ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions challenge a common order dated 9 th March, 2011 directing framing of charge against the Petitioners in all the petitions for offence under Section 120B read with 420 and 471 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the P.C. Act) and against Petitioners Manoj Pahwa and Pankaj Nakra for offences under Section 420 and 471 read with 120B IPC.

(2.) The primary contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners in CRL.M.C. 1574/2011 is that a gross illegality has been committed by the Learned Special Judge by passing the impugned order against the Petitioner No.1 which is a company with Petitioner No.2 its Managing Director and Petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 its Executive Directors. It is contended that for offences under the Indian Penal Code or the Prevention of Corruption Act no vicarious liability can be fastened. The concept of vicarious liability in criminal jurisprudence is unknown until and unless the Statute specifically provides for the same. Reliance is placed on Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati Vs. CBI, 2003 5 SCC 257; Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat, 2008 5 SCC 668; Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. Datar Switchgear Ltd., 2010 10 SCC 479 and M.A.A. Annamalai Vs. State of Karnataka, 2010 8 SCC 524. A perusal of the entire chargesheet, statements of witnesses and the documents relied upon by the prosecution do not make out the requisite allegations against the Petitioners for commission of the offences alleged. It is not even alleged that the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 in CRL.M.C. 1574/2011 were in-charge and responsible for the day-to-day management and conduct of the business of Petitioner No.1. It is further the case of the Petitioners that resort to Section 120B IPC to prosecute the Petitioners for substantive offences under Section 420/471 of IPC read with 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act is wholly unwarranted, as there is no iota of evidence that the Petitioners along with the co-accused jointly or severally had a meeting of minds. The prosecution has not even remotely stated that the Petitioners either conspired with each other to submit the false or fabricated document to get the completion certificate in favour of the respective companies or to bribe the public servants. Even on the factual matrix it is contended that admittedly the deviations from the sanction plans and other related violations of MCD Laws had been sorted out between the MCD and the Petitioner No.1 by way of compounding and other conditions which fact is evident from the order of the Learned MCD Tribunal. In view of the fact the MCD has validated the said certificate and compounded the additions if any, the continuation of criminal proceeding on the same set of facts is an abuse of the process of law. Reliance is placed on Radheyshyam Kejriwal Vs. Stae of West Bengal and Anr., 2011 3 SCC 581.

(3.) In addition to the arguments raised on behalf of the Petitioners in CRL.M.C. 1574/2011 on behalf of Petitioners Manoj Pahwa and Pankaj Nakra it is further contended that structural construction was complete in both the motels and thus the notices of completion along with essential documents were submitted before the MCD. It is contended that completion certificates are given on the structural completions. However, even after structural completions in a motel, number of changes and works are required to be taken up, in view of the interior designing of the rooms and halls. The structures were complete and the additional plumbing work etc. which was got done was for the interior designing of the motels. Hence, the notices of completion submitted to the MCD along with the documents were not forged and fabricated. In the entire charge-sheet there is no allegation or evidence to suggest that there was a conspiracy with the other co-accused. Thus there is no evidence to frame charge under Section 120B IPC. As regards Pankaj Nakra, it is further submitted that there is no role in the fabrication of the documents and the Petitioner has been implicated only because he is a Director and thus actively involved in construction activities of hotels M/s. Grand Meadows and M/s. Papillion Estate Ltd.