New Delhi [India], Delhi's Rouse Avenue court has acquitted nine accused, including a company and four bank officials, in a corruption case, citing the "casual" manner of investigation by the agency, nine years after the trial began. .
This case pertains to alleged fraud of Rs 4.8 crore with Canara Bank. The case was registered in 2011 and the trial began in 2015.
Special judge Hasan Anzar acquitted Harpreet Fashion Pvt Ltd. Ltd., Mohanjit Singh Mutneja, Gunjit Singh Mutneja, Harpreet Kaur Mutneja, Harmendra Singh, Raman Kumar Agarwal, Darwan Singh Mehta, TG Purshottam and CT Ramkumar. Four of the accused were bank employees.The court, in its judgment passed on June 3, said the prosecution failed to bring out allegations against the public servants and also failed to establish that there was any conspiracy between the public servants and the private accused persons or between the private accused persons. ,
The court said in the judgment that the prosecution had failed to prove that Harpreet Fashion, Mohanjit Singh Mutneja and Harpreet Kaur Mutneja had committed any offense of fraud by conspiring with Gunjeet Singh Mutneja and Harmendra Singh.
It was alleged by the CBI that four separate criminal conspiracies were hatched by the accused persons from 2003 to 2007 to defraud the bank.
The CBI alleged that the funds were sent through 47 separate checks to five associate companies of Harpreet Fashion, which were given loans by the bank.
"The mere issue of a check by an accused to his sister concern will not make much difference unless the prosecution shows the misappropriation of funds by strong evidence and the charge of misappropriation of funds can be sustained only when Such amount is not ultimately utilised."has been appropriated by Sister Concern or in any other way," the decision read.
Special Judge Hasan Anzar said the prosecution had also not examined or analyzed the companies' bank accounts, statements of accounts, balance sheets and related income tax returns to establish whether there was any activity as per the payments made by Harpreet Fashion. Was done. ,
The court said that the prosecution has also failed to properly analyze the details of accounts of all the associate companies of Harpreet Fashion and the activities including manufacturing activities being carried out by Harpreet Fashion.
The court said, “The prosecution has raised certain checks on the basis of which it has alleged that funds were misappropriated.,
The court also said that none of the employees of the associate companies were interrogated by the agency and none of the prosecution witnesses even "whispered" about the transfer of money from Harpreet Fashion to the associate companies.
It was also observed by the Court that the CBI "did not conduct any investigation" with respect to the final balance sheet of the company, which would have "shown a clear picture". It also expressed displeasure over the "weak explanation" that the bank did not provide proper documents.
It said Harpreet Fashions came into existence only in March 2004, raising questions about the prosecution's allegation that a conspiracy was hatched from 2003 to 2007.
"A perusal of the record reveals that despite the poor financial condition of Harpreet Fashion, it was the Circle Office and the Head Office which granted the limit to Harpreet Fashion and in fact the renewal proposal for the credit facility was proposed by the Circle Office and Yet to strengthen its case, the prosecution has presented the case in such a manner that it was the branch which made the proposal to the circle office,'' the court said.The Delhi Court held that the investigating agency did not properly appreciate the role of the circle office and head office and went after the Parliament Street branch.
This case pertains to alleged fraud of Rs 4.8 crore with Canara Bank. The case was registered in 2011 and the trial began in 2015.
Special judge Hasan Anzar acquitted Harpreet Fashion Pvt Ltd. Ltd., Mohanjit Singh Mutneja, Gunjit Singh Mutneja, Harpreet Kaur Mutneja, Harmendra Singh, Raman Kumar Agarwal, Darwan Singh Mehta, TG Purshottam and CT Ramkumar. Four of the accused were bank employees.The court, in its judgment passed on June 3, said the prosecution failed to bring out allegations against the public servants and also failed to establish that there was any conspiracy between the public servants and the private accused persons or between the private accused persons. ,
The court said in the judgment that the prosecution had failed to prove that Harpreet Fashion, Mohanjit Singh Mutneja and Harpreet Kaur Mutneja had committed any offense of fraud by conspiring with Gunjeet Singh Mutneja and Harmendra Singh.
It was alleged by the CBI that four separate criminal conspiracies were hatched by the accused persons from 2003 to 2007 to defraud the bank.
The CBI alleged that the funds were sent through 47 separate checks to five associate companies of Harpreet Fashion, which were given loans by the bank.
"The mere issue of a check by an accused to his sister concern will not make much difference unless the prosecution shows the misappropriation of funds by strong evidence and the charge of misappropriation of funds can be sustained only when Such amount is not ultimately utilised."has been appropriated by Sister Concern or in any other way," the decision read.
Special Judge Hasan Anzar said the prosecution had also not examined or analyzed the companies' bank accounts, statements of accounts, balance sheets and related income tax returns to establish whether there was any activity as per the payments made by Harpreet Fashion. Was done. ,
The court said that the prosecution has also failed to properly analyze the details of accounts of all the associate companies of Harpreet Fashion and the activities including manufacturing activities being carried out by Harpreet Fashion.
The court said, “The prosecution has raised certain checks on the basis of which it has alleged that funds were misappropriated.,
The court also said that none of the employees of the associate companies were interrogated by the agency and none of the prosecution witnesses even "whispered" about the transfer of money from Harpreet Fashion to the associate companies.
It was also observed by the Court that the CBI "did not conduct any investigation" with respect to the final balance sheet of the company, which would have "shown a clear picture". It also expressed displeasure over the "weak explanation" that the bank did not provide proper documents.
It said Harpreet Fashions came into existence only in March 2004, raising questions about the prosecution's allegation that a conspiracy was hatched from 2003 to 2007.
"A perusal of the record reveals that despite the poor financial condition of Harpreet Fashion, it was the Circle Office and the Head Office which granted the limit to Harpreet Fashion and in fact the renewal proposal for the credit facility was proposed by the Circle Office and Yet to strengthen its case, the prosecution has presented the case in such a manner that it was the branch which made the proposal to the circle office,'' the court said.The Delhi Court held that the investigating agency did not properly appreciate the role of the circle office and head office and went after the Parliament Street branch.
