IN THE 51st COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER

BOMABAY

AT- MUMBAI

MISC. APPLI. NO. OF 2013

IN

SPL.CASE NO. 51 OF 2002

C.B.I, E.O.W, Mumbai …Complainant

Versus

Rajeev Khanna …Applicant/Accused.No.5

APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE

UNDER SECTION 239/227 OF THE

Cr.P.C.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:

It is stated on behalf of the Applicant above named as under:

1. The present Application is preferred on behalf of the

Applicant as the Charge-Sheet, i.e. both the

statement of the witnesses and the documents do not

disclose any offence and the charge against the

Applicant is groundless.

2. The allegations in the Charge-Sheet briefly stated is

that the Applicant and the other accused entered into

a criminal conspiracy between 1997 and 1998 with

the object to cheat Canara Bank, by dishonestly

inducing facility provided by Canara Bank. That, the

Inland Letters Credit and Packing Credit Facility

provided by Canara Bank and misusing the same

facility by violating the terms and conditions of the

said contract and malafide information provided by

the Accused No.2. In furtherance of this objective, it is

alleged that the Applicant and the other accused

committed cheating and forged details of delivery

showing supply of goods and thereby committed an

offence under Section 120-B r/w 467,468, 471,472

and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also alleged

that the Applicant and the other accused provided

malafied information and details to the Canara Bank

and thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs.4.88 crores

to Canara Bank.

3. The Applicant is seeking discharge in the present

case as the charge is groundless no grounds for

proceedings on the following amongst other grounds:

A. That, the Charge-Sheet i.e. both the

statement of the witnesses and the

documents do not disclose any offence

against the Applicant as none of the

ingredients of the offence of cheating,

criminal breach of trust, conspiracy or any

other offence under the India Penal Code are

disclosed there from.

B. That, it is alleged in the chargesheet that the

Accused Mr. Rajeev Khanna, is proprietor of

M/s Zen Series and on 18.10.1997, he

received the Inland Letter of Credit No. 1/97

favoring of M/s. Zen Series, (Mr. Rajeev

Khanna as beneficiary the then proprietor) of

the said company, to the tune of Rs.

1,16,46,059.51/- for the supply of Pan Cakes,

Steel Cassettes, Plastic Spools and Electric

Control Strips to the Accused Mr. S. P. Doshi.

It is alleged that the said goods were not

supplied by the M/s. Zen Series to the

Accused Company and committed criminal

conspiracy with Accused No.2 Mr. S. P. Doshi,

to cause loss to the Canara Bank.

C. That, it is further alleged that the Applicant

did not supply any goods mentioned to the

Accused Company and the details given of

transportation for supply of goods i.e. lorry

number and lorry receipt No. is said to be

fabricated. Therefore there is an allegation of

forgery. At the outset the said allegation is

baseless apart from the fact that even

assuming that some lorry numbers are

incorrect without admittedly this cannot and

does not tantamount to an offence of forgery.

D. That, it is also alleged that, on 04.11.1997,

once again an Inland Letter of Credit ILC 2/97

was issued in favour of Mr. Rajeev Khanna

the Applicant/Accused for an amount of Rs.

98,02,500/- for supply of raw material to the

Accused Company. It is alleged that the

goods are supplied to the Accused company

were showed dishonestly being transported

from Mumbai to Silvassa by Adhunik

Transport Orgn. Pvt. Ltd, and the said lorry

receipt is alleged to be forged and the invoice

issued by the Applicant is fake for the supply

of the raw material to the Accused Company.

E. It is pertinent to note that the above said two

L/C did not cause any loss. Admittedly the

same were paid for by the Accused No.2 from

the proceeds received. Hence these

transactions were obviously genuine and

monies are repaid, therefore it cannot

amount to an offence of cheating as there

was no dishonesty or fraudulent act. In any

event no representations admittedly were

made by Accused No.5 as per the C/S and

thus he cannot be roped in for the said acts,

if any of Accused No.2.

F. The allegation of criminal conspiracy is

inherently absurd, merely because the

Applicant /Accused is alleged to be the

introducer of the account opened in Indusind

Bank, in the name of M/s. ABC Color Lab,

which is also not based on any record. It is

clear that the Applicant is not concerned with

the same. This bald allegation that account

was introduced also cannot tantamount to an

offence. It is stated that even assuming the

same to be correct whilst denying it this does

not disclose any offence.

G. As regards L/C No. 1/98 opened in favour of

M/s. Zen Services a Rs. 2,18,78,000/- once

again the said L/C was opened admittedly by

Accused no.2 for supply of goods, which was

supplied and merely as the transport

company has not been located the said L/R

are alleged to be forged. This as stated above

cannot and does not amount of forgery.

Further the transactions were genuine,

monies were to be received by M/s. Zen

Services for supply of goods and thus the

Applicant was noway concerned with Canara

Bank no representations admittedly were

made by the Applicant. There was no

relationship between the bank and the

Applicant. Further Canara Bank received its

dues in respect of the L/C so no loss was

caused.

H. It is also alleged that from the amount

received from M/s. Zen Services Company Rs.

40 Lakhs were paid to Universal Traders

another Company of the Applicant. Assuming

for the sake of argument merely because

monies were received by Universal Traders

cannot and does not amount to any offence

as it is not the case of the Prosecution that

their was no underlying transaction between

M/s. Zen Services and Universal Traders.

Hence this allegation is baseless. Utilization

of the monies by M/s. Zen Services is for

various business purposes and hence cannot

tantamount to any offence.

I. The bare reading of the charge sheet clearly

reveals that no criminal offence is made out

as against the Applicant/Accused and as such

it is a civil matter and the charge against the

Applicant/Accused is groundless. The

complainant has not even made out a prima

facie case against the Applicant/Accused.

J. The Charge-Sheet against the Applicant is

based upon suspicion and hypothetical

assumptions of wrongful loss to the Canara

Bank, which has been arrived based on

incorrect and wrong material. No dues are

payable in respect of both the L/C’s.

K. That, by trying to convert a civil case into a

criminal one, and that too based on a

hypothesis only goes to show that the CBI

has wrongly roped in the Applicant. The

Chargesheet does not show that a case u/s.

420 of IPC against Applicant none of the

ingredients dishonest inducements in present

in this case. Also no offence of forgery is also

evident from the record.

L. It is most respectfully submitted that the

charges are groundless and there are no

grounds for proceeding further. The charge-

sheet and the material produced therewith

believed to be true do not and cannot lead to

a conviction

4. In the circumstances aforesaid, it is prayed that :

a. This Hon’ble court may be pleased to discharge the

accused under section 239/227 of Cr.P.C from the

abovementioned case.

b. Any other further relief in the nature and

circumstances of this matter as this Hon’ble court

may deem fit.

And for this act of this kindness the Accused shall duty bound

shall ever pray.

Mumbai

Dated this ____Day of March 2013

Advocate for Accused

Applicant/Accused

IN THE 51st COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER

BOMABAY

AT- MUMBAI

MISC. APPLI. NO. OF 2013

IN

SPL.CASE NO. 51 OF 2002

C.B.I, E.O.W, Mumbai …Complainant

Versus

Rajeev Khanna …Applicant/Accused.No.5

ROZNAM

IN THE 51st COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER

BOMABAY

AT- MUMBAI

MISC. APPLI. NO. OF 2013

IN

SPL.CASE NO. 51 OF 2002

C.B.I, E.O.W, Mumbai …Complainant

Versus

Rajeev Khanna …Applicant/Accused.No.5

INDEX

SR.NO.

PARTICULARS PAGE.NO.

1. Roznama

2. Discharge Application

IN THE 51st COURT OF

SESSIONS FOR GREATER

BOMABAY

AT- MUMBAI

MISC. APPLI. NO. OF 2013

IN

SPL.CASE NO. 51 OF 2002

C.B.I, E.O.W, Mumbai

…Complainant

Versus

Rajeev Khanna

…Applicant/Accused.No.5

APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE

UNDER SECTION 239/227

OFCR.P.C.

FILED ON ____OF MARCH 2013

Advocate for Applicant,

Prashant Pawar,

Advocate, High Court,

6th Floor, Fairy Manor,

Rustom Sidhwa Marg,

Mumbai – 400001.