VISWAPRIYA (INDIA) LTD. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Revision Cases arise out of the same case in C.C.No.6 of 2020 and are filed against the order of framing of charges and as such are taken up and disposed off by this common order. Crl.R.C.No.1237 of 2022 is filed by the accused No.1, while, Crl.R.C.No.1242 of 2022 is filed by the accused Nos.18, 19, 20, 21, 26, 28 and 31. Crl.R.C.No.1278 of 2022 is filed by the accused No.10.

(2.) Though Crl.R.C.No.1237 of 2022 was filed through a learned Counsel, R.Subramanian, Director, appeared in person and submitted that he has already revoked Vakalath and argued in person, the same Mr. R.Subramanian argued as learned Counsel in respect of the other two revisions. Heard Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent in both the Revision Cases and Mr.D.Arun Kumar seeking to intervene in the matter on behalf of the victim depositors.

(3.) Mr.R.Subramanian, party-in-person appearing in Crl.R.C.No.1237 of 2022, would submit that in this case, copies were furnished to him on 16/2/2022, but, however, charges were also framed on the very same date and therefore, he could not make any submissions at the time of framing of charges. He would submit that the defence is entitled to make such submissions before the Trial Court for the purpose of framing of charges and no fair and proper opportunity was given in respect thereof. Be that as it may, taking this Court through each and every individual charge which is framed, the learned Counsel would submit that in this case, firstly, the Trial Court has framed charges under Ss. 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751 he would submit that unless it is proved by the prosecution that any false document is made or created, the accused cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Ss. 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.