MUMBAI: Twenty-seven years after the 1992 securities scam broke, a special court docket closing week acquitted 8 senior bank officials and Ashwin Mehta, the elder brother of Harshad Mehta, in a Rs 105-crore fraud involving the State Bank of India. “I haven't any hesitation in preserving that the prosecution has did not end up its case in opposition to all the accused beyond affordable doubt,” stated Justice Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, who is presiding over the special court docket at the Bombay top court docket for trying the 1992 cases.
CBI, which is probing the case, claimed there were round 24 suspect transactions where money was once debited from the account of SBI Caps at the bank’s main branch in Mumbai for purchase of shares, but neither the bodily securities nor the bank receipts had been credited to the account. CBI alleged that several severe irregularities had been dedicated within the SBI Mumbai main branch via unauthorised crediting of finances into the account of the overdue Harshad Mehta. The accused had been officials at the bank’s Mumbai branch and its subsidiary SBI Caps, and Ashwin Mehta, who was once Harshad’s constituted lawyer. The case in opposition to main accused Harshad Mehta was once abated after he died in 2001.
The court docket acquitted R Sitaraman, officer accountable for the securities division of SBI, other officials Bhushan Raut, C Ravi Kumar, S Suresh Babu, P Muralidharan, Ashok Agarwal, Janardhan Bandopadhyay, Shyam Sunder Gupta and broker Mehta.
CBI had claimed that the finances diversion may just not have taken position until the accused officials acted in connivance with each and every other. The court docket, however, agreed with the defence that the case in opposition to the officials at securities’ sections may just not be proved as finances had been diverted at the main branch of the bank.
“If all the case and the proof mentioned is punctiliously perused, then the inference is inevitable that the ball stops rolling at the end of SBI and that too, at the doorstep of accused Sitaraman ... However…, the prosecution has did not end up its case in opposition to Sitaraman beyond affordable doubt. In the light of the quite a lot of gaps and the missing hyperlinks left open via the prosecution, is also because of the death of Harshad Mehta and the discharge of most of the accused within the case now and again, the truth stays that the fee of conspiracy may just not be proved,” the pass judgement on stated.
The court docket further stated that there was once a significant lacuna within the sanction given to prosecute the bank officials -- who had been public servants -- underneath the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court docket stated that a valid sanction was once lacking within the case as “proof of none of the sanctioning authority goes to show that they've both carried out their thoughts independently to the fabric positioned prior to them, or had been acutely aware of the factual aspects of the case”.
CBI, which is probing the case, claimed there were round 24 suspect transactions where money was once debited from the account of SBI Caps at the bank’s main branch in Mumbai for purchase of shares, but neither the bodily securities nor the bank receipts had been credited to the account. CBI alleged that several severe irregularities had been dedicated within the SBI Mumbai main branch via unauthorised crediting of finances into the account of the overdue Harshad Mehta. The accused had been officials at the bank’s Mumbai branch and its subsidiary SBI Caps, and Ashwin Mehta, who was once Harshad’s constituted lawyer. The case in opposition to main accused Harshad Mehta was once abated after he died in 2001.
The court docket acquitted R Sitaraman, officer accountable for the securities division of SBI, other officials Bhushan Raut, C Ravi Kumar, S Suresh Babu, P Muralidharan, Ashok Agarwal, Janardhan Bandopadhyay, Shyam Sunder Gupta and broker Mehta.
CBI had claimed that the finances diversion may just not have taken position until the accused officials acted in connivance with each and every other. The court docket, however, agreed with the defence that the case in opposition to the officials at securities’ sections may just not be proved as finances had been diverted at the main branch of the bank.
“If all the case and the proof mentioned is punctiliously perused, then the inference is inevitable that the ball stops rolling at the end of SBI and that too, at the doorstep of accused Sitaraman ... However…, the prosecution has did not end up its case in opposition to Sitaraman beyond affordable doubt. In the light of the quite a lot of gaps and the missing hyperlinks left open via the prosecution, is also because of the death of Harshad Mehta and the discharge of most of the accused within the case now and again, the truth stays that the fee of conspiracy may just not be proved,” the pass judgement on stated.
The court docket further stated that there was once a significant lacuna within the sanction given to prosecute the bank officials -- who had been public servants -- underneath the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court docket stated that a valid sanction was once lacking within the case as “proof of none of the sanctioning authority goes to show that they've both carried out their thoughts independently to the fabric positioned prior to them, or had been acutely aware of the factual aspects of the case”.
26 years after securities scam, court acquits brother of Harshad Mehta
![26 years after securities scam, court acquits brother of Harshad Mehta]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
November 06, 2018
Rating:
