Mumbai News: Special CBI Court Denies Discharge To 70-Year-Old Businessman Accused Of ₹297.56 Crore Bank Fraud Despite Repayment

The special CBI court has refused to discharge a 70-year-old businessman booked in connection with a case registered by the CBI for defrauding the Indian Overseas Bank to the tune of Rs 297.56 crore. The court held that subsequent repayment of the dues cannot be the ground for discharge.

Charul Shah Joshi Updated: Saturday, April 26, 2025, 10:43 PM IST
Special CBI Court in Mumbai denies discharge in ₹297.56 crore bank fraud case | Representational Image

Special CBI Court in Mumbai denies discharge in ₹297.56 crore bank fraud case | Representational Image

Mumbai: The special CBI court has refused to discharge a 70-year-old businessman booked in connection with a case registered by the CBI for defrauding the Indian Overseas Bank to the tune of Rs 297.56 crore. The court held that subsequent repayment of the dues cannot be the ground for discharge.

The businessman, Manuprasad Maganlal Trivedi, proprietor of M/s Mukesh Brothers, was also booked in a case registered in 2017 against M/s Parekh Aluminex Ltd (PAL) and others for cheating the bank.

Trivedi sought discharge, claiming that, as per the chargesheet, the allegation against him was that he had received a loan of Rs14.70 crore from M/s Parekh Aluminex Ltd, out of which he repaid Rs9.25 crore but allegedly failed to return the balance Rs5.45 crore.

However, Trivedi claimed there was no criminal intent. He contended that due to the demise of Amitabh Parekh, director of PAL, and the subsequent classification of PAL's bank account as an NPA in July 2015, he was unable to complete repayment. However, the dues were deposited in court in April 2022.

The CBI opposed the plea, submitting that the case was registered based on a written complaint by the general manager of the bank against PAL.

After hearing both sides, the special court observed, “It is not in dispute that the applicant borrowed Rs 14.70 crore from PAL, out of which a sum of Rs 5.45 crore remained unpaid at the time of filing the charge sheet. Thus, it is not disputed that the applicant is a beneficiary of a portion of the proceeds of the crime. Although the applicant has subsequently deposited the said amount, this alone cannot be a ground to discharge him from serious charges such as cheating and forgery. The applicant cannot claim detachment from the main accused, from whom he had borrowed such a large amount. It prima facie indicates the association and meeting of the minds of the applicant with the co-accused.”

Published on: Saturday, April 26, 2025, 10:43 PM IST

RECENT STORIES