Saji Thomas v. State of NCT of Delhi

ORDER %

28.05.2013 The petitionersseek anticipatorybail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.472/2012 under Section 408 IPG PS Okhla Industrial Area. I have heard the learned APP, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Senior Counsel for the complainantand have examinedthe record. BAIL APPLN.NOS. 626/2013 & 627/2013 page 1 of4 /• /" Allegationsagainstthe petitionersare that they forged and fabricated vouchers and withdrew cash from the bank account of the company and caused loss to the tune of ^ 1.86 crores to the complainant. Umesh Tyagi used to withdraw lacs of rupees in cash under the garb to meet expenses. He used to commit fraud by forgingvouchersto cover up the illegal withdrawls. Saji Thomas was given full authority to maintain and operate the bank accountof the companyand he was authorizedsignatory.He conspiredwith f Umesh Tyagi. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitionersurged that the petitioners have been falsely implicatedin the case. Umesh Tyagi was in service as an accountant with the complainant firm M/s. SAV Trans International. The accounts were never manipulated and were regularly audited. No discrepancy was detected at any time by the auditors. Saji Thomas left the firm in October, 2012 and Umesh Tyagi left the job on

02.11.2012. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required as the alleged forged vouchers have already been recovered by the police. Allegations in the FIR are vague. The complainant has given contradictory version as to the exact loss caused to him. The turnover of the company, as per the income tax returns placed on record was hardly to the tune of ^ 2 crores per year. There was no question of the loss of ^ 1.86 crores alleged by the complainant. It was falsely claimed by the complainant that no expenses were incurred in loading and unloading. Reliance has been placed on 'Siddhamm Satlingappa Mhetre V5. State ofMaharashtra & Ors.\ 2011

(l)C.C.Cases(SC)

¶177Learned APP opposed the bail as there are serious allegations against the petitioners. The petitioners forged vouchers to show cash payments by BAIL APPLKNos. 626/2013 & 627/2013 page 2 of4 the company against the 'loading - unloading and packing - unpacking' chargesthoughthe companyhad no work like this. 93 voucherswere seized for the accounting year 2010-2011, 53 vouchers were seized for the accountingyear 2011-2012.The petitionersdid not join the investigation. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainantvehementlyopposedthe bail and statedthat the petitionerscommittedbreachof trust and siphonedof ^

1.86 crores by forging vouchers,books of accountsand cash books which have been seizedby the InvestigatingOfficer.Custodialinterrogationof the petitionersis requiredto identifyand recoverthe other vouchersforged by them. The petitionersmisleadthe companyby creatingcontraentriesof the expenses with receipt of the company. Thus the receipts of the company were reduced by the forged amounts mentioned in the vouchers. These expenseswere never incurredas the complainantfirm was only a Custom Clearing Agent. Reliancehas been placed on 'Maruti NivruttiNavale vs. State ofMaharashtra and Another 2012 (9) SCC 235. Apparently,allegationsagainstthe petitionersare serious and grave whereby they allegedly misappropriated? 1.86 crores or so and forged variousvouchersto coverup the withdrawlof moneyfrom the bank account of the company. Some vouchers have already been seized during the investigationallegedly forged by the petitioners.The complainantearlier lodged complaintdated 06.11.2012received at PS Okhla on 08.11.2012. Specific allegations were levelled against the petitioners for cheating, financialirregularitiesand siphoningof the funds. However,no actionwas takenonthe said complaint.Again,the complainantlodgedcomplaintdated

28.11.2012and reiteratedhis assertions.The present case was registeredon BAIL APPLKNos. 626/2013 & 627/2013 page 3 of4 N' the third complaint dated 14.12.2012 only. The version stated by the complainant in all the complaints is almost consistent and there are allegationsagainstthe petitionersfor committingfraud and siphoningofthe moneyby forgingvouchersshowingincurringof huge expenseslikeloading - unloading,packing-unpackingand salarieswhich were allegedlynever incurred by the company. The investigationis at its initial stage. The petitionershave not joinedthe investigation.The InvestigatingOfficerhas obtained non-bailable warrants agauist the petitioners from the Court of MetropolitanMagistrate.Consideringthese facts and circumstancesof the case, the petitionersare not entitled for anticipatorybail as the alleged conspiracyis to be unearthedand the forged vouchers and documentsare requiredto be recovered.The money allegedlymisappropriatedis required to be ascertained.The petitionershave givenlist of allegeddisproportionate assets procuredwith the misappropriatedmoney. The bail applicationsare dismissed. S^.GARG, J MAY 28,2013/tr BAIL APPLKNos. 626/2013 & 627/2013 page 4 of4

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 626/2013 UMESHTYAGI Petitioner Through: Ms.JyotiSingh,Sr.Advocatewith Ms.Rekha Rustagi, Advocate. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja,APP. Mr.Vikas Pahwa, Sr.Advocate, AND + BAIL APPLN. 627/2013 SAJI THOMAS Petitioner Through: Ms.JyotiSingh,Sr.Advocatewith Ms.Rekha Rustagi, Advocate. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. Mr.Vikas Pahwa, Sr.Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG