ALPANA DAS Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order on charge dated 16.9.2002 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi as well as the formal charge drawn up on 16.9.2002 whereby the petitioner along with other co-accused have been firstly charged of committing an offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and, secondly, the petitioner along with the other co-accused have been charged for committing offences punishable under Sections 420/511, IPC read with Section 120-B, IPC. Additionally, insofar as the petitioner and co-accused J.B. Khosla, inasmuch as they were public servants, are concerned, the substantive charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also drawn up. A further additional charge has been framed insofar as the accused A.K. Goenka, Ramesh Gupta, R. Roongta and Vishwanath Sen Gupta under Section 471 read with Sections 467, 468, IPC and lastly an additional charge against the co-accused G.N. Mathur under Sections 467/468, IPC.

(2.) All these charges pertain to the insurance policies of the company known as Premier Vinyl Flooring Limited (PVFL). The said company had three insurance policies which also covered fire insurance. The policy numbers are 1/93, 2/93 and 3/93. The said policies were issued by the United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the said Insurance Company). The said company PVFL had been renewing these policies for about 9 years from year-to-year. However, these policies which were last renewed in 1993 and they expired on 31.3.1994. Apparently, 11 cheques were issued by the said company (PVFL) for the total premium amount for the renewal of the policies for the period 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995. Unfortunately, out of these 11 cheques, 9 cheques were, dishonoured. In the normal course of dealing, the Insurance Company ought to register and note these 9 cheques which were dishonoured in what is known as the cheque dishonour register. After such an entry is made, the policy is cancelled on account of inasmuch as the non-receipt of the premium amount. However, in the present case it is the allegation that these dishonoured cheques were not entered in the Cheque Dishonour Register.

(3.) Be that as it may, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that it is not an issue that the policies had expired on 31.3.1994 inasmuch as they had not been renewed. It appears that on 27.5.1994 a draft for the amount of Rs. 8,84,626/- (representing the amount of the 9 dishonoured cheques) was prepared on behalf of the company (PVFL) on 27.5.1994. The draft was drawn on Bank of Rajasthan, South Extension, New Delhi. On examining the draft, it becomes apparent that the date on the top right hand corner is shown as 27.5.1994. However, under the digits '27' there is underlining and below that the digits '31' appear. Apart from this, below the signature of the Bank Manager the date 31.5.1994 has been given. Furthermore, the Insurance Company has admittedly received the draft/pay order on 1.6.1994. This is apparent from the impugned order itself and, in particular, para 2 thereof wherein it is indicated that the draft/pay order came into hands of the present petitioner on 1.6.1994 and that she got the said pay order deposited in the account of the Insurance Company through loose pay in slip avoiding issuance of acceptance advice or money receipt their against. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the policy had not been renewed till that date, the amount forwarded to the Insurance Company and which came into hands of the petitioner who was the Divisional Manager could not be accepted on account of the policies of the said company (PVFL) and that is why the same had been deposited through a plain slip without indicating the policy numbers against such deposit slip and also without issuing any receipt against any particular insurance policy.