Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
Krishna Kumar Kedia son of late Chaju Ram Kedia - Appellants
Versus
The Union of India Through C.B.I., Patna - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.383 of 2015
Decided On : 06-04-2018
The court held that the evidence of the accomplice is admissible and could be admitted in order to substantiate conviction, but as a caution, corroboration should be searched out apart from having definite finding over its reliability.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for misappropriating 1091.95 MT of bulk bitumen and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, additionally, under Section 420 IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, under Section 465 IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, additionally, under Section 471 IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the accomplice was corroborated by other evidence, including the admission of the appellant during the course of his statement under Section 313 IPC, and that the appellant's conduct was also consistent with his guilt.
Issues: Whether the evidence of the accomplice was admissible and reliable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of the accomplice was admissible and could be admitted in order to substantiate conviction, but as a caution, corroboration should be searched out apart from having definite finding over its reliability. The court found that the evidence of the accomplice was corroborated by other evidence, including the admission of the appellant during the course of his statement under Section 313 IPC, and that the appellant's conduct was also consistent with his guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was directed to surrender before the learned lower court to serve out the remaining sentence.
Appellant, Krishna Kumar Kedia has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 407 IPC and sentenced to under RI for 5 years as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default thereof, to undergo SI for six months, additionally, under Section 420 IPC, sentenced to under RI for 5 years as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default thereof, to undergo SI for six months, under Section 465 IPC, sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default thereof, to undergo SI for three months, additionally, under Section 471 IPC, sentenced to under RI for 2 years as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default thereof, to undergo SI for three months with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.06.2015 passed by Special Judge-CBI-2, Patna in Special Case No. 14/2011 arising out of RC Case No. 15(A)/97.
2. Before coming to main track of the instant appeal, it looks desirable to have a glimpse over salient features appearing from the lower court records.
3. There was an era of scam which the State faced and this happens to be one of the same known as Bitumen Scam. Bitumen having been ordered by the Road Construction Department and for that supply orders were issued as it was to be carried from Haldia, a Unit of IOC under work order relating to delivery being issued by the IOC, Barauni on the office order issued by the department to its destination and the appellant happens to be proprietor of M/s Cosmo Transport which was engaged for transporting the Bulk Bitumen from Haldia to Road Construction Department, Saharsa Division during the tenure of 1993-94 under two orders namely, 413(E) dated 17.01.94 as well as 7010(E) dated 18.11.93 which never reached to its destination as alleged and for that, at the instance of Bhagwan Prasad Poddar, Executive Engineer, Saharsa Division, Saharsa PS Case No. 291/96 was registered at first stroke. Before aforesaid exercise having at the end of Bhagwan Pd. Poddar, the Executive Engineer CWJC No. 1041/96 was filed and vide order dated 20.02.1997, the High Court directed the CBI to register a case and investigate. Though the aforesaid order covered whole State but so far, this particular controversy is concerned, that relates to Saharsa Division only. Though CBI had registered a case bearing RC Case No. 15(A)/97 relating to both supply orders namely, 7010(E) dated 18.11.1993 which was relating to 510.35 MT Bulk Bitumen, 413(E) dated 17.01.94 relating to 1091.95 MT Bulk Bitumen, investigation commenced and during course thereof, both two orders were investigated separately, and so far instant adjudication is concerned, that relates to order no. 413(E) dated 17.01.94. So, on account of submission of charge-sheet relating thereto, the trial commenced and concluded in a manner as indicated hereinabove.
4. It further transpires that during course of investigation four persons were identified/arrayed as an accused, No.1. Krishna Kumar Kedia (Appellant), 2. Maheshwari Prasad, 3. Pancho Mahto and 4. Bhagwan Prasad Poddar. Bhagwan Pd. Poddar was an Executive Engineer as well as informant of Saharsa PS Case No. 291/96. Pancho Mahto was the officer who managed the thing, passed the work order and nominated M/S Cosmo Transport for transportation of the aforesaid Bulk Bitumen irrespective of having been imputed. Maheshwari Prasad is the person who at the instance of Krishna Kedia prepared forged and fabricated documents. It is also apparent that Bhagwan Prasad Poddar and Pancho Mahto died during course of trial whereupon proceeding was dropped/abated while Maheshwari Prasad has been granted pardon and during course of trial, he stood as one of the star witness of the prosecution and that being so, while accused-appellant faced trial, met with ultimate consequence, at whose behest the same is under challenge in the instant appeal.
5. The prosecution story as has been unfurled during course of trial
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
