SAVITA PARMAR Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMN.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREM Kumar Parmar and his brother Lalit Kumar Parmar, who have been arrested in R. C. No. 11/88 SPE-CBI SlU (viii) under Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471, Indian Penal Code, (for short 'IPC'), have filed to separate petitions seeking bail whereas 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 the 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 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.) HOWEVER , it is evident 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 meant to be used, hence, the offence 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 huge subsidies from the Government fraudulently.