The Patna High Court held that in instances where an offense is committed by a company, the company itself is identified as the primary accused. Individuals responsible for managing the daily operations of the company are considered secondary in this context. The Court emphasized that without initiating legal proceedings against the company, it is not permissible to prosecute individuals in the secondary category, such as the Chairman.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, who is the Chairman of Bharti Airtel Ltd., is challenging the decision of the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, which has recognized the charges under Sections 468/471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for the offense of document forgery based on a complaint case. This criminal revision petition is filed against the judgement of the learned magistrate.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner argued that TERM Cells, recognized as expert bodies, are responsible for verifying Customer Application Forms (CAFs) according to the Supreme Court's guidelines established in Avishek Goneka vs. Union of India, emphasizing that only TERM Cells have the authority to file complaints on CAF forgery. They highlighted that the complainant lacks the authority to lodge such complaints, based on the Supreme Court's decision.
Furthermore, the counsel contended that charging the petitioner, the Chairman of Bharti Airtel Ltd., without implicating the company itself, goes against legal principles, as the company should be the primary accused. They argued that the chairman's liability depends on the company being charged first, challenging the notion that the petitioner automatically assumes responsibility for the company's actions.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent's counsel argued that the complaint's allegations, concerning the production of fake CAF licenses and the widespread issuance of SIM cards registered to non-existent individuals, demand a broader analysis. They pointed out that these SIM cards could potentially enable a range of illegal activities, including terrorism or actions against the state. The counsel noted that the respondent had attempted to halt these malpractices and faced termination for bringing them to light. They emphasized the necessity for an exhaustive investigation and trial, raising the possibility that senior officials within Bharti Airtel Ltd. might be implicated in the forgery and production of counterfeit documents.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court, while referencing decisions made by the Supreme Court, observed that it has been determined that any forgery related to Customer Application Forms (CAFs) must be investigated by the TERM Cell. This entity is designated as the sole authority authorized to conduct inspections and lodge complaints if fraudulent documents are produced or forgery is committed in relation to CAFs. It was clarified that the complainant does not hold the authority to file such complaints.
Furthermore, the Court conscientiously acknowledged that in instances where an offense is committed by a company, the company itself is identified as the primary accused. Individuals responsible for managing the daily operations of the company are considered secondary in this context. The Court emphasized that without initiating legal proceedings against the company, it is not permissible to prosecute individuals in the secondary category, such as the Chairman.
Expanding further, the Bench pointed out the significance of prosecuting the company as the principal accused before any action is taken against the individuals responsible for its daily management. To substantiate its position, the Court referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in specific cases. It highlighted the case of Raghu Lakshminarayanan vs. Fine Tubes, as recorded in (2007) 5 SCC 103, to illustrate the legal principles involved. Additionally, the Court drew upon the decision in Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd., as detailed in (2012) 5 SCC 661, to further establish the framework for handling such legal matters.
The decision of the Court:
The Court ruled that the Magistrate erred significantly by recognizing charges under Sections 468/461/120B of the IPC against the petitioner, and thus, the order against the petitioner was set aside.
Case Title: Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. The State of Bihar & Anr
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhari
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 318 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Ms. Kanika
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, Mr. Rajesh Kr. Verma, Mr. Shashank Chandra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
