Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.
Criminal Appeal (SJ) Nos. 973 and 1346 of 2022
(18.12.2024)
Shri Pawan Kumar Rajak (in 973)
Aftab Alam @ Md Aftab Alam (in 1346) ... Appellants
vs.
Union of India through CBI, Bihar ... Respondent
(in both)
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 – Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 61(2) read with Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2)] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2)[Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 415(2)] – Criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery by public servant – Conviction and sentence – CBI enquiry into allegation that accused persons dishonestly and fraudulently defalcated huge amount by using LIC software application and by using its "ADD Pay option" in policy loan payment module – No hard copy of vouchers were found from office during investigation, even print out of vouchers generated thereof was not obtained – On the basis of screen shot of vouchers only, appellant was made accused in this case – An important witness was declared hostile by prosecution – Upon cross-examination by State, nothing transpired relevant out of his testimony which may be used for the purpose for corroboration or contradiction qua depositions of other prosecution witnesses who appear to support case of prosecution – There was some procedural lapse on part of appellant and it was presumed that appellant made fraudulent payment – It nowhere appears out of evidence that policy holders made complaint about payment of loan from their account – It may be a case of grave suspicion, but it is not a case where it can be said that prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt qua cheating after preparing preparation of forged document for fraudulent transfer under criminal conspiracy – Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence quashed and set aside – Appeals allowed. (Paras 54, 58, 59, 64,66, 69, 71, 72 and 73)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65B [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 63] – Admissibility of electronic records – Certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record – Secondary evidence is admissible only if led in such manner and not otherwise – To hold otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose. (Para 61)
A. Sivaprakash vs. State of Kerala, 2016 (3) BLJ 42 (SC) : (2016) 12 SCC 273; Ravinder Singh @ Kaku vs. State of Punjab, (2022) 7 SCC 581; Sukhbir Singh Badal vs. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 (3) BLJ 365 (SC) : (2023) SCC OnLine 522—Relied.
Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.—This appeal has been preferred by both appellants/convicts under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2022 and order of sentence dated 28.02.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI-1, Patna in Special Case No. 01 of 13 (arising out of R.C. No. 9(A) of 2013), whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted appellant/convict Pawan Kumar Rajak in Cr. APP (SJ) No. 973 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code (in short “I.P.C.”), Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (in short the “P.C. Act”) and Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and appellant/convict Aftab Alam in Cr. APP (SJ) No. 1346 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 120B of IPC read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, where they have been sentenced accordingly:—
| Sl. No. | Name of appellant | Under Section | Sentence | Fine | In default of payment of fine. |
| 1. | Pawan Kumar Rajak | 420 IPC | R.I. for 5 years | 10,000/- | 6 months |
|
|
| 467 IPC | R.I. for 7 years | 10,000/- | 6 months |
|
|
| 468 IPC | R.I. for 5 years | 10,000/- | 6 months |
|
|
| 471 IPC | R.I. for 7 years | 10,000/- | 6 months |
|
|
| 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | R.I. for 3 years | 5,000/- | 6 months |
|
|
| 120B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 120B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | R.I. for 7 years | 5,000/- | 6 months |
| 2. | Aftab Alam @ Md. Aftab Alam | 420 IPC | R.I. for 5 years | 10,000/- | 6 months |
|
|
| 120B of IPC read with 420, 467, 468, 471 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | R.I. for 7 years | 5,000/- | 6 months |
| All aforesaid sentences are ordered to run concurrently. | |||||
2. The case of prosecution in brief is as under:—
This case was registered in CBI, ACB, Patna on 30.04.2013 on the basis of written complaint of Senior Divisional Manager, LIC Patna Division, Office-I Patna, (PW8/informant) against Pawan Kumar Rajak, Assistant LIC, Patna Sahib Branch, Patna City, Patna, Aftab Alam, LIC Agent, Patna Sahib Branch, Patna and six other accused persons named in the FIR. It has been alleged that Pawan Kumar Rajak (Assistant LIC) entered into criminal conspiracy with Aftab Alam (LIC Agent) and other accused named in the FIR and in pursuance thereof fraudulently debited Policy Loan account of the said branch for defalcating huge amount by using LIC software application and by using its “ADD Pay option” in policy loan payment module as well as preparing forged vouchers and by this way dishonestly and fraudulently withdrew sum of Rs. 82 Lakhs from the Policy Loan Account of LIC, Patna Sahib Branch. Apart from this Pawan Kumar Rajak (Assistant LIC) also removed all the vouchers of all the fraudulent payments. All the fraudulent vouchers were entered into the module by Pawan Kumar Rajak (Assistant LIC) having SR/Employee No. 339411, accessible only by him.
3. On the basis of aforesaid written complaint, CBI registered a case, as Special Case No. 01 of 2013 (R.C. No. 9(A) of 2013) dated 30.04.2013 for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with 201, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and also read with Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, whereaft
The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed fraud or were involved in a criminal conspiracy, leading to their acquittal.
(1) Criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery by public servant – It may be a case of grave suspicion, but it is not a case where it can be said that prosecution established its case beyond reasonabl....
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of forgery and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt due to irregularities in evidence collection.
Prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to uphold charges of forgery and conspiracy, relying instead on mere suspicion, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
Conviction for forgery and misappropriation requires clear proof of entrustment and intent to defraud, which was lacking, leading to acquittal.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the offences of conspiracy and forgery against the appellants, with mere suspicion not serving as a substitute for valid evidence.
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
