MAYANK N SHAH versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
[2019] 15 S.C.R. 358, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Body
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
MAYANK N SHAH
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2298 of 2010)
DECEMBER 18, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing – Complaint lodged against the
appellant-accused no.4 and four others – At the relevant time,
accused no.1 was serving as Branch Manager of Central Bank
of India, Ahmedabad– Accused nos.2, 3 were partners of a
partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing crank-
shafts for jeeps, ambassador cars etc.– Appellant was serving as
Chief Manager (Operations) with the firm and accused no.5 was
office Superintendent– Accused no.2 applied to the Bank for
availing loan facilities for the firm – Case of the complainant inter
alia that under the Usance Bills facility, the partnership firm used
to offer its bills drawn on different outstation parties and along
with the said bills they produced railway receipt, motor receipt,
invoices for the value of the goods sold to the parties and also
the hundis drawn upon the purchases – Said documents were
signed by accused nos.2-5– On such presentation, the bank used
to grant credit facility – Allegedly, forged receipts were produced
with Out-stationed Bills Discounted (O.B.D) and Bills Purchased
(B.P) and in all, the appellant and accused no.5 presented to the
Bank 25 bills to the tune of Rs.18,57,064.40/-, and the firm availed
the credit facility from the Bank against such bills, by presenting
fake transport
receipts – Accused charged u/ss.161, 166, 420, 468
& 471, IPC r/w ss.5(1)(d), 5(2) of 1947 Act – Special Judge
convicted the accused nos.1-4 – High Court confirmed the
conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant –On appeal,
held: Findings recorded supporting the prosecution case were in
conformity with the oral and documentary evidence on record –
Appellant knowing fully well that the invoices/bills were fake and
fabricated, presented on behalf of the firm to the bank and thus
cheated the bank – Prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant
   [2019] 15 S.C.R. 358
358
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
359
beyond reasonable doubt – However, in assessing the sentencing,
the crime test requires adequate deference to factors such as role
of the accused and his position within the rank of conspirators,
among other things – In view of the fact that the appellant was
only a salaried employee working in the firm owned by the accused
no.2 and was relatively lower in the hierarchy, it is fit case to
modify the sentence imposed on the appellant, while confirming
the conviction – Period of sentence modified – All the sentences
to run concurrently – Bail bonds of the appellant cancelled, who
shall surrender within 4 weeks from today, failing which steps be
taken to take him into custody for serving the remaining period of
sentence – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.120-B, 161, 166, 420, 468 and
471 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – ss.5(1)(d), (2).
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 When the advocate on record who filed the
appeal was elevated to the Bench, it was for the appellant to
make his own arrangement for appointing another advocate in
the place of earlier advocate on record. Appellant did not take
any steps in this regard. Even notice sent to the appellant was
not received by him for want of correct address. As such there
was no option except to proceed for disposal of the appeal filed
by the appellant, by appointing amicus curiae. Mere allegation
that the amicus curiae appointed was earlier junior counsel of
C.B.I. advocate, is no ground to interfere
with the impugned
judgment. The findings recorded in support of the case of the
prosecution were in conformity with the oral and documentary
evidence on record. The appellant knowing fully well that the
invoices/bills were fake and fabricated, were presented on behalf
of the firm to the bank and thus cheated the bank. The
prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt to record conviction of the appellant. [Para 10]
[365-D-G]
1.2 Having regard to totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case and evidence on record, taking note of the fact that
the appellant was working in the firm owned by the accused no.2,
he was salaried employee and and he was relatively lower in the
hierarchy. it is a fit case to modify the sentence imposed on the
appellant, while confirming the conviction. In assessing the
MAYANK N SHAH v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
sentencing, the crime test requires us to evaluate and provide
adequate deference to factors such as role of the accused and
his position within the rank of conspirators, among other things.
Accordingly, the sentence of R.I. modified for a period of one
year for the offence punishable under S.120B read with S.161,
166, 420, 471 of I.P. Code and also read with S.5(1)(d) further
read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; R.I.
for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default
to suffer further R.I. for period of six months for the offence
punishable under sec.420, 420-120B of I.P. Code; R.I. for a
period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000, in default to suffer
further R.I. for period of three months for the offence punishable
under S.471 read with S.468 of I.P. Code in respect of the user
of seven forged motor transport receipts; R.I. for a period of
one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000. in default to suffer further
R.I. for period of three months for the offence punishable under
S.471 read with S.468 and further read with S.120B of I.P. Code
in respect of the user of the 11 Photostat copies of exhs.942 to
952. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The appeal is
allowed in part to the extent of modifying the period of sentence.
As the appellant was on bail pursuant to orders passed by
Supreme Court on 16.11.2009, his bail bonds are cancelled. He
shall surrender within a period
of four weeks from today to serve
the remaining period of sentence, failing which respondent-State
shall take steps to take the accused into custody to serve the
remaining period of sentence. [Paras 13, 14] [366-B-G; 367-A-
B]
Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v.
K. Narayana Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512 : [2012] 9 SCR
54 ; K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala (2005) 12
SCC 631 : [2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 498 ; Bharati Telenet
Ltd. v. Subhash Jain & Ors. (2005) 11 SCC 599 ; A.S.
Krishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala (2004) 11 SCC
576 : [2004] 3 SCR 44 – referred to.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Udham and Others 2019
SCC OnLine SC 1378 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2012] 9 SCR 54
referred to
Para 11
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
361
[2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 498
referred to
Para 11
(2005) 11 SCC 599
referred to
Para 11
[2004] 3 SCR 44
referred to
Para 11
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2298 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2008 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 1987.
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Agarwal,  Jatin Zaveri,
Neel Kamal Mishra, Geet Ahuja, Chinmay Deshpande, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv., Ashish Rana,  Puneet Taneja, Sushil
Kumar Dubey, Ms. Divya Nair, Anuj Aggarwal, Puneet Pathak,
Ms. Laxmi Kumari, Ms. Aastha Mehta, Ms. Vishakha, Aniruddha P.
Mayee,  Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. This criminal appeal is filed by the accused no.4, aggrieved
by the judgment dated 16.10.2008, passed in Criminal Appeal No.324
of 1987, by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, confirming the
judgment and order of conviction dated 02.04.1987 passed by the learned
Special Judge, Ahmedabad in Special Case No.13 of 1979.
2. On 21.07.1976, a complaint was lodged by Divisional Manager,
Central Bank of India, Ahmedabad with the Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation, Ahmedabad against the appellant/
accused no.4 and four others which came to be registered as C.R.
No.43 of 1976.  It was alleged in the complaint that M/s. New Russian
Automobiles is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business
of manufacturing
crank-shafts for jeeps, ambassador cars, tractors,
diesel engines etc., from their manufacturing unit at plot bearing no.155,
C1-B/3 situated in Industrial Area, Naroda Taluka of Ahmedabad
District.  It was alleged that during the relevant time accused no.1 was
serving as Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Ahmedabad,
whereas accused nos.2 and 3 were partners of M/s. New Russian
Automobiles along with two others. As per the complaint, appellant
herein/accused no.4 was at the relevant time serving as Chief Manager
(Operations) with the firm and accused no. 5 was serving as office
MAYANK N SHAH v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
Superintendent. It was further stated in the complaint that original
accused no.2 applied to the Central Bank of India for availing certain
loan facilities for the firm.  Accordingly, various facilities such as Term
Loan facility, Cash Credit Open Loan facility, Usance Bills facility, Clean
Endorsed Out-stationed Third Parties Cheques Discounting facility etc.
were extended from time to time at the instance of accused no.1.
According to the complainant, accused no.2 apart from being a partner
in the partnership firm, had also floated three other fictitious proprietary
concerns at Bombay, i.e., (i) M/s. Technical Export Import Association;
(ii) M/s. Alloy Steel Corporation; and (iii) M/s. Auto Parts Centre.  It
was further the case of the complainant that under the Usance Bills
facility, the partnership firm used to offer its bills drawn on different
outstation parties and along with the said bills they have produced railway
receipt, motor receipt, invoices for the value of the goods sold to the
parties and also the hundis drawn upon the purchases and all the said
documents were signed by accused nos.2 to 5.  On such presentation,
bank used to grant credit facility by forwarding the bills with necessary
documents to the out-stationed bankers named in the bill and the out-
stationed parties used to accept the hundis for the value of goods sent
along with the bill and the out-stationed bank used to deliver to the said
party railway receipt or motor receipt along with the invoices.  As stated
in the complaint, the out-stationed parties then used to pay up the amount
of hundis to their partner within the time fixed by the hundis and such
bankers used to send necessary amount to the Central Bank, Gheekanta
Branch, Ahmedabad.  It was the allegation in the complaint that all the
accused persons hatched a conspiracy to cheat the bank and they
managed to get fake motor receipts alleged to have been issued by one
Bombay General Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd., Bombay.  As alleged in
the complaint, the appellant/accused no.4 and accused no.5 presented
to the bank 25 bills for the total amount of Rs.18,57,064.40 during the
period from October 1975 to March 1976 and in the said manner, the
firm has availed the credit facility from the bank against such bills, by
presenting fake transport receipts.  It is alleged that on certain occasions
forged receipts were produced with Out-stationed Bills Discounted
(O.B.D.) and Bills Purchased (B.P.) and in all 25 bills were presented
with forged motor transport receipts and out of the said bills, 11 bills
totalling to Rs.6,02,160/- were drawn upon a fictitious firm, namely, M/
s. Auto Parts Centre, of which accused no.2 was the sole proprietor.
It is alleged, the accused nos.2 to 5 by making false or misleading
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
363
representation with fraudulent and dishonest inducement, cheated the
bank to the tune of Rs.18,57,064.40.  It was also alleged that accused
nos.2 to 5 made false declaration about the value of the goods by
drawing bills in favour of fictitious firms.  Further, M/s. Alloy Steel
Corporation, a fictitious firm floated by accused no.2, raised 11
fabricated invoices in the name of the firm amounting to Rs.44,19,000/
- and fraudulently and dishonestly induced the said bank to advance
the amount of Rs.30,93,300/-.  In the complaint it is alleged that accused
no.1 being a public servant, managed to get credited, at the instance of
accused no.2, an amount of Rs.9500/- in the account of his sons on
28.11.1975 and Rs.5400/- on 11.02.1976. In addition to the same,
accused no.1 accepted a wrist watch, Crown T.V. set and enjoyed a
trip to Bombay at the expense of accused nos.2 and 3, as such,
committed the offence punishable under Section 161 and 165 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. After completion of the investigation on the complaint, all the
accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 161,
166, 420, 468 and 471, IPC read with Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.  All the accused pleaded not guilty
to the charges and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution has examined in all 44 witnesses apart from
the documentary evidence. On appreciation and evaluation of the
evidence on record adduced by the prosecution both oral as
well as
documentary, the learned Special Judge held the appellant is guilty for
the offences charged and imposed the sentence for the various offences,
which reads as under :
“R.I. for a period of two years for the offence punishable under
S.120B read with S.161, 166, 420, 471 of I.P. Code and also read
with S.5(1)(d) further read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947.
R.I. for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in
default to suffer further R.I. for period of six months for the
offence punishable under sec.420,420-120B of I.P. Code.
R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000, in
default to suffer further R.I. for period of three months for the
offence punishable under S.471 read with S.468 of I.P. Code in
respect of the user of seven forged motor transport receipts.
MAYANK N SHAH v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000. in
default to suffer further R.I. for period of three months for the
offence punishable under S.471 read with S.468 and further read
with S.120B of I.P. Code in respect of the user of the 11
Photostat copies of exhs.942 to 952.”
5. Aggrieved by the conviction recorded and sentence imposed,
the appellant herein preferred criminal appeal before the High Court.
High Court, by re-appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the
appeal by impugned judgment, confirming the judgment and order of
sentence imposed on the appellant, by the learned Special Judge,
Ahmedabad.
6. We have heard Sri Basava Prabhu Patil, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant and Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned senior
counsel appearing for the C.B.I.
7. It is contended by learned senior counsel for the appellant that
the appeal was decided by the High Court without giving adequate
opportunity, to the appellant to present his case on merits. It is submitted
that during the pendency of the appeal, before the High Court, the
advocate who has presented the appeal on behalf of the appellant was
elevated as the Judge of the High Court and thereafter notice issued
by the High Court was not received by the appellant, as he has shifted
to Pune and the High Court has disposed of the appeal by appointing
amicus curiae, who was no other than junior advocate of the counsel
for the C.B.I. In view
of the same, it is submitted that it is a fit case to
remand the matter to the High Court. Further it is submitted that
conviction of the appellant is solely based on circumstantial evidence
and the appellant was the salaried employee of the firm working as
Chief Manager (Operations). He was not benefitted in any manner and
he was submitting the bills and invoices as per the instructions of the
accused no.2. That the companies which were floated by the accused
no.2 were his proprietary concerns. It is submitted that he was preparing
the invoices and bills during his routine office work on the basis of
information received from the factory and submitted to the bank. It is
submitted that in absence of any direct evidence connecting the appellant
to the alleged illegalities the High Court as well as the trial court fell in
error in recording conviction of the appellant for the offence alleged.
8. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents has submitted that the appellant/accused no.4 was working
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
365
as Chief Manager (Operations) with M/s. New Russian Automobiles
and he had drawn almost all O.B.D. and B.P. bills on behalf of the
firm.  It is submitted that from the documentary evidence placed on
record, it is amply clear that appellant was very well knowing that the
bank was being deceived by showing highly inflated amounts in the
O.B.D. bills.  It is submitted that appellant has signed all the bills which
were submitted along with forged receipts to the bank.  Further it is
stated that he has attested all the 11 photocopies of exhibits 942 to 952
as true copies of the forged invoices issued by M/s. Alloy Steel
Corporation.  It is submitted, thus the appellant herein was party to the
offence of cheating and forgery upon the bank.
9. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we have perused
the judgments of the trial court, as well as High Court.
10. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record,
trial court/Special Court has convicted the accused nos.1 to 4, and the
High Court by the impugned judgment confirmed the conviction and
sentence imposed on the appellant.  When the advocate on record who
filed the appeal was elevated to the Bench, it was for the appellant to
make his own arrangement for appointing another advocate in the place
of earlier advocate on record.  Appellant did not take any steps in this
regard.  Even notice sent to the appellant was not received by him for
want of correct address.  As such there was no option except
to proceed
for disposal of the appeal filed by the appellant, by appointing amicus
curiae.  On the mere allegation of the appellant that the amicus curiae
appointed was earlier junior counsel of C.B.I. advocate, is no ground
to interfere with the impugned judgment.  Having perused the findings
recorded by the trial court/Special Court and of the High Court, we
are of the view that the findings recorded in support of the case of the
prosecution were in conformity with the oral and documentary evidence
on record.  We are satisfied from the findings recorded that the appellant
knowing fully well that the invoices/bills were fake and fabricated, were
presented on behalf of the firm to the bank and thus cheated the bank.
The prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant herein beyond
reasonable doubt to record conviction of the appellant.
11. Though the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the
judgments in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation,
1 (2012) 9 SCC 512
MAYANK N SHAH v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao1; K.R. Purushothaman v. State of
Kerala2; Bharati Telenet Ltd. V. Subhash Jain & Ors.3; and A.S.
Krishnan & Ors. V. State of Kerala4, having regard to facts of the
case and evidence on record, of the case on hand, we are of the view
that the said judgments are not helpful in support of the case of the
appellant.
13. Having regard to totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case and evidence on record, taking note of the fact that the
appellant was working in the firm owned by the accused no.2 and he
was salaried employee, we deem it appropriate,  it is a fit case to modify
the sentence imposed on the appellant, while confirming the conviction.
This Court, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Udham and Others5, has
clearly laid down guidelines for sentencing. In assessing the sentencing,
the crime test requires us to evaluate and provide adequate deference
to factors such as role of the accused and his position within the rank
of conspirators, among other things. There is no dispute that, from the
facts and circumstances, the appellant was working in the firm owned
by accused no.2 and he was relatively lower in the hierarchy. It needs
to be highlighted that he was only a salaried employee. Accordingly,
we modify the sentence of R.I. for a period of one year for the offence
punishable under S.120B read with S.161, 166, 420, 471 of I.P. Code
and also read with S.5(1)(d) further read with
S.5(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1947; R.I. for a period of one year and to pay fine
of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for period of six months
for the offence punishable under sec.420, 420-120B of I.P. Code; R.I.
for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000, in default to
suffer further R.I. for period of three months for the offence punishable
under S.471 read with S.468 of I.P. Code in respect of the user of seven
forged motor transport receipts; R.I. for a period of one year and to
pay a fine of Rs.2000. in default to suffer further R.I. for period of
three months for the offence punishable under S.471 read with S.468
and further read with S.120B of I.P. Code in respect of the user of the
11 Photostat copies of exhs.942 to 952.  We further order that all the
sentences shall run concurrently.
2 (2005) 12 SCC 631
3 (2005) 11 SCC 599
4 (2004) 11 SCC 576
5 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1378

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
367
14. The appeal is allowed in part to the extent of modifying the
period of sentence. As the appellant was on bail pursuant to orders
passed by this Court on 16.11.2009, his bail bonds are cancelled.  He
shall surrender within a period of four weeks from today to serve the
remaining period of sentence, failing which respondent-State shall take
steps to take the accused into custody to serve the remaining period of
sentence.
Divya Pandey
Appeal partly allowed.
MAYANK N SHAH v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]