Framing Of Charge | Court Merely Required To Sift Evidence On Record & Form Prima Facie Opinion Regarding Existence Of "Strong Suspicion": Madras HC

The case against the petitioner was that while acting on behalf of a Russian Company, which had submitted a bid in the tender called for by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Chennai (CMWSSB) had submitted a letter allegedly by ISRO exempting the company from paying Earnest Money Deposit. The ISRO authorities, however, disclaimed the letter. The court had therefore directed to conduct an investigation and take appropriate action if necessary.

The petitioner had contended that there should be positive evidence to find the maker of the false document and in the absence of the same he could not be prosecuted for forgery. However, on going through the materials available on record, the bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was satisfied that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner. The court thus dismissed his petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him.

In the instant case, the sifting through the materials, namely the statement of the witnesses from CMWSSB, a statement of witness from ISRO and the investigation officers evidence, prima facie discloses materials to proceed against the accused and therefore, the exercise is only through sifting of the materials and not a roving enquiry/deeper appreciation of the probative value or otherwise of the materials and the nitty-gritty of the law relating to the offences, at this stage of framing charges. Therefore, I am of the view that there is prima facie materials pointing out towards strong suspicion about the commission of the offences as mentioned in the final report and therefore, I answer the question accordingly.

The petitioner had also contended that the bid in the tender was submitted in a sealed cover and therefore since the alleged forged letter was found inside the cover, the offence alleged was against the company. Thus, he submitted through judicial precedents that when no action was taken against the company, no action would lie against him.

The court however noted that the prosecution has specifically contended that the forged letter was not inside the cover with the other bid documents but outside the sealed cover. The petitioner, who acted as the power of agent of the company had alone acted, forged and submitted the letter and he in fact signed the pleadings in the proceedings before this court. Therefore, this was not a case of the prosecution on the ground of vicarious liability. Thus, the court noted that the prosecution could continue against the petitioner even in the absence of the company.

Case Title: Subramanian P v. State

Case No: Crl RC No 326 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 371

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.K.P.Anantha Krishnan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

Click here to read/download the judgment