Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 130 (UTT)

TILAK RAJ CHAWLA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-03-27

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) The revisionist, by means of present criminal revision, seeks to set aside the charges framed against him by learned trial court on 22.08.2013. 2. Two separate charges for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 467, 471 of IPC read with Section 120-B of IPC and Section 30 (1)(e)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, were framed against the present revisionist and other co-accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Only present revisionist has assailed the said charge against him. 3. The first charge against the present revisionist is that he gave permission to sell the property of M/s Uttarakhand Woollen Yarn Industry (for short, M/s Uttarakhand Woollens), which was mortgaged in favour of Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation, in his capacity as Manager (Finance), between 27.03.1984 to 10.09.1992, and thereby, caused loss to Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation, and earned undue benefit out of it. 4. The second charge against the accused-revisionist is that he agreed to sell machines of M/s Uttarakhand Woollens surreptitiously, which was mortgaged in favour of Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation, for the purpose of causing financial loss to Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation, during the period 27.03.1984 to 10.09.1992. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the proposal for sale of part assets was approved, subject to certain terms and conditions, by C.Kishore, Regional Manager of Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation, and conveyed to M/s Uttarakhand Woollens vide letter dated 09.03.1992. Present revisionist was posted as Manager (Technical) Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation on 09.03.1992. He had no concern with the approval of sale of part assets of M/s Uttarakhand Woollens. Annexure-2 to the revision bears testimony to this effect. Condition No. 10 in the letter dated 09.03.1992 was that the local formalities will be completed immediately to the entire satisfaction of the Law department of Dehradun regional office of Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist was although posted in Dehradun regional office of Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation, but was not posted in the Law department. He was posted as Deputy Manager, Technical. 6. Even the rescheduling and change of contractors was not conveyed by the present revisionist to M/s Uttarakhand Woollens. The same was conveyed by one Dr. D. Singh, Regional Manager of Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation to M/s Uttarakhand Woolens vide letter dated 21.07.1990. He was posted as Deputy Manager, Technical. 6. Even the rescheduling and change of contractors was not conveyed by the present revisionist to M/s Uttarakhand Woollens. The same was conveyed by one Dr. D. Singh, Regional Manager of Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation to M/s Uttarakhand Woolens vide letter dated 21.07.1990. According to learned counsel for the revisionist, the Director of Uttarakhand Woollens was changed in the year 1990. New Director took over the affairs of M/s Uttarakhand Woollens in the same year. According to learned counsel for the revisionist, co-accused Atul Mishra, who was posted as Deputy Senior Manager (Law), vide letter dated 22.09.1992, directed the present revisionist to take over the charge of machines. Accordingly, the revisionist took over the charge on 10.09.1992. When the revisionist took over the charge, the machines were not found in the industrial unit, as is evident from the first information report lodged by the Deputy Senior Manager (Law) on 22.09.1992. 7. In other words, when the present revisionist took over the charge of the Industrial Unit on 10.09.1992, the machines were not found in the industrial unit. The same were disposed of earlier to 10.09.1992. 8. According to the first information report, S.P.Gupta, Director of M/s Uttarakhand Woollens intimated to Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation that the machinery of industrial unit was sold by him with the prior permission of the corporation. 9. Mr. S.P.Gupta was newly inducted Director. This fact was reflected in the letter dated 21.07.1990, addressed to Dr. D. Singh, Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation. 10. The above mentioned facts have not been controverted by Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation. In other words, learned counsel for the Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation graciously admitted the aforesaid facts to be true. 11. Although there is a very little scope of discharge of accused, but in the instant case, the revisionist has been able to show that he did not permit M/s Uttarakhand Woollens to sell the machines and property, which was mortgaged in favour of Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation. He was able to show that he was not instrumental in permitting M/s Uttarakhand Woollens to sell either the machines or the other properties, which were mortgaged in favour of Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation. He had no capacity to direct sale of such property. It was somebody else, who permitted the same. He was able to show that he was not instrumental in permitting M/s Uttarakhand Woollens to sell either the machines or the other properties, which were mortgaged in favour of Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation. He had no capacity to direct sale of such property. It was somebody else, who permitted the same. It was C. Kishore, Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation, who approved the proposal for sale of part assets. Although, revisionist was working in the Regional Manager office, but in different capacity of Deputy Manager, Technical, who was directed to take over the industrial unit only on 10.0.1992, but by such time the machines of the industrial unit were already sold, as was intimated by the Director S.P.Gupta to Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation. The said machines were not even found in the industrial unit on the date, the present revisionist took over the charge of industrial unit. 12. In the given situation, this Court is of the opinion that the Court below committed a mistake in framing the charge against the present revisionist, who ought to have been discharged. It is clarified here that the Court has decided this Criminal Revision only on the basis of prosecution documents, for, it is not legally permissible for any Court to look into the papers or documents supplied by the defence at the time of filing of charge/discharge. The revisionist has been able to show on the basis of prosecution documents themselves that the charge against him was baseless. 13. As a consequence thereof, the present Criminal Revision succeeds. The revisionist is discharged of the allegations levelled against him. 14. It is made clear that the findings given hereinabove will have no bearing on the case of co-accused persons, who are currently facing the trial before the Special Judge concerned. This judgment is revisionist-specific and does not convey anything beyond that.