Summary
The Supreme Court restored charges against two borrowers alleged to have benefited from irregular credit facilities while their father was president of a cooperative bank. The absence of proper documentation and alleged coordinated benefits disclosed a prima facie cheating and conspiracy case requiring trial. The High Court erred in examining cheating in isolation from the corruption allegations against bank officials and deciding the merits before evidence.
Issues
- Whether cheating and conspiracy charges against the beneficiary borrowers could be quashed before trial on the alleged irregular loan transactions.
Held
- The allegedly undocumented advances and the respondents’ benefit from their father’s position prima facie disclosed cheating and conspiracy. The disputed allegations required proof at trial and could not be finally resolved through inherent jurisdiction at that stage. (¶ 5)
- The cheating allegation had to be considered with the corruption offences charged against bank officials, to which the respondents might be connected through conspiracy, rather than as an isolated offence. The Court made no finding of guilt. (¶ 5)
Result
State’s appeal allowed; High Court order quashing the respondents’ charges set aside. Respondents remained free to pursue other remedies available in law.