Back
2015 Supreme(Gau) 198
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
Gopal Ranghang – Appellant
Vs.
State of Assam – Respondent
Crl.A. No. 141 of 2012
Decided On : 02-04-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: P. Kataky
For Respondents/Defendant: D. Das, Addl. PP
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B – Criminal Produce Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(1)(c)/13(2) - Benefit of doubt - Criminal conspiracy - Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent - Appeal against conviction - Proceeding was against three accused persons including present appellant, but other two accused persons have been acquitted on benefit of doubt - According to prosecution case, the accused appellant while serving as Block Development Officer (BDO) of Tihu Development Block entered into a criminal conspiracy with other two accused persons to defraud State exchequer to tune of Rs. 40,00,000/- by showing purchase of GCI sheets and ridging for Tihu Block Development Office - Held, In Shabhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1997 SC 2102, when it was found that offence alleged was that of fabrication of records and misappropriation of public fund by public servant, Apex Court held that same being not an official duty, sanction for prosecution was not necessary - In matter of granting sanction, it is to be seen as to whether offence alleged is an act alleged to have been committed by public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty - There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between act done and officials duty, nor is it possible to lay down any such rule - It clear that concept of Section 197 does not immediately get attracted on institution of complaint offence of cheating under Section 420 or for that matter offences relatable to Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty - Appeal is dismissed .(Paras 38,39 and 40)
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.07.2012 of the learned Special Judge, Assam in Special Case No. 7/2010. By the said judgment, the accused appellant Gopal Ranghang, since expired, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 468/471 IPC and Section 409 IPC. While for the offence under Section 468/471, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default to undergo RI for 1 year, in respect of the offence under Section 409 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo RI for 6 months. Both the sentences are to run concurrently and the period of detention during investigation and trial is to be set off against the period of imprisonment. Although the proceeding was against three accused persons including the present appellant, but the other two accused persons, namely Sagar Samrat Gupta and Dipak Kr. Talukdar have been acquitted on benefit of doubt. It will be pertinent to mention here that during pendency of this appeal, the accused appellant died and in terms of the order passed on 23.2.2015 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 116/2015, his legal heirs, i.e. the wife, son and daughters have entered into his shoes. According to the prosecution case, the accused appellant while serving as Block Development Officer (BDO) of Tihu Development Block entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other two accused persons to defraud the State exchequer to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/- by showing purchase of GCI sheets and ridging for Tihu Block Development Office. Be it stated here that accused Sagar Samrat Gupta was the proprietor of M/S Allied Business Corporation, Guwahati and accused Dipak Kr. Talukdar was the owner of the particular premises, which was taken on rent by the accused appellant for the purported official purpose.
2. Although the accused appellant handed over charge of BDO on 9.4.2008 to Project Director, Nalbari, he placed an order with M/s. Allied Business Corporation, Guwahati for supplying 1000 bundle of GCI sheets and 12000 ft. ridging to Tihu Development Block and the said proprietor allegedly submitted fake challan of delivering those materials to the block office. Thereafter the accused collected a cheque book from Central Bank of India, Nathkuchi Branch and issued one cheque in favour of the Allied Business Corporation for Rs. 40,00,000/-.
3. According to the prosecution, the said secret deal came to light when M/s. Allied Business Corporation, Guwahati insisted the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari for payment against the materials allegedly supplied to Tihu Development Block. On 24.6.2008, the then BDO, namely, Sri Gaya Prasad Agarwal requested the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari for lodging an FIR with the O/C of Tihu Police Station and consequent upon such lodging of FIR narrating the aforesaid facts, Tihu P.S. Case No. 42/2008 was registered under Section120B/420/468/471 IPC.
4. During investigation, the GCI sheets and ridging, which were shown delivered to BDO, Tihu were found stored in the residence of accused Dipak Kr. Talukdar and those materials and related incriminating documents were seized by the I/O. Completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the three accused persons under Section 120(B)/420/468/471 IPC r/w Section 13(1)(c)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. Upon appearance, charge was framed against the accused appellant under Section 409 IPC r/w Section 13(1)(c)/13(2) P.C. Act. He was also charged along with the other two accused persons under Section 120(B)/468/471 IPC.
6. During trial, prosecution examined 20 witnesses. The statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned Trial Court raising the following points for determination having answered the same against the accused appellant towards conviction and sentence vide the impugned judgment, he had preferred this appeal.
"(i
