Yes Bank-DHFL case: Court refuses to take cognisance of chargesheet against Goenka, Balwa

Mumbai: A special court here has declined to take cognisance of the CBI’s supplementary chargesheet naming businessmen Vinod Goenka and Shahid Balwa as accused in the DHFL-Yes Bank fraud case, noting that allegations against them are not made out.

The prosecution has claimed that between April and June 2018, Yes Bank invested about Rs 4,727 crore in the non-convertible debentures and Masala Bonds of Dewan Housing Finance Limited (DHFL) and sanctioned a Rs 750-crore term loan to a group company of the realtor.

In return, Yes Bank’s then-managing director and chief executive officer Rana Kapoor allegedly received kickbacks of Rs 600 crore from DHFL. Kapoor and DHFL promoters Kapil Wadhawan and his brother Dheeraj Wadhawan are among the several other accused in the case.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) recently filed its fourth supplementary chargesheet in the case before the special court. Besides Goenka and Balwa, the probe agency has named 12 more persons, taking the tally of the accused in the case to 41.

According to the CBI, Goenka and Balwa took loans from DHFL but diverted the funds instead of using them for their intended purpose.

Special Judge AC Daga on March 13 refused to take cognisance of the chargesheet against the two businessmen and stock market operator Sanjay Dangi.

In its detailed order, a copy of which was made available on Saturday, the court said the prosecution has levelled charges of cheating and misappropriation against Goenka and Balwa.

The court, however, noted that they were not named in the first information report (FIR) or the earlier supplementary chargesheets. Their names appeared for the first time as accused in the latest supplementary chargesheet, which is the fourth, the judge said.

“It is a settled position of law that in order to attract the penal provisions of cheating and conspiracy for the purpose of cheating, there has to be a prima-facie case made out for the prosecution to show that the intention of cheating were since inception,” the court stated.

The special judge said that in this matter, nothing on record shows that at the time of taking the loan from DHFL, the accused had the intention to cheat.

Hence, no case is made out attracting the penal provisions as claimed by the prosecution, it added. Further, the court said the allegation of cheating levelled against Dangi has no basis.

It, however, ruled that a case of cheating, and forgery under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act was made out against Farid Sama, who is absconding, and Rahul Shah, Ramesh Shah and the firm linked to the duo.