Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 297 of 2003
(22.1.2025)
Vidya Nath Sharma ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar through SPE/CBI, Patna ... Respondent
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 34, 120B, 419, 420 and 468 [Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 3(5), 61(2), 319(2), 318(4) and 336(3) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Sections 5(2), 5(1)(c) and (d) – Cheating – Forgery – The entire case of prosecution is that the 128 cheques belonging to LIC were stolen by some LIC officials and fictitious bank accounts were opened under fake names wherein these cheques were deposited and subsequently encashed – From evidences of personal witnesses it is evident that that none of the witnesses stated any criminal conspiracy, cheating or forgery committed by the appellant – It is the duty of the prosecution to connect the crime with that of the accused – Allegation against the appellant that is that he created a false bank account, however, the said account does not disclose any injury or damage caused to the LIC amounts – Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that appellant signed and opened the account, as the report confirms that the signature matches with that of other person, not with appellant – Nothing is on record that appellant has induced any person or received property dishonestly, either for himself or any person or altered or destroyed valuable security – In the absence of any material, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 420 r/w 34 and 468 of IPC – Furthermore, while the appellant was not convicted for the offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC, he was nonetheless sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the said offence which is bad in the eye of law and legally not sustainable – Admittedly, the second I.O. in this case was also not examined and none of the witnesses have identified the appellant to connect him with that of the crime – Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant is acquitted of the offences – Appeal allowed. (Paras 30 to 34)
G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.—The appeal is arising out of the judgment in Special Case No. 17/1981/RC No. 40/1981 on the file of Special Judge, CBI, South Bihar, Patna dated 23.05.2003, wherein the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 120-B and 420 r/w Section 34 of the India Penal Code and was sentenced under Sections 120-B and 420 r/w 34 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. Further, he was sentenced under Section 419 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and under section 468 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, and in default of payment to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. It is pertinent to mention that charges were framed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 r/w 34 of the I.P.C., 419 of IPC and 468 of IPC, however, the conviction was only for offences punishable under Sections 468, 120B, and 420 r/w 34 of IPC but not for the offence punishable under section 419 of the IPC. Nevertheless, despite the absence of conviction under section 419 of the IPC, the trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC.
3. The case was registered based on information received from the informant, Shree B.N Jha, an Inspector of CBI, S.P.E., Patna, through his source. The case was initially registered for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, as well as for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that some officials of L.I.C. of India in conspiracy with some officials of Central Bank of India, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna and others, dishonestly encashed L.I.C. cheques to a tune of about Rs. 28,00,000/- during the period from July, 1979 to 04.09.1981 under forged signatures of L.I.C. officials of the Divisional Office, Patna, and those cheques were enchashed from United Commercial Bank, Frazer Road, Patna, Bank of Baroda, Frazer Road, Patna, and Central Bank of India, Buddha Marg, Patna after opening the accounts in different fake and fictitious names. The cheques were cleared by the Central Bank of India, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna Branch and the amounts were credited to fake and fictitious account before being subsequently withdrawn by the accused persons. It is further alleged that 128 LIC cheques were stolen, out of which, 83 cheques were encashed through fake accounts and a total of Rs. 32,20,254.56/- was withdrawn from the L.I.C. account.
4. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all the accused, including the appellant, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 381 of IPC along with Sections under Sections 5(2) r/w 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. However, Sunil Sen Gupta was granted pardon u/s 306 of Cr.P.C.
5. During the course of trial, charges were framed against all accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120B & 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. However, the trial Court also framed charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 468 of IPC. The content of the charges was read over and explained to him but the appellant pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.
6. On behalf the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 60 were examined and several exhibits were marked. The trial Court after construing the entire material on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated [supra].
7. On perusal of the judgment, it is evident that the trial Court appreciated the evidences of P.W. 4, P.W. 56 and P.W. 58 and concluded that the appellant Vidya Nath Sharma @ Chunnu, who is the nephew of R.D. Sharma, is the prime accused in this case. Appellant was found at the residence of R.D. Sharma, and they both tried to destroy the evidence by burning some p
(1) Offences of ‘forgery’ and ‘cheating’ intersect and converge, as act of forgery is committed with intent to deceive or cheat an individual. (2) Not every unlawful act automatically qualifies as ‘....
The court affirmed that the efficacy of framing charges relies on the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence, without requiring deep merits assessment at the initial stage.
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.
The court upheld the necessity for prima facie evidence when framing charges, emphasizing that mere allegations are insufficient without supporting documentation.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the essential elements of forgery and cheating, highlighting the necessity of establishing the making of a false document and dishonest inducement.
Non-payment in commercial transactions does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust without establishing fraudulent intent.
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
