2023 Supreme(Gau) 1300

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Shyamal Bezbaruah S/o Late Narayan Bezbaruah – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
Crl.A.97 of 2012
Decided on : 21-11-2023

The prosecution could not establish the case against the appellant under Section 120(B)/468 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) & Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the benefit of doubt.

Headnote:

Appellant was convicted for forgery of order dated 25.02.1999, passed by the High Court in Civil Rule No. 4314/1997. The then Registrar General vide letter dated 04.03.1999 directed the Superintendent of Police (CBI) for investigating in the matter for alleged substitution of Page No. 9 of the judgment and order dated 20.11.1998, passed by the High Court in Civil Rule No. 4314/1997, by forging the signature of Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. K. Patnaik. The appellant was working as Superintendent of Copying Section in the Registry of the High Court. The prosecution case pertains to the forgery of order dated 25.02.1999, passed by the High Court in Civil Rule No. 4314/1997. The appellant challenged the judgment and order dated 23.05.2012, passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Assam, in Special Case No. 28/2004, convicting the accused/appellant under Section 120(B)/468 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) & Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only in default to undergo R.I. for another 1 (one) month for the offence under Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and further to undergo R.I. for 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only in default to undergo R.I. for another 1 (one) month for the offence under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and it is further ordered that both the sentences will run concurrently.

Fact of the Case:

The prosecution case pertains to the forgery of order dated 25.02.1999, passed by the High Court in Civil Rule No. 4314/1997. The then Registrar General vide letter dated 04.03.1999 directed the Superintendent of Police (CBI) for investigating in the matter for alleged substitution of Page No. 9 of the judgment and order dated 20.11.1998, passed by the High Court in Civil Rule No. 4314/1997, by forging the signature of Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. K. Patnaik. The appellant was working as Superintendent of Copying Section in the Registry of the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The prosecution could not establish the case against the appellant under Section 120(B)/468 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) & Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the benefit of doubt.

Issues: 1. Whether the accused persons i.e. Sri Chatindra Nath Deka @ Satyen Deka while working as LDA in the office of the Sr. Government Advocate, Assam, Gauhati High Court and Sri Shyamal Bezbaruah while working as Superintendent, Copying Section, Gauhati High Court, entered into criminal conspiracy along with Sri Abul Rohim Mazarbhuyan to forge the judgment dated 20.11.1998 passed in C.R. No. 4314/1997 by substituting the original sentence in page No. 9 with “… I am of the opinion that it is a fit case in which the Court should direct reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all benefit from the date of suspension ….” during the period of 1998-99? 2. Whether the accused persons while working as stated above, commit forgery of page No. 9 of the judgment and order dated 20.11.1998 obtained on 25.11.1998, passed in C.R. No. 4314/1997 for the purpose of cheating for reinstatement of A. R. Mazarbhuyan? 3. Whether the accused persons while working as stated above, committed forgery and fraudulently or dishonestly used forged judgment dated 20.11.1998 passed in C.R. No. 4314/1997 as genuine? 4. Whether the accused persons while working as stated above, cheated the Secretary, Elementary Education Department, Director, Elementary Education and Block Elementary Education Officer, Sonai, Cachar dishonestly inducing them to believe the forged judgment dated 20.11.1998 passed in C.R. No. 4314/1997, to be genuine to issue reinstatement order of A. R. Mazarbhuyan? 5. Whether the accused Shyamal Bezbaruah while working as stated above, as a public servant forged the judgment dated 20.11.1998 passed in C.R. No. 4314/1997 being a judicial proceeding by corrupt practice knowing it to be contrary to law? 6. Whether the accused persons while working as stated above, being a public servant committed criminal misconduct by taking pecuniary advantage of Rs. 20,000/- through corrupt and illegal means?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution could not establish the full chain of circumstantial evidence with criminal conspiracy against the appellant to warrant conviction against him under Section 120(B)/468 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) & Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution could not establish the case against the appellant under Section 120(B)/468 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) & Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the benefit of doubt.

Final Decision: Appeal allowed. The judgment and order dated 23.05.2012, passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Assam in Special Case No. 28/2004, convicting the accused/appellant under Section 120(B)/468 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) & Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is hereby set aside and the appellant is set at liberty forthwith on being acquitted of all the charges.