Rupesh Shashikant Rane v. State of Maharashtra

The Cyber Blog IndiaCase Summary

Rupesh Shashikant Rane v. State of Maharashtra

Rupesh Shashikant Rane v. State of Maharashtra
In the High Court of Bombay
A.B.A. 924/2016
Before Justice P.N. Deshmukh
Decided on August 02, 2016

Relevancy of the case: Anticipatory bail application in a case involving the preparation of fake bills

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66)
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 34, 465, 467, 408, 424, 468, 471)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The applicant stated that in 2005, he joined a company known as “Piramal Enterprises” as the assistant manager and continued to work there for more than 10 years. It was alleged by the company that he sold free goods worth ₹40,56,000/- with regard to 105 KGs of vitamin A.
  • It was also alleged that he cheated the company to an extent of ₹2,62,22,250/- by selling 6785 KGs of vitamin A pollinated.
  • Another allegation is regarding the overdue statement of the company that 465 KGs of vitamin A were sold by them to 5 buyers who had not paid the amount to the extent of ₹9,24,000/-. They stated that this amount must have been received by the applicant.
  • But he stated that his only role was to contact various clients and obtain purchase orders of goods for the company. They were then placed before the logistics department where they were processed and forwarded to finance department, which would submit a quotation to the prospective buyer and after the buyer approved the price, the order would be processed by the finance department and then the goods were dispatched to the buyer.
  • After effecting delivery, the finance department would follow for payments which were only made by cheques. Thus, it was submitted that the role of the applicant was only to obtain orders which were then given to the logistics department.
  • Hence, it is the case of the applicant that he was only concerned with purchase orders, not anything else.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

  • The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the applicant was only involved in purchase orders and that he was unnecessarily harassed by his involvement in this crime by his immediate superior Mr Furtado, who was the General Manager. It was also submitted that due to the humiliation, the petitioner resigned from the company in advance. Therefore, he was only concerned with purchasing the orders and not solving the grievances, as that is the Company’s responsibility and hence his application shall be allowed with suitable conditions.
  • The respondent’s counsel submitted that there is sufficient material against the applicant and his custodial interrogation is necessary because he prepared false bills, sold goods manufactured by the company in false schemes and siphoned a huge amount out of all this.

Final Decision

  • The bail application was allowed subject to specific conditions.

This case summary has been prepared by Loreal Sahay, an undergraduate student at University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2021.