Back
2007(4) Supreme 280
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
Markandey Katju, J
Soma Chakravarty — Petitioner
versus
State Through CBI — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 710 of 2007
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.552/2006)
Decided on : 10-05-2007
(1972) 3 SCC 873; (1996) 4 SCC 659; (1996) 4 SCC 659 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
The publicity department of ITPO was concerned with the release of advertisements in newspapers. There were two types of advertisements; (1) regular advertisement & (2) ad hoc advertisements. Regular advertisements were given to the national dailies and other leading newspapers and magazines, whereas ad hoc advertisements were those which were issued on ad hoc basis from time to time with the specific approval of the Chief Managing Director or Executive Director only.
At the relevant time Shri Bal Krishan, Deputy Manager was in charge of the work relating to ad hoc advertisements. He was the authorized officer to process the bills for such advertisements. It is alleged that Shri Ajay Uppal, proof Reader/Senior Assistant of ITPO floated 6 bogus firms and submitted 76 bogus bills worth Rs.30,30,057/- for payment by signing under fictitious names like, Sanjay Gupta, Neeraj, Atul, etc. With these bills he enclosed photocopies of fake advertisements. Out of 76 bogus bills, 14 were dishonestly processed and verified by the accused Soma Chakravarty and P. K. Jindal, in connivance with the co-accused to cheat the ITPO and give wrongful gain to themselves and to the other accused in this case. It is stated that the appellant also had the knowledge that Bal Krishan had been authorized to verify the bills pertaining to ad hoc advertisements. All the bogus vouchers had been filled in by the co-accused Gyase Ram who was neither posted in the publicity division nor was authorized to do so. It is further alleged that the appellant knew that those bogus bills had not been entered in the bills register of the publicity Division of ITPO and no file had been opened/created in respect of these firms claiming to have published advertisements. The file numbers written on the fictitious bills were also fake. None of these bills bore initial or signatures of Shri Balkrishan, who was incharge of the ad hoc advertisements of ITPO at the relevant time. As regards the other accused, P.K. Jindal, the allegation is that he as Senior Manager of Accounts passed bills worth Rs.1,75,000/- related to these transactions. On these facts, the CBI concluded that there was sufficient evidence of conspiracy to cheat along with the other evidence of forgery, cheating and corruption.
Findings of the Court :
Materials on record show existence of materials for framing of charge against the appellant. Appellant’s contention that she signed the bills by negligence without any mala fide intention has to be seen at the time of trial.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Preliminary Assessment for Charge Framing: Before framing a charge, the court must apply its judicial mind to the material on record and be satisfied that the commission of an offense by the accused is possible. The court does not need to determine the guilt or innocence at this stage; rather, it must have some prima facie material indicating that a case against the accused exists (!) .
Acceptance of Prosecution Material: At the stage of charge framing, the probative value of the evidence is not scrutinized in detail. The material presented by the prosecution must be accepted as true for the purpose of the initial assessment (!) .
Material for Framing Charges: There must be sufficient material to establish a prima facie case, indicating that the accused’s involvement in the offense is plausible. The existence of such material justifies proceeding to trial (!) .
Nature of Evidence in the Case: In the specific case, the evidence pointed to the existence of bogus bills and fraudulent activities related to the processing and verification of these bills. The accused were alleged to have knowingly or negligently signed or processed fake bills, which were not entered into official records and lacked proper authorization or signatures from responsible officers (!) .
Role of the Accused: The accused’s defense argued that their actions were either in the normal course of duty or lacked mens rea (criminal intent). It was contended that some signed bills without knowing their fraudulent nature, and that the negligence was on the part of other departments or officials who failed to verify the bills properly (!) .
Court’s View on Negligence and Mens Rea: The court emphasized that signing a document implies a duty to make some enquiry before signing. Even if the signing was done negligently, it could still constitute an offense if the circumstances suggest involvement in a broader conspiracy or fraudulent activity. The assessment of mala fide intent or negligence is reserved for the trial stage (!) .
No Infirmity in Charge Framing: The court held that there was sufficient material to justify framing charges against the accused, given the evidence of forged bills, unauthorized signatures, and the suspicious nature of the transactions. The court clarified that the question of guilt or innocence would be determined during the trial, not at the charge stage (!) .
Implication of the Court’s Decision: The decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the view that the charges were properly framed, and the material on record justified proceeding to trial. The court also clarified that its observations should not influence the trial court’s independent assessment of the case on its merits (!) .
If you need further clarification or assistance with specific legal principles or procedural aspects, please let me know.
JUDGMENT
Markandey Katju, J.—
1.Leave granted.
2.This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court dated 22.10.2005 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 10/2005.
3.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4.The Criminal Revision Petition was filed in the High Court challenging the order of the Special Judge, Delhi in Case CC No. 63/2001 titled CBI vs. Priya Uppal & Ors., by which the appellant and two others had been charged for offences under Section 420 read with Sections 120-B, 429, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code as well as under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant along with the other accused in this case allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy and by misusing their official position caused undue pecuniary advantage to themselves to the tune of Rs.30,30,057/- and caused a corresponding loss to the Indian Trade Promotion Organization (ITPO) which is a wing of the Central Government, from whose account money was released against bogus receipts of advertisements which had actually never been carried by any newspaper or other publication.
5.The prosecution case is that the publicity department of ITPO was concerned with the release of advertisements in newspapers. There were two types of advertisements; (1) regular advertisement & (2) ad hoc advertisements. Regular advertisements were given to the national dailies and other leading newspapers and magazines, whereas ad hoc advertisements were those which were issued on ad hoc basis from time to time with the specific approval of the Chief Managing Director or Executive Director only. The procedure for release of advertisements on behalf of ITPO was as follows:
6.Requests were received from Indian and foreign magazines/newspapers/publications for the advertisements which were processed by the publicity officer of the rank of Deputy Manager level and were put before the CMD/ED through the Senior Manager/Deputy General Manager for his approval. On receipt of the approval from the CMD/Executive Director by the publicity Division the concerned manager sent letters/release orders to the party for publication of the material. After the advertisements were published the concerned officer of the publicity Division of ITPO had to process and pass the bills for making payment to the advertising agency. Copy of the letter sent and copy of the newspapers/magazine were also forwarded or attached to the bill submitted by the agency.
7.The prosecution alleged that at the relevant time Shri Bal Krishan, Deputy Manager was in charge of the work relating to ad hoc advertisements. He was the authorized officer to process the bills for such advertisements. It is alleged that Shri Ajay Uppal, proof Reader/Senior Assistant of ITPO floated 6 bogus firms and submitted 76 bogus bills worth Rs.30,30,057/- for payment by signing under fictitious names like, Sanjay Gupta, Neeraj, Atul, etc. With these bills he enclosed photocopies of fake advertisements. Out of 76 bogus bills, 14 were dishonestly processed and verified by the accused Soma Chakravarty and P. K. Jindal, in connivance with the co-accused to cheat the ITPO and give wrongful gain to themselves and to the other accused in this case. It is stated that the appellant also had the knowledge that Bal Krishan had been authorized to verify the bills pertaining to ad hoc advertisements. All the bogus vouchers had been filled in by the co-accused Gyase Ram who was neither posted in the publicity division nor was authorized to do so. It is further alleged that the appellant knew that those bogus bills had not been entered in the bills register of the publicity Division of ITPO and no file had been opened/created in respect of these firms claiming to have published advertisements. The file numbers written on the fictitious bills were also fake. None of these bills bore initial or signatures of Shri Balkrishan, who was incharge of the ad hoc advertisements of ITPO at
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
