CBI, ACB, MUMBAI Vs. NARENDRA LAL JAIN
LAWS(SC)-2014-2-69
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
February 28,2014
Cbi, Acb, Mumbai
Appellant
VERSUS
Narendra Lal Jain
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
B.S.JOSHI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SPE SIU X NEW DELHI VS. DUNCANS AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD [REFERRED TO]
NIKHIL MERCHANT VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
M/S. MEVIDA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE BY CBI [LAWS(KAR)-2014-10-19] [REFERRED TO]MANISH BANSAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2014-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY PRASAD KHAITAN VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-9-92] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. HARI SINGH RANKA [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-133] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. R. VASANTHI STANLEY AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-9-48] [REFERRED TO]
DHYAN INVESTMENTS & TRADING COMPANY LTD VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(BOM)-2023-8-551] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH MUKHYAN VS. CBI [LAWS(HPH)-2024-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
VENKITA SUBBU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2017-12-64] [REFERRED TO]
UMED KRUPASHANKER JOSHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-4-2582] [REFERRED TO]
S HARSHAVARDHAN REDDY VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-126] [REFERRED]
RAMALAKSHMI VS. THE STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-84] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. VIKRAM ANANTRAI DOSHI [LAWS(SC)-2014-9-62] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAKUMAR B. NAIR VS. C.B.I. [LAWS(SC)-2014-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
N.S. BAPNA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-1-222] [REFERRED TO]
ANJU PARESHBHAI HORA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-9-66] [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER SINGH LOGANI VS. STATE (CBI) [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-536] [REFERRED]
DILAR SINGH AND ORS VS. STATE OF J & K AND ORS [LAWS(J&K)-2016-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
SUBINAY DUTTA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(CAL)-2016-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
ABUBAKKAR SIDDIQUE @ DHANTI ALI VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANTHER [LAWS(GAU)-2017-11-126] [REFERRED TO]
VASUMATHI MARIMUTHU VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-68] [REFERRED TO]
SYNDICATE BANK VS. SHIVA A AMIN [LAWS(KAR)-2014-10-208] [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM ALLOYS LIMITED VS. DELHI SPECIAL ESTABLISHMENT BY CBI [LAWS(KAR)-2018-4-345] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTINGATION VS. COODLI RAVIKUMAR [LAWS(BOM)-2016-11-101] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAL CHAND MOTILAL KOTHARI PVT. LTD. VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(GAU)-2014-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
INDUKURI PRASADA RAMA MOHANA RAJU VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(APH)-2019-3-134] [REFERRED TO]
KALUBHA JASHUBHA RANA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
M. RAMA REDDY VS. STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(KAR)-2021-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
E CHANNAVEERAPPA S/O VS. LAGE SIDDAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-3-187] [REFERRED TO]
N.S. BAPNA VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(PAT)-2015-5-190] [REFERRED TO]
P K AGARWAL AND OTHERS VS. B R R RAO AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-298] [REFERRED]
GOPAL KRISHNA DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2017-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellant, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) ACB, Mumbai seeks to challenge an order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the High Court of Bombay quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondents Narendra Lal Jain, Jayantilal L. Shah and Ramanlal Lalchand Jain. The aforesaid respondents had moved the High Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") challenging the orders passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to discharge them and also questioning the continuance of the criminal proceedings registered against them. Of the three accused, Jayantilal L. Shah, the court is informed, has died during the pendency of the present appeal truncating the scope thereof to an adjudication of the correctness of the decision of the High Court in so far as accused Narendra Lal Jain and Ramanlal Lalchand Jain are concerned.
(3.)On the basis of two FIRs dated 22.03.1993, R.C. No. 21(A) of 1993 and R.C. No.22 (A) of 1993 were registered against the accused-respondents and several officers of the Bank of Maharashtra. The offences alleged were duly investigated and separate chargesheets in the two cases were filed on the basis whereof Special Case No. 15 of 1995 and Special Case No. 20 of 1995 were registered in the Court of the Special Judge, Mumbai. In the chargesheet filed, offences under Sections 120-B/420 IPC and Sections 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "PC Act") were alleged against the accused persons. In so far as the present accused-respondents are concerned the gravamen of the charge is that they had conspired with the bank officials and had projected inflated figures of the creditworthiness of the companies represented by them and in this manner had secured more advances/loans from the bank than they were entitled to.
(2.)The appellant, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) ACB, Mumbai seeks to challenge an order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the High Court of Bombay quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondents Narendra Lal Jain, Jayantilal L. Shah and Ramanlal Lalchand Jain. The aforesaid respondents had moved the High Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") challenging the orders passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to discharge them and also questioning the continuance of the criminal proceedings registered against them. Of the three accused, Jayantilal L. Shah, the court is informed, has died during the pendency of the present appeal truncating the scope thereof to an adjudication of the correctness of the decision of the High Court in so far as accused Narendra Lal Jain and Ramanlal Lalchand Jain are concerned.
(3.)On the basis of two FIRs dated 22.03.1993, R.C. No. 21(A) of 1993 and R.C. No.22 (A) of 1993 were registered against the accused-respondents and several officers of the Bank of Maharashtra. The offences alleged were duly investigated and separate chargesheets in the two cases were filed on the basis whereof Special Case No. 15 of 1995 and Special Case No. 20 of 1995 were registered in the Court of the Special Judge, Mumbai. In the chargesheet filed, offences under Sections 120-B/420 IPC and Sections 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "PC Act") were alleged against the accused persons. In so far as the present accused-respondents are concerned the gravamen of the charge is that they had conspired with the bank officials and had projected inflated figures of the creditworthiness of the companies represented by them and in this manner had secured more advances/loans from the bank than they were entitled to.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.