Back
1997 Supreme(Sikk) 9
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
M. SENGUPTA
STATE OF SIKKIM - Appellant
Versus
DORJEE SHERPA - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL 3 Of 1997
Decided On : July 31, 1997
A.Moulik, S.P.WANGDI
Offenses relating to public funds are serious and should be dealt with severely. The Probation of Offenders Act should not be invoked in such cases.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SENTENCE - ADEQUACY - OFFENCES RELATING TO PUBLIC FUNDS - PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT - APPLICABILITY - SENTENCE ENHANCED.
Fact of the Case:
Accused persons were convicted under Sections 380/368/471/420/34, I.P.C. for fraudulently withdrawing cheques from the Pension Section of the Finance Department and encasing them from different banks in Sikkim. They pleaded guilty and were sentenced to simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 400/- each.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the offenses committed by the accused were serious and had a significant impact on society. It further held that the accused were not entitled to the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was adequate? 2. Whether the accused were entitled to the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the sentence imposed by the trial court was inadequate and did not reflect the gravity of the offenses committed by the accused. 2. The Court held that the accused were not entitled to the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act as the offenses committed by them were serious and had a significant impact on society.
Final Decision: The Court enhanced the sentence of the accused to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default to suffer RI for one year more. The sentences were to run concurrently.
( 1 ) THIS case arises out of an application filed under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the sentence imposed on 3-6-1996 by Shri P. W. Paljor, Judicial Magistrate, East in Criminal Case No. 56 of 1995 after convicting the accused persons under Sections 380/368/471/420/34, I. P. C.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that accused Dorjee Sherpa and Ajoy Gurung were working as Typist and Peon respectively in the Department of Pension under the Government of Sikkim. The other accused Lakpa Sherpa was a close associate of accused Dorjee Sherpa. Karma Bhutia was another associate. Shri M. B. Ruchal was the Chief Accounts Officer, Pension Section. It was alleged that all of them hatched up a plan to fraudulently withdraw cheques from Pension Section of the Finance Department and to get those cheques enacashed from different banks in Sikkim. Pursuant to the plan accused Dorjee Sherpa managed to take out letter heads and office seal of the Chief Accounts Officer, Pension Section with the assistance of accused Ajoy Gurung. Accused Dorjee and Karma prepared false requisition letters under forged signature of the Chief Accounts Officer, Pension Section and with the use of the letter heads and office seal. This way they obtained cheque books from Pay and Accounts Office. Several cheques were encashed and a total sum of more than Rs. 2,33 lakhs was fraudulently collected and misappropriated.
( 3 ) ON the complaint of the Chief Accounts Officer, Pension Department police took up investigation in course of which endeavours were made to verify the signatures. It was ultimately found that accused Karma Bhutia had actually forged the signatures of the Chief Accounts Officer, Pension Cell. On completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet against accused Dorjee, Lakpa, Ajoy and Karma. Since no evidence could be collected against accused M. B. Ruchal, no charge sheet was filed against him. Accused Karma Bhutia was however shown as absconder till that date.
( 4 ) THE case was taken up for framing up charges on 3-6-1996 and the charges under Sections 380/468/471/420/34, I. P. C. were framed against the three accused persons. When the charges were explained to the accused persons in their own language Nepali, they pleaded guilty and did not claim to be tried. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused persons accordingly and sentenced them to simple imprisonment (confinement?) till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 400/- each. In default of payment of fine they were to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
( 5 ) IN an almost identical case where the amount involved was Rs. 12 ,420/-, FIR was lodged by the Director of Accounts, Government of Sikkim and on completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet against the same set of accused persons under Sections 380/468/34, I. P. C. It was registered as Case No. 69 of 1995. On 3-6-1996 when the charges were framed and the accused persons pleaded guilty to the same, the learned Magistrate passed order of conviction and imposed sentence in identical manner.
( 6 ) THE State has come up with an application under Section 377, I. P. C. also against the order of sentence passed in Criminal. Case No. 69 of 1995. This application under Section 377, Cr. :p. C. has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1997.
( 7 ) SINCE the Appellants and the Respondents are the same and since the points at issue in both the Appeals are the same the parties propose to take up hearing of the Appeals analogously. For the sake of convenience the Court also conceded to the request.
( 8 ) IN case No. 69 of 1995, FIR was lodged on 15-4-1992 and charge sheet was submitted on 30-4-1994. In Case No. 56 of 1994, FIR was lodged on 2-5-1992 and charge sheet was submitted on 25-11-1994. In both the cases, as already stated, charges were framed on 3-4-1996.
( 9 ) FROM the dates of filing of FIRs and of submission of charge sheets it would be apparent that the cases w
