Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: unsigned document in Gaurav Kumar vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office on 24 December, 2019Matching Fragments
19. The applicant had submitted further that the offence punishable under Section 448 Companies Act 2013 is not made out against the Applicant since the Applicant has never made any false statement which has been filed by him or anybody else with any authority and submits that it is pertinent to note that the documents recovered from the office of Accused No. 79 are unsigned draft documents. The applicant submits that the documents had not been filed before any statutory authorities and the same were only draft documents prepared from the Statutory Records available and downloaded from the site of MCA. It is, inter alia, submitted by the applicant that he has never made any false statement with regard to any document. Inter alia the applicant submits that for invocation of Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 it is imperative that a false document is prepared and that since the applicant has never filed any false statement Section 448 of the Companies Act is not applicable to him. It is submitted by the applicant that unsigned documents have no validity in law and the same cannot be relied upon.
22. The applicant has further contended that the assignment for the same was received by the Applicant in Feb-March 2016 and thus the Applicant cannot be held liable for statutory records filed in the year 2008-09 to 2014-2015 available on the MCA website and thus seeks to contend that since the role of the Applicant only commences from February-March 2016, the provisions of Section 628 Companies Act, 1956 cannot be applied to the Applicant.
23. The applicant has further submitted that the offence under Section 477A IPC is not made out against the Applicant since the applicant has not falsified any document and that as stated through the investigation report, the documents were seized from the possession of Jitender Kumar Sharma (Accused No. 79) and all these documents were unsigned and unfiled and admittedly do not bear the signature of the applicant or any other person and none of them have been seized from the possession of the applicant and no material has been placed on record to substantiate the said offence. The applicant has further submitted that the offence under Section 120B, IPC is also not made out against the him since his role only began in February or March 2016, only pursuant to the orders passed by the Government for initiating the investigation by the SFIO which was much after the period of the alleged conspiracy which is the subject matter of the present complaint. The applicant has also submitted that he is admittedly not related to any of the accused co-conspirators and had only been in touch with Accused No 86 and Accused No 89 who have both been granted bail on 15.07.2019 by the learned trial Court. Reliance in relation thereto has been placed on the applicant on the verdicts in "Suraj Parkash Vaid versus Union of India And Ors 12(1976) DLT 82 State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Raj Kumar Mishra 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9994 Garg Roadlines V. Commissioner 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7890 : (2017) 100 VST 275 Khialdas and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1997 (225) ITR 960 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aparna Agency Pvt. Ltd 2004 (267) ITR 50 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gian Gupta 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2937 : (2014) 369 ITR 428"
28. The applicant has further sought grant of bail on the principles of parity submitting to the effect that the trial Court has granted bail vide order dated 15.7.2019 to the accused No.86 V. K. Sharma and to Shriti Kumari Accused No.89 were similarly placed as the applicant.
29. The applicant further submits that even accused No.79 i.e. Jitender Kumar Sharma from whose possession the unsigned documents had been recovered had also received interim protection from the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court vide order dated 01.08.2019 and further on 11.09.2019. Inter alia the applicant submitted that regular bail has been granted to Ashish Aggarwal (Accused No. 91) vide order dated 31.05.2019 who was summoned for offences punishable under Sections 418, 477A, 120B IPC, u/s 211, 297, 299, 301, 628, 629A of 156 Act, and u/s 129, 184, 188, 189, 447, 448 Companies Act, 2013, observing the doubtful application of Section 447 of the Companies Act submitting further that the SFIO has conceded that the only non bailable offence in the Companies Act is under Section 447 Companies Act 2013 only and that the bail to Accused No. 77 and Accused No. 90 vide common order dated 31.05.2019 has been granted whilst placing reliance on another order dated 30.05.2019 wherein bail was granted to Accused Nos. 57, 65 and 66.The applicant further states that Accused No. 41 had been granted bail on 05.07.2019 and anticipatory bail has been granted to Accused Nos. 70, 71 and 72 on 11.07.2019 and that this Court had further granted anticipatory bail to Accused No. 37, 58, 80 and 81 on 08.08.2019. A chart containing the names of all accused who are stated to be similarly placed as the Applicant and have been granted bail as given by the applicant is as under:
31. Qua the contention that the unsigned documents do not fall within the ambit of the culpability under Section 448 or 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, on behalf of the SFIO it was sought to be contended that that the applicant was one of the perpetrators of the larger conspiracy of the Group and committed various fraudulent acts caused loss to the exchequer and relied upon the observations in the case of Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement reported as (2018) 11 SCC 46 to the effect:
"21. The consistent view taken by this Hon'ble Court is that economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country...."