TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 1247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sections 192 and 199 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC"). 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, material for adjudication of the issue arising in this appeal may be stated thus: Appellant No. 1, viz. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.; constituted in terms of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 is the successor in interest of Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short "MSEB") and appellant No. 2 is its Chairman. Respondent No. 1 is an incorporated company, viz. M/s Datar Switchgear Ltd. and respondents No. 2 and 3, senior officials of respondent No. 1, are the complainants and respondents No. 4 to 7 are the co-accused. 4. Pursuant to various contracts entered into between respondent No. 1 and MSEB in the year 1993-94 for installation of "Low Tension Load Management Systems" (for short "LTLMS"), MSEB issued a work order on 27th March 1997 whereby respondent No. 1 was required to install at various locations and lease out 47,987 LTLMS to MSEB for a period of 10 years at a monthly rent of ₹ 825/- for the first six years, and about ₹ 650/- per month for the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as mentioned in the said reports, and thereafter submitted the same for the signature of the Sections in charge. With a view that the sub divisions, divisions and circles of the Respondents are not able to find out the same, the Claimants failed and neglected to send copies of the Commissioning reports as provided in Clause 8.0(d), thereby making it impossible for the officers mentioned in Clause (e) thereof to depute representatives to inspect the commissioned objects in the circle. The Claimants thus obtained payments from the dates mentioned in the said reports fraudulently by misrepresentation of the facts.... 9. The Arbitral Tribunal passed the final award on 18th June 2004 whereby it directed MSEB to pay ₹ 185,97,86,399/- as damages to respondent No. 1, and pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the sum of ₹ 179,15,87,009/-. The award contained the following observations suggesting that the MSEB had introduced certain fabricated documents as evidence: As regards the Commissioning Reports produced by the Respondents at Exhs. C-64 and C-74, the Claimants submitted, and with considerable merit that the Respondents had indulged in tampering the commissioning repor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission of an offence, and a person cannot be made an accused merely by reason of his official position. Further, it was contended that in order to launch prosecution against the officers of a company, the complainant must make specific averments as to the role played by each of the officials accused in the complaint. In order to buttress the contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in N.K. Wahi v. Shekhar Singh and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 481, Sharon Michael and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 3 SCC 375, S.K. Alagh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 662 and Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 668. 15. Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2, on the other hand, while emphasizing that power under Section 482 of the Code is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, argued that in the instant case, in light of the averments in the complaint, a prima facie case is made out against the appellants and, therefore, the High Court was fully justified in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under the said provision. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondents reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....theless, it is trite that powers under the said provision have to be exercised sparingly and with caution to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged, the High Court would be justified in invoking its powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings. (See: R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and Rupan Deol Bajaj and Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Anr. (1995) 6 SCC 194). 20. In Som Mittal (supra), a three judge bench of this Court, while holding that the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings should be used sparingly, and with circumspection in the "rarest of rare cases", observed that: When the words "rarest of rare cases" are used after the words "sparingly and with circumspection" while describing the scope of Section 482, those words merely emphasise and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words "sparingly and with circumspection". They mean that the power under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made above the said signature of the Complainant No. 1's representative in a manner to depict as if the Complainant No. 1's representative had accepted the fact alleged in the said endorsement. 6. On the other hand, the Complainant No. 1 brought on record their copy of the Commissioning Report pertaining to Shirpur Section in Dhule Circle as Exhibit 'C-74' which had no such endorsement as is found on the face of Exhibit 'C-74'. It is the case of the Complainant No. 1 that the Accused with common criminal intent caused the impugned endorsement "not installed in presence" to be superscribed on Exhibit 'C-64' after it was duly signed by the representative of the Complainant No. 1 and the Section in charge of MSEB so as to convey the impression that the Complainant No. 1's representative had accepted the fact alleged in the said endorsement. The said falsification and fabrication of the record was brought to the notice of the Ld. Arbitrators in the Arbitration proceedings and the Ld. Arbitrators observed in their award dated 18.06.2004 as under:... The Complainants say and submit that the Ld. Arbitrators have thus held that the said end....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said "to fabricate false evidence". 199. False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence.- Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorized by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. 26. It is plain that for constituting an offence under Section 192 IPC, the following ingredients must be satisfied: (i) Causing any circumstance to exist, or making any false en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... responsible for the conduct of business of appellant No. 1. The said resolution merely authorises the Chief-Engineer to file counter claim before the Arbitral Tribunal in proceedings between appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 1. It rather demonstrates that it was the Chief Engineer who was made responsible for looking after the interest of the appellant No. 1 in those proceedings. In this regard, it would be useful to advert to the observations made by a three judge bench of this Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals (supra): There is no universal rule that a director of a company is in charge of its everyday affairs. We have discussed about the position of a director in a company in order to illustrate the point that there is no magic as such in a particular word, be it director, manager or secretary. It all depends upon the respective roles assigned to the officers in a company. A company may have managers or secretaries for different departments, which means, it may have more than one manager or secretary. 29. It is trite law that wherever by a legal fiction the principle of vicarious liability is attracted and a person who is otherwise not personally involved in the commission ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, the complaint is liable to be quashed on this ground. The submission is untenable as the offences under Sections 192 and 199 IPC, if made out, exist independent of the final arbitral award. We are, therefore, of the opinion, that it is not a fit case for the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, in favour of appellant No. 1. 33. We shall now examine whether appellant No. 2 could be made liable for the afore-mentioned offences by operation of Section 34 of IPC. It is trite that Section 34 IPC does not constitute a substantive offence, and is merely in the nature of a rule of evidence, and liability is fastened on a person who may have not been directly involved in the commission of the offence on the basis of a pre-arranged plan between that person and the persons who actually committed the offence. In order to attract Section 34 IPC, the following ingredients must be established: (i) there was common intention in the sense of a pre-arranged plan; (ii) the person sought to be so held liable had participated in some manner in the act constituting the offence." (See: Chandrakant Murgyappa Umrani and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 1998 SCC (Cri) 698; Hamlet @ Sa....