LexRAM NARAIN POPLI versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAM NARAIN POPLI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION JANUARY 14, 2003 [M.B. SHAH, B.N. AGRAWAL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; Sections 120B rlw Ss. 403, 409, 420, 467 and 4711 Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. Financial transactions between Govt. Company, banks and brokers- Irregularities therein-CB/filed cases against/we accused under the provisions A B c of Special Court Act-Misappropriation of public funds, charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust, criminal conspiracy and abuse of public offices- Special Court convicted all except one of the accused -On appeal-Held, D Agreement to commit crime is essential ingredient and overt act not necessary-- Criminal conspiracy-Direct evidence is rarely available, circumstantial evidence proves complicity of accused in the crime-In the facts and circumstances of the case, accused Bank employees intended to hide informaJion about involvement of accused-broker in the financial transactions ta provide benefit to him, which goes to prove conspiracy amongst the accused-Economic E Offences. Criminal breach of trust-Entrustment of property, conversion to one's own use or use in violation of law with dishonest intention-Necessary ingredients established by the acts and =onduct of some of the accused- Hence, they are rightly convicted for offence of criminal breach of trust. F Forgery-Some of the accused found involved in making false Bank Receipts and other documents with the intention to cause injury to Government Company -Hence committed forgery. Cheating-Some of the accused by their conduct impliedly inferred from G the nature of transactions acted fraudulently and dishonestly to induce Govt. company/banks in delivering valuable security/property-Hence committed the offence of cheating. Market practices-Approval of-Held, a wrong practice even though H 119 120 SUPReME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R. A prevailing, cannot be treated as approved practice-Since no public interest is involved, such a p>"(!ictice cannot be a substitute for Statutory & Regulatory prescriptiott:S. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986; Ss. 13(J)(c) r/w S. 13(2): Public Servant-Acts of Corruption-Involvement-Held, some of the accused-public B servants, in jurtl#!r'ance of criminal conspiracy, abused their position by causing!alif>wing the funds of Government Company to be utilized for wrongful gain of accused-broker-Hence provisions of Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) attracted c Words and Phmses: 'Entru.stment' and 'Market practices'-Meaning of Central Bureau of Investigation filed a case before the Special Court under the provisions of Special (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions D in Securities), Act, 1992 against accused Nos. 1 to S. Al and A2 were officers of Maruti Udyog Ltd., a Govt. Company; A3 and A4 were bank Officers and AS was a financial broker. According to the prosecution AS in connivance with Al, A2, A3 and A4 involved in irregularities committed in five financial transactions involving sale and purchase of securities (Units of Units Trust oflndia) and reversal thereof. Several enquiries were E made in relation to said security scam. Reserve Bank of India appointed the Jankiraman Committee; Besides, a joint Parliamentary Committee was also appointed to enquire into the financial irregularities. Reports of both the Committees were placed before the Trial Court. The main allegation was that accused No.S hatched a criminal F conspiracy with other accused and in collusion with accused nos.3 & 4 got deposited surplus funds of MUL into Banks and finally transferred the same in his favour. It was also alleged that Al & A2, without lawful authority, dealt with AS and indulged in illegal financial transaction intentionally to provide benefits to AS. All the five accused appellants were G charged under Sections 409, 420, 467, 471 IPC and Sections 13(l)(c) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Special Court convicted all the accused except accused no. 2 for committing various offences under Indian Penal Code. Hence these appeals by Al, A3, A4 and AS. CBI filed appeal against acquittal of A2. During the pendency of appeals, AS expired and on the petition filed by widow of AS, appeal was ordered to be H continued. J.... )( R.N. POPLI v. C.B.l. 121 lt was contemled for the appellants that the investment/loan involved A in live transactions was for a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.