S G SHAH, J. - (1.)RULE . Learned advocate Mr.R.C.Kodekar waives service of rule forrespondent no.2 CBI and learned APP Ms.Jhaveri waive service of rule for respondent no.1 State.
(2.)PERUSED the record. The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 25.9.2014 by Special CBI Judge, CBI Court no.3, Special CBI Courts, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in CBI Criminal Misc.Application no.280 of 2013 in Special Case no.36 of 2009 (RC no.13/A/06). By such impugned judgment, the CBI Court has rejected the application by the present petitioner whereby petitioner has prayed for necessary direction to the CBI, being the investigating agency to handover all the original documents of the property in question, which is purchased by the petitioner in an auction carried out by Corporation Bank. At present, the dispute is regarding right over such documents and not the property itself and, therefore, the details of property and sale transaction are not much material, since it is an admitted fact that pursuant to recovery proceeding by the Corporation Bank, the bank has attached the property in question and sold it by way of auction, where the present petitioner has purchased it against consideration. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that he is bonafide purchaser for value of the suit property and, hence, he is not concerned in any manner whatsoever in the commission of crime, which is investigated by the CBI and chargesheet filed against original accused. It is also not disputed that property has been attached pursuant to investigation initiated with reference to FIR no.RC 13(A)/2006 dated 30.6.2006, which is registered for commission of an offence u/s.13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC. So far as the present petitioner and his prayer for documents are concerned, the factual details of the FIR and thereby commission of offence are also not much material except to record that complaint was filed by the Corporation Bank contending that the accused have committed fraud in obtaining loan from the bank and some officers of the bank are also involved in committing such fraud with the bank and, therefore, bank has attached the property in accordance with law, and to recover their debts because of disbursement of loan in favour of the accused, ultimately sold the same by an auction, where the petitioner has purchased it.
(3.)IT is also not disputed that the sum and substance of the complaint and the evidence to prove the contention of such complaint are related to all those documents by which accused have created right of multiple persons on the same property and managed to obtain loan more than once against the same property. Therefore, whatever offence has been committed, is practically committed with such documents by preparing them and using them for getting loan by such documents from the bank for more than once though the property is one and the same. Thereby, practically, property was mortgaged more than once by use of such documents and, therefore, prima facie, it can be said that those documents are forged documents, though the contents and executor of documents are certain and there may not be allegation regarding false signature.
Therefore, the only issue remains to be considered at this stage is that whether such documents, which are basic and prima facie first evidence to prove the offence under trial, can be handed over to the present petitioner only because he is bonafide purchaser of property for value through auction proceedings and only because he came with a story that he may require to pass on such documents to the proposed purchaser of the property as and when he wants to sell it.