TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of claim was unintentional. It was further stated that the material particulars like the amount of claim, date of filing and name of the company was correctly mentioned. The mis-description did not materially influence/affect the decision of the investors/public - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1248 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2007 - S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ. Bishwajit Bhattacharyya, Sudarshan Rajan, Debashish Mukherjee and P. Narasimhan for the Appellant. P.P. Rao, Ms. Hemantika Wahi and Ms. Meera Mathur for the Respondent. JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. Leave granted. Respondent No. 2 is a former chairman-cum-managing director of Dena Bank. He is presently the chairman and managing director of Bank of Baroda, Mumbai. Respondents Nos. 3 to 11 are directors of Dena Bank. The appellant is a director of Nagumt Nicotine P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company). He had transaction with the said company. He had taken loan from Dena Bank. As loans were not paid, admittedly, an original application was filed against him before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, for recovery a sum of Rs. 120.13 lakhs from the company. The bank floated a publi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the acts of omission and commission on the part of the bank in causing loss of reputation of the appellant is evident on its face. Such an action on the part of the officers of the appellant's bank was wholly irresponsible. The jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a FIR in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is well-known. The court may not enter into determination of a disputed question of fact at that stage. It may, however, take note of the allegations made in the complaint petition vis-a-vis the conduct of the parties. It is not disputed that the bank had filed an original application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad. A civil suit was filed at Vadodara in the year 2003. In the prospectus issued, it was stated : "Sr. No. Suit details, date of filing Name of the party Branch Amount claimed ( Rs. in lakhs ) Nature of claim made against the bank 4 DRT, Ahmedabad 28-3-03 M/s. Nagami Nicotine P. Ltd A.R.B. Ahmedabad 993.74 The case is filed against the bank for non-submission of export bills and non-releasing of the sanct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d have taken corrective steps in time to include the fact which was omitted unintentionally. The public issue was closed on January 29, 2005 (Saturday), as mentioned in the prospectus. Draft prospectus of public issue was filed by the bank with the SEBI on December 3, 2004, and was kept on the website of the bank, SEBI and lead manager M/s. SBI Caps and a press note was released. Final prospectus of the issue was filed with the SEBI on January 10, 2005, and was kept on the website of the bank, SEBI and lead manager M/s. SBI Caps, and a press note was released. Statutory advertisement was published in the newspaper on January 12, 2005. The public issue opened on January 24, 2005, and closed on January 29, 2005. My client received your notice on January 27, 2005, but it was not readable and hence my client informed on fax to send the same again. However, the notice was not refaced and instead my client received the notice on January 28, 2005, by post. The fact that the notice was served belatedly, suggests that the intention of your client is to pressurize and put the bank into uncomfortable position. Thus, there is no bona fide intention on the part of your client except to ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter of the complaint and looking to this, if the police investigates the present complaint, more and better investigation is possible. Hence the present complaint is necessitated for the investigation by the police, therefore following order is given." The allegations contained in the complaint petition, as noticed by the learned magistrate, may give rise to tortuous liability on the part of Dena Bank. The principal allegations were made against the bank. Who had acted on behalf of the bank was not disclosed. The acts of omission and commission on the part of the bank, if any, by withholding export bills of the bank may give rise to a statutory violation on its part but the respondents were not personally liable therefor. In Saroj Kumar Poddar v. State ( NCT of Delhi ) [2007] 2 Scale 36 ([2007] 137 Comp. Cas. 837,842 (SC)) this court held : "Apart from the company and the appellant, as noticed hereinbefore, the managing director and all other directors were also made accused. The appellant did not issue any cheque. He, as noticed hereinbefore, had resigned from the directorship of the company. It may be true that as to exactly on what date the said resignation was ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r recovery of the huge amount is either denied nor disputed. Whether such a suit was maintainable and/or is ultimately to be decreed or disposed of is a question which had to be gone into in the suit itself. A criminal court cannot even take that factor into consideration. The High Court considered the matter at some great detail. Having analysed the materials placed before it, it was held : "... It was, therefore, stated that there was no suppression or concealment of any facts and it did not amount to criminal breach of trust and cheating on the part of the bank as alleged by the complainant. The said export bills under L/C were negotiated by the bank under the provisions of UCPDC 500 1995 Revision. The bank has also informed vide its letter dated February 8, 2005, to M/s. SBI Capital Markets Ltd. It was stated therein that the bank has not concealed or suppressed any material fact against the interest of the public at large and investors in particular. The bona fide mis-description in setting out the nature of claim was unintentional. It was further stated that the material particulars like the amount of claim, date of filing and name of the company was correctly mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
