)
In a setback to CBI, the Bombay High Court has quashed a cheating case against former Managing Director of National Agricultural Corporation Marketing Federation of India (NAFED) after observing that there is no evidence to prove his complicity in the offence.
Justice M L Tahaliyani quashed the case against Alok Ranjan after holding that presumption of innocence is always there till the accused is convicted.
Ranjan and eight others including Guruswarup Srivastav, owner of Swarup Group and the man who inked a Rs 100-crore deal with renowned painter M F Hussain way back in September 2004, are facing trial before a sessions court for criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery.
It is alleged that the accused belonging to the Swarup Group and NAFED entered into a conspiracy to forge documents to get financial assistance from NAFED and to commit criminal breach of trust which caused huge loss to NAFED.
According to CBI, NAFED was set up to promote cooperative marketing of agricultural produce to benefit farmers and hence it was not supposed to enter into tie-up business and to provide financial assistance for promoting any non-agricultural produce.
It is alleged that two MoUs were signed between NAFED and Swarup Group by which the firm was given Rs 235 crore for export of iron ore to China but investigations revealed that the money was allegedly usurped.
Ranjan, while seeking to quash the complaint against him, argued that his approval was taken only when the first MoU was signed for an amount of Rs 11 crore. The second MoU for Rs 224 crore was signed without his approval and hence he was not aware of the alleged conspiracy.
The court after hearing the arguments held that there is no evidence to show that Ranjan knew or was party to the alleged forgery committed by Srivastav.
"The charge sheet does not allege that the petitioner had any dishonest intention while approving the first tie-up business between NAFED and Swarup Group. The chargesheet also does not disclose that the petitioner had received any pecuniary advantage due to the tie up business with Swarup Group," the court said.
"The charge sheet only alleges that the tie up business in non agricultural produce was done though the byelaws did not permit to do so," Justice Tahaliyani said.
"Unless there is material to indicate that the loss was caused to NAFED dishonestly which resulted in pecuniary advantage to the petitioner, it is not possible to say that he (petitioner) had committed the alleged offence. Simply because the transaction caused loss to NAFED, it cannot be presumed that the persons authorised to take decision had dishonest intention," the court said.
