news details |
|
|
| HC upholds charges in Rs 50-lakh bank fraud case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Sept 30: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the framing of charges against Ashok Singh Manhas in a CBI case involving alleged cheating, forgery and use of fabricated revenue documents to secure bank finance, while directing the trial court to proceed with the case after a stay of nearly 13 years.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed the challenge to the order dated September 4, 2013 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI Cases), Jammu, whereby Manhas was charged under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 RPC and provisions of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act.
The petitioner had sought quashing of CBI FIR No. RC0042011A0003, the consequential charge-sheet and the order framing charges, contending that the allegations did not disclose the offences alleged against him. He had also questioned the validity and jurisdiction of the CBI.
According to the prosecution case, Manhas and co-accused Uttam Chand were partners in M/s Shiva Overseas and had applied for a cash-credit facility by offering land measuring four kanals and five marlas at Chak Changerwan as collateral security. The CBI alleged that the land did not exclusively belong to Manhas and that fabricated revenue records were used to support the loan proposal.
The loan proposal for a Rs 35 lakh cash-credit limit was sanctioned, following which an additional overdraft of Rs 10 lakh was also allowed. The accounts later turned NPA with an outstanding amount of Rs 50,31,214, which the prosecution alleged caused corresponding loss to the bank.
The investigation further alleged that revenue documents portrayed Manhas as the exclusive owner of the property, whereas he was only a co-sharer. The CBI also alleged that a plot under Survey No. 14, owned by another person, was shown as Manhas' property falling under Survey No. 90-min for valuation and collateral purposes.
Rejecting the plea that no offence of forgery was made out, the High Court observed that forgery does not necessarily require forging another person's signature and that even signing one's own name can, in certain circumstances, amount to making a false document.
The Court further held that the allegation of misrepresenting property under Survey No. 14 as property under Survey No. 90-min prima facie disclosed the offence of cheating and that it could not be said at this stage that no offence was made out against the petitioner.
On the challenge concerning the constitution of the CBI, the High Court noted that the relevant Gauhati High Court judgment presently stands stayed by the Supreme Court and left the issue subject to the final outcome before the Apex Court.
The High Court consequently directed the trial court to proceed with the trial and observed that, since proceedings had remained stayed for nearly 13 years, no unnecessary adjournments should be granted.
(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
