Awaken India Movement (AIM) files a Complaint before CBI to arrest Srinath Reddy and other fraudsters at PHFI

Awaken India Movement (AIM) files a Complaint before CBI to arrest Srinath Reddy and other fraudsters at PHFI

• Misappropriation of Rs. 82 Crores of public money. CBI has already registered an FIR. Fraud done by members of PHFI exposed
• Indian Bar Association demands that the PHFI’s accused trustees should be added as co-accused and to be arrested soon
• The accusedhave misappropriated the public money and are therefore liable for offences under section 409,120(B) & 34 etc. of IPC
• CBI has already registered an FIR and is investigating the case
• Indian Bar Association shall be sending representation to CBI to add all the trustees of PHFI as accused
• In a Complaint given by Adv. Ashwini Upadhyay, the Intelligence Bureau has also initiated enquiry against PHFI
• There is another objectionable issue of payment of high salaries of around Rs. 1 Crore to trustees which should also be investigated
• The PFHI is getting funds from tainted foundations like ‘Bill &Milinda Gates Foundation’
• The Parliamentary Committee’s 72^nd enquiry report has already exposed the conspiracy of Bill Gates and their entity PATH

As per Section 20 of Indian Trusts Act, the trustees are bound to employ reasonable care, prudence and intelligence. It is their duty to ascertain whether their investment decisions are proper.

In Chapman Vs. Browne (1902)1 Ch. 785, it was case where trustee invested the trust’s money in an improper way without taking proper precaution and legal advice. A case came to be filed against said trustee. The Court declared that the investment was a breach of trust. The Court further ordered that the defaulting trustee should deposit the said amount in Court. The appeal filed by the defaulter trustee was dismissed with cost.

Similar view is taken by the three Judge Queen’s Bench in the case of Jonathan Ingham Learoyd And William Edwin Carter And Elizabeth Whiteley [L.R.] 12 App. Cas. 727it is ruled as under;

“The trustees had not acted with ordinary prudence, and were liable to make good the money with interest at 4 per cent from the date of the last payment.

Business men of ordinary prudence may, and frequently do, select investments which are more or less of a speculative character; but it is the duty of a trustee to confine himself to the class of investments which are permitted by the trust, and likewise to avoid all investments of that class which are attended with hazard.

It plainly appears from these answers that the appellants had no information regarding the subjects mortgaged except what was contained in the report of their valuators.

In these circumstances, I think it has been established that, at the time of taking the security, the appellants altogether failed to exercise that ordinary amount of care which the law required of them.Make them liable for an improper and unauthorized investment, at the trial before Bacon V.C.

Such Trustees are liable to be punished under Section 409 of The Indian Penal Code. It reads thus;

“409.Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, mer­chant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either descrip­tion for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
It is settled law by the Supreme Court and High Court that the trustees who did not oppose the misappropriation of money, should also be liable for prosecution and they should not be granted anticipatory bail.
InRajendraRamdasChaudhari Vs The State of Maharashtra and The Superintendent of Police MANU/MH/0111/2009, Hon’ble High Court rejected the bail of such accused and observed as under;

“Misappropriation of public fund. – offences under section Sections 34, 120-B, 201, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The present applicant should have opposed such proposals during the meetings, if he was really innocent. Not only that the applicant has attended the number of meetings and signed the proceedings of the meetings. The argument of the learned A.P.P. that the present applicant is vicariously liable for all the bogus loans, sanctioned during his period, has considerable substance and said the contention cannot be rejected at outright.

The present applicant has not opposed any of the bogus loan cases during the meetings in which he attended and signed the proceedings.

If the arguments of the learned A.P.P. are carefully perused, various instances have been cited by the A.P.P. to show that how the loans are advanced illegally to the persons contrary to the Rules and Regulations of R.B.I., provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and Rules there under and relevant directions issued by the Government from time to time.

Nobody made any attempt to verify whether the borrowers were eligible, whether the proper procedure was followed, whether the sufficient securities were obtained and whether such huge loans were likely to be recovered.

15. The Supreme Court in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0644/2001: AIR2001SC3810 has observed that if accused facing a charge under Sections 406, 409, 420and 120-B is ordinarily not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code unless it is established that such criminal accusation is not a bona fide one.
16. In the case of Ram NarainPoply v. Central Bureau of Investigation with Pramod Kumar Monocha v. Central Bureau of Investigation with Vinayak Narayan Deosthali reported in MANU/SC/0017/2003: 2003CriLJ4801 the Supreme Court has observed thus: 382. The cause of the community deserves better treatment at the hands of the Court in the discharge of its judicial functions. The Community or the Stateis not a persona non granta whose cause may be treated with disdain. The entire community is aggrieved if economic offenders who ruin the economy of theState are not brought to book. A murder maybe committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offences is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national Economy and National Interest, as was aptly stated in State of Gujrat v. MahanlalJitamaljiPorwal and Anr. A.I.R. 1987 1321.
17. The Supreme Court in the case of HimanshuChandravadan Desai and Ors. v. Stateof Gujrat reported in 2006 Cri. L.J. 136 while considering bail application of the applicants therein has observed thus:

Accused a Director of Bank and others involved in Bank Scam – Siphoned off funds of Bank worth crores by bogus loans and fictitious letters of credit in name of their friends, relatives etc. Offence is very serious Evidence showing their prima facie involvement in offence – Having regard to huge amounts involved there is danger of accused absconding, if released on bail, or attempting to tamper with evidence by pressurizing witnesses Refusal of bail is proper.”