A person cannot be convicted for an offense under a section of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if no charge under that section was framed against him, and the offense is not a lesser charge to the offense for which the charge was framed.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment of conviction dated 30th of January, 2018 and order of sentence dated 31st of January, 2018, passed by the Learned Special Court, C.B.I. at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Special Case No. 09 of 1999, corresponding to R.C. Case No. 5(E) of 1997, thereby convicting the present appellant for committing offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The appellant’s case is that the appellant had been placed on trial before the court of the Learned Special Court, C.B.I. at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, in Special Case No. 09 of 1999, corresponding to R.C. Case No. 5(E) of 1997; to answer the charges pertaining to commission of offences punishable under Section 477A/120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The said case arose out of R.C. Case No. 5(E) of 1997, which in turn had been registered for investigation on the basis of a written complaint made by one Mr. B.K.Dhir (examined as prosecution witness No. 17) with the C.B.I.

3. The prosecution case, as brought by way of the said written complaint, is to the effect that on 18.02.1997 the Regional Manager of Allahabad Bank, informed the Joint Director, CBI about the perpetration of fraud by way of issuing fake banker’s cheque by Allahabad Bank, Southern Avenue Branch. It is contended that Senior Manager, Assistant Manager, Special Assistant of that bank, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy caused fraudulent transactions by way of Banker’s Cheque. It was contended that from January 1995 to January 1996 Senior Manager fraudulently and dishonestly issued Banker’s Cheque without consideration, with active connivance of other official of the branch, who countersigned the instruments.

4. After completion of investigation the investigating agency submitted its Police report in final form as charge sheet against the present appellant and others.

5. Charge was framed against the appellant (and another) for his alleged involvement in commission of offences punishable under Sections 477A/120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

6. The prosecution during the course of trial in order to prove its case, examined as many as 24 witnesses, while none was adduced on behalf of the defence. The defence case was that of ‘false implication’ and being ‘not guilty’.

7. The Learned Judge vide his judgment dated 30th of January 2018 was pleased to find the present appellant guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and by his order of sentence dated 31st of January, 2018, sentenced the present appellant to suffer imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

8. That the Learned Judge has been pleased to acquit the present appellant from all other charges framed against him and also has been pleased to pass an order of acquittal in favour of Ms. S.R. Ramamani, one of the principal accused.

9. Mr. Souvik Mitter, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Learned Judge by convicting the appellant for the charge not framed against him caused serious miscarriage of justice.

10. The order of conviction and sentence as recorded against the appellant is unsustainable in law inasmuch as it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the incident had occurred on the date alleged, at the time alleged, and at the place alleged, under the circumstances as stated by the prosecution.

11. The judgment and order of conviction recorded against the appellant as also the sentence imposed on him are bad in law, an