2022 Supreme(Mad) 2265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
State Represented by Inspector of Police, BI/ACB/Chennai - Appellant
Versus
V. Thiyagarajan & Others - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 474 of 2012
Decided On : 16-06-2022

In the absence of conclusive evidence, the court cannot hold an individual solely responsible for the actions of a committee or group, especially when there is no evidence of personal illegal gain.

Headnote:

The court set aside the trial court's judgment of acquittal for the fourth respondent and convicted him under Section 420 IPC for making a false claim on the basis of false medical records and deceiving the United India Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in the Lok Adalat settlement. The court confirmed the acquittal of respondents 1 to 3 by the trial court.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved allegations of conspiracy and forgery in the settlement of motor accident claims in Lok Adalat. The first respondent was a Senior Divisional Manager of United India Insurance Company Limited, the second and third respondents were practicing advocates, and the fourth respondent was a claimant in one of the motor accident claims. The prosecution alleged that the first respondent had settled the claims without following the rules and regulations of the company, and that the second and third respondents had arranged for false medical records to support the claims. The fourth respondent was accused of making a false claim on the basis of false medical records.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no conclusive evidence to show that the first respondent alone was responsible for approving the Motor Accident Claim cases for settlement before the Lok Adalat for pecuniary advantage by illegal or corrupt means either to himself or others and committed criminal misconduct. Similarly, though there was evidence in support of the prosecution that PW.1, PW.3 and fourth respondent had made a false claim on the basis of false medical records, there is no conclusive proof available to show that the second and third respondents were the persons responsible for making / arranging for false medical records and filing false claim.

Issues: 1. Whether the first respondent was solely responsible for approving the Motor Accident Claim cases for settlement before the Lok Adalat for pecuniary advantage by illegal or corrupt means either to himself or others and committed criminal misconduct? 2. Whether the second and third respondents were the persons responsible for making / arranging for false medical records and filing false claim?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was no conclusive evidence to show that the first respondent alone was responsible for approving the Motor Accident Claim cases for settlement before the Lok Adalat for pecuniary advantage by illegal or corrupt means either to himself or others and committed criminal misconduct. The court noted that the first respondent was only a member of a three-member Committee and that all three members had approved the claims/ settlement. The settlements were sent for approval to the Regional office along with documents. Regional Office had also approved the settlement of claims. Therefore, the court held that it was highly inappropriate to prosecute the first respondent alone for the collective wrong committed by other members of Divisional Claims Committee, especially when there was no evidence forthcoming against the first respondent that he approved the claims for his personal illegal gain. 2. The court held that there was no conclusive proof available to show that the second and third respondents were the persons responsible for making / arranging for false medical records and filing false claim. The court noted that there was no evidence to show that the second and third respondents filed the medical records before the Lok Adalat for settlement. It was also noted that the wound certificates, discharge summaries, medical bills and their copies were produced before the Court and marked as Exhibits, but there was absolutely no investigation conducted and evidence produced as to the source of creation/production of discharge summaries and inpatient medical bills, as to how and from where the second respondent obtained the discharge summaries and medical bills. Thus, the court held that the charge against respondents 2 and 3 that they arranged the aforesaid medical records through PW.2 is not supported by the evidence available in this case and thus, not proved.

Final Decision: The court set aside the trial court's judgment of acquittal for the fourth respondent and convicted him under Section 420 IPC for making a false claim on the basis of false medical records and deceiving the United India Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in the Lok Adalat settlement. The court confirmed the acquittal of respondents 1 to 3 by the trial court.