White-Collar Crimes Not Committed By Sudden Provocation But With Deep Understanding Of Consequences: Madras High Court

Justice AD Jagadish Chandira in the order said:

Among other crimes, this sort of white-collar crimes are particularly harmful to society as they are committed by not just literated, but, well educated and influenced persons, who are expected to set a moral example and behave responsibly. The fraudulent activity in siphoning of pubic money by defrauding the financial institutions is unlike any other offence which could have been committed by sudden provocation as it is a well calculated one with the deep understanding as to the consequences and with the ideology to conquer them.

The bench said that in such matters when court finds a prima facie case, it cannot record a satisfaction that accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Therefore, if the court finds a prima facie case against the accused in such cases, it cannot come to a satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail as specified in Section 212 (6)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Background

The court was dealing with the bail application filed by Rahul Dinesh Surana, who along with others is accused of having indulged in the offence of siphoning of huge public money availed by way of financial assistance from various banks in the name of some shell and puppet companies. The case is being investigated by Serious Fraud Investigation Office. 

The court noted that though the petitioner has claimed to be innocent, there was sufficient evidence to show that he had played a major role in the affairs of the company. On the one hand, he claimed that he had no knowledge of the fraudulent activity and on the other he admitted to being responsible for reviving and rehabilitating the company, it said.

The court further noted that he had signed various documents as a person in charge of commercial and financial transactions. It also said there were other evidence to show that he and other accused had played a key role in defrauding banks and embezzlement of funds.

The court also noted that the petitioner could not rely on the clean chit issued to him in a petition challenging a look out circular issued against him as he was not arrayed as an accused in the case connected with such proceedings. 

In the present case, however, the court said, he was arrayed as an accused and there was prima facie material regarding his role in the offence.

Thus, finding that he had failed to satisfy the conditions imposed under Section 212(6)(ii) of the Companies Act for grant of bail for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the Companies Act, the court dismissed the petitions.

Case Title: Rahul Dinesh Surana v. The Senior Assistant Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 446

Case No: Crl.O.P.No.21728 of 2022

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for M/s.Nithyaesh and Vaibhav

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.B.Mohan, Special Public Prosecutor (SFIO Cases) assisted by Mr.S.Sabari Perumal

Click here to read/download the judgment