COMMON ORDER

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.1, 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.2.

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.3, more particularly paragraph No.34, he

1 (2009) 8 SCC 751 2 (2018) 7 SCC 581

3 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3341 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.4, he would submit that there is a distinction which exists between the criminal breach of trust and offense of cheating and if a person is accused of committing criminal breach of trust, he cannot be accused of of cheating too. For the same proposition, he relied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jalpa Parshad Aggarwal Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.5. By further relying upon the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shilpa Ajwani and Ors. Vs. U.T.Chandigarh and Ors.6, the petitioner in person would point out that there is a fundamental inconsistency between the offense under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and on the same set of facts, the offenses cannot stand together being the antithesis of each other. He would submit that in this case, the prosecution, being not clear of what it is alleging, has no legs to maintain both the charges of criminal breach of trust and cheating.

4 (2011) 6 Gauhati Law Reports 604

5 1987 SCC OnLine P&H 580

6 C.W.P.No.19354 of 2015 (O&M)

6. In respect of the off