SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AFTAB ALAM & RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.
M.C. GUPTA - Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEHRADUN - Respondent
MOHAN LAL GUPTA - Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEHRADUN - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1332 of 2012 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3786 of 2012] with Criminal Appeal No. 1333 of 2012 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5908 of 2012]
Decided on : 31-08-2012.
(1989) 2 SCC 557; (1987) 3 SCC 516 - Relied upon
(b) General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 6 - Offence committed during subsistence of 1947 Act - Right to investigate accruing under that Act - Action taken under 1988 Act - Action saved by virtue of GC Act. (Para 13)
(c) Constitution of India - Article 20(1) - Offence committed under PC Act 1947 - FIR lodged after coming into force of 1988 Act, but under provisions of 1947 Act - No infirmity. (Para 14)
(d) Criminal Trial - Sentence - Considering the age of the appellant and crime having taken place 24 years back - Sentence reduced. (Para 18)
(1996) 11 SCC 769; (2003) 12 SCC 636 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
These appeals relate to conviction and sentence under PC Act.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in impugned judgment.
Result : Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT
(Smt.) Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.-Leave granted.
2. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment and order dated 27/03/2012 delivered by the Uttarakhand High Court confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 08/10/1999 / 25/10/1999 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P. (East), Dehradun in C.B.I. Case No.3/90, whereby the Special Judge convicted the appellants, inter alia, under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, “Act of 1947”).
3. It is necessary to narrate the facts of the case. Appellant M.C. Gupta was posted as Assistant Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited (for short, “the Company”). He was authorized by the Company to operate its Account No.314 held with the Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Moradabad. Appellant Mohan Lal Gupta was the proprietor of M/s. Mohan Dal Mill. Account No.SSI/53 was held in the name of M/s. Mohan Dal Mill with State Bank of India, Orai, District Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh.
4. On 09/07/1988, appellant M.C. Gupta issued cheque No.QDE-800186 in the sum of Rs.1,00,200/- from the account of the Company and asked the bank to prepare a draft of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of M/s. Mohan Dal Mill. Appellant M.C. Gupta himself prepared the draft application dated 09/07/1988. The bank, accordingly, prepared a draft of Rs.1,00,000/- on the same date and debited the amount of cheque from the account of the Company. Appellant M.C. Gupta himself collected the said draft from the bank and sent it to his relative appellant - Mohan Lal Gupta at Orai, who deposited the same on 14/07/1988 in the aforementioned account of M/s. Mohan Dal Mill vide pay-in-slip dated 14/07/1988. Thus, appellant M.C. Gupta, in collusion with appellant Mohan Lal Gupta, dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated the Company’s money, which is public money, for wrongful gain to appellant Mohan Lal Gupta, thereby causing corresponding losses to the Company.
5. When the siphoning off of money came to light, a FIR was lodged on 19/02/1990 under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Act of 1947. After investigation, C.B.I. submitted charge-sheet against both the appellants before the Special Judge. After perusing the evidence, the Special Judge convicted and sentenced appellant M.C. Gupta to RI for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 120-B of the IPC. He was also sentenced to RI for two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence under Section 409 of the IPC. In addition, he was sentenced to RI for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Act of 1947. Appellant Mohan Lal Gupta was sentenced to RI for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-for offence under Section 120-B of the IPC. He was also sentenced to RI for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 409 of the IPC. He was also sentenced to RI for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Act of 1947 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. All sentences were to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, the appellants were to undergo imprisonment for six months.
6. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, both the appellants filed separate appeals to the High Court. As we have already noted, by the impugned order, the appeals were dismissed by the High Court and, hence, the present appeals.
7. The basic submission of Mr. Amarendra Sharan and Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned senior counsel for the appellants is based on the fact that the Act of 1947 stood repealed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the New Act”). The alleged crime took place between 9/7/1988 and 14/07/1988 and FIR was lodged in respect of the same on 19/02/1990 alleging offences under the Act of 1947. Counsel submitted that FIR could not have been lodged for the offences punishable under the Act of 1947, which stood repealed by the New Act. I
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.