Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. G.GIRISH, J
PRATHAPACHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERNAKULAM TOWN, SOUTH POLICE STATION – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 316 OF 2019
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves allegations of financial fraud, including cheating, forgery, and falsification of accounts, against the petitioners who held positions in a cooperative housing society. The prosecution claims that the petitioners concealed the actual consideration received from a construction company and misrepresented the transaction details (!) (!) .
The core allegations are that the petitioners, as President and Secretary of the Society, entered into an agreement with a builder, showing a significantly lower consideration amount (Rs.35,00,000) than the actual amount paid (Rs.1,70,00,000), and misappropriated the excess funds for personal use and broker payments (!) (!) .
The case was initiated after an inspection by Income Tax authorities revealed discrepancies in the payment details, leading to the registration of criminal proceedings against the petitioners for cheating the Society through forgery and falsification of accounts (!) (!) .
The court examined whether the acts of the petitioners constitute the offense of cheating under the relevant legal provisions. It concluded that their actions, which involved inducing the Society to transfer property based on false representations of consideration, amount to cheating under the law (!) (!) .
The court also analyzed the alleged forgery, determining that the false agreement and manipulated records qualify as false documents made with the intent to commit fraud, thereby constituting the offense of forgery (!) (!) .
Additionally, the falsification of accounts was established, as the petitioners allegedly made false entries in the Society’s records regarding the transaction, which falls under the offense of falsification of accounts (!) .
The court noted that some offenses, such as criminal breach of trust, may not be applicable in this context, but emphasized that the prosecution’s case for cheating, forgery, and falsification of accounts remains valid and should proceed (!) .
The evidence relied upon by the prosecution, including statements from involved witnesses and documents from tax authorities, supports the allegations of fraudulent conduct. The court recognized that the admissibility and probative value of this evidence are matters for the trial court to decide (!) .
Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners, affirming that there are sufficient grounds to continue criminal proceedings against them for the charges of cheating, forgery, and falsification of accounts (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the fraud allegations against petitioners. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners claim to be falsely implicated. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. analysis of the allegations and required proofs. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. legal definitions and implications of cheating and forgery. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court's reasoning to uphold ongoing prosecution. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORDER
Annexure-2 order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic offences), Ernakulam, in C.M.P.No.1481/2017 in C.C.No.534/2016, declining the request of accused Nos.1 & 2 for their discharge from criminal prosecution in the aforesaid case, is under challenge in this revision. The petitioners face criminal prosecution as accused Nos.1 & 2 for the commission of offences under Sections 406 , 468, 477A & 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC '), in the case instituted upon a final report filed by the Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town South Police Station.
2. The prosecution case is summarised as follows:
The petitioners were the President and Secretary, respectively, of the Cochin Shipyard Staff Co-operative Housing Construction Society (in short, ‘Society’), during the period 2004-2009. At that time, the petitioners, representing the above Society, entered into an agreement with a builder company by name ‘Jain Housing Construction Company’ for providing a road of 09 mtr width being used by the Society which the petitioners represent, as a way of access to the above company also by receiving an actual consideration of Rs.1,70,00,000/-, but showing the consideration amount as only Rs.35,00,000/- in the agreement and the registers maintained by the Society. It is thus alleged that the petitioners dishonestly concealed material facts regarding the actual amount received from the above construction company and made use of Rs.1,00,00,000/- out of the excess amount for their personal needs and Rs.35,00,000/- for the payment of commission to seven brokers. It is further alleged that the petitioners utilised a portion of the booty amount received for the purchase of landed property in the names of their spouses. Thus, the petitioners are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.
3. The financial fraud involved in this case is said to have come to light pursuant to an inspection conducted by the Income Tax Authorities at the office of the Jain Constructions Company Private Limited. It is stated that in the above inspection, the Income Tax Authorities found that Jain Construction Company Private Limited had paid Rs.1,70,00,000/- to the society which the petitioners represent, in connection with the agreement executed for the use of the way mentioned above. Upon getting information about the mismatch of the actual amount paid by Jain Construction Company Private Limited to the Society which the petitioners represented, for the purchase of right of way, and the diminished amount shown in the relevant records, the present crime was registered against the petitioners for cheating the Society by resorting to forgery and falsification of accounts. After the completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town South Police Station, laid the final report alleging the commission of the aforesaid offence by the petitioners.
4. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that they are totally innocent, and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. According to the petitioners, there is absolutely no basis for the criminal prosecution launched against them by relying on the statements alleged to have been given by the representatives of Jain Construction Company Private Limited to the Income Tax Authorities about the payment of Rs.1,70,00,000/-. It is further contended that the offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery will not be made out even if the aforesaid statement given by the representatives of the Jain Construction Company Private Limited to the Income Tax A
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
