336 of 2005 which was listed before this Court on 11th November, 2014 when the following order was passed Criminal Appeal No.
Another link exhibiting the wrong intentions of the accused is that the Bank Receipt Ext.
2 hatched a criminal companyspiracy with the infamous share stock broker of Bombay of those times, Harshad S. Mehta accused No.
Highlighting the crucial link of the companyspiracy among the accused in misusing the funds of UCO Bank to the tune of Rs.20 crores, learned senior companynsel submitted that on 1st July, 1991 accused No.
To prove the chain of companyspiracy, learned senior companynsel took us through Ext.
1 2 cannot be treated as a simple mistake companysidering the companysequential events.
032 on 25th October, 1991 Ext.
The Bankers cheque dated 1st July, 1991 Ext.
240 were transferred to the State Bank of Saurashtra from UCO Banks SGL Account No.
288 to the Head Office informing execution of the transaction, that too companycealing the truth.
300 signed by the appellant accused in his position as Assistant Accountant and the companyaccused number a party in the present appeal requesting the RBI to make entry in SGL Account No.
Accordingly, an FIR was registered on 30th December, 1993 against the accused invoking Sections 120B read with Section 409, 420, 468, 471, 477 A, IPC and Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of the P.C. Act, 1988 and the case was companymitted to the Special Court.
The companymunication dated 13th April, 1991 Ext.
On 5th April, 1991 UCO Bank re purchased the earlier sold GOI 11.5 2009 Securities from Indian Bank and sold GOI 11.5 2006 Securities purchased earlier to Indian Bank.
For making transactions in these Securities, Banks and financial institutions have to open the SGL account with the Public Debt Office of the Reserve Bank of India.
The background of the case as unfolded by the prosecution is that at the relevant time, UCO Bank had two Subsidiary General Ledger SGL accounts with the RBI.
300 sent by the accused Nos.
In this way, the accused, in companynivance with each other tried to companyer up the UCO Bank Head Office Account.
3 Harshad Mehta .
The whole issue revolves around the fact whether the accused has got a role to play in the switch transactions account and whether he was discharging the duties as a prudent man and is it a bona fide mistake as he claims it to be.
Whereas, due to a companymunication dated 13th April, 1991 Ext.
The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that during the year 1991, the appellant accused No.1 while he was working as Assistant Manager in the Securities Department of UCO Bank, Hamam Street Branch, Mumbai in companynivance with a companyleague of the Bank accused No.
3 Harshad Mehta on 21st October, 1991 to State Bank of Saurashtra another account belonging to Harshad Mehta and on the same day they were again transferred from State Bank of Saurashtra to UCO Bank SGL Account No.
3 with the object of cheating the UCO Bank by causing wrongful loss to the Bank and effecting illegal gain to the accused No.
The Telex messages dated 23.3.1991 Ext.
Despite this second Telex message from the Head Office, the accused did number respond to inform the Head Office immediately and it is only on 11th April, 1991 the accused sent a Telex message Ext.
299 dated 5th April, 1991 issued by Indian Bank was discharged by the appellant on 12th April, 1991 in favour of the UCO Bank Head Office by signing on the reverse of it.
On 5th April, 1991 both the above transactions were reversed.
It is informed at Bar by the learned companynsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
032 i.e. UCO Banks own account.
As far as the entry in the books of RBI was companycerned, it was made in a particular account according to the instructions given by UCO Bank for every transaction, as both the accounts stood in the name of UCO Bank.
3 Harshad Mehta .
When these misdeeds came to light, the accused took steps and made efforts to companyer up the transactions.
On 21st February, 2005 while admitting the appeal, this Court granted interim relief to the appellant by suspending sentence of imprisonment during pendency of the appeal before this Court.
It appears from the record and on a thorough examination of the events that took place between April 1991 and October 1991, we understand that on 22nd March, 1991 on which date UCO Banks 11.5 2009 securities with face value of Rs.
When the Bank itself purchased sold a Government Security, the respective entry was to be made in account No.
On the same day, UCO Bank purchased Securities namely, Government of India 11.5 2006, worth Rs.20 crores from Indian Bank Ext.
1, who passed the Debit Credit vouchers pertaining to the transaction Exts.
250 from its SGL account No.
335/2005.
The special judge, however, let the accused appellant to be on bail for a period of 12 weeks to enable him to approach the appellate Court.
678 received from State Bank of Hyderabad against those securities, in favour of UCO Bank for an amount of Rs.5,07,195,62.22 including interest was credited in the account of accused No.
Accordingly, Securities worth Rs.5 crores Ext.
In other words, UCO Bank reversed the earlier transactions.
065 Ext.
On 22nd March, 1991 UCO Bank sold Securities namely, Government of India 11.5 2009, worth Rs.20 crores to Indian Bank Ext.
032 and if the Security was purchased sold by a broker client of the UCO Bank, the entry was to be made in SGL account No.
413 requesting to issue GOI 11.5 2009 Securities worth Rs.15 crores to State Bank of Saurashtra and State Bank of Hyderabad, though these Securities in fact did number belong to him.
Similarly, on the same day i.e. 1st July, 1991 Securities worth Rs.10 crores Ext.
336/2005 died during the pendency of the appeal.
065 was maintained for the transactions done by companystituents brokers.
282 without any instructions from the UCO Bank Head Office.
065, without any instruction from the UCO Bank.
The SGL information companycerning the securities re purchased by the UCO Bank on 5th April, 1991was received on 12th April, 1991.
413 , which actually did number belong to him, and thereby wrongfully gained and the UCO Bank suffered the loss.
287 , which transaction was admittedly being carried by the accused, the Head Office issued another Telex message dated 6th April, 1991 Ext.
The appellant was arrested on 12th May, 1997.
466 inquiring about the transaction.
235 were transferred to the State Bank of Hyderabad from UCO Bank SGL Account No.
2 had also preferred an appeal before this Court against judgment of the Special Judge being Criminal Appeal No.
Out of the two SGL accounts owned by the UCO Bank, one account with the number 032 was meant for the Banks Head Offices own transactions and the other SGL account No.
335/2005 that Makrand Vasant Shidhaye appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
The SGL is a type of Securities Account floated by the Central Government.
20 crores were sold to Indian Bank, UCO Bank has purchased similar value of securities from Indian Bank viz.,
It is alleged that for achieving the object of companyspiracy, the appellant despite being a public servant, companymitted criminal breach of trust and misappropriated the funds of Bank by manipulating the accounts to facilitate unlawful gains to Harshad S. Mehta accused No.
272 and then to UCO Bank SGL Account No.
287 and 6.4.1991 Ext.
3 wrote a letter to the UCO Bank Ext.
065, without any instruction from UCO Bank.
032 of the UCO Bank.
295, 296 297 .
When the UCO Bank Head Office was number informed about the development of the switch transaction with reference to their Telex message dated 23rd March, 1991 Ext.
Since there used to be a number of transactions by the clients brokers and the re purchased SGL information was received after a gap of about one week, a clerical and bona fide mistake was companymitted by the appellant accused in getting the securities credited into the SGL account No.
UCO Bank has two such SGL accounts with the Reserve Bank of India.
277 which shows that Securities worth Rs.17 crores were transferred from State Bank of India from the account belonging to accused No.
3 are number parties in the present appeal.
336 of 2005 This appeal is listed against the companymon impugned judgment along with Criminal Appeal No.
With the effect of repurchase of Securities by the UCO Bank, RBI should have made the entry crediting the worth of those securities in SGL Account No.
11.5 2006 GOI Securities for its SGL Account No.
V. RAMANA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3rd December, 2004 of the Special Court Trial of offences relating to transactions in Securities at Bombay in Special Case No.
3 of 1995 whereby the Special Judge companyvicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences under Sections 409/120B, 403, 477 A/109, IPC and Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
