Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
Dr. Paulson Yesudian & Anr. - Petitioners
Vs.
State represented by Inspector of Police Central Bureau of Investigation and Anti Corruption Branch & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. R.C. Nos. 1179 & 1326 of 2010 & Crl. M.P. Nos. 1 + 1 of 2010
Decided On : 06-02-2017
For the Petitioners: Mrs. Gladys Daniel, Mr. Ezhil Raj, Mr. G. Jawaharlal
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Srinivasan, Mr. Vaibhav R. Venkatesh for Nithyaesh and Vaibhav
At the stage of framing charges, strong suspicion is sufficient to proceed with the trial, and the limitation period for filing the charge sheet is determined based on the more severe punishment under FCRA.
Headnote:
FCRA - Criminal Conspiracy - 120B r/w.406 IPC, Section 23(1) and 25 r/w. Section 4, 6 and 13 of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976 - 23(1), 25, 4, 6, 13
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of criminal conspiracy to commit breach of trust and violation of FCRA by obtaining registration for receipt of foreign contribution, diverting funds, and not maintaining proper accounts. The petitioners argued that the charge sheet was filed beyond the limitation period and lacked independent witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found specific allegations of FCRA violations and incriminating materials against the petitioners. The trial court rightly dismissed the discharge petitions, as strong suspicion at the initial stage is enough to proceed with the trial.
Issues: Violation of FCRA, Limitation period for filing charge sheet, Sufficiency of evidence for framing charges
Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing charges, strong suspicion is enough to proceed with the trial. The limitation period for filing the charge sheet is determined based on the more severe punishment under FCRA. Specific allegations and incriminating materials are sufficient to proceed with the trial.
Final Decision: Both criminal revisions were dismissed, confirming the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The trial court was directed to dispose of the main case within four months.
Both the Criminal Revisions are directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore made in CMP.Nos.184 and 186 of 2009 in CC.No.2 of 2008 dated 11.10.2010, in dismissing the discharge petitions filed by the petitioners.
2. The case of the petitioners are that the first respondent/CBI has filed charge sheet against the petitioners under Section 120B r/w.406 IPC, Section 23(1) and 25 r/w. Section 4, 6 and 13 of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976.
3. The main allegations raised in the final report under Section 173 Cr.PC made by the CBI is that Reach in the Niligiris is a registered Society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, the Society has been registered under Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976 in 1992 vide registration No.7597077 entitled to receive and utilize foreign contribution initially in SB Account No.10609, Indian Bank at Coonoor. The revision petitioner in Crl.RC.No.1179 of 2010 is the first accused/Dr. Paulson Yesudian is the Chief Functionary of the Society from 08.12.2002. The revision petitioner in Crl.RC.No.1326 of 2010 is the second accused/Sulo C. Daniel is stated to be functioning from 08.12.2002 to 25.08.2003 as Treasurer and from 25.08.2003 onwards as Secretary/Treasurer. From December 2002-2005, the petitioners are said to have entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust in respect of the Society, violating the provisions of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976 [herein after referred to as "FCRA"] by obtaining registration for receipt of foreign contribution from Government of India by suppressing facts and misleading the Government and also diverted the funds contrary to the purposes of the Society. In pursuance of the conspiracy, it is alleged that second accused forwarded Form No.FC-8 signed by the first accused to the Ministry of Home Affairs seeking permission to operate the bank Account No.3712 at Punjab National Bank, Selaiyur, Chennai for the receipt of foreign contribution. Further, A1 also said to have given an undertaking in the application dated 12.02.2003 to obtain permission for changing office bearers, if there is a replacement of office bearers of 50% or more. But prior to the said date i.e., from 08.12.2002 itself, the new office bearers are said to have started to represent the Society, knowing fully aware of the same, A1 said to have given a false undertaking to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs which permitted the change of the Bank account, the office bearers and the registered address on 18.07.2003. But before from 12.02.2003 to 18.07.2003 foreign contribution were said to have been withdrawn from the bank account on 11 occasions. The petitioners/A1 and A2 are said to have transferred funds to the personal SB Account of Sulochand C. Daniel in violation of Section 4 of FCRA and Section 13 of the Foreign Contribution Act, 1976, for the year 2002-2003 FC III return is said to have shown Rs.1,03,10,850/- as the total foreign contribution. Whereas, the actual contribution received through the designated Bank Account No.3712, Punjab National Bank was only Rs.59,52,000/- the balance amount was said to have been received through the SB Account of N. Jacob former President of Reach in the Nilgiris. It is further alleged that the petitioner did not maintain the accounts in the prescribed manner, during 2002-2003, it is alleged that the petitioner did not maintain the cash book for receipt and utilization of foreign contribution in violation of Section 13 of the FCRA and the petitioner did not maintain proper books of Account for the period from 2002-2003 and 2004-2005, pencil entries and over writings were said to have been made in the ledgers.
4. The prosecution mainly relies upon the statement of accounts received from the Bank, such entries are not relevant for the purpose of providing disbursement of the amounts to such individuals. Unless, those individuals are examin
