Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. Here, the CANCIGO Units stood in the name of the Andhra Bank and Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited. They apparently entrusted this property to accused no. 4 and G allowed him to encash the same. In fact, Accused No. 4 had paid the consideration for purchasing the CANCIGO Units in the names of Andhra Bank and Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. It is true that if a person entrusted with property dishonestly misappropriates that property, such misappropriation in viola- [2008) 9 S.C.R. lion of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the per- son has made in regard to discharge of such trust, will be guilty of criminal breach of trust. According to the prosecution, both these appellants acted contrary to the express condition that B these CANCIGO Units were not liable to be transferred within a period of one year and in spite of this, the Andhra Bank as well as Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited transferred the units in favour of the appellant Hi!en P. Dalal and enabled him to encash the CANCIGO Units with the connivance of appellant S. c Mohan and that constituted the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust.
It was alleged that Accused No. 3 while employed by CAN FINA, obtained for Accused No. 4, a pecuniary advantage of Rs. 33 crores by illegally purchasing CANCIGO Units and committed criminal breach of trust in regard to the employer's D funds of Rs. 33 crores. It is important to note that these Units were issued by CBMF. They had imposed restrictions regard- ing transfer of CANCIGO Units. They have not filed any com- plaint alleging that transfer of these Units by appellant Hi ten P. Dalal was contrary to rules. There is no express law or statuto1y rules prohibiting the transfer of CANCIGO Units except the terms of the scheme framed. by CBMF They are not statutory rules and purely contractual. It is also pertinent to note that neither the Andhra Bank nor the Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited filed any complaint alleging that the appellant Hiten P. Dalal acted contrary to their directions.
Nor did CANFINA complain that appellant S. Mohan had committed criminal breach of trust in regard to these transactions of CANCIGO Units. This Court in Canbank Financial Services Ltd. case( supra) held (at para 38, 39, 40 and 41) as follows: The Rules and Regulations framed by Canbank Mutual Fund in relation to the issuance of CANCIGO certificates do not have any statutory backing. The CANCIGOs had a lock-in period of one year which means that the holder thereof must not encash the securities within the aforementioned period. The question as regards the non- S. MOHAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ!] transferability of the units will have to be construed upon A reading the Scheme in its entirety and in particular Condition 22 thereof, inn terms whereof the trustees were not required to maintain any register of CANCIGO-holders. In terms of Condition 24, the person whose name is shown in a CANCIGO certificate would be the only person to be recognized by the trustees as the holder of such CANCIGO and as having any right, title or interest in or to such securities.
No trust created was also to be recognized. Condition 19 creating a bar on transfer has to be construed in the aforementioned context. The bar on transfer created was to have the effect that the same would not be binding on Canbank Mutual Fund as it was not bound to take any notice thereof and only the holder shall be recognized as having the right, title or interest on the CANCIGO ……….. . CANCIGOs indisputably are valuable securities. They are otherwise capable of being transferred in terms of the established business practice, the Sale of Goods Act or the Transfer of Property Act. No legal bar has been created in transfer of the said securities. The scheme, thus, does not and could not have created an absolute legal bar on transfer of the CANCIGOs so as to invalidate the same. The rules and regulations framed by Canbank Mutual Fund and tlze notes appended to the CANCIGO credit sheet differ in material particulars.
Rules and regulations explain as to why an embargo on transfer has been placed i.e. not to recognize Respondent 2 for the dividends or for other liabilities arising out of transfer. A transfer violating the rules and regulations would only have the effect of the same being not binding on Canbank Mutual Fund. No other legal consequence flows therefrom. We have also G noticed that the brochure merely states that the transfer is not permitted but provisions exist for grant of such permission. The appellant Bank as well as Canbank Mutual Fund are the subsidiaries of Canara Bank. The appellant cannot be estopped from raising either a limited or absolute title in them keeping in view the fact that they had paid a t sum of 33 crores of rupees by way of consideration for transfer of interest of Respondent 2 herein in the said CANCIGOs." (The respondent 2 referred to as the present appellant Hiten P Dalal)
11. It is not disputed that CANCIGO Units worth Rs. 33 crores were purchased byAndhrCl!Bank or Andhra Bank Finan- f. cial Services Limited by making use of the money owned by the appellant Hiten P. Dalal. These two financial institutions im- pliedly agreed to lend their name and allowed the appellant Hiten P. Dalal to purchase CANCIGO Units in their name. It is also important to note that interest due on the CANCIGO Units worth Rs. 33 crores received from CBMF by Andhra Bank and Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. were credited to the account of the appellant Hiten P. Dalal. Therefore, it is clear for all practical D purposes that the CANCIGO Units worth Rs. 33 crores were -+ purchased by the appellant Hiten P. Dalal and he transferred these units to CAN FINA and CBMF did not raise any objection in respect of transfer of the CANCIGO Units by the appellant Hiten P. Dalal. If at all, it was for the CBMF to raise any objec- E tion but they did not raise any objection for the transfer of the CANCIGO Units. It has been held by this Court in Canbank Fi- nancial Services Ltd. (supra) that the custodian was not en- titled to get the value of the CANCIGO Units and that the CAN FINA had a just right to possess the CANCIGO Units to the F exclusion of Hiten P. Dalal. It is also not in dispute that CAN FINA r had succeeded in getting the proceeds of these CANCIGO Units. Therefore, no offence of Criminal Breach of Trust is com- mitted by the appellant Hiten P. Dalal. He has not acted con- trary to the direction of any person who has entrusted these units G to him and it is proved that it was the appellant Hiten P. Dalal himself who was the apparent owner of these units.
12. As regards appellant S. Mohan who was one of the ).,. Asst. Vice- Presidents of CANFINA, the prosecution case is that he had telephonically informed PW 6 Mr. Vernekar to ac- H cept the CANCIGO Units. PW 6 Vernekar is an Officer of the S. MOHAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI] i Canara Bank who had been authorized by the Board Resolu- tion to deal in Securities/Bonds and execute securities trans- actions on behalf of CANFINA. He deposed that he used to receive telephonic instructions from Bangalore and recorded these instructions in rough transaction sheets. He has proved the rough transaction sheets including the rough transaction ..I; sheet on which Ex-51A has been noted. PW-6 deposed that the Entry pertaining to purchase of CANCIGO Units of the face value of Rs. 33 crores from accused No. 4 was made on the basis of the instructions received from accused no. 3, namely, appellant S. Mohan.
He also deposed that the appellant S. c Mohan sent an Inter Branch Advice No. 32894 by which the funds were transferred from Bangalore to Bombay in order to facili- tate the payment. He deposed that the date 6th February 1992 was written because CANFINA Bangalore had purchased CANCIGO Units of face value of Rs. 33 crores on 6th February D 1992. He also deposed that appellant S. Mohan had told him that a sum of Rs. 25,01,67, 129/- was recoverable from accused no. 4 against some transactions and that this amount was to be adjusted against the transaction of purchase of CAN Cl GO Units of face value of Rs. 33 crores. All these evidence would only show that the appellant S. Mohan was involved in the transac- tion. The prosecution could not prove that there was any illegal- ity in these transactions. The only illegality pointed out by the learned Counsel for the CBI is that these CANCIGO Units were 'i not liable to be transferred and the Andhra Bank and Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited could not have transferred it to the appellant Hiten P. Dalal.
So long as the CANFINA has no grievance or complaint against the appellant S. Mohan that he acted contrary to their directions and accepted the CANCIGO Units and paid the money to the appellant Hiten P. Dalal, no offence is made out against the appellant S. Mohan either of G Criminal Breach of Trust or conspiracy. In fact, PW 1 (Mr. Kini, Executive Vice President) has admitted that CANFINA used to regularly deal in CANCIGO Units, that neither the Audit nor RBI made any remarks regarding transactions relating to CANCIGO Units and all the transactions relating to CANCIGO Units were in the ordinary course of business. Neither Canara Bank nor CANFINA had initiated any disciplinary proceedings against him. They have also not disputed the genuineness of the CANCIGO Units which were got encashed by the appellant Hiten P. Dalal.
13. The Managing Director of CANFINA (K.N. Karnath) was examined as PW 16. He admitted that CANFINA did not file any complaint with CBI regarding purchase of CANCIGO Units of Rs. 33 crores; that according to CANFINA, the CANCIGO Units were purchased for valuable consideration in C the normal course of business; that CAN FINA stood by the trans- actions of purchase of CANCIGO Units of Rs. 33 crores; that CAN FINA was not induced to purchase the CANCIGO Units of Rs. 33 crores by any false representation.
14. In the circumstances, no ingredient of criminal breach of trust is made out against either of the appellants. –4
15. The prosecution also could not prove any conspiracy by these accused persons to commit any criminal acts. So long as there was no such evidence, the offence of conspiracy is not E proved against these appellants.
16. The appellant Hiten P. Dalal has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 alleging that he dis- honestly received the stolen property or retained the same. No ingredients of this offence have been proved against him. So long as the prosecution admits that the CANCIGO Units worth Rs. 33 crores were purchased by making use of the money owned by him, they were not stolen property in the hands of the appellant Hiten P. Dalal. Neither, the Andhra Bank nor the Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited has any case that these G CANCIGO Units were stolen by the appellant Hiten P. Dalal. As the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust is also not made, the conviction of the appellant under Section 411 is not sustainable ).c and is liable to be quashed. So also, the appellant S. Mohan is not liable for the conspiracy to commit offence under Section H 411 IPC. S. MOHAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI] i
17. The appellant S. Mohan has been found guilty of of- fence punishable under Section 13(1) ( c) and 13 (1) (d) read with Sedion 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This ap- pellant was one of the Asstt. Vice-Presidents of the CAN FINA dealing with CANCIGO Units. There is no allegation that he committed any illegality. The allegation against him is to the extent that he accepted the CANCIGO Units though they stood in the name of the Andhra Bank and Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited. These CANCIGO Units were worth Rs. 33 crores and they were accepted with the proper authorization by the higher authorities in the CAN FINA. It is highly improbable to c believe that appellant S. Mohan on his own decided to accept CANCIGO Units worth Rs. 33 crores without any instructions. CAN FINA did not file any complaint alleging any unauthorized transaction carried out by him. Now it has been held by this Court that the entire transaction was legal and the CANFINA D t was entitled to the proceeds of these CANCIGO Units and not the "Custodian" under the Act. Therefore, the appellant S. Mohan is not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (c) and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Cor- ruption Act.
18. The appeals filed by both the appellants are allowed. The accused are not liable for any other offences and they are acquitted of all the offences charged against them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. …. B.B.B. Appeals allowed .