ARAN AHUJA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release in case FIR No. 9 of 2016, dated 03.04.2016, Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. under Sections 420 , 468 , 471 , 406 , 409 , 411 , 201 , 217 , 218 , 120B IPC, 13(1)C), 13(1)(D)(II) of PC Act and 5 & 7 of H.P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, registered at Police Station State CID, Bharari, Shimla, H.P.

(2.) As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period, so they be released on bail.

(3.) Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, the petitioner Shailder Nath, partner of SNRS Associates, New Delhi, was Auditor of accused-company since 2008 to 2012 and petitioner Arjun Ahuja, partner of M/s Aran Ahuja and Associates, remained Auditor of ITCOL company (hereinafter referred to as "accused-company") since 2012 to 2014. The prosecution has further alleged that the petitioners, being Auditors of the accused-company, in connivance with accused- company audited the accounts of the company on the basis of fake documents and on their report, the accused-company borrowed huge amount of loan from the banks, which was not repaid. The police arrested the bail petitioners on 06.02.2019 and during the course of investigation, petitioner Shailender Nath admitted that he audited the accused-company on and w.e.f 2008 to 2012. Petitioner Shailder Nath further divulged that during the years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 he received Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,10,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/-, respectively, from the accused- company. It has further come in the investigation that petitioner Aran Ahuja, during the year 2012-13, charged Rs.7,50,000/-, as fee, from the accused-company. The accused company got conducted statutory audit for the purpose of income tax, ESI return and to borrow the loans from the banks and also for the foreign investments. Third party takes the decision on the basis of the statutory audit report, as required under the Companies Act . It has further come in the investigation that the petitioners for the audit of the accused-company checked sale, purchase, expenses and fixed assets documents of the accused- company, but the petitioners did not physically check even a single company which supplied and purchased the material from the accused-company. As per the prosecution, the petitioners made an internal audit report of the accused-company, as their base, but, internal audit is conducted by the company for its own use. The company cannot use internal audit report for availing loan. As per the prosecution, the specimen signatures of both the petitioners have been taken. It has further come in the prosecution story that the petitioners prepared audit report in connivance with the accused-company on the basis of fake balance sheet without verifying creditors and debtors and shown inflated turnover of the accused-company and on their report the accused-company procured huge loans. As per the prosecution, the petitioners depicted increase in the working capital of the accused- company, which helped the accused-company to obtain a letter of credit for the purchase of raw material without paying money and thus liability was shifted on the banks. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed as the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence. The petitioners, if released on bail, may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice.