Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2724
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
S. Murali and Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
State rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police CBI/ACB, Chennai - Respondent
Crl.R.C. No. 487 of 2015
Decided On : 18-07-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. N. Ranganathan
For the Respondent: Mr. K. Srinivasan
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the principle of presumption of innocence applies. Lack of evidence to establish the accused's active participation in criminal activities and their knowledge of illegal operations can lead to acquittal.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Offence under Section 120-B read with 420, Indian Telegraph Act - Section 20 read with 4 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the offences under Section 120-B read with 420 of IPC and Section 20 read with 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The judgment analyzed the evidence and the role of the accused in the illegal switching of international calls to local subscribers, leading to revenue loss to the Government of India. The court examined the incorporation of the company, the role of the accused as directors, and their involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the company. The judgment highlighted the lack of evidence to establish the accused's active participation in the criminal activities and their knowledge of the illegal operations. The court emphasized the prosecution's failure to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the illegal switching of international calls to local subscribers, resulting in revenue loss to the Government of India. The accused were convicted under Section 120-B read with 420 of IPC and Section 20 read with 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The accused challenged the judgment, arguing that they had no active role in the criminal activities and lacked knowledge of the illegal operations. The court examined the evidence and the accused's involvement in the company's affairs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the lack of evidence to establish the accused's active participation in the criminal activities and their knowledge of the illegal operations. The court emphasized the principle of presumption of innocence and the prosecution's duty to prove the guilt of the accused. As a result, the court acquitted the 1st petitioner/1st accused and ordered the refund of any fine paid and cancellation of the bail bond. The court held the 2nd petitioner/2nd accused company liable for the acts of the absconding accused and imposed a fine instead of imprisonment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the accused's active participation in the criminal activities, their knowledge of the illegal operations, and the prosecution's failure to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle of presumption of innocence and the prosecution's duty to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the lack of evidence to establish the accused's active participation in the criminal activities and their knowledge of the illegal operations. The judgment focused on the role of the accused as directors and their involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the company.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the 1st petitioner/1st accused and ordered the refund of any fine paid and cancellation of the bail bond. The court held the 2nd petitioner/2nd accused company liable for the acts of the absconding accused and imposed a fine instead of imprisonment.
This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 18.04.2015 passed by the learned XVIII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai confirming the judgment dated 01.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for one year and under Section 20 read with 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1000/- in default three months rigorous imprisonment. It has been further ordered that sentences awarded shall run concurrently.
2. Originally, the petitioners/1st and 2nd accused herein, were arrayed as 3rd and 4th accused in the charge sheet and one David Hersch Korn and Hersch Korn Thierry were arrayed as the 1st and 2nd accused. In view of their long absconding, i.e., the 1st and 2nd accused, the case was split up and C.C. No. 926 of 2001 was given for the case against the original 1st and 2nd accused and 3rd and 4th in the main case (present accused) are now 1st and 2nd accused in the instant case and Trial went on against the present accused and 20 witnesses were examined and 56 documents were marked. The Trial Court, based on the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused guilty under Section 120-B read with 420 of IPC and under Section 20 read with 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act and imposed punishment as stated above. The lower appellate Court also confirmed the said conviction and sentence. Against which the present revision came to be filed.
3. For the sake of convenience A1 to A4 are referred as mentioned in the charge sheet.
4. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows :
(i) Joint surprise check was conducted by P.W.1 Vice President of Tata Communications Limited, Chennai along with CBI officers and the vigilance officers of BSNL on 03.8.2000, at the premises of the 4th accused (2nd accused herein) M/s. Tele Data Networking services (p) Limited. In the said surprise check, they found that there were computers and the partition was opened and it was also found that there were telecom equipments live and functioning. There were four ISDN DRI lines from Mambalam exchange connected through Siemens make N.T. and also there was one ISDN PRI lines extended from Mambalam Exchange through RAD make HSDL Modem. They also found that instead of connecting PRI line to authorised equipment, the aforesaid line was connected to one equipment which is switch lab make, PSDN/IP voice switching gateway equipment. The aforesaid equipment was further connected to a Cisco 3600 router through a H.P make Pro curve Switch and also connected to another ISDN BRI line through which this equipment can be controlled from a remote location. Further, they found that display switch lab equipment calls were made to local PSDN numbers and in that, they received calls from foreign countries like France, U.S.A., and Canada.
(ii) After verification, the inspection team found that upon receiving this international incoming calls the switch lab equipments dials the local number and switch as the international incoming calls to the local Telephone number. Since these calls were illegally switched by M/s. Tele Data to the local numbers, the Government of India lost its revenue shares. After finding such illegal activities, proceedings were prepared (Ex.P1) and diagram showing the live set up (Ex.P2) was drawn and attached.
(iii) On 04.8.2000 another surprise check was conducted on M/s. Tele Data Network Services Pvt. Ltd., (2nd accused herein) and proceedings were prepared (Ex.P3) and complete set up diagram showing Finer details of connections (Ex.P4) were marked. They also seized switch lab equipments M.O.1 to M.O.4 in the presence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 are the subscribers of
