M/S. Cci Logistics Limited v. Station House Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.
R.C .No.
of 20 M/s.CCI Logistics Limited, 202B, Corporate Center, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400 059.
Represented by authorised Signatory Umakantha Das ... Petitioner/De-facto complainant Vs.
1.State Represented by The Station House Officer Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Puducherry.
(Crime No.6/2012) 2.Theagarajan 3.Sakthivel 4.John Victor 5.Parthibhan 6.Perumal 1/26
7.Rajeswaran 8.Thanigaivelan ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, praying to set aside the order dated 22.03.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1320 of 2023 in C.C.No.499 of 2019 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry and allow the petition. For Petitioner : Mr.Prakashgoklaney For Respondent-1 : Mr.K.S.Mohandoss Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) Assisted by Ms.Dhanalatchumy For Respondents 2 to 8 : Mr.B.Sanjay Balachandar
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry in Crl.M.P.No.1320 of 2023 in C.C.No.499 of 2019 dated 22.03.2023.
2.The petitioner/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint against his former employees and others, who misappropriated, cheated and also by 2/26
creating forged documents and using the same as genuine, committed the offence of conspiracy and falsification of accounts. The first respondent police received complaint, registered a case in Crime No.6 of 2012 on 20.04.2012. Thereafter, on completion of investigation filed charge sheet against 7 persons who are respondents 2 to 8 herein and they are now charged and facing trial for offence under Sections 408, 419, 420, 424, 467, 468, 471 and 477A, 120B of IPC r/w Section 34 IPC.
3.The gist of the case is that prior to 20.04.2012 the second respondent/A1 employed as Territory Manager at the de-fact complainant's company which is a logistic company. He was in-charge of the business of the company looking after Pondicherry, Salem, Cuddalore, Trichy, Karur, Kanjikod, Coimbatore, Mettur, Namakkal and Ranipet. He was taking care of the day to day affairs of the company and he was also authorised signatory of cheques, bills and vouchers. A1 with dishonest intention conspired with the other accused namely R3 to R8, who are A2 to A7, the employees of 3/26
petitioner's company. R3 was in-charge of accounts, Puducherry Branch, R4 was in-charge of billing, Puducherry Branch, R5 was Branch Manager of Ranipet, R6 was Operation Assistant, Puducherry Branch, R7 and R8 were Accounts Executives of Madurai and Cuddalore Branch. All have conspired and in pursuance to the conspiracy, misappropriated a some of Rs.4,41,57,066/- by making false payments to fictitious persons, non existing bogus companies by impersonation, as if they have hired vehicles for them to transport their goods to various destinations from Puduchery and by deception facilitated such commission of offences. 3.1. Further false bills and vouchers were produced to the head office and cheated the company as if they are genuine documents. Further using forged documents routing through various bank accounts, money were withdrawn and these amounts were transferred to the friends and relatives accounts for the personal benefits of the accused. Added to it, fake attendance register of three persons, namely Syed Azimoudine, Ashok and Vinoth 4/26
Kannan, who left the company in the year 2010 were shown as they are yet working in the company and salary credited to these persons, thereby misappropriated the company's money.
3.2. Further, they created misappropriation of money of petitioner's company which was shown to have paid to HCL Info System Private Limited, Puducherry amounts to Rs.2,29,900/-, Unitech Control Limited, Puducherry amounts to Rs.21,44,360/-, Ganges International Private Limited, Puducherry amounts to Rs.1,49,56,144/-, Hutson Agro Products Limited amounts to Rs.26,72,600/-, Wipro Limited amounts to Rs.2,32,745/-, Marico Limited amounts to Rs.1,87,43,081/-, Pondy Oxides and Chemicals Limited amounts to Rs.33,56,826/-, Nexus Electro Steel Limited amounts to Rs.13,51,130/-, Sheshasayee Paper and Boards Limited amounts to Rs.4,05,280/- and Gowri Agro Industries amounts to Rs.65,000/-. Thus in this manner the amount have been misappropriated by falsifying account using forged and false documents.
5/26
4.The contention of the petitioner is that during investigation, the petitioner made available all the documents which were available in the office and in the computer system, it was viewed, ascertained and the persons who were pointed with these transactions were examined, statements recorded and correspondingly the bank officials as well as petitioner's clients were all examined and the petitioner also handed over the photostat and in some cases print out of the vouchers, cash bills and all the documents, which were required for investigation. The respondent police received the same, verified with the originals available in the office as well as in the computer system, thereafter filed charge sheet in this case. The Lower Court considering the same, took cognizance of the case, accused appeared, copies were served under Section 207 Cr.P.C., charge sheet framed, there was no objection and thereafter the trial proceeded. 4.1. The petitioner was examined as PW1 at that point of time the petitioner came to know not only photostat copies available, in some cases 6/26
secondary documents were available. The petitioner is in possession of primary documents and for the purpose of technicality and abundant caution, he filed a petition to produce the primary documents otherwise the accused may have the benefit of the same in future. The respondent police also had no objection for the same but the Trial Court viewed it otherwise and dismissed the petition. He further submitted that in his petition before the lower Court he categorically given the details of the documents which are as follows: 7/26
8/26
9/26
10/26
11/26
12/26
13/26
14/26
15/26
16/26
17/26
18/26
19/26
5.The documents have to be marked as per Section 65B of Evidence Act, then only the documents would be admissible as primary documents in the case. Requisite conditions under Section 65B of the Act is being complied with. Further referring to the impugned order, learned counsel submitted that the Lower Court proceeded as though the bank statement can be marked through the concerned bank officials as and when they are examined following Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891, failing to consider that the Bankers Book Evidence Act has to be in compliance with the Information Technology Act. He further submitted that the vouchers which have been mentioned are generated documents from the computer system, which has been regularly used by the petitioner's company, which fact has not been considered by the Lower Court. If the petitioner is denied of marking primary documents, great prejudice would be caused and ensuing accused would get the benefit of the same.
20/26
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case there are 7 accused. All the accused were former employees of the petitioner's company, who have conspired and in collusion have created forged documents and using the forged documents as genuine has misappropriated and cheated the petitioner's company to a huge amount running to several crores and after concerted efforts, investigation completed, charge sheet filed against 7 persons, along with charge sheet, vouchers, bank statement were filed. The Trial Court finding prima facie case made out, took cognizance of the offence, issued summons to the respondents 2 to 8. On their appearance, copies served, charges framed and PW1/de-facto complainant is in the box. When the de-facto complainant examined as PW1, in the midst of the trial, above petition filed to mark the primary documents. The prosecution has got no objection for producing primary documents, since it would be beneficial for the Trial Court and there can be no technical objections.
21/26
7.Mr.B.Sanjay Balachandar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 8 submits that the police not received the original, it is the de-facto complainant, who is producing the same. Hence, the genuineness of some documents is questionable. Further, the case itself is that the respondents 2 to 8 have produced fake receipts and these fake receipts not seized and recovered. Further, in the charge sheet, original documents are not available, now by producing these documents would amounts to filling up of lacunae, which is prohibited. Hence, strongly opposed for the same. 8.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material it is seen that the petitioner already produced computer generated, photostat copies of the documents, which are available with the petitioner, which is not disputed by the respondent police. In this case, investigation conducted, photostat documents along with documents, which are available in the system and the original records of petitioner/de-facto complainant have been 22/26
verified, investigation completed and charge sheet filed. The copies have been furnished to the respondent/accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter cognizance taken, charges framed, now the case is at the midst of the trial. The Lower Court as well as none have made any objection with regard to the production of documents earlier in the charge sheet, now when the petitioner filed a petition to produce the primary documents, objections are raised. It is always beneficial to produce a primary document otherwise there is chances of objection for proceeding with secondary documents, admissibility of these documents may arise later. The first respondent has no objection. The objections of the respondents 2 to 8 can be addressed before the Trial Court. At the time of marking documents during trial, as and when any objection, the same can be decided by the Trial Court. Denying the petitioner of marking primary documents, which is available, would not be proper.
23/26
9.In view of the same, the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry in Cr.M.P.No.1320 of 2023 in C.C.No.499 of 2019 dated 22.03.2023 is hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to produce all the documents along with requisite certificate. Production of 65B certificate is must and necessary to admit documents generated from computer source. The respondent police is directed to mark the same as document by filing appropriate petition before the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits and to proceed with the trial. 10.With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
28.11.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order / Non-speaking order rsi 24/26
To 1.The Station House Officer Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Puducherry.
2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
25/26
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi Crl.
R.C .No.
of 20 2 8 . 11 .202 26/26