Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2009 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (8) TMI 693 - SC - Companies LawWhether the property of the bank was dishonestly used or disposed of in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode therefor? Held that:- Legally the Bank would have been concerned only with M/s. J.H. Mehta. But the letter of Growmore signed by accused No. 4 clearly indicates his involvement in the Criminal conspiracy. So far as accused No. 5 is concerned, it is he who had signed the Bill of Exchange as the Power of Attorney of the proprietors of M/s. J.H. Mehta. It is he who had signed the forms for opening the account with the Nariman Point Branch of UCO Bank. He had signed the letter dated 23-3-1992 requesting the Bank to discount the two Bills of Exchange. The relationship between the parties both personal and professional clearly establishes criminal conspiracy on the part of accused No. 5. We therefore affirm the decision of the Special Judge finding accused No. 5 guilty of the offence of Criminal Conspiracy. As already mentioned accused Nos. 6, 7 and 9 have not preferred appeals before us challenging their conviction. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction arrived at by the learned Special Judge with respect to the said accused. We however disagree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Special Judge with regard to the guilt of accused No. 8 for the offence of Criminal Conspiracy. The mere fact that he might have been present at the meeting dated 14-3-1992 of the officers of UCO Bank by itself does not in our opinion conclusively prove his involvement in the conspiracy hatched by the other officers of the Bank. Something more was needed to be shown that he was a party thereto. In conclusion we hold accused No. 1 (K. Margabanthu), accused No. 2 (Ramaiya Venkatakrishnan), accused No. 4 (Ashwin Mehta) and accused No. 5 (Sudhir Mehta) guilty of the offence of Criminal Conspiracy. We need not interfere with the conviction of accused Nos. 6, 7 and 9, accused No 8 (S.V. Ramanathan) is acquitted of the charge of Criminal Conspiracy.
|