With financial crimes on the rise, the Supreme Court wants no leniency to be shown to fraudsters who dupe banks and financial institutions of public money and later turn in to settle the matter by repaying the siphoned amount.
A case from the Delhi High Court sets a perfect instance for the court to demonstrate this rule. A man facing trial for cheating the New Bank of India (at present Punjab National Bank), ludhiana branch to the tune of `10 lakh walked out free on February 10, 2009 after the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR satisfied by the settlement reached by the accused with the bank. The accused, Maninder Singh, had obtained an advance loan for his business to the tune of `10.62 lakh in 1986. In 2006, he paid the outstanding amount to the bank and got the criminal case against him quashed.
Terming the order passed by the HC as an instance of “misplaced sympathy”, the Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and R Banumathi said, “In economic offences, courts must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large… these are actually public wrongs or crimes committed against the society and the gravity and magnitude attached to these offences is concentrated at public at large.”
The lawyer for the accused had made a shocking argument that the case should not be seen as a fraud committed on public at large but of an individual’s personal dealings with the bank which he finally made up by returning the money and settling it with bank. The CBI, on the other hand alleged that the crime had deep societal impact as the bank was taken for a ride by producing forged documents. The Bill of lading against which the accused obtained loan were fake documents.
The court examined the larger picture and said, “Development in means of communication, science and technology have led to an enormous increase in economic crimes — phishing, ATM frauds, etc, committed by intelligent but devious individuals involving huge sums of public or Government money…If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved.”
The apex court set aside the HC judgment for the added reason that for three decades, the case was allowed to drag due to delay and non-appearance on part of the accused. The CBI had booked him for offences under offences of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy and had already examined 39 witnesses in the case, showing substantial progress during trial.