Criminal Application No.668 of 2011,Criminal Application No.358 of 2012

25th March, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. VIJAY BADGUJAR with PRAKASH MISHRA, SINGANIA
Respondent Counsel: Mr. SANDEEP KETANE
Other Counsel: Mr. S.A. SHAIKH

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- These two applications are moved by the original complainant for cancellation of bail.

2. The accused persons, respondents in criminal application No.668 of 2011, are Deepak Uttamchand Jain, his wife Mrs. Santosh and son of Deepak.

3. Respondent in application No.358 of 2012 Mr. Ramchandra Murthy, is a practicing Chartered Accountant. He had audited the balance sheets of Skylite Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. for various years and had furnished auditor's report.

4. The order of grant of anticipatory bail under challenge in these two applications are passed by two different Sessions judges.

5. In these two applications the First Information Report, the point involved, the submissions advanced and documents to be referred are one and the same. In view of all these common factors both these applications are decided by this common judgment.

6. Heard respective Advocates at length, and perused the record annexed and tendered.

7. The commission of offence under sections 465, 467, 468, 474, 406, 420 read with section 34 of IPC is described in the FIR and during oral submissions in following brief summary :-

(a) A petition was filed by the complainant and his family members before Company Law Board against Deepak Jain and his family members - the accused.

(b) The petition is in relation to oppression mismanagement, misfeasances, malfeasance as regards the assets and the affairs of company, done by the accused.

(c) In said case filed by complainant before the Company Law Board, the respondents (accused) pleaded in defence that net worth of the company had turned eroded and negative.

(d) The complainant furnished a report of valuation, showing positive net worth and that company had adequate assets and complainant was frauded by the respondents.

(e) In order to deny and refute the complainant's claim the respondent Deepak Jain and his family members filed reply and furnished fresh valuation and certain documents.

(f) Deed of confirmation of equitable mortgage executed by accused for and on behalf of the company in favour of one amongst the creditors of company is relied upon, by the accused before the Company Law Board. According to the applicant said memorandum of equitable mortgage is forged document.

(g) The forgery is apparent in the background that the investigation has revealed that stamp paper on which said document was prepared was not issued to the company on purported date of its issue and the dates on said documents was executed. Though it is not anti-dated, apparently it is a forged document being a document drawn on a stamp paper which was not issued to the executant.

(h) The document in relation to which forgery is complained of is recorded on Page 119 in Criminal Application No.668 of 2011.

(i) The accused Mr.Ramkrishna Murty is Chartered Accountant. He is respondent in Criminal Application No.352.

(j) Ramkrishna Murty is a partner of Laxman Jain, the Chartered Accountant Firm.

(k) The accused - Ramkrishna Murty has signed a forged auditor's report to cover and support forged balance sheets.

(l) The balance sheet was prepared for showing that the net worth of the company had eroded, are those balance sheets and auditor's report in that regard are anti-dated.

(m) The Auditor's report have been prepared in 2010 as it is apparent from the dates below signatures put at bottom of audit report. However, letter head on which the auditor's report is prepared contains telephone numbers printed on the letter head with eight digits.

(n) Telephone landline numbers of MTNL with eight digits commenced only in 2012.

(o) Therefore, accused Ramchander Murthy, Chartered Accountant as is party to fraud and forgery as to balance sheets committed by accused Deepak Jain and his family members and has also abated the said offence and hence he is also responsible for commission of said offence of forgery in balance sheet and auditor's report alongwith main accused.

8. Learned Advocate for the applicant has presented the case raising the grounds and submissions forcefully.

9. State has not supported those applications.

10. The points put forward by learned Advocate of the applicant in support of these applications can be summarised though with slight repetitive reference as follows :-

(a-1) The complainant and other shareholders from the group of the complainant were excluded from the participation in the management and affairs of Skylite Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. and ultimately the accused have committed forgery and tampering of record for denying to these minority shareholders of their stake and legitimate interest in the assets of the company and did all these by criminal acts.

(a-2) The forgery done by accused persons is patent and can be seen by naked eyes.

(a-3) The document of memorandum of equitable mortgage of assets of company which is executed by the accused in favour of creditors is forged by the accused to fraudulently charge the assets of the company.

(a-4) This forgery by way of creating a memorandum of equitable mortgage is apparent from the document. Though the document cannot be shown as ante dated, the stamp paper on which it is drawn has come from source who deny that it was issued to the accused and hence the source turns out to be dubious.

(a-5) MSSIDC who has purportedly sold said stamp paper has informed the investigating officer that said stamp paper was not sold / issued to the accused and that said stamp paper was rather issued to some other party.

(a-6) The date of issue of said stamp paper written on it is tampered.

(a-7) The date of execution is admittedly after its purported date of issue, as noted on the stamp paper, however, this fact does not legalise the use of said stamp paper which was not issued / sold to its user.

(a-8) If the transaction disclosed in said memorandum of equitable mortgage was genuine it ought not have been executed in such a dubious way.

(a-9) Prima facie the act of forgery as regards equitable mortgage is fully described and is duly demonstrated.

(b-1) Accused Ramkrishna Murty the Chartered Accountant has signed his Auditor's report of Skylite Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. in 2010.

(b-2) The letter heads used for preparing and scanning the auditor's report contain eight digit telephone numbers.

(b-3) The use of eight digit telephone numbers began with MTNL in 2012.

(b-4) It is thus evident that audit reports are forged to certify forged annual reports, apparently forged in 2012 though it is made to appear that those were made in 2010.

(b-5) Accused Ramkrishna Murty has thus became party to the offence of forgery.

(c-1) The anticipatory bail applications of all accused ought not have been granted.

(c-2) In view that not just prima facie, but a patent case of forgery, cheating and abatement etc. is made out against all accused. Present is a fit case for cancellation of anticipatory bail. Since in such a gross and patent case of fraud and forgery, anticipatory bail should not have been granted.

11. Accused who have been granted Anticipatory bail have supported the order passed by Session Court and opposed present application.

12. In order to deal with the challenge it shall be necessary to see and analyse the documents which are shown and relied upon as forged document.

About Equitable Mortgage

13. The memorandum of equitable mortgage :-

(a) This court has scrutinized the document of equitable mortgage.

(b) It is seen that it is prepared on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-. It is issued by MSSIDC as licensed stamp vendor on 8/4/2008. Issue appears to be in the name of "Skylite Switchgears Pvt. Ltd."

(c) It is seen that it is prepared on 22/9/2008.

(d) Perusal of schedule to said memorandum show that the payments shown therein are antecedent. Part of these is the payment to MSFC from whom the company and its assets were acquired by the accused alongwith the complainant.

(e) As urged, document of equitable mortgage is forged because the forgery is done as regards its date and not as regards the transaction of debt which is prima facie an undeniable transaction being done through Bank.

(f) Though the document of equitable mortgage may have been prepared at sometime later than on which date it was created. As to whether there existed transactions is matter of enquiry or investigation which investigating officer is bound to make.

(g) It is seen that the transactions for which security by way of equitable mortgage is created are done by cheque and through bank.

(h) In any case where there is any mortgage or not pre-existing and date appears to be a fact, would not be proper at this stage to urged for the parties and persuade this court to believe that whole transaction is based on forgery.

(i) Moreover this equitable mortgage would always remain a floating charge. If at all it is a registered charge, the allegation that it is forged or ante dated would automatically come in doubt.

About Balance Sheets and audit reports

14. The preparation of Auditor's report in regard to particular date, it is doubted whether in itself would constitute forgery aimed at and with intention to cheat, and abatement thereof.

15. In fact due to preparation of balance sheet however erroneous, and fraudulent those could be, those provide to the company an opportunity to look into, search and research in the transaction on the basis of which the balance sheets are prepared. It would therefore be wholly premature to raise a clamour against the Chartered Accountant to be responsible for forgery as an author or otherwise of audit reports much less as regards the balance sheets.

16. Admittedly, proceedings are pending before Company Law Board. Company Law Board who has full rein over the issue as to whether acts of malfeasance, misfeasance or acts defrauding the assets of company are done by the accused.

17. Though it is seen that the prayer for cancellation of anticipatory bail has been argued very vehemently and strongly, basically in the event of assessment of mutual rights and liabilities what would be proved on the basis of actual evidence will be the foundation of respective stake and/or liability in or against the company in the proceedings under Companies Act. Element of criminality will have to be seen thereafter.

18. In any event just because some documents are created, alleged to be created respective rights and liabilities would never be decided merely on these documents. In this situation the grounds addressed by the applicants against grant of prayer for anticipatory bail are of not much help in the light of what is discussed in foregoing paragraphs.

19. It is seen that the applicant has failed in showing that grounds on which bail is sought to be cancelled are so shockingly grave that the bail granted by Sessions Court be cancelled.

20. Moreover, the investigating officer has never pursued the insistence for police custody. Complainant cannot claim that contrary to the claim of police / investigating officer, the accused be forced upon in custody of investigating officer. In this situation complainant cannot gain apart from satisfaction that the accused shall have to remain in jail. Therefore, what applicants want is an exercise in futility till they are granted regular bail. Regular bail would be the ordinary course of law and suffer imprisonment well before their civil and criminal liability is judicially pronounced after trial. All that is applicants want is that let the Anticipatory bail be cancelled, let the accused be arrested and they shall remain in majestrial custody.

21. The anticipatory bail once granted cannot be cancelled just for asking. The case against the accused has to be gross and shocking. Nothing of this sort is shown by the complainant against the applicant.

22. This court has perused the case law cited at bar by learned Advocate for the applicant. Considering the discussion on fact it would be of no gain to discuss the law of precedents, which this court has noticed and actually applied.

23. Therefore, no ground whatsoever are made out for cancelling the bail.

24. The applications have no merit and are dismissed.

Application dismissed.