SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(UK) 448

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant
Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2006 (Old No. 216 of 2000)
KESAR CHAND – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND) & ORS. – Respondents
AND Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2006 (Old No. 93 of 2000)
KISAN LAL – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Respondent
Decided on : 18.09.2012

Advocates:
For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Virk, Advovcate
For the State : Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, A.G.A.
For the C.B.I. :Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate
For the Appellant :Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate
For the C.B.I. :Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860, Secs. 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 201 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) — Offences punishable under — Conviction for — Propriety of — Accused being employees of Northern Railway by forging bills, preparing cheques on their basis, opening fake account, depositing such cheques in such account and withdrawing the amount through cheques in the name of the contractor — Sanction for their prosecution found to be valid and prosecution case fully proved beyond any reasonsable doubt — While maintaining the conviction and sentence of fine, substantive sentence of imprisonment reduced, in view of the old ages of convicts from maximum period of four years to one and a half years already undergone by one convict and to one year to another.

        (Paras 4 to 9)

        Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 120ch] 420] 468] 471] 201 ,oa Hkz”Vkpkj fujksèkd vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 13¼2½ lifBr /kkjk 13¼1½¼Mh½ & mDr /kkjkvksa ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/kksa ds fy, nks”kflf) dk vkSfpR; & vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk mÙkjh jsyos ds deZpkjh gksrs gq, dkUVªSDVj ds isesUV ds tkyh fcy cukdj muds vk/kkj ij cSad esa Bsdsnkj ds uke ls xyr rjhds ls [kkrk [kqyokdj mDr fcyksa ds vk/kkj ij rS;kj fd, x, pSd tek djds mudk Hkqxrku tkyh pSdksa }kjk izkIr djds jsyos dks dkQh ek=k esa uqdlku igq¡pk;k & vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo#) i;kZIr eatwjh ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;kstu }kjk muds fo#) iw.kZ :i ls nks”k fl) ik;k tkdj mudks nf.Mr fd;k tkus ds fo#) vihy esa nks”kflf) dks dk;e j[krs gq, pkj o”kZ ds n.M dks 1½ o”kZ] tks og iwjk dj pqdk o nwljs dks ,d o”kZ ds n.M esa cny fn;k x;kA ¼izLrj 4 ls 9½

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Both these appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 12.01.2000, passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Dehradun, in C.B.I Case No. 3 of 1998, whereby said court has convicted accused/appellants Kesar Chand and Kishan Lal under Section 120B read with Section 420 I.P.C., and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (l) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 468 and 201 of I.P.C. The accused/appellant Kesar Chand has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 120B of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 420 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 467 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 468 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 471 of I.P.C., and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 201 of I.P.C. He has been further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused/appellant Kishan Lal has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- under Section 120B of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- under Section 109 read with 420 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- under Section 467 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- under Section 471 of I.P.C. He has been further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record.

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that accused/appellant Kesar Chand was functioning as Accounts Assistant, and accused/appellant Kishan Lal was working as Senior Section Officer with Northern Railways, at Divisional Railway Manager’s Office, Moradabad. Third co-accused P.D Ram,was the Assistant Divisional Accounts Officer of the said organization. In the year 1993, a contract was floated by Northern Railways, Moradabad, for leading and erecting the slabs with regard to which, tender of the Contractor Ravi Verma Prabhakar was accepted arid agreement No. 51/DRM/MB dated. 17.09.1993 (Ex. A15) was entered between the Railways and the contractor. The work was to be completed within eight months for an amount of Rs. 9,33,500/-. The supervision of work was to be done by Inspector of work Chandausi (PW -11) Mangat Singh. However, before the work even commenced the aforesaid accused conspired to cheat the railway administration by getting two forged bills amounting to Rs. 8,66,695/- dated 15.10.1993 and Rs. 8,99,140/- dated 12.11.1993, in the name of Contractor Ravi Verma Prabhakar and prepared the cheques, counter signed the same and issued for payment. Not only this, accused Kesar Chand said to have opened the fake Account No. 6/67 in the year 1993, in the name of Ravi Verma Prabhakar (Contractor) with State Bank of India, Branch Civil Lines, Moradabad, and deposited the two cheques of aforesaid amount, which were withdrawn through five cheques. The other accused/appellant P.D. Ram, the then Assistant Divisional Accounts Officer) said to be the third accused, who conspired with the accused/appellants. The First Information Report was got lodged by Arjun Singh Somwanshi, Assistant Divisional Accounts Officer, on the basis of which, C.B.I. registered C












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top