A 3 then filed Criminal Revision No.
Registrar S is directed to send case papers of Spl.
Accordingly, the examination in chief of 8 prosecution witnesses was recorded on different days.
18 is allowed.
Therefore, the case is required to be sent to Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for trial as per the law.
Consequently, accused persons failed to repay the funds of the bank, thereby the bank was cheated to the tune of Rs.20.64 crores.
CBI, however, filed objection to the above application before the Special Judge on 20.5.2004.
1395/2004 seeking stay of further proceedings before the trial Court, till charges are amended.
The charge is number framed.
9 and 10, the employees of the Bank of Maharashtra, entered into a criminal companyspiracy with an intent to cheat the bank, with the appellant accused number 2 and accused Nos.
The accused Nos.
The said offences are triable by the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
A 2, on 12.7.2005, filed Criminal Revision No.
The High Court, on 14.5.2004, directed the trial Court to dispose of the application filed by A 2 for modification, amendment or alteration of charges on account of death of A 1 and further directed if the Court feels it necessary, it may add, alter or amend the charges and proceed in accordance with law.
3 and 5, who were working as the Managing Director, General Manager of M s Orson Electronics Limited respectively.
161 of 2011 has been preferred by A 2.
Meanwhile, on 20.6.2003, the sole public servant A 1 died.
389/2009 before the Bombay High Court.
Application Exh.
On 28.4.2004, A 2 filed an application before the Special Judge for dropping the charges in view of the death of A 1, the sole public servant.
CBI companypleted the investigation and the charge sheet was filed on 14.9.2001 against the accused persons for offences punishable inter alia under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 b of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, companyresponding to Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of the PC Act, in the Court of Special Judge, Mumbai.
The High Court, on 1.8.2003, directed the trial Court to record only the examination in chief of the witnesses.
The CBI, New Delhi registered a case No.
On 12.5.2004, A 2 filed an application before the High Court as Criminal M.C. No.
Application Exh.18 stands disposed of.
All the accused persons pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for CBI in Criminal Appeal No.
With this, I pass the following order ORDER Misc.
It was also alleged in the FIR that those funds were number utilized for the purpose for which the same were obtained from the bank and were siphoned off through M s Orson Electronics Limited and other fictitious firms.
535 of 2005 before the High Court for calling of the case pending before the Special Judge, so as to companysider the propriety of number passing any order on the application for dropping the charges, despite the directions issued by the High Court.
Sd 5.2.09 P. Tavade Special Judge for CBI Cases Greater Mumbai.
It was also alleged in the FIR that A 1 had abused his position as public servant and granted favour to A 2 to A 8 and thereby caused wrongful losses to the bank.
The High Court took the view that the jurisdiction companyferred on the Special Judge is number divested on the death of an accused.
Aggrieved by the same, Criminal Appeal No.
Consequently, the order passed by the Special Judge was set aside and the Special Judge, CBI, Bombay was directed to companytinue with the trial of the case.
CBI, aggrieved by the said order, preferred Criminal Revision Application No.
RCSIG 2000/E0001 on 16.5.2000 against one P. K. Samal A 1 , Chief Manager SBI, Jaipur Road, J. K. Singh A 2 , Director M s Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. MISL , New Delhi, Rita Singh A 3 , Director M s MISL, Deepak Singh A 4 and Proprietor Kesoram Refractory, New Delhi, under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 471 IPC and Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of the PC Act and substantive offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of the PC Act alleging that A 1, during 1996 97, was a party to a criminal companyspiracy with A 2, A 3, A 4 and others with the object of cheating IDBI, Mumbai and in pursuance thereof, A 1 abused his official position to cause undue pecuniary advantage to the accused persons A 2 and A 3 and companyresponding loss to IDBI, to the tune of Rs.3,52,63,550/ by negotiating forged fictitious invoices purportedly of M s. Kesoram Refractories, a B.K. Birla Group Company, Calcutta, against Cs opened by SBI, Jaipur Road.
Case No.88 of 2001 to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for trial of accused according to law within period of four weeks from the date of this order.
CBI, after companypleting the investigation, filed charge sheet on 1.11.2001 before the Special Judge, New Delhi and the Special Judge, on 25.3.2003, after hearing the prosecution as well as the defence companynsel, framed charges against the accused persons under Section 120B read with Sections 467, 471 and 420 IPC and also under Sections 13 1 d and 13 2 of the PC Act and substantive offences against the accused persons under Sections 420, 467, 471 IPC and also substantive offences under Sections 13 1 d and 13 2 of the PC Act against A 1.
550 of 2003 before the High Court of Delhi on 22.7.2003 challenging the order framing the charges against him.
The Special Judge, later, posted the case for prosecution evidence on 10.4.2003 and, on that day, two witnesses were present, but the case was adjourned.
It was also alleged in the FIR that, during 1986 88, A 2 and other accused persons entered into a criminal companyspiracy with the officers of the Bank of Maharashtra and, in pursuance to the criminal companyspiracy, obtained huge credit facilities to the tune of Rs.20 crore in favour of M s Orson Electronics Limited and M s Nihon Electronics Limited, of which A 2 was the Managing Director Director, knowing very well that both the companypanies were having very low capital and were new.
