Rs 18.10 cr Bank of India fraud case
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Dec 1: The court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by two chartered accountants and declined to interfere with the order framing charges against them in an alleged Rs 18.10 crore Bank of India fraud case, observing that public money had been defrauded and that the accused appeared to be part of the conspiracy.
Principal Sessions Judge R N Watal was hearing petition filed by Raj Kumar Gupta (57) and Rahul Shukla (44), who had challenged the order dated 29th January 2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Jammu, framing charges under Section 120-B read with Section 420 RPC against them and other co-accused. The revision arose out of FIR No. 7-A/2019 registered by the CBI, ACB, Jammu.
The petitioners, arraigned as accused, contended that they were professional chartered accountants with no role in sanctioning or availing of the loan/credit facilities, were not beneficiaries of the funds, and were in no way involved in any diversion of loan amounts. It was argued that even if any element of cheating or conspiracy existed, it could at best be between bank officials and the principal loanees, not the petitioners.
The revision petitioners were represented by Advocate Surekha Bhat (Kaw) while the CBI, ACB Jammu and the Investigating Officer were represented by the Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.
Noting that the CJM’s order was passed on 29.01.2024 and that the revision petition was filed on 08.06.2024, the Principal Sessions Judge held that the petition was beyond the 90-day limitation period prescribed for criminal revisions under Article 131 of the Limitation Act. The petition should have been filed on or before 29.04.2024, but was instituted after a delay of 34 days, the court recorded.
While reiterating that substantial justice should not be sacrificed at the altar of technicalities, the court held that delay cannot be condoned merely on the asking when no sufficient cause is demonstrated. The conduct of the revisionists was described as “casual” in pursuing the remedy against the impugned order, leading the court to hold the revision as time-barred.
On the merits, the Sessions Court recounted the prosecution case that M/s I D Sood Ispat Pvt Ltd and its directors/guarantors allegedly cheated Bank of India by availing and misusing various credit facilities, diverting funds, and willfully defaulting in repayment, resulting in the account being declared NPA on 31.03.2015 with an outstanding exposure of Rs 18.10 crore. A forensic audit allegedly revealed serious irregularities, including heavy cash withdrawals of Rs 5 lakh and above totaling about Rs 118.80 lakh, and substantial fund transfers from M/s I D Sood Ispat Pvt Ltd to allied concerns such as M/s Jhelum Industries.
The investigation concluded that the bank suffered a wrongful loss of Rs 9,91,89,344.17, on the basis of which offences under Section 120-B read with 420 RPC were registered and a chargesheet was laid before the trial court.
Upholding the CJM’s order, the Principal Sessions Judge noted that there was prima facie sufficient material, both oral and documentary, including a CFSL report, to connect the accused persons with the alleged conspiracy and cheating. The court observed that the liability of the petitioners in the fraud committed upon the bank “seems to be co-extensive with that of the other co-accused,” and described them as “particeps criminis in defrauding/cheating the bank”, emphasizing that the amount involved was public money.
Finding no illegality or infirmity in the order framing charges, the Sessions Court refused to interfere in revisional jurisdiction. Concluding that the “impugned order stands,” the court dismissed the revision petition.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
