Judgment:
CRIMINAL MISC.
M NO.2756 OF 201.:{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 01 2013 Sanjiv Mishra .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?.”
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Mr.J.S.
Bedi & Mr.Parshant Yadav, Advocates, for the petitioner.
Ms.Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State.
Mr.R.S.
Cheema, Sr.Advocate & Mr.R.S.
Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Arshdeep Singh Cheema, Advocate, for the complainant.
***** RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner prays for grant of bail in FIR No.99, dated 21.5.2012 registered against him and others under Sections 406, 408, 418, 477A, 120-B IPC at Police Station Sector 40, Gurgaon.
As per the allegations made in the FIR, accused Nos.1 and 2 were the employees of the complainant Company-Reebok India for more than 16 yeaRs.Accused No.1 is the Managing Director and accused No.2 is the Chief Financial Officer.
At the time of termination of their employment in March 2012, they were head of the Market India and M.D.of the complainant Company.
It is alleged that certain fraudulent CRIMINAL MISC.
M NO.2756 OF 201.:{ 2 }: activities relating to the business of the complainant could be identified on account of investigation conducted by Mr.Shahin Padath, Director Finance and Mr.Claus Heckerott.
It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 have indulged in various fraudulent activities for several years and had systematically cheated and defrauded the complainant company of hundred of crores rupees.
During the couRs.of their employment, they were Incharge of the financial affaiRs.accounts operation, warehousing, information technology.
It is only after termination of their employment that the books of accounts and records were checked, when it is found that the accused were operating four secret warehouses to keep diverted and stolen stocks of the complainant- Company clandestinely, which were not reported in the books of complainant.
The petitioner is assigned a role in the FIR in connection with these secret warehouses.
It is alleged that complainant-Company had engaged an independent private firm Controlled Risk, which visited the said Warehouses and found unaccounted goods of the complainant lying at these warehouses.
These warehouses were retained by payment of rent and goods found therein were lying in the warehouses.
It is also alleged that these warehouses were paid through a fraudulent arrangement entered into by accused Nos.1 and 2 with M/s Shivam Enterprises.
It is alleged that M/s Shivam Enterprises had taken the secret warehouses on rent for accused Nos.1 and 2 and payment for the same was made to M/s Shivam Enterprises through fake bills for over time, which were caused to be raised upon the complainant and CRIMINAL MISC.
M NO.2756 OF 201.:{ 3 }: cleared by accused Nos.1 and 2.
In this manner, the complainant- company was put to loss of `90 lacs.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is accused of receiving a sum of `10 lacs and that too not in any fraudulent manner.
Plea is that the four secret warehouses were allegedly not secret but fully in the knowledge of the complainant and various functionaries of the complainant Company.
In this regard, the counsel has referred to the documents like Annexures P-4, P-5, P-6, P-7 and P-9.
Annexure P-4 is a copy of email sent by petitioner-Sanjiv Mishra to Parshant Bhatnagar with copy to Vishnu Bhagat.
This is relating to hiring of warehouses.
Similarly, Annexure P-5 is again an email, copy of which was addressed to Mr.Shahin Padath.
Reference is then made to Annexure P-6, which is a communication sent from Vishnu Bhagat, which clearly contains a mention in regard to multiple temporary warehouses being operated for the last three years to manage the additional capacity, which the Company was requiring to grow on year to year basis.
From this the counsel would contend that these are the temporary warehouses, which are termed as secret warehouses.
As per the counsel, there is no secret warehouse as is being maintained.
The counsel would accordingly contend that the allegations made against the petitioner are not made out.
The petitioner is otherwise in custody since 19.9.2012.
The counsel is also justified in making reference to the order, Annexure P-9, passed in respect of co-accused.
The Court had directed release of Parshant Bhatnagar and Vikas Uppal primarily on CRIMINAL MISC.
M NO.2756 OF 201.:{ 4 }: the ground that they were in custody since 9.10.2012.
Though the other co-accused were granted concession of bail, but the prayer of the petitioner for bail was declined on the ground that the fraud committed is of huge magnitude.
Mr.Cheema was not really vehement in opposing the prayer of the petitioner.
He, however, made submission in regard to the overall fraud in this case, which is of a huge amount.
As per Mr.Cheema the accused had even indulged in sale of the items of the Company to Company itself in the manner by keeping and transferring them in the warehouses, which were hired in the secret manner.
Whether there was any secrecy involved in this case ultimately is to be seen by the trial Court.
One aspect, Mr.Cheema concedes during couRs.of his arguments is that the petitioner is only a minot player and except for allegedly being associating with hiring of warehouses, there is no other allegation against him.
Mr.Cheema has made an attempt to distinguish the case of main accused, who had committed this huge fraud.
The petitioner otherwise is in judicial custody.
The trial is likely to take time to conclude.
Considering the role and the evidence, which may not call for any comment by this Court, lest it prejudices the case of either side, the case for release of the petitioner on bail is made out as it will serve no purpose to keep him in custody.
The petitioner is allowed bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Gurgaon.
March 01, 2013 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE