Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Mr. Nikhil Girish Patt, Mr. Ilesh Shah, and Mr. Sooraj Kumar Tayade, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging an order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the Special Court for CBI at Greater Bombay. The impugned order framed an additional charge against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 467 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), in exercise of power under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The background of the case is that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered RC No.02/E/2013-Mumbai on 29.01.2013 based on a complaint by Shri K. Rajaraman, Deputy Zonal Manager of a bank, alleging offences under Sections 120-B read with 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioners were accused in the said case. The Special Court, while framing charges, initially did not frame a charge under Section 467 IPC. However, later, on an application by the CBI, the Special Court passed the impugned order framing an additional charge under Section 467 IPC. The petitioners contended that there was no prima facie material to support the charge under Section 467 IPC, which requires the making of a false document with intent to cause damage or injury. The CBI argued that the material on record, including the fabrication of accounts, justified the charge. The High Court examined the ingredients of Section 467 IPC and held that the essential element of 'intent to cause damage or injury' was missing. The court observed that mere fabrication of accounts, without evidence that the accused intended to cause damage or injury to any person, does not attract Section 467 IPC. The court also noted that the Special Court had not recorded any satisfaction that there was prima facie material to frame the additional charge. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order framing the additional charge under Section 467 IPC, and directed the Special Court to proceed with the trial on the other charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Additional Charge - Section 216 Cr.P.C. - Prima Facie Case - The court examined whether the Special Court correctly invoked Section 216 Cr.P.C. to frame an additional charge under Section 467 IPC. Held that the power under Section 216 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if there is prima facie material to support the charge, and the court must not act mechanically. (Paras 1-10) B) Indian Penal Code - Forgery - Section 467 IPC - Ingredients - The court analyzed the essential ingredients of Section 467 IPC, which requires that the false document be made with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person. Held that mere fabrication of accounts without evidence of such intent does not constitute an offence under Section 467 IPC. (Paras 11-15) C) Criminal Procedure - Charge Framing - Standard of Proof - The court reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to consider only the prima facie case and not the sufficiency of evidence. However, there must be strong suspicion founded on material on record. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Court was justified in framing an additional charge under Section 467 read with Section 120-B of the IPC against the petitioners in the absence of prima facie evidence of forgery.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 17.02.2023 framing additional charge under Section 467 read with 120-B IPC, and directed the Special Court to proceed with the trial on the other charges.
Law Points
- Section 467 IPC requires proof of making a false document with intent to cause damage or injury
- mere fabrication of accounts without such intent does not attract Section 467
- Section 216 Cr.P.C. allows framing of additional charge if there is prima facie evidence
- standard for framing charge is strong suspicion
