Arijit Pasayat ORDER
308. In the result it is held that:-
1) Criminal Appeal No. 521 of 2000 filed by the State against A2 Ambuj Sushil Kumar Jain is dismissed.
2) Criminal Appeal No. 1097 of 1999 filed by A-4 Ram Narayan Popli is allowed and he is acquitted of all the offences alleged against him.
3) Further, in view of the judgment rendered by the Majority, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1117 of 1999, 1141 of 1999 and 1150 of 1999 filed by A1 Pramod Kumar Prital Lal Manocha, A-3 Vinayak Narayan Deosthali and deceased A-5 Harshad Shantilal Mehta respectively are partly allowed. The order of conviction awarded by the Special Court in respect of A1, A3 and A5 is confirmed. However, sentence of A1 and A3 is reduced to the period already undergone.
Arijit Pasayat, J.
309. Notwithstanding my great respect for learned Brother Shah's wisdom and erudition. I am unable to agree that some of the appellants i.e. A-1, A-3 and A-5 deserve to be acquitted. My reasons with which Brother Agrawal also agrees, are as follows:
310. The present appeals relate to Special Case No. 6/1994 which was one of the 32 cases filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the 'CBI') under the provisions of Special Court (Trial of offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (in short the 'Special Court Act').
311. Before constitution of the Court under the Special Court Act several enquiries were made in relating to securities scam which allegedly broke out in May 1992 in various types of transactions relating to government securities. The basic allegation was that these transactions were made in active connivance with the officials of banks, financial institutions and shareholders. One Committee known as Jankiraman Committee was appointed by the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'RBI') under the chairmanship of one Shri R. Jankiraman, the then Deputy Governor of the RBI. The Committee submitted its report between May 1992 and April 1993. First report in point of time was submitted by the Committee in May 1992 and it was indicated that the amount involved was estimated to be about rupees 4,300/- crores. The Government first promulgated an Ordinance which was replaced by the Special Court Act on 8th August, 1992.
312. When the matter was brought to the notice of both Houses of Parliament, a Joint Parliamentary Committee (in short the 'JPC') was appointed to enquire into the irregularities.
313. Prosecution version was that there were five transactions conducted between January 1991 to May 1991 involving Rs. 43,96,65,000/- purportedly as ready forward deals. The securities involved were units of Unit Trust of India (in short 'UTI'). Two stages were involved in the transactions: the first sale and purchase and the second reversal thereof. The bankers involved were United Commercial Bank, Hamam Street Branch, Bombay, Canara Bank, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, Bank of America, Bombay Branch and New Delhi Branch, ANZ Grindlays Bank, Sansad Marg, New Delhi and ANZ Grindlays Bank, Bombay Branch. The Government company v. involved was Maruti Udyog Ltd. (in short 'MUL').
314. The report of the Janakiraman's Committee and the JPC were placed before the Trial Court and were e........