Amandeep Singh Godhan vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

Sushil Kukreja, J

By means of the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has challenged order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Shimla, H.P., whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to visit Canada has been dismissed.

The case of the petitioner is that he is a permanent resident (PR) of Canada and to retain/maintain his permanent resident status in Canada, he has to remain there for minimum 730 days in 5 years and his permanent resident status is expiring in the month of June 2024 and till date, he has only stayed in Canada for only about 129 days from 23.05.2019 to 28.09.2019, as such, he is planning to travel Canada and intends to remain there from 15.01.2023 to 14.02.2023, therefore, he may be permitted to visit Canada.

In reply to the said application, it has been stated that the charge sheet under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed against the petitioner and co-accused persons namely Sarvpreet Chawla, Pankaj Thakur (the then Branch Manager), Shaik Hussain (the then DGM), Yogesh Jassal (Empanelled Advocate) and H.G. Ahluwalia (Empanelled Valuer) under Section 120B read with Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof on 31.12.2021 in the Court of learned Special Judge (CBI), Shimla, H.P. It has further been stated that the petitioner intends to flee from the course of justice and become Canadian citizen in order to seek protection from the Canadian Authorities to escape his criminal liability in the present case and there is every possibility that he will not return from Canada in case he is allowed to go there.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the material available on record.

The perusal of the record reveals that a case under Section 120B read with Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner alongwith other accused persons on the basis of the complaint lodged on behalf of Andhra Bank (now Union Bank of India) by the then Deputy Manager of Andhra Bank, Zonal Office Chandigarh, wherein it was alleged that during the period from 2017 to 2019, one OCC (Open Cash Limit) loan with sanctioned limit of Rs. 10 crores was sanctioned in favour of M/s Brilliant Electro Air, a proprietary concern incorporated on 21.03.2010, engaged in manufacturing of aluminum parts. The said OCC limit of Rs. 10 crores was sanctioned by Zonal Office, Chandigarh vide sanction letter dated 16.01.2017 on the recommendations of Andhra Bank, New Shimla Branch. The said account was declared as NPA by the bank on 28.09.2018 and declared fraud on 29.04.2019 with an outstanding amount of Rs. 12,92,13,776/- including interest. It has also been alleged in the complaint that upon visit to the unit by the bank officials, it was found that the unit was not functioning and the collateral securities offered were found highly overvalued and operations in the accounts showed diversion of funds. The bank had initiated action under SARFAESI Act and had taken possession of the properties mortgaged to the bank. It has further been alleged in the complaint that the funds have been diverted by the accused persons to the accounts of their relatives maintained with other banks. It has also been alleged that the petitioner/accused had given his guarantee for the said loan vide his collateral securities in connivance with co-accused Yogesh Jassal, Panel Advocate for the bank and had intentionally and deliberately changed the nature of the land from agricultural land to non-agricultural land to show that the same is compatible under the SARFAESI Act. Further, the allegation against the petitioner is that he in connivance with co -accused H.G. Ahluwalia, had overvalued the collateral securities and during investigation, it was revealed that value of the said collateral securities was merely Rs. 70,71,103/-, whereas, the value of the said collateral securities was given as Rs. 11.84 crores by co-accused H.G. Ahluwalia.

It is not in dispute that charge sheet under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed against the petitioner/accused and co-accused persons before the Court of learned Special Judge (CBI) Shimla, H.P. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been released on bail with one of the conditions that he will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

The case of the petitioner is that he is a permanent resident of Canada and to retain/maintain his permanent resident status in Canada he has to remain there for minimum of 730 days in 5 years and till date, he has only stayed for 129 days in Canada w.e.f. 23.05.2019 to 28.09.2019 and his permanent resident status is expiring in the month of June, 2024. The further case of the petitioner is that as per the provisions of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations of Canada, a permanent resident has to comply with the residency obligation with respect to 5 years period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in 5 years period, he is physically present in Canada or he is posted outside the Canada while employed on a full time basis by Canadian business or in the Federal Public Administration or public service of a province.

After going though the material available on record, this Court is of the view that even if the alleged theory of the petitioner is tested on the pretext that to retain/maintain his permanent resident status in Canada, he has to remain there for minimum of 730 days in 5 years, the same cannot be achieved till June, 2024 as he has stayed in Canada for 129 days and in such an eventuality, after deducting the period of 129 days, he has to stay for a further period of 601 more days in Canada. Hence, the learned trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that if the petitioner wants to maintain permanent resident status in Canada, his likelihood to return to India before June, 2024 is highly unlikely.

It is also not in dispute that one of the co-accused Sarvpreet Chawla is already absconding. The perusal of the record further reveals that during the investigation, the petitioner tried to flee from India by taking undue advantage of bail conditions in the case i.e. RC 0962020A0002 and he was arrested from Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi on 17.06.2022 as LOC was issued against him in the present case.

The learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has further submitted that the petitioner has no reason to come back to India as his assets/properties, which are factually undervalued, have already been attached with the bank and presently he is residing in a rented accommodation at Solan. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the respondent-CBI is well founded and must be accepted.

Hence, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that there is every likelihood that the petitioner will not return to India in case he is allowed to visit abroad and in that event, it will be difficult for the Investigating Agency to secure his presence during the trial.

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the petition is dismissed, being devoid of any merit and the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Shimla is upheld.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.