R GOPALKRISHNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two petitions, petitioner assails his prosecution by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and also orders passed by the court below framing charges against him and seizure of cash of Rs. 50,000/ -, wrist watch and also documents.

(2.) BROAD accusations are that petitioner, during his posting as General Manager (Finance) in the establishment of Bharat Wagon & Engineering Co. Ltd., Patna (for short BWEL) issued a cheque on 28.4.1999 bearing no. 168174 of Rs. One crore payable to himself from account of BWEL and credited the same in his account no. 102577 of M/s Vijay Engineering at State Bank of Mysore, Kolkatta on 5.5.1999 and eventually withdrew the amount and converted the same for his own use causing wrongful loss of Rs. One Crore to the said public undertaking. These are the broad accusations attributed to the petitioner in Special Case No.8 of 2001 for which the petitioner preferred Cr. Misc. No. 29694 of 2003 for quashing of prosecution/ proceeding pending before the CBI Special Court, Patna. For restoration of seizure of Rs. 50,000/ -, wrist watch and other document from his residence at Bangalore, petitioner has filed Cr. Misc. No. 29870 of 2003, on negation of his prayer by the Court below.

(3.) SUBMISSION is that there is no falsification of any account in record or accounts of BWEL, as balance sheet as on 31.3.2000, and the profit and loss account for the year ending 31.3.2000, was drawn in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act and also accounts and vouchers were audited, certified and signed by the auditors and also by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India under section 619 of the Companies Act, 1956, and on these premises petitioner would argue that he performed his assigned duties which was ratified by the experts of the office, and auditors and also Comptroller and Auditor General of India, and that apart, the State has not suffered wrongful loss as would be evident from the profit and loss account of the establishment which was approved also by the share holders. Taking recourse to the statement made by other General Manager who too had signed the cheque, petitioner would argue that his statement too would not saddle the tioner with criminal liability. Filing of the report by the CBI under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was assailed on the premises that it was without advice of the Central Vigilance Commission and also without sanction as enjoined under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as even debit voucher and its supporting vouchers pertaining to the cheque were not accompanied to the report submitted by the CBI. Placing reliance on a case of Vinit Narayan and others vs. Union of India and another [1998(1) SCC 226] argument advanced is that in that case the Apex Court held that CBI cannot abdicate its functions of having effective control over the working of the CBI nor the CBI can violate the mandate, as after completion of investigation, it was imperative for the CBI to place report before the Central Vigilance Commission and having not done so, the charge sheet could not be acted upon by the Court.