Madras High Court
M/S.Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd vs The State Rep. By on 11 November, 2022
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 15.09.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 11.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.7689 & 7691 of 2022
1.M/s.Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.Amit Indrasen Mittal,
Having its registered office at 1st Floor,
No.51, Maha Gujarat Industrial Estate,
Opp. Nova Petrochemicals, Changodar,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382 213.
Corporate Office at
No.22, Dhara Center, Opp. Bikes Auto, Vijay Cross Road,
Navrangpura,
Ahmedabad – 380 009.
2.Suraj Kumar Joshi ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
CBI/ACB/Chennai.
RC 032 2021 A 0001. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records in the proceedings in
C.C.No.7 of 2020 on the file of the Learned XIV Additional Special
Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and quash the same in so far as it relates to
the petitioners are concerned.
Page No.1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022
For 1st Petitioner : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr.AR.Karthiklakshmanan
For 2nd Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr.AR.Karthiklakshmanan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases
*****
ORDER
The petitioners/A3 & A4 are filed this Criminal Original Petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7 of 2020, on the file of the XIV Additional Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai.
2.For the sake of convenience and clarity, the petitioners are reffered to, as per their rank, in the charge sheet. Initially, the case was 'Reserved for Orders' on 15.09.2022 and thereafter, on the representation of the the learned Senior Counsel, this case was listed again on 14.10.2022 and this Court heard the further submissions of the learned Senior Counsel and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI cases.
Page No.2 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022
3.The case of the prosecution is that on source information, a case in RC 032 2021 A000, for offence, under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 8 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) was registered by the respondent on 23.01.2021. On completion of investigation, charge sheet filed against four persons viz., A1-P.Sivarajan, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Madurai, A2- L.N.Murali @ M.Murali, a private person, A3-M/s.Corrtech International Private Limited Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.Amit Indrasen Mittal, and A4-Suraj Kumar Joshi, another private person. After obtaining necessary permission from the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, the mobile numbers of A1 (74012- 76106 and 94893-39393) were intercepted by the respondent, which lead to credible information of bribe. A1 demanded Rs.30,000/- for issuance of license. The Labour license was issued by A1 in the name of M/s.Corrtech International Private Limited after obtained the demand of acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) as illegal gratification. Prior to it, A2 informed A4 about the demand of A1 and A4 agreed to pay the same. On 22.01.2021 after issuance of Labour License in the name of M/s.Corrtech International Private Page No.3 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 Limited, A1 received the bribe amount near Hotel Saravana Bhavan, Anna Nagar, Chennai and placed the amount in the dashboard of his car which was recovered by the respondent and his team in presence of independent witnesses. Immediately, the mahazar was recorded, A1 and A2 were arrested and they confessed about the involvement of the other accused.
4.On further investigation, it revealed that A3 got the project for laying of 3LPE coated carbon steel pipeline in Coimbatore GA (Group-A, Parti-I) from IOCL. LW14 & LW15 are the Coordinators involved in the work for the said project. A Letter of Intent, dated 12.11.2020 was signed by A1, handed over to A4 for doing subcontract work in laying the pipeline. On 21.12.2020, the Labour License application for laying pipeline was uploaded and an email received informing that the application of A3 submitted successfully to the Registering Authority. Later, it was rejected on 24.12.2020 requiring clarification by the Registering Authority. On the same day, the said application was re- submitted to the Registering Authority. Again, on 01.01.2021, the said application was rejected and thereafter, the said application was Page No.4 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 resubmitted on 04.01.2021. This was also rejected.
5.On further investigation, it revealed that A2 was introduced by A4 to LW15, who coordinated and made frequent calls to A2, informed about the rejection of Labour License and finally, on 22.01.2021, the license was issued. Prior to it, there have been regular contacts between the accused through mobile as well as email, which are confirmed by seizure of materials and statement of witnesses. LW6-R.Sureshkumar and LW15-Surjeet Singh Choudhary gave statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., confirming the manner in which the Labour License was issued after payment and assurance of bribe amount. During investigation, the telephonic conversation of the accused were intercepted and their voice were recorded, which was confirmed and proved scientifically. After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed listing 62 witnesses and 113 documents and 10 material objects.
6.The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners/A3 & A4 submitted that as against the petitioners, there is no specific allegation except the fact that A3 got the work contract for laying 3 LPE coated Page No.5 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 carbon steel pipeline in Coimbatore from IOCL which has to be executed by A4 as labour contractor. It is A4, who gave the mobile number of A2 to LW15-Project Coordinator and requested him to speak to A2 with regard to issuance of the Labour License. It was LW6 & LW15-Project Coordinator, who forwarded online Labour License application to the email of A2 for reference. The statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., of LW6 and LW15 does not implicate the petitioners/A3 & A4 in any manner. The entire prosecution is on the basis of source information against A1 by interception of the phone calls. They further submitted that there is no phone call conversation between the petitioners/A3 & A4 with A1 at any point of time. Except the application for Labour License was forwarded through email of A3 company by LW15-Project Coordinator to A2, there is no other material. Further, for the offence under Section 120-B IPC, there is nothing to infer there was any meeting of mind to do lawful act illegally. On the available materials, the ingredients of offence under Sections 7, 8 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), not made out against the petitioners/A3 & A4.
Page No.6 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022
7.They further submitted that it is a case of no evidence against the petitioners/A3 & A4, even if all the statements and documents are taken at their face value, the alleged offences against them not made out. The statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., of LW6 and LW15 reveal that it was A1, who called LW6 to use his login ID and provided password to process the Labour License. The statement of LW15 is categorical that he is not aware about any amount paid to A2, he is ignorant about the arrangement between A1 and A2. In view of the above, the proceedings against the petitioners is without any basis and there is absolutely no material collected to proceed against the petitioners. Hence, the entire proceedings against the petitioners deserves to be quashed.
8.Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the A3 submitted that M/s.Corrtech International Private Limited is a corporate company, which is functioning under a set procedure, wherein each of its officers are assigned and delegated with task. A3 as Managing Director of A3 Company, is appraised by the executives and officers of the company about all the happenings. Since the pipeline laying in Coimbatore involves getting permission from various Government Page No.7 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 departments, A3 company required a person, who knows language of Tamil, English and Hindi to coordinate with local Government departments. For this purpose, A4 being the Subcontractor had entrusted the work to his brother Manoj Kumar Joshi/LW8, who in turn entrusted the work to A2, who coordinated and facilitated the work, other than that there is nothing against A3. The Letter of Intent, dated 17.11.2020 was issued by A3 in favour of A4 for subcontract, which is now being projected as incriminating document. This Letter of Intent issued during normal course of business other than that there is nothing more. A3 executed a power of attorney in favour of LW7 for the project in Coimbatore. LW13 is the Senior Manager (HR) in M/s.Corrtech International Private Limited coordinating and LW14 is the Project Head and LW7 is the Senior Manager and LW15 is the Deputy Manager/Project Coordinator for the project. Except A3 all the other persons from his company namely LW7, LW13, LW14, LW15, LW36 are shown as witness in this case, no incriminating materials found and seized against A3. A3 except for issuance of Letter of Intent, he has never committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The admitted case of the prosecution is that there is no telephonic conversation between Page No.8 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 A1, A2 and the A4. A3 is primarily stationed at Ahmedabad.
9.He further submitted that as a matter of right, A3 has to get licence and there is no evidence or material to show that A3 had paid any money or conspired with other accused in connection with the offence. He further submitted that the officials of the Company, who have been examined, categorically denied of paying any money for any illegal activity to obtain licence. They have already obtained licence from IOCL for laying pipe line and A4 is the Sub Contractor and that there is no trail of money from the Company to A4 or A2. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Labour Department sent all communications and mails to the Company in the individual name of the Managing Director. In fact, when A3 sought for the mails, the HR Department had forwarded all the mails as requested by the CBI. It was the HR Department, coordinated with other departments in submission of the application form, obtaining licence. Hence, pendency of criminal case would affect the prospects of the Company.
10.In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied Page No.9 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Pepsi Foods Limited and another Versus Special Judicial Magistrate and others reported in (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 749”, wherein it had held that 'provisions of Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code are advised to advance justice and not to frustrate it.'
11.Further, he placed reliance on the case of “Umesh Kumar Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Courts Cases 591”, for the point that the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., is extraordinary to exercise. There is no prohibition to entertain the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the charge even before the charges have been framed or before the applications are decided or even during pendency of such application before the concerned Court.
12.He placed reliance on the decision in the case of “Ankur Gupta Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2023”, for the principle that the admitted facts and Page No.10 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 documents relied upon by the complaint, without weighing or sifting of evidence, do not make out any case.
13.The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case “Ravindranatha Bajpe Versus Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd., & Others Etc., in Criminal Appeal Nos.1047-1048 of 2021”, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the principles laid down in “Sunil Bharti Mittal Versus Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609” held that it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so. In the absence of such condition and absence of any evidence to show active role coupled with criminal intent, the case against A3 cannot be proceeded with and it is liable to be quashed.
14.Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing for A4 submitted that A4 is stationed at Raipur, doing mill scale business. His father worked with Brilla Group of Companies in Andhar Pradesh, thereafter, he started one time carbon paper business in Chennai in the Page No.11 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 the name and style of M/s.Pooja Coatings, Triplicane. His brother LW8- Manor Kumar Joshi is doing business in the name of M/s.Pooja Electronics, Triplicane and dealing with servicing of home appliances. He is also doing another business in the name of M/s.Jai Shree Balaji Enterprises, Triplicane, wherein A2 employed as Part Time Accountant, looking after the accounts of M/s.Jai Shree Balaji Enterprises and M/s.Pooja Electronics. He further submitted that M/s.Corrtech International Private Limited issued subcontract to A4 for doing trenching work and laying pipeline in Coimbatore, LW15 came in contact due to the business relationship. Since there was some language problem, A2, Part Time Accountant's service was utilized. Other than that A4 has nothing to do with A2. It is his admitted case that A4 cannot be projected as Co-conspirator. During investigation, A4's brother Manoj Kumar Joshi examined as LW8; a Technician in M/s.Pooja Electronics examined as LW9; Office Incharge of M/s.Pooja Electronic examined as LW10; a Telecaller in M/s.Pooja Electronics examined as LW16 and another Telecaller from M/s.Pooja Electronics examined as LW19. They have stated about A2 employed as Part Time Accountant in M/s.Pooja Electronics and gave A2 details.
Page No.12 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022
15.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that LW9 confirmed it is LW8-Manoj Kumar, who is running the business of M/s.Jai Shree Balaji Enterprises. LW10, LW16, LW19 and LW27, the employees of M/s.Pooja Electronics stated about LW8 carrying on the business and also stated that at LW8 instance, they have opened the bank account in Axis Bank in the name of M/s.Jai Shree Balaji Enterprises. LW29 is the son of LW8. LW30, the Superintendent of GST stated about registration of M/s.Jai Shree Balaji Enterprises and payment of GST. None of these witnesses have stated anything against A4. With regard to procedure adopted for obtaining Labour License, recording of telephone conversation, identification of voice, CIF and CDR particulars issued by the Nodal Officer, Forensic Department Officials and from statement of others, there is nothing incriminating either in the nature of statement and materials collected against A4. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings.
16.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing for the respondent submitted that based on the source information, a case in RC 032 2021 A0001 registered, for offence under Sections 7, 8 & 12 of the Page No.13 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). The A3 M/s.Corrtech International Private Limited represented by his Managing Director was awarded the project for laying 3LPC carbon steel pipeline in Coimbatore for IOCL project. The employees of A3 company viz., LW12, LW15 and LW17 Project Coordinator involved in the said project, letter of Intent, dated 12.11.2020 was signed by the Managing Director of A3 in favour of A4 to do subcontract work in laying pipelines. The Labour License application for 3LPC carbon pipeline in Coimbatore was uploaded on 21.12.2020 and got rejected on 24.12.2020, again uploaded on 01.01.2021, got rejected, again it was uploaded on 04.01.2021. Finding difficulty in getting license since A3 and A4 were unable to comply the conditions, A2 was entrusted to coordinate and somehow get the license. A2 was a Part Time Accountant of A4, who introduced A2 to the officials of A3, coordinated with A2, agreed to bribe and finally, license was issued by A1 on 22.01.2021, on the promise that after issuance of the license, the bribe amount would be paid. The online application was forwarded to A4 and A2, who thereafter coordinated with A1 and finally obtained license. He further submitted that the bribe amount of Rs.30,000/-was handed over by A2 to A1 in Chennai on Page No.14 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 23.01.2021. The respondent intercepting the telephonic conversation between A1 and A2 gather information, intercepted and seized the bribe amount from the dashboard of A1's car. Both A1 and A2 arrested, during investigation, the involvement of the A3 and A4 confirmed by various communications by email and bank transaction. From the attendant circumstances, further documents were collected and seized, which were sent for forensic examination and report was received. Two of the witnesses namely LW6 and LW15 given the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and confirmed that for the benefit of A3 and A4, A2 had given the bribe amount of Rs.30,000/-. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed, listing witnesses and documents and material objects. The involvement of A3 and A4 is by way of conspiracy to do an illegal acts, there is ample material to prove that A3 and A4 connived in furtherance of the conspiracy, actively involved in the offence.
17.He further submitted that the A3 as Managing Director had been communicating with the Labour Department, Coimbatore and all the applications made in the name of the Company through A3. Further, the Principal employer had issued a certificate declaring that Corrtech Page No.15 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 International Private Limited has been engaged for laying of pipe line. Referring to the mails sent to the Labour Department in the name of Company represented by the Managing Director, he further submitted that A3 Company represented by the Managing Director had transacted the business. The points raised by A3 and A4 are factual in nature, which has to be decided only during trial.
18.In support of his contention, the learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Amit Kapoor Versus Ramesh Chander and another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460”, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the power under Section 397, 401 and 482 of IPC, held that the Court should apply the test as to whether uncontroverted allegations, made from the record of the case and documents submitted therewith prima facie case establish the offence or not. Further, it had also held no meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. By exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error Page No.16 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 that might be committed by the subordinate Courts and in cases of express legal bar. In such circumstances only, sparingly the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to be invoked. The High Court not to interfere at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. It is also observed that if the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even, at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage then it cannot be considered and charges to be framed. He further submitted that if the records disclose commission of offence, criminal case and ingredients of offence are satisfied, then such criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. The power cannot be invoked to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this Criminal Original Petition.
19.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
20.It is seen that A3 and A4 along with two others are facing trial under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the offence Page No.17 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 of conspiracy. A3 and A4 primarily pitch their case on the ground that they had no telephonic conversation during the relevant period and had no contacts with A1 directly. It is seen that the witnesses from M/s.Corrtech International Private Limited and M/s.Jai Shree Balaji Enterprises confirmed that A3 was awarded contract for laying of 3LPC coating carbon steel pipeline in Coimbatore for IOCL and A3 given Labour subcontract to A4. For executing the work, both A3 and A4 needed Labour License from the Labour Department. It is seen that earlier on three occasion between 21.12.2020 to 04.01.2021, thrice the applications were rejected. The fourth application made on 22.01.2021 at about 10.59 a.m., and approval was given on the same day at 12.58 p.m., and Labour License was issued. This could be possible only on the facilitation made by A2, a part time Accountant of A4. A2 was entrusted the job for getting government clearance and license. The contractual relationship between A3 and A4 is not in dispute. Both witnesses from A3 company and employees of A4 confirmed the same. Though in quick three applications made and all were rejected, the fourth application accepted and license was given is of concern.
Page No.18 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022
21.There have been seizure of materials including application forwarded by emails to A2 and A3. The investigating agency after obtaining necessary permission from the Ministry of Home Affairs, intercepted the mobile phones of A1, recorded voice of A1 and A2, which was identified by the witnesses. The forensic reports confirms the same and further, the bank details were collected in support of the prosecution case. The nodal officer of mobile operators confirmed the call application form (CAF) and call detail records (CDR). Added to it, the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., of two witnesses were recorded. It is the case of conspiracy, wherein the possibility of direct evidence would be remote and inference has to be drawn from the evidence and materials, collected and available.
22.In this case, apart from the witnesses from A3 and A4, there are other witnesses from the Labour Department, Bank, Nodal Officers from the mobile operators, forensic department and independent official witnesses. Only on examination of witnesses, the confession and defence of A3 and A4 can be looked into. The issuance of license is for the benefit of the A3 and A4. In this case, A2 has no personal gain. In this Page No.19 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 case, a huge sum of money recovered from A1, which was handed over by A2 to facilitate the issuance of license in favour of A3 and A4. The citation referred by the A3 and A4 are not applicable to the facts of the case. A3 company is being prosecuted representing by its Managing Director. As regards A4, he is being prosecuted on his individual capacity. Thus, the prosecution against them is not on vicarious liability. The role of the A3 and A4 is based on the principle of 'alter ego'.
23.A3 M/s.Corrtech International Private Limited company is arrayed as accused. Its Managing Director Mr.Amit Indrasen Mittal, shown as its representative. It is for the concerned to file appropriate petition under Section 305 Cr.P.C., to substitute A3 representation if so desires.
24.Thus, the points raised by A3 and A4 are factual in nature and that has to be decided only during and not in this petition.
25.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. This Court is conscious of the fact that it is a quash application, hence, Page No.20 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 not referred or adverted to the statement of the witnesses and documents in particular, since it might affect the petitioners' defence during trial.
26.It is made clear that the observations and findings recorded in this order, is only for the purpose of disposal of this quash petition. The trial Court to decide the case, on its own merits, uninfluenced by this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
11.11.2022 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vv2 To
1.The XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Page No.21 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 vv2
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN Crl.O.P.No.14104 of 2022 11.11.2022 Page No.22 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis