A Delhi Court discharged industrialist Ratul Puri, who is senior Congress leader Kamal Nath’s nephew, on May 24 in a Rs 354-crore bank fraud case in which Puri and others had been accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of defaulting on loans and resulting in financial losses to multiple banks.
“From above discussion, there is sufficient material on the record to come to a prima facie view that the allegations levelled against the accused persons have predominant contours of a dispute of civil nature and does not have the markings of a criminal offence. The dispute predominantly of a civil nature is being given colour or shades of criminal nature,” said Special Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal of Rouse Avenue Court in his order.
What tilted the case in the favour of the accused people was the fact that the banks had denied the CBI sanction to investigate and prosecute 40 of their officials. “As the competent authorities qua bankers have even shut out initiation of investigations against all of their bankers, totalling 40 in numbers u/S. 17A of PC (Prevention of Corruption Act) Act, it shows that present case was not having any criminal complexion or no criminal ingredients of cheating, deception or inducement,” noted Judge Aggarwal.
“…senior bankers/Government officials, who are experts in the field of banking and know nitties and gritties of all the loan transactions, were fully conscious of this aspect when they denied approval u/S. 17 A of PC Act and they can also be said to be aware that the matter was of civil nature for which banks may have civil remedies available to them, as per law,” he added.
The CBI had accused Ratul Puri, his wife Nita Puri, and private company Moser Baer India Limited (which made CDs and DVDs) of defrauding a consortium of banks. It had alleged that the goal of the accused was to defraud the banks by siphoning off money by misusing loans granted to them.
The CBI had also alleged that the siphoning of funds could not have been possible without the “active connivance of bank officials” since it was the job of the bank officials to monitor the loans.
“…there was no diversion or siphoning or misuse of the loan(s) at any point of time and the loans were utilised for the purposes for which it was disbursed as per the RBI guidelines and the banking norms and in view of the fact that the senior functionaries of the different banks/consortium of banks running into 40 in numbers were even denied approval to investigate u/S. 17A of the PC Act by the different sets of competent authorities,” said Judge Aggarwal.