A single-judge bench of the High Court of Bombay at GOA on 15.02.2019 in dismissed the appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Panaji in M/s. Accurate Pipes & Fittings Pvt. Ltd. & ors.V. The EDC Limited (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.77 OF 2018). The bench was headed by JUSTICE C. V. BHADANG.

FACTS:

The respondents auctioned the assets of the petitioner in the year 2004 for a meagre sum of ₹32,00,000/- when the actual valuation of the assets was ₹15 Crores. It was claimed that the respondents fabricated the record and a suit was filed against the petitioner u/s 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (SFC Act) for recovery of the loan granted to the petitioners. Such was done after issuance of a recall notice u/s 29 of the SFC Act calling upon the petitioners to repay the loan amount. The said application was pending before the learned Principal District Judge at Panaji. In the said application, the petitioner no.3 (respondent no.3 before the learned District Judge) filed a ‘complaint’ alleging that the respondent-EDC and its officials have committed offences under Sections 120-A 3 CRIA-77-18.doc and B, 166, 167, 175, 177, 182, 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 204, 209, 219, 403, 409, 420, 493 r/w  S.34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 340 and 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

The learned District Judge has dismissed the complaint which resulted in this appeal.

ISSUES:

·       Nature of the dispute.

·       Validity of the decision of the district judge.

CONTENTIONS:

By appellants:

·       Learned District Judge was required to make an inquiry in order to find out whether a prima facie case of the commission of the offences as alleged was made out.

·       The complaint could not had been dismissed without making any inquiry.

·       The assets worth ₹15 Crores were auctioned for a meagre sum of ₹32,00,000/- in the year 2004.

·       The notice issued prior to the initiation of the proceedings under Section 31(1)(aa) of the SFC Act is at variance with the application.

By respondents:

·    Learned District Judge was right in his decision that there was no valuation report placed on record.

·    Even assuming that there was any dispute as to the valuation and to the amount at which the assets were auctioned, it would be at the highest a civil dispute.

·    The ‘complaint’ was by way of an abuse of the process of the Court.

·    Although the ‘complaint’ was filed by the petitioner no.3 alone, the impugned order was challenged by the petitioners who are the respondents before the learned District Judge.

OBSERVATIONS:

The court observed that:

·   The appellants were trying to give a criminal colour to a dispute which at the highest would be purely a civil dispute.

·   It wasn’t possible to accept as to how the complaint was framed, filed and could be maintained in proceedings u/s 31(1)(aa) of the SFC Act.

·  None of the ingredients of the offences as alleged could be said to be prima facie made out on the basis of the allegations that the property was auctioned at a meagre sum of ₹32,00,000/- when the actual valuation was ₹15 Crores.

·       The appellants not placed any valuation report on record to show that in the year 2004 the valuation of the assets was ₹15 Crores.

·       The alleged variance in the notice issued prior to the initiation of the proceedings u/s 31(1)(aa) of the SFC Act with the application also couldn’t make out any offence as alleged.

HELD:

The court dismissed the appeal without discussing any merits.