Economic Offenses: A Threat To Public Trust – Insights From The Anil Bhavarlal Jain Case

Posted On - 15 January, 2025 • By - Garima Singh

Introduction

In a recent decision in Anil Bhavarlal Jain v. The State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court (SC) addressed the crucial issue of whether criminal proceedings concerning an economic offence can be quashed based on a settlement reached between the accused and the bank.[1] This case involved allegations of fraud and financial misconduct against a company and its directors. The decision highlights the challenges of prosecuting economic offenses in India, emphasizing the need to balance public interest with individual rights. It discusses about the seriousness of economic crimes and their potential impact on the economy.

Factual Background of the Case

Loan and Project

  • In 2013, the appellants, as Directors of M/s Sun Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., obtained the necessary permissions and commenced a construction project.
  • Subsequently, Respondent No. 3 – State Bank of India (SBI) sanctioned a loan of Rs. 50 crores to the company.
  • The company provided the commercial land as collateral security for the loan.
  • Timely loan repayments were made by the company until 2017.

Loan Default and Recovery

  • On 28.11.2017, SBI declared the loan account of the company as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) with an outstanding amount of Rs. 23.86 crores.
  • SBI initiated recovery proceedings and filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
  • On 18.12.2019, the company and SBI entered into consent terms before the DRT for a settlement amount of Rs. 15 crores.
  • The company made partial payments, and subsequently, the remaining amount was paid along with interest.
  • The loan account was subsequently closed as per the one-time settlement, and the DRT application was disposed of.

Allegations and FIR

  • Despite the loan settlement, SBI lodged a complaint with the respondent no. 2 – Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the appellants.
  • The allegations included diverting funds from a separate loan account obtained from SICOM Ltd. and modifying the building plans without SBI’s consent, which allegedly reduced the value of the collateral security.
  • Based on SBI’s complaint, an FIR was registered against the appellants by the CBI, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mumbai, and CBI subsequently filed a chargesheet.
  • The appellants filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking the quashing of the FIR and chargesheet.
  • The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, observing that the appellants had an alternative remedy available under the provisions of the CrPC before the High Court.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

Dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, the appellants filed these appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the High Court’s order and quash the FIR and chargesheet.

The Parties’ Submissions

Appellants’ Submissions

  • Loan Settlement and False Allegations: The appellants contend that they have already arrived at a compromise with the bank, and the DRT disposed of the bank’s application after considering the settlement. They argue that the allegation of the bank suffering an Rs. 11 crore loss is false and baseless. They emphasize that the bank received Rs. 47 crores, exceeding the total disbursed amount of Rs. 33.5 crores. Furthermore, they point out an inordinate delay in registering the FIR, as the bank’s complaint was lodged on 30.10.2019 but the FIR was not registered until 24.07.2020.
  • Departmental Inquiry Findings: In the appeal arising from SLP(Crl.) No.12776 of 2023, the appellants argue that a departmental inquiry was conducted against appellant no. 1. The final inquiry report exonerated appellant no. 1 from the charges as per the bank’s complaint. The report concluded that the remaining charges were technical and required submission to the Disciplinary Authority for consideration. Crucially, the appellants assert that the allegations in the complaint pertained to actions taken after they were relieved from their positions, with a new officer assuming their responsibilities, a fact duly recorded in the departmental inquiry.
  • Inapplicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act): In the appeal arising from SLP(Crl.) No.10078 of 2023, the appellants contend that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act are inapplicable. They argue that there are no allegations of bribery against them in this particular appeal.
  • Discrepancies in Property Valuation: The appellants highlight significant discrepancies in the valuation reports of the property. They state that the valuer appointed by the bank valued the properties at Rs. 107.7 crores in 2014. However, when the account was declared an NPA in 2018, the same property was revalued at a much lower amount of Rs. 3.45 crores. Subsequently, after the consent terms were filed, the same valuer revalued the property again at Rs. 57.17 crores.

Respondents’ Submissions

  • Delay in FIR Registration: CBI argued that a mere delay in lodging the FIR does not automatically invalidate the case’s merits.
  • The Settlement does absolve Criminal Liability: CBI emphasized that the settlement reached between the bank and the accused persons does not absolve them from criminal liability for the alleged offenses. Citing the SC’s judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[2], they argued that in cases involving societal interest, it is not prudent to quash proceedings or reduce sentences. They argued that the repayment of diverted funds and subsequent settlement does not mitigate the gravity of the criminal offenses committed.
  • Serious Allegations of Fraud and Cheating: SBI highlighted the serious allegations of fraud and cheating were leveled against the appellants in the FIR. They emphasized that the bank, dealing with public money, suffered a significant loss. They pointed out that the property offered as security for the loan was undervalued, with properties of lesser value being valued at exorbitant rates. Additionally, they emphasized the diversion of funds as a serious criminal offense. They further argued that a perusal of the FIR does not indicate the absence of a cognizable offense against the appellants.
  • Continuation of Criminal Proceedings: SBI’s counsel drew attention to clause 15 of the consent terms, which stated that the criminal proceedings and charges would continue as per law. They argued that a settlement between the creditor and the debtor does not automatically terminate criminal liability for the offenses committed.
  • Disciplinary Action: SBI further pointed out that the Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay on the appellant employees, acknowledging their misconduct.

The Court’s Decision

  • Moot Question: The court identified the central question as whether criminal proceedings can be quashed based on a settlement reached through consent terms submitted before the DRT.
  • Distinction from the Gian Singh Judgment: While the appellants relied on Gian Singh, the court distinguished the present case. The Gian Singh judgment primarily dealt with cases of a civil nature, such as commercial or matrimonial disputes, and allowed for quashing when the possibility of conviction was remote. However, this did not apply to offenses involving mental depravity, moral turpitude, or public servants.
  • Economic Offenses and Public Interest: The court cited Parbatbhai Aahir to highlight that economic offenses, which affect the state’s financial well-being, have broader implications.[3] Such offenses impact the economy and public confidence, making quashing based solely on a settlement inappropriate.
  • The Seriousness of the Offenses: Referring to State v. R Vasanthi Stanley[4], the court stressed that serious criminal offenses, particularly those affecting the financial health of institutions, should not be quashed based on settlements, as this would undermine the rule of law.
  • Application to the Present Case: The court noted the significant loss to the public exchequer (approximately Rs. 6.13 crores) and the invocation of the PC Act, emphasizing the severity of the offenses and their societal impact.
  • Dismissal of Appeals: Given the nature of the offenses, the financial loss, and the PC Act’s application, the court upheld the High Court’s decision not to quash the proceedings. The appeals were dismissed.

General Understanding of Economic Offences and Their Nature

  • Scope of Economic Offences in India: Economic offences in India cover a wide range of criminal activities related to economic or business transactions, such as tax evasion, money laundering, securities fraud, smuggling, and financial mismanagement. While there is no clear definition of “economic offence” in Indian law, specific laws target these crimes.
  • Impact of Economic Offences: Economic offences, often termed “white-collar crimes,” are offences in rem as they cause significant financial harm to the economy as a whole and individuals. They undermine public trust in institutions and disrupt the financial integrity of businesses and governments, leading to widespread economic instability.
  • Legislations addressing Economic Offences: India addresses economic offences through specialized laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), Companies Act, Income Tax Act, and Customs Act. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) also covers crimes like fraud and cheating, but these specific laws have been introduced to address the complexity of modern economic crimes.
  • Challenges in Investigation and Prosecution: Economic offences often involve complex conspiracies and multiple actors, making them difficult to investigate. These crimes require specialized agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to conduct detailed investigations, sometimes involving international elements.
  • The Severity of Economic Offences and Punishment: Given the serious impact of economic offences, the legal system imposes stringent penalties. These measures reflect the high stakes involved, as such crimes can destabilize the economy and cause significant financial damage to individuals and institutions.
  • Bail Considerations in Economic Offences: The grant of bail in economic offence cases is carefully scrutinized due to the serious nature of the crimes. In cases like Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. C.B.I.[5] and Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement[6], the courts emphasized the deep-rooted conspiracies and significant financial losses involved. Bail is considered only after assessing the allegations, evidence, and risk of the accused absconding or tampering with witnesses.

Conclusion

The SC’s decision in the Anil Bhavarlal Jain case emphasizes the gravity of economic offenses, reinforcing that settlements between parties do not absolve criminal liability, especially in cases involving public financial harm. By distinguishing the case from civil matters and highlighting the broader societal impact of economic crimes, the court highlights the importance of maintaining public trust in legal proceedings. This judgment reinforces the need for stringent measures to tackle white-collar crimes, ensuring that financial misconduct does not go unchecked.

[1] https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/31873/31873_2023_6_1506_58145_Judgement_20-Dec-2024.pdf.

[2] Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

[3] Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujrat, (2017) SCC Online SC 1189.

[4] State v. R Vasanthi Stanley, (2015) SSC Online SC 815.

[5] Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. C.B.I., (2013) 7 SCC 439.

[6] Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24.

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com