In an important decision, Justice Neela Gokhale of the Bombay High Court has cancelled the prosecution and quashed a 2009 summons issued by a Pune court against former ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar and four senior bank officials. The case involved allegations that octroi was wrongly avoided on imported gold coins.

The High Court found that the complaint filed by the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) did not mention any specific actions or wrongdoing by Kochhar or the other officials. Because there were no clear allegations showing their personal involvement, the court ruled that they could not be held individually responsible.

Although the charges against these five officials have been dismissed, the case will continue against ICICI Bank as an institution.

The court explained how the municipal statute applies, noting that “Section 398 of the BPMC Act thus, can be invoked if (i) any vehicle, animal or goods, liable to octroi, are imported into the city limits; (ii) the payment of toll or octroi is not made and (iii) the non-compliance is with an intention of defrauding the Corporation.”

The court also reiterated a well-established legal principle stating that “it is settled law that when a company is the accused, its directors, managers, secretary, etc, can be roped in only if there is some incriminating role ascribed to them.”

Background:

PMC’s complaint alleged that ICICI Bank had introduced gold bullions and coins into Pune from April 2006 to August 2009 without paying the required octroi dues amounting to Rs 1.27 crore. Subsequent to notices sent to the bank, a magistrate ordered summons for Kochhar, former deputy managing director Nachiket Mor, a legal officer, and the Bund Garden branch manager.

The accused officials challenged the charges, arguing that the complaint was unclear and failed to explain how they were personally implicated. On the other hand, the PMC argued that the bank itself was liable because it had imported goods without paying the required duty.

Court’s Observations:

Upon review, the High Court concluded that the complaint did not meet the essential criteria for prosecuting the individual officers, stating, “a plain reading of the complaint does not demonstrate any role specifically attributed to any of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5.”

The court finalized its stance by noting, “prosecution against the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 cannot continue in the absence of any averment ascribing a specific role attributed to them. There is no such pleading in the entire complaint.”

Appearance:

Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Faisal Ali Sayyed instructed by Adv.MK Ambalal

Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Faisal Ali Sayyed instructed by Adv. MK Ambalal

Case Details: ICICI Bank Limited and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Anr, CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.487 OF 2010