111] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA K AMIN VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-243] [REFERRED TO]
THACHANALIL SHYJU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2023-2-85] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR GULATI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
UMMED PURI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-5-71] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH MUKUNDSINGH THAKUR AND ORS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
AMANULLA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-1-54] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL AWASTHI VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2011-11-153] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. AZAM KHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-7-63] [REFERRED TO]
SAHARATH V.P. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-10-165] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-197] [REFERRED TO]
NARNE ESTATES PVT. LTD. VS. NARNE GOPAL NAIDU [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-1-170] [REFERRED TO]
HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-11-205] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. SIRKAR & SONS VS. KUSHAL SAWANT [LAWS(BOM)-2013-11-49] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-6-29] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHEEN HUSSAIN KHAN VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2014-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP SUNIL KUMAR LOHARIYA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-8-421] [REFERRED TO]
DHEERAJ WADHAWAN VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(BOM)-2020-11-170] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-72] [REFERRED TO]
SAMEER SANDHIR VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
SAIDEVAN THAMPI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2013-10-90] [REFERRED TO]
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. M. SUBRAHMANYAM [LAWS(SC)-2019-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
LIJESH K. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-10-138] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH GANDHI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-12-218] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-327] [REFERRED TO]
SAHARATH V.P. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-4-89] [REFERRED TO]
SAMEDUR RAHMAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2020-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR NAYAK VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-5-122] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJARAM S O ASHROBA ASROBA KANGNE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY NARAYAN UTTEKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-2-29] [REFERRED TO [ 5 ,10 ]]
JUDGEBIR SINGH VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
SWARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-106] [REFERRED TO]
RAVDEEP KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2006-5-443] [REFERRED TO]
SHADULY, P.A. @ HARIS VS. STATE [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-59] [REFERRED TO]
P.A SHADULY @ HARIS VS. STATE [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-220] [REFERRED TO]
DR.M.SUDHEER VS. M.KAMARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2022-10-184] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV RAI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2016-1-109] [REFERRED TO]
S SHANKAR VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2006-12-136] [REFERRED TO]
NEELAM AGARWAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
R.N. PARIDHA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAFAEL PALAFOX GARCIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-9-77] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Shah, J. -
(1.)Short question is - whether prosecution can produce additional documents which are gathered during investigation, after submitting charge-sheet under S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(2.)The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) at Bombay by judgment and order dated 26th July, 2000, rejected Miscellaneous Application No. 338 of 2000 in Special Case No. 3 of 1997 filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for production of additional documents in a case where application for discharging the respondent was filed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the CBI has preferred this appeal.
(3.)The prosecution story in brief is that - during the period 2-4-1992 to 20-5-1992, the FIM Division, Mumbai of Syndicate Bank received funds aggregating to Rs. 132.23 crores for Portfolio Management from Oil Industries Development Board, New Delhi. It was alleged that R. Sundaresan, the then Divisional Manager of the Bank and other bank officials conspired during the above said period at Mumbai along with Directors and office-bearers of M/s. Fair Growth Investments Ltd. and M/s. Fair Growth Financial Services Ltd. and by dishonestly and fraudulently abusing their position as a public servant caused wrongful gain to private parties and corresponding loss to the Syndicate Bank. It is also alleged that an amount of Rs. 90.58 crores was invested for the purpose of shares/debentures from M/s. Fair Growth Financial Services Ltd. and others without specific authorization from the Head Office of the Bank and without adhering to the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the SEBI. On 2-6-1993, on the written complaint of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank, case No. RC 1 (BSC)/93-Mum. was registered under S. 120-B read with S. 420, I.P.C. and S. 13(2) read with S. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against B. Sundaresan, Divisional Manager of Syndicate Bank and K. R. N. Shenoy, Managing Director of M/s. Fair Growth Investments Ltd. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the CBI in the Special Court in Special Case No. 3/97 at Bombay against respondents Nos. 1 and 2. On 27-1-2000, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed discharge application bearing Misc. Application No. 51 of 2000 and Misc. Application No. 168 of 2000 before the Special Court. Pending hearing those applications, appellant sought production of additional documents, which were gathered during investigation but were not produced before the Court. That application was rejected. Hence, this appeal.
(2.)The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) at Bombay by judgment and order dated 26th July, 2000, rejected Miscellaneous Application No. 338 of 2000 in Special Case No. 3 of 1997 filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for production of additional documents in a case where application for discharging the respondent was filed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the CBI has preferred this appeal.
(3.)The prosecution story in brief is that - during the period 2-4-1992 to 20-5-1992, the FIM Division, Mumbai of Syndicate Bank received funds aggregating to Rs. 132.23 crores for Portfolio Management from Oil Industries Development Board, New Delhi. It was alleged that R. Sundaresan, the then Divisional Manager of the Bank and other bank officials conspired during the above said period at Mumbai along with Directors and office-bearers of M/s. Fair Growth Investments Ltd. and M/s. Fair Growth Financial Services Ltd. and by dishonestly and fraudulently abusing their position as a public servant caused wrongful gain to private parties and corresponding loss to the Syndicate Bank. It is also alleged that an amount of Rs. 90.58 crores was invested for the purpose of shares/debentures from M/s. Fair Growth Financial Services Ltd. and others without specific authorization from the Head Office of the Bank and without adhering to the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the SEBI. On 2-6-1993, on the written complaint of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank, case No. RC 1 (BSC)/93-Mum. was registered under S. 120-B read with S. 420, I.P.C. and S. 13(2) read with S. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against B. Sundaresan, Divisional Manager of Syndicate Bank and K. R. N. Shenoy, Managing Director of M/s. Fair Growth Investments Ltd. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the CBI in the Special Court in Special Case No. 3/97 at Bombay against respondents Nos. 1 and 2. On 27-1-2000, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed discharge application bearing Misc. Application No. 51 of 2000 and Misc. Application No. 168 of 2000 before the Special Court. Pending hearing those applications, appellant sought production of additional documents, which were gathered during investigation but were not produced before the Court. That application was rejected. Hence, this appeal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.