Vikram Tandon vs Union Territory, Chandigarh

K.S. Kumarn, J.

F.I.R. No. 66 dated 6.5.1999 has been registered at Police Station North, Chandigarh, under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. on the complaint of R.K. Sharma, Proprietor M/s. Jajjoo Textiles, wherein the following material allegations are found :

Vikram Tandon (petitionerherein) was working as computer operator handling accounts of the complainant''s organisation. He was working for the last four years, and on many occasions, he was warned to work sincerely. Petitioner left the complainant''s organisation on 5.12.1998 without giving any notice under suspicious circumstances. On completion of the calender year 31.12.1998 preparations were made for the accounts (trial balance) for 1998. When the books were checked, it was found that there is lot of embezzlement of funds during 1998. The complainant came to know that petitioner has forged the signatures of the competent authority on cheques and had withdrawn money from the bank. The total embezzlement was found to be thirty lakhs. When enquired the petitioner did not give any suitable reply.

The petitioner''s application for bail in anticipation of arrest was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court under section 438 Cr.P.C. for bail in anticipation of arrest.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and have perused the records on file.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that even though a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs is stated to have been embezzled by forging the signatures of the competent authority in the cheques and by withdrawing the amount, even before the Sessions Court, a cheque dated 27.2.1998 for Rs. 6,97,000/ of M/s. Jajjoo Textiles and another dated 29.6.1998 for Rs. 1,40,000/ were stated to have been forged. But the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the cheque for Rs. 6,97,000/ has been signed by the complainant not only in the front side of the cheque but also on the back, and that it contains the signatures of the petitioner also. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and R.K. Sharma both went to the bank to withdraw Rs. 6,97,000/ added Rs. 3 lakhs and deposited Rs. 9.97 lakhs into the Oriental Bank of Commerce into the account of Ishan Credits Limited, of which R.K. Sharma is a Director. He also contends that cash was withdrawn from the Union Bank of India. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that these factors are borne out by the counterfoils, which were already shown to the police.

So far as the cheque for Rs. 1.40 lakhs is concerned, petitioner contends that the cheque has been signed on both sides by R.K. Sharma and that counterfoil relating to the same is with the investigating officer. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that no other cheque has been shown to have been forged by the petitioner except the one cheque for Rs. 5000/ which was even cancelled.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner also contends that the petitioner was employed as Computer Operator with M/s. Ishan Credits Limited of which R.K. Sharma is the Managing Director, and that the petitioner was not an employee of Jajjoo Textiles of which R.K. Sharma was the proprietor. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also contends that no evidence has been collected to show that the petitioner was appointed in Jajjoo Textiles and there is not even an allegation that the cheque books relating to Jajjoo Textiles were handed over to the petitioner or that he was entitled to issue cheques for the said Company. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that R.K. Sharma had issued a cheque for Rs. one lakh to Ram Singh Bishnoi, which was not honoured by the bank and the said Ram Singh Bishnoi filed a criminal complaint against R.K. Sharma and also against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, presuming that the petitioner was also a Director. According to the petitioner R.K. Sharma filed an application in anticipation of arrest not only for himself but also on behalf of the petitioner and had even forged the signatures of the petitioner on the vakalatnama. The petitioner contends that after the dismissal of that bail application, R.K. Sharma filed Crl. Misc. No. 32280M of 1998 on the file of this Court, and then again forged the signatures of the petitioner on the vakalatnama. According to the petitioner, he protested against this and directly approached the trial Court for bail stating that he was not Director of the CompanyIshan Credits Limited, and contends that he was also granted bail. The petitioner contends that in view of the differences that had cropped up between them, the petitioner left the services of Ishan Credits and has also been issued a certificate by R.K. Sharma (Annexure P1) dated 5.12.1998. The petitioner contends that he has also sent a complaint on 15.12.1998 to the D.I.G. of Police Punjab, and another complaint to the D.G.P. of Punjab on 26.4.1999, alleging about certain irregularities committed by Ishan Textiles Mills. The petitioner contends that the brother of the complainantR.K. Sharma is Police Officer in Punjab Police and in view of the complaint made by him regarding the supply of cloth to the Police department, and the differences, this false case has been foisted against him. The learned Counsel appearing for the Union Territory and the complainant contend that custodial interrogation is necessary inasmuch as forging of cheques, misappropriation of Rs. 30 lakhs has been detected. They also contend that unless there are special circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail in anticipation of arrest. They also contend that the petitioner was also maintaining the accounts by computer and he has even made entries in the account books with his own hands. It is also contended by them that a sum of Rs. 6.97 lakhs was not deposited in any bank, and the amounts embezzled have also to be recovered.

But the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand contends that the petitioner is ready to give his specimen signatures and the complainant may also given the signatures for comparison and it can be found out as to whether the signatures are forged or not. He also contends that the signatures and handwriting are also available with the Ishan Credits with which the signatures could be compared and found out whether the alleged forgery is true or not. One important contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though it has been specifically alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner left the complainant''s organisation on 5.12.1998 without giving any notice under suspicious circumstances and that the petitioner had been warned to work sincerely on many occasions, these are not true is proved by the very fact that on 5.12.1998, the petitioner was given a certificate by the complainantR.K. Sharma as Managing Director of Ishan Credits Ltd., that the petitioner had worked from February 1995 to November 1998 in the capacity of a Computer Operator and that his work through out this period remained quite satisfactory. Of course, the contention of the complainant is that subsequently on checking of the accounts the alleged forgery and embezzlement were found out, but, the specific allegation in the F.I.R. being that the petitioner left the organisation on 5.12.1998 without any notice and under suspicious circumstances and that he was warned to be work sincerely on many occasion, it is wholly unbelievable that the complainant would have been given such a certificate if there was any suspicion. Therefore, it cannot be said that this certificate was given as a matter of routine, and that it was later on found out that the petitioner had forged or embezzled money. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also points out that even the copy of the trial balance has not been given to the police or even shown to the Court. One other factor is also that the petitioner, as is seen from Annexure P1, was employed as a Computer Operator in Ishan Credits, it is not shown that he was employed in the other proprietary firm Jajjoo Textiles. It may be that R.K. Sharma who is a Director in Ishan Credit and is proprietor of Jajjoo Textiles had taken the petitioner along with him to the bank to help him. But taking into consideration these factors, but at the same time without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

In the event of arrest of the petitioner on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in this petition, the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of arresting officer.

If the petitioner''s presence is necessary for the purposes of further investigation, the investigating officer shall issue notice giving sufficient time to the petitioner to join investigation. On such notice the petitioner shall join investigation and abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.