TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2015) - - - Dated:- 8-9-2020 - Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha And Indira Banerjee, JJ. JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard Mr. Subhash Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. This case arises out of an FIR that was registered on 09.12.2009 as regards a MSME Receivable Finance Scheme operated by the Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI). It was found that since some vendors were complaining of delay in getting their payments, SIDBI, in consultation with Tata Motors Limited, advised the vendors of Tata Motors Limited to furnish RTGS details for remittance of funds. It was found that for making payments in RTGS for various purchases made by Tata Motors Limited from one Ranflex India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as vendor ), 12 payments amounting to ₹ 1,64,17,551/- (Rupees one crore sixty four lakhs seventeen thousand five hundred fifty one only) were made through RTGS by SIDBI in the vendor s account with Federal Bank, Thriupporur. Ultimately, SIDBI was informed by the vendor that it has an account with Central Bank, B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioners would fall into the category of various other people and therefore they ought to be tried for the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code specially for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Since this report is of some importance, we need to set out extracts insofar as the appellant is concerned: Sub: RC.13/E/2009 Mumbai against Shri Ashoo Tiwari, DGM and others, SIDBI. 2. Competent Authority of SIDBI, in his tentative viewdid not consider it a fit case for sanction of prosecution against the two officials namely S/Shri Ashoo Tiwari, DGM and Shasheel Karade. In his contention the Competent Authority have stated that it is a fact that Shri Muthukumar did not dispatch payment advises to RIPL immediately as a result vendors including RIPL remained unaware about payments. Shri Muthukumar resigned from services of SIDBI on 31.07.2009 before the fraud could be detected and RIPL came to know of fraud/non-receipt of payment in their account when they received the payment advices dispatched as arranged by Shri Ashoo Tiwari and Shri Shasheel Karade. The Competent Authority is of the view had Shri Tiwari and Shri Karade been involved/connived with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ashoo Tiwari and Shri Karade and as such sanction for prosecution of Shri Ashoo Tiwari and Shri Shasheel Karade, Manager, SIDBI is not called for and the commission would advise accordingly and RDA would suffice against Shri Ashoo Tiwari, DGM and Shri Shasheel karade, Manager, SIDBI for their procedural and supervisory lapses which have already been examined earlier by the Commission and minor pp had already been advised. A reading of this Report shows that, at the highest, the appellant may be negligent without any criminal culpability. In fact, the positive finding of the CVC that the appellant appears to be a victim of Muthukumar s plot is of some importance. 7. A number of judgments have held that the standard of proof in a departmental proceeding, being based on preponderance of probability is somewhat lower than the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding where the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1, the question before the Court was posed as follows:- 3. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent is justified in pursuing the prosecution against the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1945 Lah 23] the Full Bench had not considered the effect of a finding of fact in a civil case over the criminal cases and that will be evident from the following passage of the said judgment: (AIR p. 27) I must, however, say that in answering the question, I have only referred to civil cases where the actions are in personam and not those where the proceedings or actions are in rem. Whether a finding of fact arrived at in such proceedings or actions would be relevant in criminal cases, it is unnecessary for me to decide in this case. When that question arises for determination, the provisions of Section 41 of the Evidence Act, will have to be carefully examined. xxx xxx xxx 29. We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of Mr Malhotra that the finding in an adjudication proceeding is not binding in the proceeding for criminal prosecution. A person held liable to pay penalty in adjudication proceedings cannot necessarily be held guilty in a criminal trial. Adjudication proceedings are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence of a little higher degree whereas in a criminal case the entire burden to prove beyond all reasonable doubt l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
