The Bombay High Court has cancelled the prosecution and the 2009 summons issued to former ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar and four senior bank officials in a case involving alleged non-payment of octroi on imported gold coins. However, the case will continue against ICICI Bank itself.
A single bench of Justice Neela Gokhale said that the complaint filed by the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) did not mention any specific act or wrongdoing by the individual officials. Because of this, the complaint could not justify prosecuting them.
Background of the Case
PMC accused ICICI Bank of bringing gold coins and bullion into Pune between April 2006 and August 2009 without paying octroi. The corporation calculated dues of ₹1.27 crore, issued notices, and later filed a complaint. Based on this complaint, a Pune magistrate summoned:
- Chanda Kochhar
- Former deputy managing director Nachiket Mor
- A legal officer
- The Bund Garden branch manager
The Pune Municipal Corporation (‘PMC’) filed a Criminal Complaint No. 236 of 2009 against the Petitioners before the JMFC (PMC), Pune under Sections 398 and 401 of the BPMC Act. According to the Corporation, the Petitioners have contravened the provisions of Section 81/1/A of the delegation order notified by the Corporation along with Sections 398, 149, 457, 466(1) and (2) of the BPMC Act. It was alleged that the Petitioner-Bank had imported into the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation, gold bullions/coins for distribution without paying the octroi/toll to the Corporation.
The gold bullions/coins are stated to have been imported during the period 01.04.2006 till 31.08.2009. A notice dated 11th September 2009 was issued to the Bank calling upon it to pay the octroi duty. Despite receipt of the said notice, the Corporation learnt that the Petitioner imported gold bullions/coins for a period through 03.07.2009 upto 31.07.2009.
The octroi payable was computed at Rs.1,27,58,409/-. However, at the time of importing the said goods, the octroi duty was not paid. Therefore, the Corporation issued another notice dated 3rd October 2009 to the Petitioner-Bank, calling upon it to pay the amount of octroi plus the penalty as provided under Section 398 of the BPMC Act. Finally, the Corporation filed the complaint before the JMFC (PMC), Pune.
Court Explains When Octroi Offence Applies
The court explained that Section 398 of the BPMC Act applies only under three conditions:
- Goods, vehicles, or animals liable for octroi are brought into city limits.
- Octroi or toll is not paid.
- The person responsible intended to cheat the municipal corporation.
The judge added that when a company is accused of an offence, its directors or senior officers can be held personally responsible only if the complaint clearly states what role they played.
Officials Say Complaint Was Vague
The bank officials argued that the complaint did not mention how any of them were directly involved in importing the goods or avoiding payment. PMC argued that the bank failed to pay octroi, making both the bank and its officers liable.
High Court Findings
The High Court agreed with the officials. It said the complaint did not contain even the basic details needed to prosecute individuals.
The court noted:
- “A plain reading of the complaint does not demonstrate any role specifically attributed to any of the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5.”
- “Prosecution against the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 cannot continue in the absence of any averment ascribing a specific role attributed to them.”
Because of this, the court quashed the proceedings against the individual officers, but the case will move forward against ICICI Bank.
Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
