P.N. Deshmukh JUDGMENT
P.N. Deshmukh, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.
2. This petition challenges impugned judgment dated 20th October, 2016 in Criminal Revision No. 88 of 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, thereby dismissing the same filed by the petitioner against the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 1847 of 2008 dated 29th January, 2014, rejecting application filed by the petitioner for his discharge of the offence registered against him vide Crime No. 376/2006 by Ambazari Police Station, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 472 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered on the basis of report lodged by one Shri Khushalrao Mahadeorao Gedam.
3. Shri Rohit Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the company by name, "Unique Agro Processors India Limited" (hereinafter referred as "UAPIL") was promoted by complainant Shri Khushalrao Gedam and others in the year 1992 which was indulged in the business of extracting edible and non edible oils of which actual functioning had commenced from 1995 which due to financial constraints in the year 1997-98 has suffered huge losses and thus could not repay the loan obtained from State Finance Corporation and was then declared as sick company. In this background, it is contended that as affairs of said company were not properly handled by complainant Shri Khushalrao Gedam, within a span of two years from its commencement, company was declared as sick unit since it could not repay the loan and in this backdrop complainant had approached the petitioner requesting to bail out of this situation by investing money through one of his group companies, namely "Master Industries Private Limited" (hereinafter referred as MIPL), to which the petitioner agreed. The dues of SICOM were accordingly settled by petitioner by making payment through his company MIPL and, therefore, complainant Shri Khushalrao Gedam issued a letter in March, 2004 to release first charge of SICOM over Plant, Machinery and Assets of UAPIL in favour of MIPL
4. It is further contended that as the petitioner has invested huge amount to the extent of rupees four crores in UAPIL, he was inducted as a Director in this company. However, as further funds were required for setting up oil refinery and for working capital to revive the business, though complainant Shri Khushalrao Gedam and his associates attempted to secure loan, no financial institute was willing to extend any such assistance and in that circumstances petitioner using his good offices with the officials of Bharat Cooperative Bank Limited, Mumbai arranged loan to the extent of rupees seven crores.
5. According to the petitioner, UAPIL had current account with Federal Bank Limited at Nagpur and funds from the loan account with Bharat Cooperative Bank Limited, Mumbai were routinely transferred in the current account at Nagpur for meeting expenses of UAPIL. However, the lending bank at Mumbai raised objection to these transactions and suggested that the transaction of UAPIL should be conducted through the loan account. It is further submitted that after the loan amount was made available by petit........