The judgment established the importance of substantial corroboration and caution when relying on the evidence of an approver or accomplice in cases involving conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

Roxburgh, J. - This is an appeal by Sachindra Mohan Sen Roy who has been convicted by the first Special Tribunal at Alipore on a charge u/s 120-B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, under which he was sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, also on two charges u/s 468 of the Code under which he was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment, and nine charges u/s 420 of the Code under which he was also sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonmentall the sentences to run concurrently. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 100000/-and in addition to pay a fine of Rs. 217500/-under Section 10 of ordinance No. XXIX of 1943 as amended subsequently, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 18 months.

2. There were three accused before the Tribunal, one D. Saha alias Nani Sen Gupta, Jatindra Chandra Sen and the present appellant. D. Saha was acquitted by the Tribunal. Jatindra Chandra Sen pleaded guilty and his case was disposed of separately. Originally one S.N. Das alias Jatish Chandra Das Gupta had been sent up in connection with the offence. The case against him was withdrawn and he became substantially an approver and gave evidence as the first prosecution witness.

3. The facts may be stated very briefly so long as the less important details are left out. The prosecution case was that the accused Jatindra Chandra Sen was an audit clerk in the office of the Controller of Supply Accounts. S.N. Das alias Jatish Chandra Das Gupta, P.W. 1, and D. Saha ran a bogus firm. United Engineering Corporation at 130B Russa Road. According to Jatish Chandra Das Gupta, the real brain behind the conspiracy was the present appellant Sachindra Mohan Sen Roy, but he avoided taking any explicit part in any of the dealings with the public or in any matters where signatures were required. The parties are relatedJatish Chandra Das Gupta is a brother of Dr. Benoy Chandra Das Gupta, P.W. 16, whose wife is a sister of the accused Sachindra Mohan. Again, Jatindra Chandra Sen is a cousin of the wife of Sachindra Mohan (in the evidence he is stated to be a brotherSachindra Mohan's own statement is that he is a cousin). Nani Sen Gupta is also related by marriage to Dr. Benoy Chandra Das Gupta, the brother of P.W 1. It is the prosecution case that the whole scheme was worked out at the residence of Dr. Benoy Chandra Das Gupta, P.W. 16, at Kalighat, where P.W. 1 used to live with his brother and where the accused Sachindra Mohan had come to stay sometime aboat December 1943.

4. The scheme in its essence was a very simple one Taking advantage of the position of Jatindra Chandra Sen, documents were brought into existence in the office of the Controller of Supply Accounts, namely, acceptance of tender, Ex. 3, and related to inspection reports on the basis of which bills prepared by the bogus firm, United Engineering Corporation, and submitted to that office came to Jatindra Chandra Sen himself for passing in audit, were duly passed, and cheques amounting in all to Rs. 2.75.000/-were sent to the United Engineering Corporation. It is unnecessary to expound the matter in detail as to exactly how the system permitted of this. We may mention briefly that it was facilitated by the fact that there was a division between the Purchase Office known as D.G.M.P. in Esplanade (Calcutta) and the Controller of Supply Accounts, the paying office at Mission Row. There were no documents, of course, in the Purchase Department to support the payments, and subsequently after payments had been made when questions were raised and investigation made it was found that the whole thing was bogus, that there had been no tender to correspond to the acceptance of tender, Ex. 3, and no goods had been supplied. In fact, the goods mentioned were of a type unknown and the inspection notes were totally bogus. It is sufficient to say that the system was that payment could be made on an acceptance of tender plus satisfactory inspection notes which