Back
2019 Supreme(Gau) 1116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
Nani Gopal Palit and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Central Bureau of India and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 185 and 178 of 2006
Decided On : 28-06-2019
For the Appellant :D. Talukdar and A.K. Bhattacharyya, Advocates
For the Respondents: S.C. Keyal, Standing Counsel
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code – Sections 120(B), 420, 468 109, 471 – E.C. Act – Section 13 – Code of Criminal Procedure – Section 313 – Evidence Act – Section 45 – Cheating – Both appeals have been preferred against common judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. – Appellant contended that the loan applications were sponsored and verified by DRDA and the same were forwarded to Bank only for sanction of the loan amount and thereafter Bank simply released the loans against those appellations on the recommendations made by the Block/DRDA – It contends that the Bank is under no obligation to verify those applications again in the nature of pre-sanction survey and it was optional and the accused/appellants were no way involved with the offence alleged and the evidence on record is highly insufficient to prove any of the charges against the accused/appellants –Pointing towards the serious omission in the FIR as well as the charge-sheet and also in the entire evidence it has been submitted that although a subsidy amount of Rs. 2,95,000 has been mentioned in the FIR but nothing mentioned about the loan amount given to various borrowers, which ought to have found place in the FIR – Held, Bearing in mind the above rival contentions of the parties let us briefly appreciate the evidence on record and the findings of the learned trial court whether decision rendered by the trial court is suffers from any illegality for non-consideration of the evidence, documents and any other legal aspect? – So far as the present accused-appellants, who were field officer and branch manager of the Bank, have not in any manner disputed about the receipt of loan applications from DRDA and disbursement of loan on their part – A lot of documents was seized from the Bank, which were executed by the loanee/beneficiaries before the Bank i.e. the present two appellants – There is no dispute at all as regards the execution of those documents by the appellants – As against the specific evidence rendered by the beneficiaries, Gaonburahs and suppliers that no such loan was ever disbursed to the loanees, defence except giving suggestion failed to challenge that loan has been duly disbursed to the beneficiaries properly or that there is no irregularity in disbursing the loan – The above glaring instances of irregularities on the part of the accused-appellants amounted to gross illegality, because of non-application of proper procedures, while disbursing the loan prior and subsequent – prosecution has sufficiently brought on record certain evidence raising the irregularities/illegalities on the part of the accused-appellant in disbursing the loan and in such eventuality the defence was in a position to produce those documents to prove their innocence which is not done in the instant case – Further the evidence of handwriting expert confirms that the loan applications bearing the handwriting of employees of the Bank and it goes to show that loan applications were manipulated in the Bank itself and same aspect has also been corroborated by the witnesses, as discussed above – It was the defence plea that the content of FIR so far as the amount misappropriated is not proved in the present case, and although same was found to be true to some extent that the exact amount siphoned off is not proved but from the overwhelming evidence on record indicates the complicity of the accused-appellants in regard to the conspiracy, forgery of documents and misconduct while disbursing the loan – In the given background, it can be noted that the matter is of far back of 1995 and it may not be feasible on the part of prosecution to bring on record all the beneficiaries which are large in number but from the handful of persons examined so far, clearly establish the offence against the accused-appellants – The appeal stands dismissed – Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant Ronodip Das and Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Nani Gopal Palit. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, C.B.I.
2. Both appeals have been preferred against common judgment and order dated 30.06.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Guwahati, Assam in Spl. Case No. 13/2004 and hence, both the appeals taken together and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that on 30.06.1993, the then S.P., C.B.I., ACP, Guwahati received a source information that during February, 1989 to May, 1989 while posted and functioning as Field Officer, SBI, Diphu Branch and Manager, Agricultural Banking Division, SBI, Diphu Branch, Sri Noni Gopal Palit and Sri Ronodip Das entered into criminal conspiracy with each other and in pursuant thereof Rododip Das sanctioned total number of 59 fishery loans under IRPD schemes on recommendation of Sri N.G. Palit, in the name of non-existing fictitious borrowers. Thereafter, they disbursed subsidy amount totally Rs. 2,95,000.00/- by issuing bankers cheque without debit confirmation from borrowers. Further, an amount of Rs. 2,80,000.00/- was also disbursed against the IRPD loans as subsidy to different suppliers fictitiously. On the basis of the said source information RC Case No. 15(A)/93-SHG was registered and investigation was carried out on the matter.
4. During investigation, several witnesses were examined, number of documents were seized and specimen handwriting and signatures of the suspects got examined through finger print and handwriting expert. On conclusion of the investigation after obtaining necessary prosecution sanction submitted the charge-sheet against 6 (six) accused persons namely, Ronodip Das, Sri Noni Gopal Palit, Kharsing Ronghang, Sudhir Nath Barman, Desoi Rongpi, Bokdul Ali under Sections 120(B), 420, 468 read with 109, 471 IPC read with section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) E.C. Act and forwarded all the accused persons to the court to stand the trial.
5. The charge-sheet contains following facts and allegations against the accused persons:
During 1989-89 Lumbajong Development Block and DRDA, Diphu made some loan applications under Integrated Rural Development Programme (in short IRDP) and those applications were collected from the people living below poverty line, after due verification and thereafter Block/DRDA, Diphu forwarded those applications to SBI, Diphu for sanctioning of loans against such applications.
While posted and functioning Sri Noni Gopal Palit and Ronodip Das as stated above entered into criminal conspiracies with one Sri Sudhir Barman, Gram Sevak, and pursuant to such conspiracy Sudhir Barman removed some genuine loan applications, pertaining to IRDP from the concerned files maintained in the Block Office and replaced the same with some applications, filled up by said Sudhir Barman himself.
Mr. Barman also affixed some photographs in new applications which he collected from applications already rejected by Block Officer/DRDA. Then Mr. Barman along with Sri Noni Gopal Palit and Ronodip Das and Kharsingh Ronghang forged some other documents such as arrangement letters, control cards, withdrawal slips etc. and on the basis of such forged documents Sri Das and Palit sanctioned an amount of Rs. 3,01,100.00 against 67 persons which were fictitious entities.
Further Sri Ronodip Das and Sri Noni Gopal Palit entered into another criminal conspiracy with Kharsing Ronghang and Desoi Rongpi and pursuant to such conspiracy they disbursed Rs. 2,76,850.00/- to some equally fictitious suppliers through 10 (ten) bankers cheque, showing delivery of livestock to some non-existent persons, purported to be the beneficiaries under the IRDP.
All the accused persons flouted all the banking rules and procedures while sanctioning the
