Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

38. Let us consider the facts of this case and apply the ratio of Goswami case where facts are as follows:
(I) The allegations are that the accused have committed serious offences such as forgery, fabrication of documents and used those docu-

ments as genuine.

(II) The allegations are that the respondent- accused herein A. Ravishankar Prasad and A. Manohar Prasad have entered into a conspir- acy with the Chairman and Managing Director (2009) 6 SCC 351 (1996) 5 SCC 581 (2007) 12 SCC 1 and other officials of Indian Bank, Chennai with the object of cheating Indian Bank in the matter of recommending, sanctioning, disburs- ing huge credit facilities running over hun- dreds of crores.

“10. The allegation against the respondent is 'forgery' for the purpose of cheating and use of forged documents as genuine in order to embez- zle the public money. After facing such serious charges of forgery, the Respondent wants the pro- ceedings to be quashed on account of settlement with the bank. The development in means of communication, science & technology etc. have led to an enormous increase in economic crimes viz. phishing, ATM frauds etc. which are being committed by intelligent but devious individuals involving huge sums of public or government money. These are actually public wrongs or crimes committed against society and the gravity and magnitude attached to these offences is con- centrated at public at large.

13. We will be failing in our duty unless we advert to the proponements propounded with regard to other aspects. They are really matters of concern and deserve to be addressed. The submission as put forth is that the first respondent is a lady and she was following the command of her husband and signed the documents without being (1992) 4 SCC 305 aware about the transactions entered into by the husband and nature of the business. The allegation in the chargesheet is that she has signed the pronotes. That apart, as further alleged, she is a co-applicant in two cases and guarantor in other two cases. She was an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and after taking voluntary retirement she has joined the public life, and became a member of the ‘Rajya Sabha’. Emphasis is also laid that she is a lady and there is no warrant to continue the criminal proceeding when she has paid the dues of the banks, and if anything further is due that shall be made good. The assertions as regards the ignorance are a mere pretence and sans substance given the facts. Lack of awareness, knowledge or intent is neither to be considered nor accepted in economic offences. The submission assiduously presented on gender leaves us unimpressed. An offence under the criminal law is an offence and it does not depend upon the gender of an accused. True it is, there are certain provisions in CrPC relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 437, etc. therein but that altogether pertains to a different sphere. A person committing a murder or getting involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents, cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of her gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily a valid argument. The offence is gender neutral in this case. We say no more on this score.