Prem Kumar Parmar Petitioner v. State (Cbi) S (1)

P.K Bahri, J.:— Prem Kumar Parmar and his brother Lalit Kumar Parmar, who have been arrested in R.C No. 11/88 SPF-SIU (viii) under Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471, Indian Penal Code, (for short ‘IPC’), have filed two separate petitions seeking bail where as Mrs. Savita Parmar and her two daughters have filed a separate petition seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case.

2. The allegations against the accused are that they have obtained huge subsidies from the Government by submitting statements which contained false facts. It appears that under a scheme to promote growth of fertilizer factories, the petitioners had allegedly set up factories for production of fertilizer and for its sale and they allegedly prepared false documents showing manufacture and sale of fertilizer when actually nothing was done and on the basis of false documents prepared showing the manufacture and sale of fertilizer, the petitioners claimed huge amounts from the Government as subsidies and in this way they allegedly obtained about Rs. 4 crores. It has come out that for claiming the subsidies the petitioners had to file some statements containing the facts and those statements were verified by the Chartered Accountant with the certificate that the chartered accountant had checked the account books and other documents in support of the facts mentioned in the said statements of the petitioners for claiming subsidies. Those supporting documents, which have been seized showing the manufacture and sale of fertilizer, are said to be all fictitious documents. A large number of documents have been seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘CBI’). CBI had also seized certain assets belonging to the petitioners which they say were acquired on the basis of the said fraudulent documents and cheating.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the allegations made in the case do not show prima facie, commission of any offence punishable under Section 467 IPC and thus, Prem Kumar and Lalit Kumar have become entitled to bail as the investigation has not been completed within sixty days. It is true that unless and until the case of the prosecution falls within the scope of Section 467 IPC, the petitioners would have become entitled to bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short ‘Cr.P.C), as the investigation admittedly has not been completed within sixty days. So, the question to be decided in the present case is whether, prima facie the petitioners can be said to have committed an offence punishable under Section 467 IPC or not? It is true that the documents, particularly the statements given by the two petitioners to the Government including the certificate of the Chartered Accountant submitted alongwith the said statements are not false documents to be covered by the definition given in Section 464 IPC which reads as follows:—

“464. Making a false document—A person is said to make a false document—

First.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document of part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed sealed or executed or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or

Secondly.—Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or

Thirdly.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.”

4. However, it is evidence that prima facie the supporting documents like account books, vouchers, goods receipts etc. seized from the petitioners are false documents because they are all fictitious documents, as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that those documents, which are allegedly recovered from the petitioners as supporting documents, have not been used by the petitioners and were not mean to be used, hence, the office under Section 467 IPC is not made out. The documents, which the petitioners furnished to the department on the basis of which huge subsidies were received by the petitioners, are admittedly covered by the term ‘valuable security’. It is true that those documents, which have been submitted to the Government for claiming subsidies, by themselves are not false documents. Only they contain false facts and false information but the fact must not be lost sight of that in the certificates of the Chartered Accountant submitted to the department, a reference has been made by the Chartered Accountant that they have checked the other documents for verifying the facts. So, the supporting documents, mentioned above, have been referred to in the said certificates and those supporting documents, prima facie, are covered by the definition of ‘false documents’ given in Section 464 IPC. So, it cannot be held that the said documents have nothing to do with the documents filed with the department. Those documents, which have been referred to in the certificates of the Chartered Accountant, would also be treated as ‘valuable security’ because the purpose of bringing into existence those false documents was to obtain judge subsidies from the Government fraudulents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has cited State Government, Madhya Pradesh v. Hifzul Rahman & Others, AIR 1952 Nagpur 12, (1) in re. Venkatasuryanarasimha Rao, AIR 1955 Andhra 82(2) Motisinh Gambhirsinh v. The State, AIR 1961 Gujarat 117(3), Ramesh Kumar v. State, 1985(8) DRJ 251, (4) and N.C Sippy & Another v. Prem Kumar, 30(1986) DLT 55(5) in support of his contention that unless and until the documents, which have been brought into existence, are shown to be ‘false documents’ as defined in Section 464 IPC, the offence of forgery as contemplated by Section 467 IPC could not be deemed to have been committed. All these cases are based on different facts, so are not applicable to the facts of the present case. As already mentioned above, the documents, which have been seized from the petitioners, have been prepared with a fraudulent intention to cheat the Government and they are referred to and mentioned in the certificates of the Chartered Accountant submitted to the department for getting the subsidies, so those documents have to be treated as forged documents being fictitious in nature prima facie and it cannot be held that those documents have been just brought into existence by the petitioners for some other purposes of saying income-tax or wealth-tax and had no connection with the claims put up by the petitioners with the Government for obtaining the subsidies.

5A. I have come across a few very old judgments which cover the point. The first one is Lolit Mohan Sarkar v. The Queen-Empress, (1894) 22 ILR Calcutta Series 313(6). Facts, in brief, are that some government money realised was not wholly deposited. A portion of the money was deposited and challan obtained. In the challan an alteration as made to show that more money has been deposited. The question arose whether offence committed is under Section 467 read with Section 471, IPC, or not? An argument was raised that the cheating had already taken place and creating a false document by making alteration in the challan would not bring about the offence under Section 467. The contention was rejected. It was held that as the challan had been altered, it amounted to bringing into existence a false document in support of the fraud already committed. Hence, offence under Section 467 was stated to be made out. In Queen-Empress v. Sabapati, (1888) 11 ILR Madras 411 (7), a post-master misappropriated certain sum of money and he prepared a false document purporting to be a receipt by the person to whom the money was payable. The offence was stated to be under Section 471 IPC. In Emperor v. Balkrishna Vaman Kulkarni, (1913) 15 Bombay Law Reporter 708(8) the accused misappropriated certain amounts which had been paid to him as irrigation cases. In order to show that he had not committed the offence of misappropriation, the accused forged certain challans showing that the sums had been paid over to the Government Treasury. It was held that the offence of forgery stood made out with the observation that the offence of forgery was completed although it was committed to conceal a fraudulent or dishonest act previously committed. Similarly, in Emperor v. Ragho Ram, (1933) 55 ILR Allahabad 783(9) the registers were falsified with a view to conceal the previous embezzlement. It was held that the offence of forgery stands committed. In the present case also, various documents, which have been seized from the accused, have been brought into existence with a view to conceal the factum of cheating committed by the accused in getting the subsidies. So, they have to be treated as forged documents brought into existence to commit a fraud. So, prima facie, I come, to the conclusion that the petitioners have committed offence punishable under Section 467 IPC as well and thus, the investigation could be completed by the prosecution within 90 days and the petitioners have not as yet become entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C

6. On merits, it has been argued that the nature of the case is such that it would require a lot of investigation and a lot of time would be needed for completing the trial and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in jail and that normally the bail should be granted in such offences as there is no apprehension that the petitioners shall abscond or shall tamper with the evidence. However, it has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the CBI that on January 23, 1989, a raid had been conducted at the residential premises of the accused in Vikas Puri which had yielded 14 keys of different lockers and investment papers worth Rs. 18 lakhs and some slips passed on by accused-petitioners while in custody giving instructions to Smt. Savita Parmar for carrying out their nefarious purpose of hampering the investigation. It is pointed out that the CBI had received information that the petitioners, when in police custody, had not disclosed various lockers and other ill-gotten assets and Smt. Savita Parmar had operated certain lockers and had tampered with the evidence in that manner by concealing the assets which have been acquired on the basis of the ill-gotten money obtained from the Government. It is pointed out that on secret information, a raid was conducted and pass books and F.D Rs. worth Rs. 75 lakhs of different banks, 5 kilograms of silever bricks and a large number of documents have been recovered and still certain assets have to be traced and seized and if the petitioner certain assets have to be traced and seized and if the petitioners come to light.

7. In view of the fact that prima facie, the petitioners have been shown to have committed a very serious economic offence under Section 467 IPC which contemplates even life imprisonment as sentence. I do not think that the petitioners deserve to get ball when the investigation is still in progress. There is every possibility of the petitioners tampering with the evidence and hampering the investigation if they are released on bail. It is to be remembered that such like economic offences bring about total imbalance in the economy of the country which has the effect of making the lives of majority of people economically weaker and miserable. Such economic offences are even treated worse than murder being committed in this country. So, in such like offences, in my opinion, bail should not be granted to the accused.

8. So, in view of the above discussion, I find that even Smt. Savita Parmar, petitioner No. 1 in Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 163/89, does not deserve to get any anticipatory bail. However, as far as Kumari Madhulika Parmar and Kumari Monika Parmar, petitioners 2 & 3 are concerned, nothing was stated against these two young girls. So, I direct that in the event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail on furnishing the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned with the condition that they shall join in investigation whenever required by the police.

9. I dismiss the Cr. M.(M) Nos. 69/89 & 58/89 and also dismiss the prayer of Smt. Savita Parma in Cr. M(M) No. 163/89 seeking anticipatory bail.

M.B.L Ordered accordingly.