Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Mayank N Shah, accused no.4, challenging his conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 120B, 161, 166, 420, 468, 471 IPC read with Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant was the Chief Manager (Operations) of M/s. New Russian Automobiles, a partnership firm. The prosecution alleged that the firm, along with its partners and employees, conspired to cheat the Central Bank of India by presenting 25 bills with forged motor transport receipts, totaling Rs.18,57,064.40, during October 1975 to March 1976. The appellant signed and presented these bills to the bank, knowing they were based on fake invoices and fictitious firms floated by accused no.2. The trial court convicted the appellant, and the High Court confirmed the conviction. The appellant argued that he was a salaried employee acting on instructions, that the High Court denied him adequate opportunity as his advocate was elevated and he did not receive notice, and that the amicus curiae appointed was biased. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to take steps to appoint another advocate or update his address, and the mere allegation of bias against the amicus curiae was insufficient. On merits, the court found that the documentary evidence, including signed bills and attested copies of forged invoices, proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court rejected the appellant's reliance on precedents, noting they were inapplicable on facts. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Cheating and Forgery - Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC - Conspiracy - The appellant, Chief Manager (Operations) of a firm, signed and presented bills with forged motor transport receipts to the bank, knowing them to be fake, thereby cheating the bank. The court held that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on documentary evidence, including signed bills and attested copies of forged invoices. (Paras 10-11) B) Criminal Procedure - Right to Hearing - Appointment of Amicus Curiae - The appellant's advocate was elevated as judge; appellant failed to appoint another advocate and did not receive notice due to change of address. The High Court appointed amicus curiae. The Supreme Court held that mere allegation that amicus curiae was junior to CBI counsel is no ground to interfere, as appellant was at fault for not taking steps. (Para 10) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Public Servant - Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) - The appellant, though not a public servant, was convicted under these sections read with IPC offences. The court upheld the conviction based on evidence of conspiracy and cheating. (Paras 4, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- conspiracy
- cheating
- forgery
- vicarious liability of employee
- duty of court to appoint amicus curiae
- non-receipt of notice due to change of address
