The judgment establishes the difficulty in proving conspiracy and the importance of inferring conspiracy from surrounding circumstances. It also emphasizes the severe consequences of corruption and the need for strict sentencing in corruption cases.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 30.08.1988 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. (South Bihar), Patna in Special Case No.3 of 80 whereby and where under, the learned court below has held appellant-convict guilty for the offences punishable under Section 120B/420/471 read with Section 468/477A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant-convict has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for each of the offences punishable under Section 120B/420/471 read with Section 468/477A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant-convict was Manager of S.I.B (Small-Scale Industries and Business) Division, State Bank of India during the period from October, 1978 to March, 1979 at Daltonganj, the co-accused Biswas brothers were the partners of a firm in the name and style of M/s. M.L. Biswas & Co. which was having its account with the said bank. The said co-accused persons were also having their individual accounts in the said bank. It is alleged that the appellant-convict entered into a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy the co-accused two Biswas brothers in their individual capacity as well as partners of the firm produced payment advises and inter alia the appellant-convict, knowing the said payment advises to be forged, dishonestly with intent to facilitate further accommodation to the co-accused persons; marked off the liability of the said firm of the said co-accused persons on the basis of the said payment advises; to help the purchase of the cheques drawn by the said firm and its partners within the functional limits and in this process inter alia the appellant-convict negotiated and also purchased 109 cheques issued under the signatures of R.K.Biswas in the individual capacity as well as in the capacity of the messenger of the partnership firm to enable the accused firm in contravention of the stipulation that no cheques payable to the tenderers or its sister units would be purchased and the said cheques were forwarded to State Bank of India, Calcutta Main Branch for collection from the drawee bank. But the said purchased cheques were dishonoured causing a loss of Rs. 57.24 lakhs to the State Bank of India. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted inter alia against the appellant-convict by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Charges for the offences punishable under Section 120B/420/471 read with Section 468/477A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were framed against the appellant-convict. The appellant convict pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. In support of its case the prosecution altogether examined 24 witnesses. The accused persons of the case also altogether examined 3 witnesses in their defence.

5. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W.2 Manak Chandra Jain has stated that he was officiating as Head Clerk in the State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch in the year 1978-79 and at that time the appellant-convict was the S.I.B Manager. The P.W.2 proved the Telegram Report Register of the State Bank of India, Daltonganj branch from 18. 12. 78 to 17.03. 79 which was marked exhibit-2. The said Register proved by the P.W.2 shows that several Demand Drafts purchased by the said co-accused firm where not being paid by the drawee bank on the first presentation and sometimes the Demand Drafts had to be presented twice, thrice to the drawee bank and therefore intimation by the telegram were sent to the Stat