Harshad gets five years RI

Though the sentencing was done by 5.40 pm, arguments on suspension of sentence and the judge8217;s order were completed by 6.25 pm. The crowd in the courtroom stayed on. Outside, presspersons and cameramen ran into trouble with the police at the northern gate of the High Court, anxious to click photographs of the Big Bull8217;.

Justice Rane also suspended the sentence till November 2, to enable them to move theSupreme Court and granted the request of the accused for time to deposit the fines, which in the case of some accused will be substantial. The fines are to be deposited by October 28.

Justice Rane had, on Monday, convicted Mehta and two bank officials, besides one former executive of the MUL for offences under section 120-B read with sections 409, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and sections 13 1 c read with sections 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Besides the common charge of conspiracy, P P Manocha, former MUL executive was sentenced to one year RI, plus Rs 10,000 fine and six months further RI in default of fine for offences under the PC Act. He was also sentenced for offences on three separate charges under section 409 of the IPC.

V N Deosthali, former UCO Bank assistant manager was sentenced separately on charges under the PC Act, and another 15 separate charges under sections 467, 468, 471 r/w 467 and 468 of the IPC.

The total fine Deosthali has been ordered to pay will work out to Rs 2.30lakhs. He is also commonly charged with conspiracy.

R N Popli, former officer of the ANZ Grindlays Bank, was awarded three distinct sentences under section 409 IPC, each being five years RI, plus fine of Rs 15000 and further RI of one year in default of fine.

Mehta was awarded one year8217;s RI for offence under section 403 of the IPC. He is ordered to pay a fine of Rs 10000 and suffer further six months of RI in default of fine.

Earlier, counsel for Mehta, Mahesh Jethmalani alleged that the CBI8217;s conduct in the case had been more reprehensible than the acts of the accused. He said the CBI counsel had been selective in the quantum of sentence he asked for accused in other securities scam cases and this one. He said his client was being made a scapegoat in a politically motivated case. He said the CBI chose to file the chargesheet only after it had got Mohan Khandelawal, Mehta8217;s employee, to give the former prime minister P V Narsimha Rao, a clean chit.

He said no loss was caused to either MUL or any bankin the case; in fact the MUL itself had said the transactions got the company opitimal yield. He alleged that the defence was not given vital documents relating to Khandelwal, exposing how the prosecution CBI was motivated.

Amit Desai, who appeared for Manocha said there was no allegation that his client had gained personally from the transactions, and that he had only acted in the regular course of his duties as an officer of MUL. Besides, nobody had lost any money in the transactions.

While Vijay Pradhan was assisted by R S Mhamane for the CBI, Amit Desai, with Vijay Garg appeared for P P Manocha and Ambuj Jain the latter was acquitted. Sushama Singh and C Dharmadhikari represented V N Deosthali, Mohan Pungalia appeared for R N Popli. Mahesh Jethmalani with Amol Chaugule appeared for Harshad Mehta.