IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of forgery and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt due to irregularities in evidence collection.

JUDGMENT :

1. These two appeals are taken up together for final disposal as the same are filed under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.05.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati in Special Case No. 92/2004, (Old Case No. 15(c)/89), whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 120B/420/471 read with Section 465 of IPC and under Sections 13(i)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and also with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another 2 months for offence under Section 13(i)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

2. Mr. A. K. Purkayastha, learned counsel has been appearing for the appellant in Crl.A./149/2005. However, when the matter was called for final disposal on 25.08.2023, none represented the appellant in Crl.A./175/2005. In the aforesaid backdrop, Mr. K. P. Pathak, learned counsel was appointed as Amicus to argue on behalf of the appellant in Crl.A./175/2005.

3. Heard Mr. A. K. Purkayastha, learned counsel has been appearing for the appellant in Crl.A./149/2005 and Mr. K. P. Pathak, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant inCrl.A./175/2005. Also heard Mr. M. Haloi, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI representing the respondents.

4. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that SP CBI, SPE, ACB, Shillong received a source information to the effect that the appellant namely Sri Prana Ranjan Bhattacharjee, the then Branch Manager, ADB, State Bank of India,Howly, and the appellants Sri Mritunjoy Ghosh and Sri Madan Kundu, Managing Directors of M/s Assam Farmers Friends (P) Limited, Sarbhog Bazar entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Sri Gopinath Kundu, Sri Manoranjan Ghose, Sri Tapan Gop, Sri Ramesh Ghose, Sri Swapan Kr. Paul, Sri Swapan Gop, Sri Prabir Paul, Sri Samir Paul, Sri Anil Paul and Sri Sunil Paul of Sarbhog and in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, they committed offences of cheating and forgery. It was further alleged that in the process, Sri Prana Ranjan Bhattacharjee being a public servant abused the official position and acquired for him and others fabulous pecuniary advantages.

5. On the basis of above allegation, the then SP CBI Shillong registered five cases i.e. R.C. No. 13/87-SHG to 17/87-SHG. From those cases, RC Case No. 13/87-SHG and RC No. 16/87-SHG were endorsed to Sh. T. Kar, Inspector, ACB and other cases were endorsed to Shri K. N. Singh, Dy. SP, CBI, ACB, Geetanagar Unit for investigation. As all the cases aforesaid are inter-linked, so CBI submitted a common charge sheet in respect of those cases on 08.06.89 and forwarded the present accused/appellants for trial.

6. On receipt of the charge sheet, the special case being Special Case No. 92/2004 (Old Case No. 15(c)/89) was registered and cognizance was taken. Charges were framed under sections 120B/420/467/468/465 read with Section 471 of IPC against the above named appellants. In addition, the accused appellant P. R. Bhattacharjee was also charged with having committed offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges. Accordingly the trial commenced.

7. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 46 witnesses and exhibited many documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. however, they did not adduce any evidence. Thereafter, the impugned judgment and sentence was passed as recorded hereinabove. Being aggrieved, the present appeals are preferred.

8. Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Amicus Curiae has argued that primary charge against the charge-sheeted accused persons Nos. 2 and 3 is of committing an offence of forgery under Sections 465/467/471 IPC. They have also been charged of committed an offence under Section 468 IPC i.e. forgery for purpose of cheating as well as for committing cheating under Section 420 IPC. It is further contended by Mr. Pathak t