Suresh Prabhu charged under Section 420

Sandesh Prabhudesai
5 September 1998  

Though union environment Suresh Prabhu could escape from the financial scam in the Bombay court, he appears to have been trapped in over 20 cases he is facing in Goa, where hundreds of Goans had invested around Rs 1.20 crore in the Western Indian Financial Services Ltd.

The magistrates here have refused to recall the process against Prabhu, raising serious suspicion about the date on which the Shiv Sena leader claims to have resigned. On the contrary, one JMFC has also expressed strong suspicion of he cheating the investors, agreeing to apply section 420 of IPC.

Desmond D’Costa, the Panaji JMFC, while deciding a case filed by the Gulf Goans Hotels Co Ltd, has observed that Prabhu did not make any provision for honouring the cheques. This is the only case where Prabhu is charged under section 420 of IPC, besides dishonouring of the cheques.

Prabhu’s sole contention all this time to drop his name from the list of accused was based on the claim that he had resigned before the cheques got bounced in November 1996. However, the charge of cheating traps him even otherwise, right from the time of floating the WIFSL.

While the investors had produced certified copies from the Registrar of Companies that Prabhu had resigned in March 1997, Prabhu had produced documents from the same government agency, claiming that he had resigned in May ’96.

C Fernandes, another JMFC in whose court are pending over 20 cases of WIFSL, had earlier refused to drop Prabhu’s name from the list of accused, stating that the dispute over his resignation date could be settled only during trial.

Throwing more light on the matter, D’Costa in his judgement has stated that the form 32 produced by the union minister is neither dated, signed nor stamped by the RoC, unlike the certified copy of the RoC produced by the investors. He has also pointed out that one letter by the RoC, produced by Prabhu, states that “Prabhu appears to have resigned on 7 May ’96.”

Stating that it is premature to recall process at this stage in such circumstances, D’Costa has also stated that Prabhu’s contention that whether the MP can be prosecuted without sanction of the appropriate authority could be decided only at the trial.

Earlier, Fernandes in his judgement had asked how the court could remain a silent spectator when most of the investors had invested their life-time savings in the WIFSL, of which Prabhu was the chairman. Its other directors, including Nandan Gadgil, are still absconding.

Your Comments Please