In this case, the Court considered the petitioner liable for the offences under Section 120B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. As a result, the Court denied the anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The co-accused, Pravin Kumar Singh acquired a loan from SBI. Subsequently, the petitioner’s company allegedly facilitated the fraud. Therefore, the respondents accused the petitioner of committing the act of fraud with the help of others.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the co-accused had taken out the loan of Rs 3.74 crores from the State Bank of India for the purchase of fifteen tankers. The tankers were to be of Eicher brand and the dealers of the same were Pavan Automotives. The petitioner was one of three directors and had no direct role in the functioning. A separate individual was in-charge of the workings of Pavan Automotives. The dealership was in the name of another partner, Ranjan Kumar. He carried out all the transactions, and resultantly, the petitioner did not play any role in the transactions.
The dealer supplied 14 out of 15 vehicles to Pravin Kumar Singh. Moreover, he returned two vehicles as there was a need for only 10-wheeled vehicles. Later, the dealer sold the returned vehicles to different people. They adjusted the money that they received by way of supply of other transports.
The counsel said that the amount given to Pavan Automotives was adjusted by the supply of 16 vehicles to Pravin Singh. The counsel contended that the allegation of Rs 14.80 lakhs given to the petitioner is incorrect. This is for the reason of Ranjan Kumar’s association as a partner in his flour mill after the other partner left.
The counsel said that the petitioner was, in fact, a direct party to all the transactions and had an active role. They had only delivered 12 vehicles even though they received money for 15. The arrangement made between Pavan Automotive and Pravin Singh was not known to SBI. However, since there is no authorisation for the same, it is fraudulent.
The counsel admits that Pavan Automotives only gave 12 vehicles to Pravin Singh. But even if the petitioner says that they had given 4 more vehicles later, the activity is still illegal. State Bank of India had provided a loan for only 15 vehicles and not 16 vehicles. They charged the agency and gave a part of the money to the builder. Moreover, he transferred more than Rs. 70,00,000/- in favour of Pawan Automotives. Out of this amount, Rs. 14.80 lakhs belonged to the account of Pawan Automotives, operated by the petitioner.
A part of the amount was also transferred to Divine Infra, owned by the brother of the petitioner. Even though the arrangement was between SBI and Pravin Singh, the petitioner cannot claim that he wasn’t involved. As Pavan Automotives was involved, the petitioner was also involved. It is, however, imperative to note that Ms Pratima, the petitioner’s mother and the director of Pavan Automotives was not charged as she was a silent partner.
After considering the facts, the Court decided against the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.