LexSUSHIL SURI versus C.B.I & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
" '- •• [2011) 8 S.C.R. 1 SUSHIL SURI A v. C.8.1. & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1109 of 2011) MAY 6, 2011 B [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Inherent powers of the High Court- Scope and c ambit of - Held: Section 482 of Cr.P.C. envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by the High Court, namely: (i) to give effect to an order under the Cr. P. C.; (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of Court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice - D Although the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but it is not unbridled - It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the Court exists - The inherent powers should not be exercised E to stifle a legitimate prosecution - The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are F of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. s. 482 - Criminal proceedings for forgery/fabrication of documents with the intention of defrauding the bank as well as the exchequer - Charge-sheet against appellant and other G directors of a company for offences punishable under ss. 1208, 420, 409, 468 and 471 of /PC - Allegation that they forged documents/vouchers to show purchase of machinery, a pre-condition for release of instalments of loan, and thus not 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 8 S.C.R. A only duped the bank (PSB) but also defrauded the revenue by claiming depreciation on non-existent machinery and in the process cheated the public exchequer - Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and summoned the appellant to stand trial - Appellant filed B petition under s. 482 CrPC - High Court declined to quash the chargesheet - Justification of - Held: Justified - On a conspectus of the factual scenario, prima facie, the chargesheet does disclose commission of offences by the appellant under ss. 1208, 420, 409, 468 and 471 of /PC - c More than sufficient circumstances exist suggesting the hatching of criminal conspiracy and forgery of several documents leading to commission of the aforementioned offences - Having regard to the modus operandi adopted by the accused, as projected in the chargesheet, it is clear that 0 it is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under s.482 Cr.P.C. as also by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution - The accused had not only duped PSB, they had also availed of depreciation on the machinery, which was never purchased and used by them, causing loss to the E exchequer, a serious economic offence against the society - Merely because the dues of the bank have been paid up, the accused-appellant cannot be exonerated from the criminal liability - Therefore, the chargesheet against him cannot be quashed - Trial Court directed to proceed with the case - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 1208, 420, 409, 468 and 471. F Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120A and 1208 - Offence of "criminal conspiracy" - Essential ingredients of, discussed. Penal Code, 1860 - s. 463 - Forgery - Definition of - G Held: Is very wide - Basic elements of forgery stated. Precedent - Ratio decidendi -:- Held: While applying ratio, the Court may not pick out a word or sentence from the judgment divorced from the context in which the said question arose for consideration - Even one additional or different fact H may make a world of difference between the conclusions in • • SUSHIL SURI v. C.B.I. & ANR. 3 two cases and blindly placing re!iance on a decision is never A proper. The Company in question and its directors, including the appellant, and other persons allegedly had conspired to forge, fabricate and use documents in order to avail B loan from the Punjab and Sind Bank (PSB) and had opened or caused to be opened fictitious bank accounts in the names of machinery suppliers to encash the pay orders/demand drafts issued by PSB and played fraud with PSB as also on the public exchequer by claiming depreciation on the machinery, which was never C purchased, ·and obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves. Chargesheet was ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.