CAV Judgment

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and conviction dated 30.09.1999 passed in Special Case-3 of 1996, whereby the 5th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned below:

CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 420 r/w 120B of IPC RI for one year and fine of Rs.2,000/-, In default, RI for three months Under Section 468/471 r/w 120B RI for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, In default, IPC RI for three months Under Section 477A r/w 120B IPC RI for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, In default, RI for three months Under Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of RI for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, In default, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 RI for three months rw Section 120B IPC

2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that appellant was engaged in business of selling cloths and was having bank account in Central Bank of India, Branch Saraipali, District-Raipur, at the relevant point of time. Based on complaint received by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti- Corruption Bureau, Jabalpur, on 30.11.1992, FIR under Crime No.RC-54(A)/92-JBR was registered against TR Sahu, Branch Manager; VP Rout Rai, Clerk; RN Sarkar, Chief Cashier, and all employees of Central Bank, for commission of offence defined under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘PC Act, 1988’). After completion of investigation, CBI submitted charge-sheet against present appellant and VP Rout Rai, only for alleged commission of offence under Sections 420, 408, 471, 477-A of IPC with the aid of Section 120B of IPC and Section 3(1)(d)/13(2) of PC Act with the aid of Section 120B of IPC. Appellant denied charges levelled against him. After conclusion of trial, leaned Court below holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Sections 420 r/w 120B, 468/470 r/w 120B, 477-A r/w 120B of IPC and Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the PC Act r/w Section 120B of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.

3. To prove charges against appellant, prosecution examined 6 witnesses, namely, PW1 PC Lunia (retired Senior Manager); PW2 CK Pandey (Branch Manager), PW3 Umesh C Guchayat (Probationary Officer); PW4 Suresh Chand Gupta (State Examiner); PW5 TR Sahu (Branch Manager); PW6 Devendra Singh (Investigating Officer). Court below examined Niranjan (Constable) as Court witness to record his statement that co-accused VP Rout Rai is not traceable.

4. Shri NK Mehta, learned counsel for appellant would submit that appellant was convicted only with aid of Section 120B of IPC, recording finding that appellant entered into criminal conspiracy with VP Rout Rai, the main accused, without there being any clinching or admissible piece of evidence on record. Appellant was not named in FIR. Witnesses examined by prosecution have not levelled any direct allegation against appellant but he was implicated in the crime only because amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.5,000/- twice) was transferred from account of Md Altaf in account of appellant, and said amount was withdrawn by submitting a cheque of his bank account. He contended that appellant being account holder, gave cheque to the co-accused of his account. There is no allegation and evidence that appellant abetted for commission of any offence, entered into conspiracy for commission of any illegal act with co-accused VP Rout Rai, who was a Clerk in the Bank. He also contended that to bring home the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC, it is necessary for prosecution to establish that there was agreement between parties for doing unlawful act, but in this case, prosecution has not established by bringing cogent and admissible piece of evidence on record that there was any agreement between the parties. There was no meeting of mind between main accused VP Rout Rai, and appellant, who is, only an account holder of the concerned Bank. To convict ap