AVINASH KUMAR MODI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 5532 of 2021 (State Vs. Avinash Kumar Modi) arising out of Case Crime No. 716 of 2004 under Ss. 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad as well as to quash the charge sheet dtd. 15/11/2019 and also to quash the summoning order dtd. 10/9/2021 passed in the aforesaid case.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the letters of Government of U.P. dtd. 23/8/2000 as well as 14/8/2000, with regard to scam of Rs.1200.00 crores in the subsidy to the manufacturers of fertilizers, without supply of fertilizers by the manufacturers to the distributors, had been obtained from the Government thus wrongful loss had been caused to the State Exchequer and in compliance orders passed by Additional Chief Secretary, Agricultural Commissioner, the investigation was carried on by the then S.I. Sri Kalyan Singh of Special Investigation Branch (Agriculture), Lucknow, in which, it was revealed that during the financial years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the sale and purchase of 3,396.025 mt. tonnes of rock phosphate and 6080.329 mt. tonnes of single super phosphate claimed by M/s Madan Madhav Fertilizers and Chemicals Pvt. Limited, Fatehgarh, was found false and thus embezzlement of Rs.48,18,243.04 had been calculated and the subsidy claimed from the Government on false and frivolous transactions. In the aforesaid scam, M/s Ujjwal Trading Company, was also found to be involved, of which the applicant is stated to be proprietor. Thus, a first information report was lodged by Sri Satendra Kumara Mishra, Sub-Inspector Economic Offences, Wing on 10/9/2004 against 20 accused persons being Case Crime No. 716 of 2004 under Ss. 467, 468, 471, 409, 420, 477A I.P.C. and 120-B I.P.C. and Sec. 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad wherein the applicant has been placed at serial no.9 and M/s Ujjawala Trading Company has been placed at serial no. 10. After registration of the F.I.R. the matter was entrusted for investigation, which culminated in submission of charge sheet dtd. 15/11/2019 against the applicant and one Chandra Bhan Verma under Ss. 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. Thereafter, the case was registered as Case No. 5532 of 2021 (State Vs. Avinash Kumar Modi) upon which the accused-applicant has been summoned vide order dtd. 10/9/2021.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is alleged to be the proprietor of M/s Ujjwal Trading Company, Jhansi which company is alleged to have supplied the rock phosphate and single super phosphate to M/s Madan Madhav Fertilizers and Chemical Ltd. Fatehgarh and thereafter subsidy has been claimed from the Government. He further submits that in fact, the proprietor of M/s Ujjwal Trading Company is Ashutosh Kumar Modi, who is the brother of the applicant but the said company was closed in the year 1994-95 due to non-supply of rock phosphate and in this regard, the brother of the applicant has given a letter to the Investigating Officer, as is evident from the extract of parcha dtd. 10/3/2010. He further submits that Sri U.N.Modi, the uncle of the applicant was the Chartered Accountant of M/s Ujjwal Trading Company and it appears that after shutting down of the said company, Sri U.N.Modi kept the firm alive on papers and transactions were done by him on behalf of M/s Ujjwal Trading Company without the knowledge of applicant and the proprietor, which resulted into prosecution of the company in the instant case. Learned counsel for the applicant has next argued that by the stretch of no imagination, the applicant could be prosecuted since he has no concerned with the said company and was not involved in any of the business transaction performed by the said company. Learned counsel has also argued that M/s Madan Madhav Fertilizers and Chemical Ltd., which claimed subsidy has already been exonerated in the year 2012 in view of the fact that the subsidy has been granted in accordance with rules, copy of which letter is annexed as Annexure-9 to the affidavit accompanying the application. It is lastly argued that M/s Madan Madhav Fertilizers and Chemical Ltd. has been exonerated and that the applicant, who is neither proprietor nor had any participation in the company can be prosecuted under the charged Ss. and the applicant has been made scape goat, therefore the entire prosecution against the applicant being malicious is liable to be quashed by this Court.