A Special Court has jurisdiction to try an offence under S. 420 I.P.C. when the offence is committed by a public servant purporting to act as such and could have been allotted to the Special Court by the State Government for trial. The Special Court can take recourse to the provisions of S. 237 Cr. P. C., and the requirements of S. 237, Cr. P. C. are satisfied when the ingredients of an offence under S. 420 I. P. C. are alleged and proved by the prosecution and the accused is not prejudiced on account of the absence of the necessary allegations and the omission to frame a charge for an offer under S. 420 IPC.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Special Court - Jurisdiction - Trial of offence under S. 420 I.P.C. - Allotment of case to Special Court for trial of offence under S. 409 I.P.C. - Power of Special Court to try offence under S. 420 I.P.C. - Provisions of Ss. 236 and 237 Cr. P. C. - Applicability - Ingredients of offence under S. 420 I.P.C. - Whether necessary to allege or prove that accused himself prepared false bill - Irregularity in trial - Sentence - Whether severe.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a clerk in the office of the Sub-Divisional Health Officer, presented a false bill for Rs. 1763-6-0 at the State Bank on October 6, purporting to act as the clerk of the Sub Divisional Health Officer. The bill presented was on behalf of that officer. The Bank made the payment to him as the messenger of that officer duly authorised to receive payment in cash. The appellant was charged with an offence under S. 409 I.P.C. and convicted under S. 420 I.P.C. by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The Special Court had jurisdiction to try the appellant for the offence under S. 420 I.P.C. as the offence was committed by a public servant purporting to act as such and could have been allotted to the Special Court by the State Government for trial. The Special Court could take recourse to the provisions of S. 237 Cr. P. C., and the requirements of S. 237, Cr. P. C. were satisfied in the present case. The ingredients of an offence under S. 420 I. P. C. were alleged and proved by the prosecution. The accused was not prejudiced on account of the absence of the necessary allegations and the omission to frame a charge for an offer under S. 420 IPC and therefore the provisions of S. 537, Cr. P. C. would not cure this defect in trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to try the appellant for the offence under S. 420 I.P.C.? 2. Whether the Special Court could take recourse to the provisions of S. 237 Cr. P. C.? 3. Whether the ingredients of an offence under S. 420 I. P. C. were alleged and proved by the prosecution? 4. Whether the accused was prejudiced on account of the absence of the necessary allegations and the omission to frame a charge for an offer under S. 420 IPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The offence under S. 420 I.P.C. when committed in certain circumstances is also mentioned in the Schedule to the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 (W. B. Act XXI of 1949). It has to be tried by Special Courts only when it is committed by a public servant while purporting to act as such. The appellant is a public servant. The presentation of a false bill could not be in the discharge of official duty, but the question is different and is as to whether the presentation of a false bill was made by the public servant purporting to do so in the discharge of his duties. The appellant did present the false bill purporting to present it in the discharge of his duties as a clerk of the Office of the Sub-Divisional Health Officer who was duly authorised to present bills and cash them. 2. The proviso to S. 4 of the Act authorizes the Special Court, when trying a case involving an offence specified in the Schedule to try any offence other than that offence with which the accused may be charged at the same trial in accordance with the provisions of the Code of criminal Procedure. The accused could be charged with an offence under S. 420 I.P.C. if be could be tried for this offence at the trial for an offence under S. 401, I.P.C. He could be so tried in view of Ss: 236 and 237 Cr. P. C. 3. The charge-sheet submitted by the investigating Officer, 24-Parganas, narrates in the column meant for the name of offence and circumstances connected with it that the appellant dishonestly drew Rs. 1763-6-0 excluding Postal Life Insurance deduction of Rs. 5-10.0 from the State Bank of, India, Barrackpore Branch by submitting a false duplicate Estt. Pay Bill under head 39 for the month of September l956 for the office of the said S. D. H. O. Barrackpore. The money drawn was not credited to the office of the Sub-divisional Health Officer, Barrackpore. It is practically on these facts that the conviction of the appellant for, an offence under S. 420 I.P.C. has been founded. 4. The framing of the charge under S. 420 I.P.C. was not essential and S. 237 Cr. P.C. itself justifies his conviction of the offence under S. 420 if that be proved on the findings on the record.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. :

Sunil Kumar Paul has preferred this appeal, after obtaining a certificate from the Calcutta High Court under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution. The facts leading to the appeal are these.

2. The appellant was a clerk in the office of the Sub-Divisional Health Officer at Barrackpore in 1955-56. He used to prepare bills of the establishment, to present them at the Sub-treasury and later present them at the State Bank at Barrackpore, to receive payment in cash and to make over that amount to the Sub-Divisional Health Officer. Certain bills were drawn under the heading 38-Medical . Certain bills were to be drawn under the heading 39-Public Health . Some other bills were drawn under other headings.

3. On October 5, 1956, the appellant presented a bill for Rs. 1769/- out of which a sum of Rs. 5-10-0 was to be credited in the Postal Life Insurance Ledger and the balance of Rs. 1763-6-0 was to be received in cash. This bill was duly passed by the Sub-treasury and was subsequently presented to the Bank on October 6, 1956 for payment of Rs. 1763-6-0. The Bank paid this amount to the appellant. The amount was not paid to the Sub-Divisional Health Officer. In fact, the records of the Office of the Sub-Divisional Health Officer did not refer to any such bill being prepared and submitted to the Sub-Treasury and the Bank for payment.

4. A bill for practically the same items which were mentioned in the bill cashed on October 6, was however presented on October 1, 1956. It was for an amount of Rs. 1767/-out of which Rs. 5-10-0 were to be credited to the PLI account ledger and the balance of Rs. 1761-6-0 were to be paid in cash. The amount of this bill was received on October 1, and was duly handed over to the Sub-Divisional Health Officer. It may be mentioned that this bill cashed on October 1, 1956 was at first prepared for Rs. 1769/- and the amount to be received in cash was to be Rs. 1763-6-0, but prior to this encashment, a correction was made at some stage, and the bill was reduced by Rs. 2/- in the total amount and consequently in the amount to be paid in cash.

5. The fact of the presentation of a bill for its encashment of Rs. 1763-6-0 on October 6, 1956 came to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Health Officer at the instance of the Accountant General and on enquiry it was found that no such bill had been actually presented by his office for encashment and that no such amount was received by him. This led to a complaint and further enquiries and investigation which ended in the prosecution of the appellant.

6. The case was made over to the Special Judge by the Government in view of the provisions of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 (W. B. Act XXI of 1949), hereinafter called the Act, as it involved an offence punishable under S. 409 I. P. C. The Special judge tried the appellant for that offence and convicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The appellant went in appeal to the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court agreed with the appellant s contention that no offence under S. 409 I. P. C. had been made out, but held that he was proved to have committed an offence under S. 420 I. P. C. It accordingly altered his conviction from an offence under S. 409 I. P. C. to one under S. 420 IPC, for cheating the employees of the State Bank, Barrackpore, by representing that the bill for Rs. 1769 gross and Rs. 1763-6-0 cash drawn on October 6, 1956 was a genuine bill drawn by the Sub-Divisional Health Officer, and thereby dishonestly inducing the Bank s staff to make over the sum of Rs. 1763-6-0 to him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. It is against this order that this appeal has been preferred.

7. The facts found by the High Court are sufficient to justify the finding that the appellant committed the offence under S. 420 I. P. C. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document