Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 625
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
K.K. Bansal - Accused/Appellant
Versus
Special Judge, Anti Corruption U.P. (East), Dehradun and another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Appeal No. 423 of 2001
Decided on: 7.6.2012
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The court may reduce the sentence based on the appellant's suffering and the need to support himself and his family.
Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC, 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a bank manager, was convicted under various sections of the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act for sanctioning loans to non-existent persons and forging documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the appellant's conviction under the mentioned sections and reduced the sentence considering the appellant's medical condition and the age of the case.
Issues: Conviction under various sections of the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, reduction of sentence due to appellant's medical condition and age of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments to reduce the sentence based on the appellant's suffering and the need to support himself and his family.
Final Decision: The conviction was confirmed, but the sentence was reduced, and the fine was maintained. The appeal was disposed of.
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
1. Heard Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the Central Bureau of Investigation.
2. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 6.11.1998 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P. (East), Dehradun in C.B.I. Case No. 10 of 1993, whereby the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. The brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution, are that the appellant before this Court, namely, K.K. Bansal while functioning as a Branch Manager of Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank, Jhajhara, Dehradun was charged by Central Bureau of Investigation under Section 120B/420/468/471 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with corresponding Section of the old Act i.e. Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d). It must be stated at this juncture that since this matter pertains to a period preceding 1988 apart from other facts which are applicable in this case what is applicable are the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 read with Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1942. In other words, Prevention of Corruption Act as it was prior to 1988.
4. The charge against the appellant was that while functioning as a Branch Manager he entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Rakesh Kumar, a part-time messenger of the bank, his father Ram Bharose and some unknown persons during the period which is 1986-87, in order to cheat the bank. As a part of said criminal conspiracy the appellant sanctioned a loan of 4,000/- on 3.2.1986 in favour of a non-existent person. Prior to sanctioning of the said loan, due procedure which ought to have been adopted by the bank such as a pre-sanction survey and verification of the genuineness of the borrower was not done. Many of the signatures were also forged. Similarly, a loan of 4,800/- was sanctioned on 3.2.1986 again in favour of a non-existent person with similar method as above. Thereafter, a loan of 5,000/- was sanctioned on 17.7.1986 in favour of a non-existent person without conducting pre-sanction survey and without verifying the genuineness of the borrower. Apart from the aforesaid, accused/appellant K.K. Bansal also forwarded a false claim on 24.3.1987 to the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Dehradun. As per the prosecution, accused K.K. Bansal also sanctioned a loan of ` 5,000/- in favour of a non-existent person on 13.11.1986 without following the due procedure, as stated above. Thereafter, accused K.K. Bansal sanctioned a loan of ` 5,000/- on 6.4.1987 again in favour of a non-existent person on the basis of forged signatures on the loan documents and the affidavit filed in support of loan application.
5. The learned trial court after hearing the entire evidence submitted by the prosecution and minutely examining the records of the case has come to a categorical conclusion that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove beyond any reasonable doubt charges under Section 120B/420/468/471 IPC as well as Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently the appellant was sentenced one year’s R.I. and a fine of 2,000/- under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, six months’ R.I. and a fine of 500/- under Section 120 B I.P.C., one year R.I. and a fine of 500/- under Section 420 IPC, one year R.I. and a fine of 500/- under Section 468 IPC and one year R.I. and a fine of 500/- under Section 471 I.P.C.
6. This appeal was filed in the year 1998 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which stood transferred before this Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act. After having gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment of the trial court, it is very difficult for this Court to form any other opinion as the one formed by the trial cou
