Criminal Misc. No.M-25521 of 2010 v. State of Punjab

Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 10.6.2010 for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Sukhjinder Singh Sidhu, Manager of Fullerton Indian Credit Co. Ltd. (a non-banking financial company having a branch office at Sheranwala Gate, Patiala). It is alleged that the petitioner who is Branch Unit Manager (BUM) along with Rajesh Angroia, who was Branch Collection In-charge (BCI) had committed theft, misappropriation of funds; besides, committed Cr. Misc. No.M-25521 of 2010 [2] cheating, forgery and coercion prima facie involving a sum of `13,92,000/-. On the complaint of various personnel of the Company and from internal sources of the Company regarding commission of several acts of cheating and fraud by the Company employees of the Branch Office at Patiala, an internal departmental inquiry was held and it came to the notice that misappropriation of huge cash amount had taken place by issuance of fake foreclosure letters to the customers by fraudulently misusing the Company's seal which were signed by the petitioner and Rajesh Angroia. During inquiry photo copies of receipts which have been misused from different receipt books issued by the petitioner and Rajesh Angroia were found, the details of which are mentioned in the FIR. The modus operandi of the accused was that they collected money to the tune of `13,92,000/- approximately from the customers of the Company and issued receipts but never deposited the collected money with the Company. Apparently right from the beginning their intention was to cheat and misappropriate the amount collected on behalf of the Company. The details of the customers of the Company are also mentioned in the FIR. On checking of the details of the receipt books sent to the Operation Department it was found that proof of delivery (PUD) numbers mentioned did not exist in Blue Dart Courier Service Company's records. It was found that PUD numbers were fake and entries in the receipt control registers were signed by Harinder Kaur. When she was confronted, she informed that entire receipt book handling and record keeping was done by the petitioner and Rajesh Angroia. Regarding the fake proof of delivery numbers, she admitted that she did not send any courier and the same would have been sent by the petitioner and Rajesh Cr. Misc. No.M-25521 of 2010 [3] Angroia. When Rajesh Angroia was confronted with facts, he confessed that he could not make allegations against any other employees saying that in U.P. `Supari' (contracts) were taken for meager amount of `10,000/-. He was indirectly referring to his apprehension from the petitioner who belongs to U.P. He told the Company that they should wait for two days and then they would themselves get the facts. Moreover, he admitted that both used and unused receipt books are in the custody of the petitioner and the BPO i.e. Harinder Kaur was taking care of receiving and dispatch of used receipt books. It was also found by the complainant that Rajaneesh Singh (petitioner No.1) had coerced the staff not to divulge any details to the seniors in the Company. After this, it became clear to the complainant that the two accused i.e. Rajaneesh Singh and Rajesh Angroia with ill intentions had misappropriated the money collected by them on behalf of the Company which money did not belong to them. In this way, they had caused wrongful loss to the tune of `13,92,000/- approximately to the Company and had caused unlawful gain to themselves at the cost of the Company. It was requested to take immediate action against these persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and no offence is made out against him. A reference has been made to the appointment letter (Annexure-P.1) and on the strength of the same it is submitted that it was not the duty of the petitioner to collect cash. The petitioner had worked as Business Unit Manager (BUM) till 24.2.2006 and he resigned thereafter which was accepted by the Company on 24.2.2010. During his working with the Company, it is submitted that he worked to the best of his ability. It is Cr. Misc. No.M-25521 of 2010 [4] submitted that the petitioner handed over the charge when he left the Company. It is also submitted that audit of the Company was done and there is no allegation of embezzlement or misappropriation. Besides, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is involved along with his co-accused in the embezzlement of huge amount and is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the record. The case against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused had been collecting money on behalf of the Company and not accounting for the same in the records of the Company. In this manner, the petitioner along with his co-accused Rajesh Angroia misappropriated the amount of the Company to the tune of `13,92,000/- approximately. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The question as regards that he did not deal with cash and his duty was as Branch Unit Manager (BUM) is to be considered and gone into by the investigating authorities or the Court as the case may be. At this stage, on the strength of his appointment letter (Annexure-P.1) the functions that he performed are not to be gone into. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the employee of the Company and the allegations against him are that while working as Branch Unit Manager (BUM) he had embezzled and misappropriated the money that was collected on behalf of the Company. Therefore, present is not a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required so as to elicit more and useful information from him. The Cr. Misc. No.M-25521 of 2010 [5] concession of grant of pre-arrest bail is somewhat extra-ordinary in character. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. September 20, 2010. *hsp* (S.S. Saron) Judge