Conviction for conspiracy and forgery upheld; evidence of agreement among accused established criminal intent through coordinated actions.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. The Appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, on each count, for commission of offences under Sections 120 -B & 468/34, I.P.C. by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. in T.R. Case No.21 of 1985.

2. The Appellants, namely, Ajit Kumr Singh Babu {hereinafter referred as Accused No.2(A-2)}, Prasant Kumar Singh Babu {hereinafter referred as Accused No.3(A-3)} and Susant Kumar Singh Babu {hereinafter referred as Accused No.4(A-4)} along with another Manmohan Rout faced the trial for charges under Sections 120 -B, 409, 468, 465, 471 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and additionally, Manmohan Rout was charged under Section 5 (2) read with (1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

3. The facts in brief are that, Manmohan Rout {hereinafter referred as Accused No.1(A-1)} was serving as Branch Manager in Bank of India of Badasahi Branch during the period from 1978 to 1982. On 6.3.1979, he sanctioned and disbursed loan of Rs.9900/- each in favour of five fictitious persons, namely, Laxmidhar Barik, Kumud Narayan Deo, Krupasindhu Sahu, Sirish Chandra Mohanta and Prasanna Kumar Bhanj Deo. Out of said loan amounts, part amount were repaid and rest remain unpaid. Rs.3565/- was repaid in respect of the loan taken in the name of Laxmidhar Barik, Rs.4565/- was repaid in respect of the loan taken in the name of Kumud Narayn Deo, Rs.4310/- was repaid in respect of the loan taken in the name of Krupasindhu Sahu, Rs.4565/- was repaid in respect of loan taken in the name of Sirish Chandra Mohanta and Rs.4570/- was repaid in respect of the loan taken in the name of Prasanna Kumar Bhanj Deo. Such repayments were made on different dates with different amounts.

The allegations against present Appellants are that, they being the private persons have agreed to join with A-1 in misappropriating such amounts of loan by putting signatures on different documents for those fictitious persons Viz. on the loan application forms, withdrawal slips and repayment pay-in-slips etc. Thus they are added in the commission of offences by aid of Section 34 , I.P.C. and by way of criminal conspiracy with A-1.

4. The FIR was registered by C.B.I. in R.C. No. 11, dated 27.06.1983 on source information and the investigation commenced. P.W.16 – the I.O. took up investigation on 30.06.1983 and in course of investigation he seized relevant documents, examined different witnesses, collected specimen handwriting and signatures and admitted writings of the accused persons, and sent them for opinion of handwriting expert along with questioned documents. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offences afore-stated.

5. The Appellants denied the charge completely and pleaded false implications. But A-1, who is not an Appellant in the present Appeal, though denied the charges but has admitted to the extent that he has sanctioned and disbursed the loan in favour of those five persons. His plea is that, those five persons are not fictitious. They had applied for the loan, took the loan and repaid part of the loan.

6. Prosecution in order to prove their case examined 17 witnesses, out of whom P.W.1 is the successor in Office of A-1, P.W.2 is the sanctioning authority, P.W.7 is a Deputy General Manager of Bank of India who conducted the enquiry about the loans granted in favour of those fictitious persons, P.W.17 is the handwriting expert and P.W.16 is the Investigating Officer. The prosecution have also adduced several documents marked from Ex