The main legal point established in the judgment is that charges cannot be framed without material, and belated attempts to scuttle ongoing trials will not be entertained.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order, dated 16.02.2022 framing charges for offences under 406, 420, 120B, 458, 471, 409 r/w 109 IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act in C.C.No.6 of 2020 on the file of the Special Court for TNPID Act Offences, Chennai.

Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order, dated 16.02.2022 framed charges for offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B, 468, 471, 409 r/w 109 IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act, under order, dated 16.02.2022 in C.C.No.6 of 2020 on the file of the Special Court under TNPID Act offences, Chennai insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to revise and set aside the order, dated 16.02.2022 of the Special Court in the case C.C.No.6 of 2020 on its file framing charges for offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B, 468, 471, 409 r/w 109 IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act insofar as the petitioner is concerned.)

Common Order

1. These three Revision Cases arise out of the same case in C.C.No.6 of 2020 and are filed against the order of framing of charges and as such are taken up and disposed off by this common order. Crl.R.C.No.1237 of 2022 is filed by the accused No.1, while, Crl.R.C.No.1242 of 2022 is filed by the accused Nos.18, 19, 20, 21, 26, 28 and 31. Crl.R.C.No.1278 of 2022 is filed by the accused No.10.

2. Though Crl.R.C.No.1237 of 2022 was filed through a learned Counsel, R.Subramanian, Director, appeared in person and submitted that he has already revoked Vakalath and argued in person, the same Mr. R.Subramanian argued as learned Counsel in respect of the other two revisions. Heard Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent in both the Revision Cases and Mr.C.Arun Kumar seeking to intervene in the matter on behalf of the victim depositors.

3. Mr.R.Subramanian, party-in-person appearing in Crl.R.C.No.1237 of 2022, would submit that in this case, copies were furnished to him on 16.02.2022, but, however, charges were also framed on the very same date and therefore, he could not make any submissions at the time of framing of charges. He would submit that the defence is entitled to make such submissions before the Trial Court for the purpose of framing of charges and no fair and proper opportunity was given in respect thereof. Be that as it may, taking this Court through each and every individual charge which is framed, the learned Counsel would submit that in this case, firstly, the Trial Court has framed charges under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.(2009) 8 SCC 751, he would submit that unless it is proved by the prosecution that any false document is made or created, the accused cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. He would submit that unless any person is alleged to have been the maker of the false document within the definition of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence of forgery and relied upon the judgment in Sheila Sebastian Vs. R.Jawaharaj and Anr.(2018) 7 SCC 581.

5. He would thereupon submit that the charges are framed in this case for the same set of allegations for the offences under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Relying upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Wolfgang Reim and Ors. Vs. State and Anr.2012 SCC OnLine Del 3341 , more particularly paragraph No.34, he would submit that both the offenses cannot be charged on the same breadth as in one offense, the dishonest intention is to be there at the inception while in the other, it comes later. Relying upon the judgment in Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Delta Classic (P.) Ltd.(2011)