The opinion of a Handwriting Expert must be corroborated by independent evidence, and the abuse of a public servant's position to obtain a valuable thing for another person constitutes criminal misconduct under the PC Act.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. Haloi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI.

2. In this appeal, under Section 374[2] of the Cr.P.C., the appellant namely, Khalilur Rahman has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 21.10.2009, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam in the Special Case No. 07/2005.

3. It is to be noted here that vide judgment and order dated 21.10.2009, the learned court below has convicted the appellant under Sections 419/420 of the IPC, read with Sections 13[1][d]/13[2] of the PC Act. It is also to be noted here that vide aforementioned judgment and order, the learned court below has sentenced the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation under Section 419 of the IPC and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation under Section 420 of the IPC and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation under Section 13[1][d]/13[2] of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.

4. The background facts, leading to filling of this appeal are briefly stated as under:-

“The Chief Executive Director of the Assam State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank [ASCARD] Shri N.N. Borkakati had lodged two identical complaint on 06.04.1998, with the Officer In-Charge Paltan Bazar Police Station, against one Sri Khireswar Saikia, the then Chief Executive Director In-Charge and one Pahar Khan, the then Manager In-Charge and the General Manager In-Charge of the ASCARD Bank. The allegation levelled against the aforesaid two officers is that they illegally recommended for sanction or pleaded for sanction/payments in their respective capacities, huge amount of money belonging to the fund of the ASCARD Bank in favour of the various firms and individuals in the form of contractual money, Breeze loan and car loan to Kamal Talukdar, Zakirur Rahman and Atiqur Rahman Hazarika in violation of the prescribe procedure and norms set by the Bank and thereby caused wrongful gain to themselves. Upon the said complaint the Officer In-Charge of the Paltan Bazar Police Station registered two cases being Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 199/1998 and 202/1998, under Section 409 of the IPC. Though the case was initially investigated by the State Police, later on, the same was transferred to CBI and thereafter, the CBI has registered a case being R.C. 5/E/2001 and 6/E/2001 Cal. Thereafter, the CBI has carried out investigation and on completion of the investigation, it has submitted charge sheet, being charge sheet No. 06/2004, dated 07.01.2004, against the present appellant, under Section 419/420 of the IPC, read with Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act and upon which the Special Case No.07/2005, came to be registered. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned court below has framed charges against the appellant under Section 419/420 of the IPC read with Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act and on being read over and explained over the same to the appellant, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the learned court below has examined as many as 13 witnesses and after completion of examination of witnesses, the learned court below has examined the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant has declined to adduce any evidence in his defence. Thereafter, hearing the argument of the learned counsel for both the parties, the learned court below has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforesaid.’’

5. Being highly aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:-

“[i] that, at time of filling of charge sheet the appellant was serving as Supervisor in the Bank, but in the charge sheet the CBI has shown him as an Ex-employee and even then sanction of prosecution in necessary, but the learned court below