Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 332 (HP)

GAUTAM SETH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2019-03-29

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 8 of 2016, dated 03.04.2016, under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, registered at Police Station State CID, Bharari, Shimla. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he may be released on bail. 3. I have perused the and scrutinized the police record pertaining to FIR No. 8 of 2016, dated 03.04.2016, registered under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, Police Station State CID Bharari, District Shimla, H.P. 4. In nitty-gritty, the prosecution story, as emerges from the records is that in the year 2014 Excise and Taxation Department seized Indian Technomac Company Ltd. Jagatpur, Paonta Sahib (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') for purportedly not paying tax of rupees twenty hundred crore. The company during the period March 2014 to November 2014 filled fake RTGS vouchers to deposit the electricity bills, which were sent to the Electricity Department, but the amount was not deposited, owing to which Electricity Department suffered loss of Rs. 4,49,80,291/- (four core forty nine lac eighty thousand two hundred ninety one). Thereafter, on 29.05.2015 the Assistant Engineer, Dholakuan filed a complaint in Police Post Majra and it was unearthed that fake and fictitious RTGS forms of the company were sent by Managing Director, Directors etc. to the Electricity Department which virtually caused loss of Rs. 4,49,80,291/- (four core forty nine lac eighty thousand two hundred ninety one) to the department. It has further come in the investigation that some officials/officers of the Electricity Department connived with Managing Director, Directors etc. of the company. The Electricity Department did not disconnect the connection of the company on and w.e.f. January, 2014 to November, 2014 and for this period all the bills were depicted as paid through fake and fictitious RTGS. It has further come in the investigation that some officials/officers of the Electricity Department connived with Managing Director, Directors etc. of the company. The Electricity Department did not disconnect the connection of the company on and w.e.f. January, 2014 to November, 2014 and for this period all the bills were depicted as paid through fake and fictitious RTGS. Subsequently, the company decided to pay the electricity bills through RTGS vouchers from its head office at Delhi and the bills were to be paid by the Finance Department of the Company. Gautam Seth (petitioner herein) was working as Chief Finance Officer and he was on top of the helm of the Accounts and Finance Departments of the company. The petitioner alongwith Sarveshwar Arora, Anil Sharma and Anuj Sharma were the authorized signatories of the company. On 21.01.2019 Anuj Sharma was arrested and he disclosed the modus operandi of preparing fake and fictitious RTGS vouchers by the petitioner and others. During further course of investigation, the petitioner divulged that he worked as Chief Finance Officer of the company and took all the decisions qua the Finance Department. During the year 2013, the company was financially instable, so it was decided to pay the electricity bills from the head office situated in New Delhi by RTGS. The management of the company at Paonta Sahib and Delhi decided to prepare fictitious RTGS and this work was done by the Finance and Accounts Department of the company. It has further come in the investigation that fake RTGS vouchers were prepared by Anuj Sharma and others and the petitioner embossed seals of the concerned banks thereon. UTR numbers of some old RTGS transactions were also put on these fake RTGS and fake UTR numbers were also embossed on the directions of the petitioner by Vivek Gupta, AGM (Accounts) and these fake RTGS were prepared on the company letter pad and then referred to the Electricity Department. 5. UTR numbers of some old RTGS transactions were also put on these fake RTGS and fake UTR numbers were also embossed on the directions of the petitioner by Vivek Gupta, AGM (Accounts) and these fake RTGS were prepared on the company letter pad and then referred to the Electricity Department. 5. Tersely, the prosecution is seeking dismissal of the bail application so preferred by the petitioner, on the following grounds : (i) The petitioner, being Chief Finance Officer of the company, with other accused persons decided to prepare fake RTGS; (ii) There is likelihood that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may abscond, considering huge financial liability and also the fact that he is not the resident of the place; & (iii) There is reasonable apprehension that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may influence the prosecution witnesses; and 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. The petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that it has come in the investigation that under the check and command of the petitioner, who was the Chief Finance Officer of the company, fake RTGS vouchers were prepared, due to which the Electricity Department suffered loss of Rs. 4,49,80,291/- (four core forty nine lac eighty thousand two hundred ninety one). He has further argued that the petitioner is the main accused in the case in hand and in case he is enlarged on bail, there is strong apprehension that he may either tamper with the prosecution evidence or may even flee from justice, as he is resident of Uttar Pradesh. He has argued that considering the nature and the gravity of the crime and also the role of the petitioner in the commission of the crime, the bail application may be dismissed. 6. He has argued that considering the nature and the gravity of the crime and also the role of the petitioner in the commission of the crime, the bail application may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, after threadbare scrutiny of the records and all the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner was the Chief Finance Officer of the company and all the decisions to the Finance and Accounts Departments were taken under his authority. This Court also considered the nature and gravity of the offence coupled with the fact that public money is involved and the petitioner is in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and he may also flee from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail. Therefore, after considering all the circumstances, this Court finds that the present is not a fit case to admit the petitioner on bail by exercising discretionary powers vested in this Court. The bail application, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.