Facts of the Case

The complainant, Sri C. Easwaramoorthy, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Chennai, filed a complaint against the respondent, CA T.M. Jeyachandran, arising out of investigation in CBI Case No. RC 3(A)/2009. The investigation related to Dr. V.V. Sairam Babu, Port Health Officer, Chennai Sea Port, who was alleged to have amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of ₹2,41,61,809 during the period 01.01.1999 to 10.01.2009.

It was alleged that the respondent entered into a criminal conspiracy with Dr. V.V. Sairam Babu and prepared false and fabricated documents, including a document titled “Memorandum for Mutual Co-Operation” dated 22.09.2009, falsely shown as executed on 01.08.2002, to create a fictitious source of income of ₹55,00,000 in the name of the wife of the public servant. The document was allegedly routed through another Chartered Accountant’s system to avoid tracing its origin and was used to mislead the CBI investigation.

Issues Involved

Whether the respondent Chartered Accountant was guilty of “Other Misconduct” under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 for entering into criminal conspiracy and preparing forged and ante-dated documents to conceal disproportionate assets of a public servant under investigation by the CBI.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The complainant department contended that the respondent deliberately prepared false and fabricated documents to account for unexplained assets of the accused public servant and conspired to obstruct a lawful CBI investigation. It was submitted that forensic examination, witness statements, and seizure of computer systems conclusively established that the respondent created and transmitted the forged document, which was then printed and handed over to the accused. The complainant further relied on the pendency of criminal prosecution against the respondent under Sections 120B, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent denied having created the impugned document and contended that the file was planted on his office computer after seizure by the CBI. He relied heavily on the Forensic Lab Report to argue that file timestamps did not conclusively prove creation on his system and that his office computer had been tampered with. The respondent further argued that the document was allegedly prepared by an advocate and that his role was limited to forwarding an email without knowledge of its contents. He also questioned the credibility of witness statements and alleged procedural lapses by the investigating agency.

Court Order / Findings

The Board of Discipline examined the forensic evidence, witness testimonies, submissions of the parties, and the sequence of events. The Board noted that Witness No. 2 categorically stated that the respondent sent the document to his system for printing and handing over to the accused, and that forensic testing of the witness’s system corroborated the transmission of the document from the respondent.

The Board rejected the respondent’s plea of tampering and planting of evidence, observing that no conclusive proof was produced to support such allegations. The Board further held that the respondent’s explanations were inconsistent and unsupported by evidence. On appreciation of material on record, the Board concluded that the respondent had entered into a criminal conspiracy and had created false and fabricated ante-dated documents with the intent to conceal disproportionate assets and impede a CBI investigation.

Important Clarification

The Board clarified that preparation or facilitation of forged or ante-dated documents to mislead investigating agencies constitutes grave professional misconduct. A Chartered Accountant is expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity, and any involvement in criminal conspiracy or obstruction of justice attracts strict disciplinary action irrespective of pendency of criminal proceedings.

Final Outcome

The Board of Discipline, ICAI, held that CA T.M. Jeyachandran was GUILTY of Other Misconduct under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. In exercise of powers under Section 21A(3), the Board ordered removal of his name from the Register of Members for a period of 30 days, by order dated 25.09.2024, pursuant to its findings dated 27.08.2024.

Source Link - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1768817062_SriC.EaswaramoorthyIPSvs.CAT.M.JeyachandranBoardofDisciplineICAI.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.