2019 Supreme(Chh) 716
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Ram Prasanna Sharma, J.
RAJESH SHUKLA - APPELLANT
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - RESPONDENT
Criminal Appeal No. 1022 of 2012, 1032 of 2012, 1034 of 2012, 1040 of 2012, 1043 of 2012
Decided On : 26-06-2019
P.K.C. Tiwari, Adv., Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Adv., Maneesh Sharma, Adv., Praful N Bharat, Adv., H.S. Patel, Adv., Prakash Tiwari, Adv., Gop Kumar, Adv.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120-B, 420 read with Section 120-B, 471 read with Section 468 - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 13(1) (d) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 45 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 437-A - Cheating/conspiracy/forgery - Appeal against convicted - Absence of evidence - Judgment passed by Special Judge, C.B.I - District in Special Criminal case No. wherein said Court has convicted appellants for charges under Sections 120-B, 420 read with Section 120-B, 471 read with Section 468 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with Section 120-B of the IPC sentenced them to undergo RI for six months and to pay fine for three years and to pay fine of RI for three years and to pay fine of and RI for three years and to pay fine of with default stipulations - Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. namely was working as Accounts Clerk in South Eastern Coalfields Limited - Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. namely was working as an Executive Engineer in the same department – Held, There is nothing on record to say any of appellant was connected with the person who opened the account and withdrew amount, therefore, conspiracy as defined in Section 120-A of the IPC is missing in the present case - If misconduct is done within institution by any of the officer, institution is always free to take action against erring officer/employee, but in absence of evidence of criminal mind set up, liability for criminal act cannot be fastened - If any pecuniary loss is sustained by institution for the act of any of officer/employee, recovery can be made against him by department/institution - Charge of cheating/conspiracy/forgery is not established - It is also not established that any of appellant obtained for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage while holding office as public servant - Appeals are allowed
JUDGMENT
Ram Prasanna Sharma, J. - As all the aforesaid five criminal appeals arise out of common judgment, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. All these appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 3- 11-2012 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Raipur, District Raipur (CG) in Special Criminal case (CBI ) No. 24 of 2004 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellants for charges under Sections 120-B, 420 read with Section 120-B, 471 read with Section 468 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with Section 120-B of the IPC sentenced them to undergo RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-RI for three years and to pay fne of Rs.10,000/- and RI for thee years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- with default stipulations. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
3. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1022 of 2012 namely Rajesh Shukla was working as Accounts Clerk in South Eastern Coalfields Limited. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1032 of 2012 namely Tirthankar Basu was working as an Executive Engineer in the same department. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1034 of 2012 namely Gurmeet Singh Kainth was working as Superintendent Engineer in the same department. Appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1040 of 2012 namely G.R. Jaiswal was working as Clerk Grade II at Regional Store Kusmunda area, SECL, Korba and he constituted a forged firm with appellant Kaushal Prasad Jaiswal namely National Trade Centre and opened account for the said centre. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1043/2012 namely Ashok Govind Karva was working as Accounts Officer in Accounts Section of the said institution of SECL.
4. As per version of prosecution on 20-4-1994 one Mr. B.N. Bandhopadhyay, (PW/26) who was Deputy Chief Finance Manager, SECL, Kusumunda area, District Bilapur received information from his office bearer that some bills to the tune of Rs.6,04,831/- appears to be false payable to the firm named as National Trade Cente, Kolkata. The matter was brought to the notice of the General Manager, Kusumunda Branch, who constituted a committee and directed to submit the report. It is also directed to report whether any payment even being made to such firm. It is reported that earlier two cheques were issued which were cheque No.272336 dated 20-3-1993 to the tune of Rs.2,52,894.15 and cheque No.594122 dated 17-11-1993 to the tune of R.2,56,589.50, total about five lakhs and nine thousand approximately. After inquiry it was found that both cheques were cleared from State Bank of India, Kusmunda Branch which were deposited in current Account No.6/8. The account was opened by introduction of Adivasi Book Binder Centre, Korba whose proprietor is one Puran Singh (PW/32). The matter was reported to Police Station, Kusmunda and during investigation of the case enquiry was handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation. Appellants were charge-sheeted and convicted as mentioned above.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in CRA Nos. 1022 of 2012 and 1043 of 2012 namely Rajesh Shukla and Ashok Govind Karwa would submit as under:
i) Appellant Ashok Govind Karva was working in Accounts Section and he was merely discharging duties of bill passing officer. He passed the bills after due formalities looking to relevant documents. He was not working in the Purchase Department and it was duty of the Accounts Officer working in the Purchase Department to enquire about the purchase order. The purchase order was verified by the Accounts Officer in the purchase department, therefore, no criminal liability can be fastened on him.
ii) Appellant Rajesh Shukla was assisting the appellant Ashok Govind Karva at the time of passing bills. The trial Court opined that ST number is not mentioned in the bill Ex.P/20 and concurrence number is also not mentioned but as per statement of R.S. Pal (PW/25) (para 14)