Safiya Malik

The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to set aside the lower court’s order refusing to summon bank statements in an ongoing criminal trial related to alleged financial misappropriation. The court ruled that the request lacked material grounds and was an attempt to delay the trial, which is at an advanced stage.

The petition was filed by Priya Lakshmi and M/s. Uniquestep Marine India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Priya Lakshmi. The petitioners, who are accused number four and five in C.C.No.4 of 2014, sought to summon the statement of Current Account No. 32406298168 and the statement of the LC Discounting Account of the company for the period from 2012 to 2024. The lower court had earlier dismissed this request by order dated 18.09.2024, prompting the present challenge before the High Court.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had filed a case against the petitioners and other accused, alleging that they had conspired to commit financial fraud by issuing four letters of credit to mislead Indian Bank, Edaikazhinadu Branch, and State Bank of India, Sir P.M. Road Branch, Mumbai. The prosecution asserted that this scheme resulted in an alleged wrongful loss of Rs. 20,57,97,800/-, of which Rs. 12,44,73,474/- was later recovered by the banks, leaving an outstanding amount of Rs. 8,13,24,326/- as of December 2012.

According to the prosecution, the fraudulent transactions were executed with the knowledge and involvement of the accused, including Priya Lakshmi. The investigation revealed that the accused allegedly manipulated financial documents and banking procedures to obtain financial gains unlawfully. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Mumbai, in O.A.No.92 of 2014, recorded a recovery amount of Rs. 5,15,05,740/- from the petitioners’ accounts as part of the repayment process.

The petitioners contended that since significant recoveries had been made, there was no wrongful loss to the banks, and therefore, the charges against them were unsustainable. They submitted that the requested bank statements were crucial for their defense, as they would provide clarity on the financial transactions and demonstrate that no criminal intent existed. They further argued that denying their request to summon the documents would amount to a violation of their right to a fair trial under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court examined the submissions made by both parties and reviewed the records of the case. The court noted that the prosecution had already examined several key witnesses, including P.W.3, the Assistant General Manager of State Bank of India, and P.W.23, the Investigating Officer. P.W.3 had deposed before the trial court and provided extensive documentary evidence, including the account opening forms, transaction records, and various other banking documents. The evidence included the certified extract of the Current Account Statement of the company from 2012 to 2013, marked as Ex.P38.

The High Court found that the petitioners had been provided sufficient opportunity to present their defense. They had already examined a defense witness (D.W.1) and had marked defense exhibits D1 to D3. Moreover, the petitioners had previously sought similar relief under Section 91 Cr.P.C., which had been dismissed by the trial court. The petitioners’ request to summon bank statements at this stage was found to be repetitive and lacking in material necessity.

The Special Public Prosecutor argued that the petition was an attempt to circumvent prior rulings. He stated that a co-accused, A1, had previously filed similar petitions, which were dismissed by both the trial court and the High Court. The court also noted that the petitioners had remained absent from the Debt Recovery Tribunal proceedings, where they had been directed to pay Rs. 9,31,85,242.28 with interest, but were now seeking to reopen financial records through the criminal proceedings.

Further, the court considered the procedural history of the case. Charges were framed against the petitioners on 18.08.2015, and the prosecution had examined 23 witnesses, marking 157 exhibits. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 07.05.2021, and the case had been pending at the stage of defense evidence for nearly two years. The court observed that the present petition had been filed when the case was at the penultimate stage, with arguments already concluded and judgment scheduled for 24.02.2025.

The court determined that allowing the petition at this juncture would only serve to delay the proceedings. It found that the evidence on record was already sufficient for the court to adjudicate upon the matter and that summoning additional bank statements was not warranted.

Upon examining the submissions and evidence, the High Court dismissed the petition. The court held that the request for summoning additional bank statements was unwarranted and lacked substantive grounds. It directed that the trial should proceed without any further delay and that the case should be adjudicated based on the evidence already presented.

Case Title: Priya Lakshmi & Anr. v. State Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai
Case Number: Crl.O.P.No.30345 of 2024
Bench: Justice M. Nirmal Kumar

[Read/Download order]