Telangana High Court
Serious Fraud Investigation Office ... vs Sudhakar Gande,Md on 6 June, 2023
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.180, 181 and 190 of 2023 COMMON ORDER :
These revision cases are filed being aggrieved by the orders of the Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad dated 24.02.2023, in Crl.M.P.No.9 of 2023 in C.C.No.125 of 2013, Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2023 in C.C.No.130 of 2013 and Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2023 in C.C.No.131 of 2013 respectively. The revision petitioner in all the above CCs is the petitioner/complainant.
2. All the above Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions were preferred by the complainant in the above said CCs under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner/complainant has filed cases against the respondents/accused under Section 227 read with 233 and 628 of the Companies Act, 1956.
3. The brief facts culled out of the petitions are that the Central Government Ministry of Corporate Affairs (herein after referred as 'MCA') ordered investigation, under Section 235 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') into the affairs of the erstwhile Global 2 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.180, 181 & 190 of 2023 Trust Bank Limited (hereinafter referred as e-GTB) vide letter No.7/26/2007-CL-II dated 28.05.2010 and the investigation report dated 06.03.2012 was submitted to MCA. Thereafter, MCA vide its letter No.5/06/2012-CL-II dated 23.07.2012 further issued directions to Serious Fraud Investigation Office i.e. petitioner herein to initiate prosecution against the accused for violation of various Sections of the Act. Pursuant to that, the petitioner lodged criminal complaints dated 20.01.2013 in C.C.Nos.125 of 2013, 130 of 2013 and 131 of 2013 respectively before the Special Judge for Economic Offences-Cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the above said offences against the respondents/accused i.e., Partha Ghosh, Ch.Raja Rao etc., and the Special Judge has taken cognizance for the offences. It is relevant to mention that the proceedings against the accused No.3 in C.C.No.125 of 2013 and C.C.No.131 of 2013 were quashed by this Court vide orders dated 22.12.2017 and 23.08.2018 in Crl.P.No.8835 of 2013 and Crl.P.No.7794 of 2013 respectively.
3
GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.180, 181 & 190 of 2023
4. The present complaints are based on the investigation report of the team of Officers i.e., P.R.Lakra, Additional Director, R.K.Mishra, Senior Assistant Director, Anupam Vashsit, Assistant Director, Girraj Singh, Assistant Director and Sanjeev Kumar Guar, Assistant Director, who have been listed as witnesses in C.C.Nos.125 of 2013, 130 of 2013 and 131 of 2013. It is the specific contention that inadvertently copy of the investigation report dated 06.03.2012 was marked as Ex.P-5 through P.W.1 in all the three cases. Summons were issued to L.W.5/Sanjeev Kumar Guar on 13.02.2020. The original investigation report dated 06.03.2012 is the most crucial document to prove the case of the prosecution. Therefore the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.Nos.181/2022, 180/2022 and 182/2022 under Section 254 (1) of Cr.P.C. to file additional document i.e., original investigation report through L.W.5 and the same were allowed on 04.11.2022. Thereafter, the evidence of L.W.5 i.e., Sanjeev Kumar Guar was closed vide docket order dated 25.11.2022. But, the original investigation report could not be marked through L.W.5. The petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.Nos.9 of 2023, 11 of 2023 4 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.180, 181 & 190 of 2023 and 10 of 2023 in C.C.Nos.125 of 2013, C.C.No.130 of 213 and C.C.No.131 of 2013 respectively under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to re-open the prosecution evidence and to examine L.W.3 i.e., Anupam Vashsit, Assistant Director as witness for the purpose of filing original investigation report dated 06.03.2012. All the above Crl.M.Ps. were dismissed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Cases are filed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that it is just and necessary to re-open the evidence of prosecution to examine L.W.3/Anupam Vashsit, Assistant Director as witness for the purpose of marking original investigation report dated 06.0.2012, as it is very crucial document for enabling the Court below to come to a just conclusion of the case. Further, no prejudice will be caused to the accused by allowing the petitions and therefore, prayed to set aside the orders of 5 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.180, 181 & 190 of 2023 the trial Court in all the above Crl.M.Ps. and further, prayed to re-open the evidence of prosecution.
7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Apex Court reported in Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam 1, wherein it is held as follows:-
"3. Very strangely, the High Court did not even issue notice to the appellant/complainant, on the spacious ground that the production of the documents, which was sought for by the accused, would cause no prejudice to the appellant/complainant. We fail to understand this logic. After all, if the documents in possession of the appellant/complainant, which were his personal documents, sought for by the accused and the production of which was rejected by the Trial Court, and which were ordered to be produced by the High Court, at least a hearing should have been given to the appellant/complainant. He could have shown, firstly, that no such documents existed or that there was no basis for the production of those documents, particularly, in view of the fact that he was not even cross-examined in respect of those documents. On this ground, the order of the High Court would have to be set aside.
4. Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 1 Manu/SC/0408/2009 6 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.180, 181 & 190 of 2023 397(2) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent/accused and the only defence that was raised, was that his signed cheques were lost and that the appellant/complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders, i.e., one on the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed."
8. The above judgment do not apply to the present facts and circumstances of the case as the trial Court has initially allowed the criminal petitions filed by the petitioners for the purpose of receiving the original investigation report as additional document and to mark it through L.W.5/Sanjeev Kumar Gaur. Even after allowing the said petitions, the petitioner has not examined L.W.5/Sanjeev Kumar Gaur. The trial Court left with no other option has closed the prosecution evidence. The present petitions are coming up under Section 313 of 7 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.180, 181 & 190 of 2023 Cr.P.C. at the fag end of the trial seeking to mark original investigation report through L.W.3 instead of L.W.5. for the similar relief, without seeking for setting aside the docket order of the trial Court, after closing the prosecution evidence. Further, the certified copy of the same document was marked as Ex.P.5. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner even in the absence of marking the original investigation report as it is already on record by way of certified copy.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that there is no necessity to re-open the evidence of prosecution at this juncture as the petitions are filed by the petitioner at a very belated stage after closure of the prosecution evidence. Further, he contends that Ex.P-5 is already on record, which is the copy of the original investigation report.
10. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the copy of the investigation report was already marked as Ex.P-5 before the Court. Furthermore, the petitions filed under Section 254 (1) of Cr.P.C seeking to file additional 8 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.180, 181 & 190 of 2023 document i.e., original investigation report through L.W.5/Sanjeev Kumar Guar were allowed on 04.11.2022 and the evidence of L.W.5 was closed by docket order dated 25.11.2022. The petitioner has not made any effort to set aside the docket order dated 25.11.2022. Instead of that he filed fresh petitions under Section 311 of Cr.P.C for marking of the very same original investigation report through L.W.3/Anupam Vashsit, Assistant Director as witness. Though the certified copy of the said document was already marked through P.W.1. as Ex.P.5, the petitioner is insisting to mark original document of Ex.P-5 stating that it is a crucial document. It is not known as to why the original document earlier was not marked through P.W.5/Sanjeev Kumar Gaur. Moreover, the contents of the original investigation report and the contents of Ex.P-5 are one and the same which is the certified copy of the original investigation report. No reasons were assigned as to why the original report dated 06.03.2012 is to be marked again, once the petitions were allowed and permitted to get it marked through L.W.5/Sanjeev Kumar Guar, Assistant Director. Further, it is not explained as to why the same 9 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.180, 181 & 190 of 2023 document has to be marked through L.W.3, though it was already marked through L.W.5. The record reveals that complaint was filed against the accused in the year 2013 and the case is at its fag end of its disposal. The record of the lower Court discloses that inspite of giving several opportunities by the prosecution and allowing Crl.M.Ps., the witnesses were not before the Court, therefore, the evidence of prosecution was closed and the case is coming up for examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C of the accused. After long pendency of 10 years, the present petitions are filed to recall the witnesses. The record also reveals that the prosecution has not examined any evidence for the last three years. The order of the trial Court clearly discloses that there is no necessity for marking the original investigation report as the petitions were allowed permitting to bring on record the original investigation report through L.W.5/Sanjeev Kumar Gaur. For the similar relief, the present petitions have been filed seeking to mark the original investigation report dated 06.03.2012 through L.W.3/Anupam Vashist. Even the contents of the petition do not disclose as to why, again the 10 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.180, 181 & 190 of 2023 present petitions are filed and the petitioner has not given any cogent reasons as to why again the document has to be marked through L.W.3, once Ex.P-5 is marked. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no necessity to intervene or interfere with the orders of the trial Court in all the above CCs and the Criminal Revision Cases are liable to be dismissed.
11. In view of the above discussion, all the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed, as they are devoid of merits. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 06 .06.2023 dv