1992 JTR(SC) 53
1992 AIR(SC) 988 ; 1992 AIR(SCW) 927 ; 1994 24 AllLR 280 ; 1992 1 APLJ 65 ; 1992 2 BLJR 1012 ; 1992 CriLR 197 ; 1992 1 Crimes(SC) 527 ; 1992 CrLJ 1284 ; 1994 2 CurLJ 436 ; 1994 55 DLT 672 ; 1992 EastCrC(SC) 441 ; 1992 1 JT 249 ; 1994 5 JT 391 ; 1992 2 PLJR(SC) 28 ; 1992 1 RCR(Cri) 555 ; 1994 3 RRR 405 ; 1992 1 Scale 104 ; 1992 2 SCC 198 ; 1992 SCC(Cri) 367 ; 1992 1 SCR 249 ; 1994 Supp2 SCR 608 ; 1992 1 UJ 530 ; 1992 KHC 807
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.
N. M. Parthasarathy, Appellant
Versus
The State of by S.P.E., Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.330 of 1980, D/-21-1-1992.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.360, S.378
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.420, S.120(b)
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.5(2), S.5(1)(b)
(A) The appellant was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 read with Sections 5(1)(b) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sections 378 and 109 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to criminal conspiracy, cheating, abetment of cheating, and misuse of official position. These provisions apply to allegations of obtaining industrial certifications and import licenses by making false representations to public authorities, with conspiracy attracting enhanced penalties and corruption provisions targeting public servants and fraudulent conduct. The trial courts acquittal was revisited on appeal, and the evidentiary re-appreciation by the High Court formed the basis for conviction under the stated statutory sections.
(B) The High Court correctly interfered with the trial courts acquittal where evidence clearly establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt; a conviction can only be interfered with when two reasonable inferences are possible; the prosecution must prove conspiracy, cheating, and abuse of official position independently for each charge; and benevolent statutory provisions may be invoked where the accused has demonstrated substantial post-conviction contributions to society.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, proprietor of a firm called Electro-technik and formerly an Inspector of Industries, along with another Inspector of Industries, was alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy between February 1967 and February 1969 to obtain Small Scale Industries Registration Certificates, Essentiality Certificates, and import licenses on false representations made to the Director of Industries, Assistant Director of Industries, Joint Chief Controller of Imports/Exports, and the Iron and Steel Controller. The prosecution alleged cheating by misrepresentation of machinery and power capacity, false statements about installed machinery, and inducement of officials, with the second accused abetting the cheating and also being charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial court acquitted both accused, but the High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted both on all charges.
Findings of Court:
The High Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, found that the appellants premises had only domestic single-phase electricity supply incapable of operating industrial machinery; the machinery shown in the premises was valued at approximately Rs. 9,200 to Rs. 10,000 against a claimed value of Rs. 94,000; the alleged additional machinery could not have been installed in the available space; the second accused made false statements regarding installation of machinery; the Essentiality Certificate was obtained by false representations; and both accused acted in concert, satisfying charges of conspiracy, cheating, and abetment beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial courts acquittal; whether the evidence admitted two reasonable inferences; whether the appellant is entitled to benefit under Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code after long imprisonment and demonstrated rehabilitation; and whether the sentence awarded was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where the prosecution evidence clearly establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the trial courts acquittal is not supported by reasonable grounds, the High Court is correct in setting it aside and convicting the accused; a conviction under Sections 120-B, 420, and the Prevention of Corruption Act is sustainable when false representations are made to obtain statutory benefits and both parties act in concert; and exceptional post-conviction achievements may warrant exercise of discretion under Section 360 for release on probation.
(A) The appellant was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 read with Sections 5(1)(b) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sections 378 and 109 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to criminal conspiracy, cheating, abetment of cheating, and misuse of official position. These provisions apply to allegations of obtaining industrial certifications and import licenses by making false representations to public authorities, with conspiracy attracting enhanced penalties and corruption provisions targeting public servants and fraudulent conduct. The trial courts acquittal was revisited on appeal, and the evidentiary re-appreciation by the High Court formed the basis for conviction under the stated statutory sections.
(B) The High Court correctly interfered with the trial courts acquittal where evidence clearly establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt; a conviction can only be interfered with when two reasonable inferences are possible; the prosecution must prove conspiracy, cheating, and abuse of official position independently for each charge; and benevolent statutory provisions may be invoked where the accused has demonstrated substantial post-conviction contributions to society.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, proprietor of a firm called Electro-technik and formerly an Inspector of Industries, along with another Inspector of Industries, was alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy between February 1967 and February 1969 to obtain Small Scale Industries Registration Certificates, Essentiality Certificates, and import licenses on false representations made to the Director of Industries, Assistant Director of Industries, Joint Chief Controller of Imports/Exports, and the Iron and Steel Controller. The prosecution alleged cheating by misrepresentation of machinery and power capacity, false statements about installed machinery, and inducement of officials, with the second accused abetting the cheating and also being charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial court acquitted both accused, but the High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted both on all charges.
Findings of Court:
The High Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, found that the appellants premises had only domestic single-phase electricity supply incapable of operating industrial machinery; the machinery shown in the premises was valued at approximately Rs. 9,200 to Rs. 10,000 against a claimed value of Rs. 94,000; the alleged additional machinery could not have been installed in the available space; the second accused made false statements regarding installation of machinery; the Essentiality Certificate was obtained by false representations; and both accused acted in concert, satisfying charges of conspiracy, cheating, and abetment beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial courts acquittal; whether the evidence admitted two reasonable inferences; whether the appellant is entitled to benefit under Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code after long imprisonment and demonstrated rehabilitation; and whether the sentence awarded was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where the prosecution evidence clearly establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the trial courts acquittal is not supported by reasonable grounds, the High Court is correct in setting it aside and convicting the accused; a conviction under Sections 120-B, 420, and the Prevention of Corruption Act is sustainable when false representations are made to obtain statutory benefits and both parties act in concert; and exceptional post-conviction achievements may warrant exercise of discretion under Section 360 for release on probation.
A.Subhashini, B.PARTHASARTHY, HARDEV SINGH, MADHU MULCHANDANI, V.C.MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
KULDIP SINGH, J.:- The appellant N. M. Parthasarathy is the sole proprietor of a firm called "Electro-technik". He was formerly working as Inspector of Industries. He along with an Inspector of Industries, was prosecuted on the allegations that between February, 1967 and February, 1969 they entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain Small Scale Industries Registration Certificate for additional lines of manufacture, Essentiality Certificate and import licences on false representations made to the Director of Industries, Assistant Director of Industries, Joint Chief Controller of Imports/ Exports and the Iron and Steel Controller. The first charge framed against both of them was for an offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(b) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Charges 2, 4 and 6 framed against him were for offence of cheating punishable under Section 420, I.P.C. Charges 3, 5 and 7 were framed against the second accused for abetment of cheating punishable under Sections 420 read with 109, I.P.C. The 8th charge was also against the second accused under Section 5(1)(b) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The trial Court acquitted both of them on all the charges. The State went in appeal against the judgment of acquittal and the High Court on re-appreciation of evidence set aside the. acquittal and convicted both of them on all the counts. The appellant, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 120-B, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years for each of the three counts of cheating under Section 420, I.P.C. The sentences were to run concurrently.
2. We have heard Mr. Hardev Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V. C. Mahajan, Senior Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Hardev Singh has taken us through the judgments of the trial Court and that of the High Court. Mr. Hardev Singh has primarily argued that the High Court has grossly erred in reversing the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court. According to him even if two views were possible the High Court was not justified in taking a different view than the trial Court and reversing the acquittal. This precise argument was raised before the High Court on behalf of the appellant. The High Court rejected the same as under:-
"In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not a case where, on the evidence available on record, two conclusions are possible and therefore this Court could not interfere with the acquittal of the accused by the learned Special Judge. I am of the opinion that only one conclusion is possible on the evidence on record and that it is that the accused are guilty of all the charges framed against them and that interference with the acquittal of the accused by the learned Special Judge is called for in this case."
3. We are of the view that High Court was justified in reaching the above conclusion. The High Court examined the evidence on the record in detail and rightly came to the conclusion that the guilt against the appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt.
4. The High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, independently reached the following findings:-
"Thus it is established by Exhibit D-36 as well as the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 6 that the first accused had only a sigle-phase domestic supply of electricity at his premises in Katpadi Extension even in August, 1969, that he could not have used that supply of electricity validly for any non-domestic purposes and that it would not have been possible to produce any industrial machinery with that single phase power,."
"The evidence of PWs. 6, 13, 15 and 19 shows that the machinery found in the premises of Electro-technik during their inspections were worth only about Rs.9,200/- or Rs. 10,000/- and not of the value of Rs.94,000/- as represented by the first, accused in the list submitted by him along with his application, Exhibit P-18."
"It has already been found that with the 230 volts domestic supply he could not have produced any of the new end-products. The additional machinery required for producing these new end-products had not been installed in the first accuseds factory. It is hardly likely that all the alleged additional machinery could have been installed in the factory whose dimensions are only 18 feet by 12 feet."
"It is made clear by the evidence that the second accused had made false statements in Exhibit P-96 about the alleged installation of the additional items of machinery in the first accuseds factory. For the reasons stated above I find that the prosecution has proved charges 2 and 3 satisfactorily, beyond all reasonable doubt."
"The first accused has succeeded in obtaining the Essentiality Certificate, Exhibit P. 51 by making these false representations and the 2nd accused has induced P.W. 5 to recommend in Exhibit P.24 the issue of the Essentiality Certificate and P.W. 12 to issue the Essentiality Certificate and Exhibit P-14 by making the false representations Exhibits P-22 and P-23, as in Exhibit P- 19, which have been found to be false in the earlier art of this judgment. Therefore, I find that the prosecution has proved these two charges 4 and 5 against the accused satisfactorily and beyond all reasonable doubt."
"In the present case both the accused have acted in concert in the first accused obtaining the S.S.I. registration certificate, Exhibit P-20 as amended by Exhibit P-21, the Essentiality Certificate, Exhibit P-5, and the import licenses, Exhibits P-6 and P-7, and the second accused enabling him to obtain the same by his recommendations, Exhibits P-19, P-22 and P-23 which contain false particulars. This would show that both the accused have acted in concert for committing these offences and that they would not have done so if there had been no conspiracy. In these circumstances I find that the prosecution has established the charge of conspiracy framed against both the accused satisfactorily and beyond reasonable doubt."
5. We agree with the above quoted reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court. We, therefore, uphold the conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court.
6. While upholding the judgment of the High Court, we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that this is a fit case where benefit of Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code be extended to the appellant. The occurrence in this case relates to the period between February, 1967 and February, 1969. The Special Judge, Madras by his judgment dated July 23, 1973 acquitted the appellant. The High Court on April 3, 1980 reversed the trial Court and convicted the appellant. This Court granted bail to the appellant on April 29, 1980. Mr. Hardev Singh has placed before us documents showing several achievements of the appellant in the industrial field since then. The appellants industry has manufactured the largest Hot-Air Kiln in India for Ministry of Railways, largest Degreasing plant for Nuclear Fuel complex, Sintering Furnace for anti-tank missiles and various other items for the Ministry of Defence and other Departments of the Government of India. The appellant claims that he has set up 100 per cent export unit with Rs. 75 crores export per annum. For all these reasons we are of the view that it is expedient that the appellant be released on probation. We, therefore, direct that he be released on his entering int a bond to the satisfaction of the Special Court, Madras. The Special Court shall pass an order in terms of Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to its satisfaction. A copy of this order be sent to the Special Court, Madras immediately. The appellant is directed to appear before the Special Court, Madras within two months from today to enable the Special Court, Madras to pass an order as directed by us. In the event of appellants failure to present himself before the Special Court as directed he shall undergo the original sentence awarded by the High Court.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
Order accordingly.
For Citation : AIR 1992 SC 988
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.