National Sport Exchange Limited Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Bank Securities and Fraud Cell (Bombay High Court)
Summary: The Bombay High Court dismissed the revision application filed by National Sport Exchange Limited challenging the order dated 4th July 2024 passed by the learned Special Judge for CBI, Greater Bombay in Miscellaneous Application No. 1313 of 2022, which had rejected the applicant’s request for a joint and single trial of Special CBI Case No. 62 of 2016 and Special CBI Case No. 34 of 2017. The applicant, accused No. 1 in both proceedings, submitted that the cases arose out of transactions conducted on the NSEL platform during 2007 to 2013 involving alleged fraudulent paired contracts, namely T+2 buy and T+25 sale, without actual delivery of commodities, resulting in siphoning of funds. According to the applicant, Special CBI Case No. 62 of 2016 concerned alleged cheating of M/s. PEC Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking, involving wrongful loss of approximately Rs.120.75 crores, while Special CBI Case No. 34 of 2017 concerned alleged cheating of M/s. MMTC Ltd., another Public Sector Undertaking, involving wrongful loss of approximately Rs.222.49 crores. The applicant contended that the cases were closely connected, involved a similar modus operandi, and had 18 common accused, 25 common witnesses and 71 common documents. Reliance was placed on Sections 219, 220 and 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), with the submission that separate trials could cause prejudice because the defence disclosed in one case could enable the prosecution to fill lacunae in the other and could deprive the accused of statutory sentencing benefits. The CBI opposed the application, contending that the two cases were distinct and independent, involved different Public Sector Undertakings, different transactions, separate conspiracies and different sets of accused, with substantially different evidence. It was submitted that joint trial is an exception and separate trials are the rule where offences are distinct, and that a joint trial could cause confusion, delay and prejudice. The CBI relied on State of Jharkhand Through Sp. Central Bureau of Investigation versus Lalu Prasad Yadav alias Lalu Prasad (2017) 8 SCC 1
