Arjun Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 30.08.1988 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I.

(South Bihar), Patna in Special Case No.3 of 80 whereby and where under, the learned court below has held appellant-convict guilty for the offences

punishable under Section 120B/420/471 read with Section 468/477A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant-convict has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for each of the

offences punishable under Section 120B/420/471 read with Section 468/477A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)

(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant-convict was Manager of S.I.B (Small-Scale Industries and Business) Division, State Bank

of India during the period from October, 1978 to March, 1979 at Daltonganj, the co-accused Biswas brothers were the partners of a firm in the name

and style of M/s. M.L. Biswas & Co. which was having its account with the said bank. The said co-accused persons were also having their individual

accounts in the said bank. It is alleged that the appellant-convict entered into a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons and in pursuance of

the said criminal conspiracy the co-accused two Biswas brothers in their individual capacity as well as partners of the firm produced payment advises

and inter alia the appellant-convict, knowing the said payment advises to be forged, dishonestly with intent to facilitate further accommodation to the

co-accused persons; marked off the liability of the said firm of the said co-accused persons on the basis of the said payment advises; to help the

purchase of the cheques drawn by the said firm and its partners within the functional limits and in this process inter alia the appellant-convict

negotiated and also purchased 109 cheques issued under the signatures of R.K.Biswas in the individual capacity as well as in the capacity of the

messenger of the partnership firm to enable the accused firm in contravention of the stipulation that no cheques payable to the tenderers or its sister

units would be purchased and the said cheques were forwarded to State Bank of India, Calcutta Main Branch for collection from the drawee bank.

But the said purchased cheques were dishonoured causing a loss of ₹ 57.24 lakhs to the State Bank of India. After completion of investigation charge

sheet was submitted inter alia against the appellant-convict by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Charges for the offences punishable under Section

120B/420/471 read with Section 468/477A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1947 were framed against the appellant-convict. The appellant convict pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

In support of its case the prosecution altogether examined 24 witnesses. The accused persons of the case also altogether examined 3 witnesses in

their defence.

Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W.2 Manak Chandra Jain has stated that he was officiating as Head Clerk in the State Bank

of India, Daltonganj Branch in the year 1978-79 and at that time the appellant-convict was the S.I.B Manager. The P.W.2 proved the Telegram

Report Register of the State Bank of India, Daltonganj branch from 18. 12. 78 to 17.03. 79 which was marked exhibit-2. The said Register proved by

the P.W.2 shows that several Demand Drafts purchased by the said co-accused firm where not being paid by the drawee bank on the first

presentation and sometimes the Demand Drafts had to be presented twice, thrice to the drawee bank and therefore intimation by the telegram were

sent to the State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch by the Main Branch to this effect. The telegram no. 151 sent on 03.03.79; as would be evident

from page 69 of the exhibit-2, also shows that State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch was requested to take the matter very seriously with the

documents as Demand Drafts mentioned therein were returned unpaid at the 2nd presentation.

PW3 Jamuna Prasad Sinha was the Head Clerk in the dispatch section of the State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch. He proved the Registered

Letter Dispatch Registers relating to the period 31.08.1978 to 04.04.1979 of the State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch which have been marked

exhibits 3 and 3/1 respectively. The PW3 also proved The Demand Liability Register of the State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch containing inter

alia the signature of the appellant-convict, which has been marked exhibit-4.

PW 4- Umesh Kumar Srivastava was posted as Clerk in the State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch during the year 1978-79. He has inter alia

stated that the appellant-convict was the officer of the said bank during the said period. He proved another Demand Liability Register which have

been marked Exhibit 4 & 4/1. The PW4 further deposed that the appellant-convict being the SIB manager used to receive the payment advises and he

used to send the payment advises and also used to put his initial in the register by way of confirmation and authentication. The PW 4 also proved the

Demand Draft purchase register which has been marked Exhibit 5. He further stated that after entries in the demand liability register, entries about

the demand drafts used to be made in this register and then the Demand Drafts were sent for dispatch. He also stated that the exhibit-4 and 4/1 inter

alia bear the signature of the appellant-convict.

PW5 Mani Lal Gupta has stated that on 11.01.1981 in his presence the house of the co-accused R.K.Biswas was searched by officers of Central

Bureau of Investigation. He also proved the search list which have been marked exhibit-6 and 6/1 respectively. He further deposed that during the

search inter alia 22 sheets of blank payment advice were seized. PW5 put his signature on all the seized articles which have been marked material

exhibits- I to VI.

PW6 Anant Viswanath Makoda has stated that he made the vigilance enquiry in connection with this case and submitted his report on 17.01.1979

which has been marked exhibit-7 and the enclosures whereof have been marked as exhibit-7/1. The enclosures were marked exhibit after the recall of

the PW 6.

PW7 Maya Shankar Verma was posted as the Regional Manager of the State Bank of India at the relevant time. He submitted the complaint

which has been marked Exhibit 8; on the basis of which the First Information Report of this case has been registered and which has been marked

exhibit-8/1. The PW 7 further deposed that after going through the concerned files and the relevant documents he found that the cheques purchased in

connection with this case by inter alia the appellant-convict were beyond the limits and the advises on the basis of which payment were made were

not genuine. The PW 7 also proved the seizure memos which have been marked exhibit-9 and 9/1. In his cross-examination the PW 7 had stated that

the limit for sanction is fixed by the Regional Manager and the Branch Manager is supposed to act within the direction given by the Regional

Manager. On being confronted he proved the 2 letters sent by him to the Branch Manager State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch which were

marked exhibit-A and A/1 respectively. By these letters the Branch Manager State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch was directed to send the

recommendation for continuance or otherwise of the Demand Drafts purchase limits of M/s. M.L.Biswas & Co. and R.K. Biswas.

PW8- Tapas Kumar Chatterjee who was the temporary godown keeper and also clerk in State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch has stated that

he used to receive cheques and payment advises inter alia through the appellant-convict who was the SIB Manager and used to make the entry

thereof in the remittance schedule. The PW8 further deposed that 109 cheques- which have been marked exhibit-10 to 10/108 were received by him

from the appellant-convict SIB Manager and the Branch Manager and the PW8 made entries thereof in exhibit-4. PW 8 further deposed that he

received 44 payment advises which have been marked exhibit-11 to 11/43 from the appellant-convict SIB Manager and the Branch Manager and on

the basis of these payment advises, the PW 8 made necessary entries in the exhibit-4. He further stated that the appellant-convict put his initials

against the entries except the entry of one date against which the entry has been made by the PW 12. PW 8 also proved the endorsement on the back

side of the payment advice dated 11.11.1979 which have been marked exhibit-12. In his cross examination the PW 8 has stated that the cheques

which have been marked exhibit-10 to 10/6 bear the initials of P.W.12.

P.W.9 Biswanath Mitra was posted as an officer Grade-II in the Main Branch of the State Bank of India at Calcutta from 1976-78 and from

November, 1978 to 1979 he was at Howrah Branch; to where he was transferred. He has stated that Mr Bagchi has written to the branch that the

payment advice may be handed over to the representative of M.L. Biswas & Co.

P.W.10 Debbrata Mitra was a forest contractor in the year 1978-79 at Daltonganj. He had a Current Account in State Bank of India, Daltonganj

Branch. He identified the cheques which have been marked exhibit- 10/47 to 10/49 & 10/90 to 10/93 which were issued in his name by the co-

accused R.K. Biswas and deposed that the amount of these cheques after purchase were deposited in his account and on the same day, after

withdrawing the money he handed over the same to Bisawas & Co and he got commission for the same.

PW 11 Bhaskar Chatterjee was posted as Deputy Manager, S.D.A section of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Calcutta. He proved the letters

sent by the Main Branch to the State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch which have been marked exhibit-16 to 16/14. He has also proved the Demand

Drafts receipt realization register for the year 1978-79 which has been marked exhibit-17. The Demand Drafts return book on being proved by the

PW11 has been marked exhibit-18, in which, in case the demand drafts were returned and were sent back to the branches, entries used to be made.

P.W.12 P.K.H. Ayyar assumed the charge of Branch Manager State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch on 02.04.1979. He has inter alia deposed

that the appellant-convict being the Manager of the SIB section was supposed to see that the instrument tendered for purchase represent genuine

transaction and the appellant-convict was not to purchase self cheques or cheques drawn on sister or allied concerns. He has proved to the statement

of banks from which 26.09.1978 to March 1979 which has been marked Exhibit 19. Exhibit-20 which is a letter dated 20.03.1979 proved by the

P.W.12 shows that the PW 12 in capacity of the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch wrote to the Main Branch to

discontinue with the said practice of payment advice. Exhibit-20/1 is a letter dated 12.07.1978 also proved by the P.W.12 whereby the co-accused

T.K.Bagchi requested the Main Branch at Calcutta to send the payment advice of the co-accused firm through their representative A. Mustafi. He

further deposed that 8 to 10 days’ time elapsed in receiving the payment advice from the Calcutta Branch. In his cross-examination on being

confronted he proved the signatures of the appellant-convict and the co-accused T.K.Bagchi on different letters which were marked exhibit- B, B/7 to

B/14. He clarified that since he was not holding the charge of permanent Branch Manager, so he did not like to disturb the existing system of

purchasing cheques. The demand draft facility was stopped on 19th March and the P.W.12 intimated the appellant-convict accordingly. He further

proved the various registers and documents on confrontation by the defence.

P.W.13 Ranesh Chandra Rai has proved the certified copy of the Ledger of the account of M/s. M.L. Biswas & Co. and R.K. Biswas maintained

by the United Bank of India, CIT Road Branch, Calcutta which have been marked exhibit-19 and 19/1.

P.W.14- Alokendra Bau has proved the certified copy of the Ledger of the bank account of the co-accused R.K. Biswas and M/s. M.L. Biswas

& Co. maintained by the erstwhile Mercantile Bank, Gouria Hat, Calcutta Branch which bank has been renamed as Hong Kong and Shanghai

Banking Corporation, which have been marked exhibit-22 and 22/1.

P.W.15 H.D. Upadhyay has proved the certified copy of Books of Instruction which has been marked exhibit-23 and a chart of disputed demand

drafts purchased, which was prepared by the PW 15 and which has been marked exhibit-24. He further deposed that the payment advise forms of the

bank are the property of the bank and kept for internal use of the bank and the same cannot be possessed by a private party or a customer.

P.W.16- Har Narain Prasad Agrawal has stated that he received cheques being exhibit-10/105 to 10/108 from the M.L.Biswas & Co and the

amount of cheque was deposited in his account with State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch. He further deposed that he returned the amount to M/s.

M.L. Biswas & Co. In his cross-examination the P.W.16 has stated that out of the exhibit-10 series money withdrawn by demand draft purchase,

some amount was utilised by him in his own business and the rest of the amount was given by him to Biswas & Co.

P.W.17 Amar Singh is a Government Examiner of Questioned Documents. He has proved the report regarding the handwriting of Mr B.N.Mitra,

which has been marked exhibit-26.

P.W.18 B.N.Mukherjee has deposed that R.K. Biswas issued 25 cheques out of the Exhibit 10 series in his name as well as in the name of his

firm Shakti Ara Mills. He returned the amount deposited in the account of the said firm to R.K. Biswas through cheque.

P.W.19 Bijoy Raghavan worked in State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch as Officer on Special Duty from April, 1979 to July, 1982. He proved

the specimen signatures of the officers of the bank which are marked exhibit-

29 to 29/24. He also proved the letters of the bank which were marked exhibit-20/5 and 20/6. He next deposed that cheques were presented in the

branch by the M.L.Biswas & Co. for purchase. He also proved the signatures of Mr T.K. Bagchi and the appellant-convict on the telegram register

which are marked exhibit-2/1, 2/2 and 2/3 and from the said telegrams it is evident that the Demand Drafts, which were purchased by the bank were

being returned unpaid at the Calcutta Main Branch. The P.W.19 then deposed that it was inter alia the duty of the appellant-convict to compare the

signatures on the payment advises with the specimen signatures maintained in the bank but the payment advises being the exhibit-11 series do not bear

the signature or initials of the appellant-convict in token of verification of the specimen signature. He identified the signature of the appellant-convict

on the payment advises. He further deposed that it takes at least 10 to 15 days for the payment advice to come from the drawee bank being the Main

Branch to the State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch. But in this case the payment advises have been shown to have been received at an interval of

3 to 4 days only. The P.W.19 has also deposed that inter alia the appellant-convict did not take any action with regard to purchase of Demand Drafts

for Biswas & Co. et cetera, despite the fact that telegrams regarding non-payment of the Demand Drafts were regularly sent by the Main Branch to

the negotiating branch but still the parties being Biswas & Co. et cetera were allowed to post the said cheques in their own name and in the names of

their sister concerns and cheques were even purchased by inter alia the appellant-convict beyond the Demand Drafts limits by not following the

instructions of State Bank of India and by not sending the information to the controlling authority; sanction were given to the co-accused parties being

M/s. M.L. Biswas & Co. by the appellant-convict on plain papers and the application or appraisal forms were not taken inter alia by the appellant-

convict in all cases. The P.W.19 next deposed that inter alia the appellant-convict made the marking in the liability register only with the purpose of

making the facility made available to the parties being M/s. Biswas & Co. The P.W.19 was examined further in chief on recall and he stated that out

of the 109 cheques, except 12 cheques all other cheques were authorised to be purchased by the appellant-convict.

P.W.20 Krishna Kumar Verma proved the extracts of the letters of various firms involved in the fraudulent transactions with the State Bank of

India, Daltonganj Branch for which this case has been registered which were marked exhibit-19/2 to 19/15. In his cross examination he denied the

suggestion of the defence that no monetary loss was caused to the bank.

P.W.21 S.R. Sarkar worked as Divisional Manager in State Bank of India, Daltonganj Branch from March, 1972 to September, 1979. He deposed

that as he was the in-charge of inter alia the appellant-convict on a particular day hence the payment advice being exhibit-11/16 out of the altogether

44 payment advises involved in this case, was sent to him but he could not check that advice because he was overburdened on that day and the parties

were in hurry.

P.W.23 Gulsan Kumar and P.W.24- G.B. Rao are respectively the Inspector and Sub-Inspector of the Central Bureau of Investigation. They

were the members of the team which conducted the search in the house and office of R.K. Biswas and they are witnesses to the recovery of blank

payment advice forms from the Iron Chest of Mr R.K. Biswas. Both of them have stated that the blank payment advice forms of the bank were

recovered from the iron safe kept in the house of Mr R.K. Biswas in the presence of D.W.1 being the representative of Mr R.K. Biswas and the

DW1 also signed in the receipt of the seizure memo. It is pertinent to mention here that there is absolutely no challenge to their testimony to the effect

that the D.W.1 signed the receipt of the seizure memo without demur and wherein the seizure of the blank payment advice forms of the bank from the

said house of Mr R.K. Biswas was categorically mentioned.

P.W.1-Manoj Kumar Ambastha has proved the sanction order for prosecution of the public servant accused persons of this case, which has been

marked exhibit-1.

After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, inter alia the statement of the appellant-convict was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against him. The appellant-convict denied all the questions relating to the circumstances appearing

in evidence against him and stated that he is innocent.

Out of the witnesses examined by the defence, DW1-Sushanth Kumar Kar is an employee of M.L. Biswas & Company. He stated that the

search of the house of Mr Biswas was conducted in his presence but the material exhibit-V series was not recovered from the said house nor 22

sheets of blank payment advice of the State Bank of India was recovered from there. In his cross-examination he had stated that he was suffering

from paralytic attack and the accused persons were maintaining him. DW 2-Nareswar Prasad is also an employee of M.L. Biswas and company. He

has stated that he is looking after the Money Suit Number 39/79 instituted by the bank against M.L. Biswas at Daltonganj. In his cross-examination he

had stated that there was an understanding between the bank and M.L. Biswas and company, R.K. Biswas and B.N. Biswas according to which the

accused persons paid ₹ to 14,75,000/- out of the ₹ 59,24,000/- involved in this case. The accused persons have paid ₹ 35 lakhs to the bank in the year

1985. The responsibility of payment of ₹ 59,24,000 has been taken by R.K. Biswas and B.N. Biswas on behalf of all the defendants of that suit.

D.W.3 â€"Shib Sagar Tiwari was working as supervisor in M.L. Biswas and company. He has stated that R.K. Biswas was residing at Daltonganj 3-

4 days in a month.

The learned trial court after considering the evidence in the record observed that the evidence put forth by the prosecution through the witnesses

examined by it as well as from the documents marked as exhibits as also the material exhibits established that inter alia the appellant-convict entered

into a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons in their individual capacity as well as partners of their firms and they produced forged payment

advises which inter alia the appellant-convict knowing to be forged marked off the liability of the firms on the basis of these forged payment advises in

order to help the purchase of cheques drawn by the said firm and its partners within the sanctioned limits and in this process inter alia the appellant-

convict negotiated and also purchased 109 cheques issued under the signature of R.K.Biswas in his individual capacity as well as in the capacity of

managing partner of the firm payable to the accused firms and held that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charges for the

offences punishable under 120 B, 420, 471, R/W section 468 of the Indian Penal Code besides it also held inter alia the appellant-convict guilty for the

offence punishable under section 477A of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 5 (2) r/w 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as already indicated above.

Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel for the appellant-convict submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence in the

record in its proper perspective and could not consider the fact that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the ingredients of each of the

offences for which the appellant-convict has been held guilty. It is then submitted by Mr. Prashant Pallav that the learned trial court failed to

appreciate the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever in the record to show that the appellant-convict received any pecuniary advantage out of the

transactions in question hence erroneously held the appellant-convict guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120 B of the

Indian Penal Code. Mr Prashant next submits that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute and substantial amount of the wrongful

loss amount of the bank has been repaid and the dispute arose because of the then branch manager being the P.W.12 stopping the Demand Draft

facilities of the co-accused person- account holders of the bank. It is further submitted by Mr Prashant Pallav that the evidence in the record is

insufficient to establish the charges for the offence punishable under section 477A of the Indian Penal Code as there is no evidence in the record to

suggest that the appellant-convict indulged in falsification of any accounts as no such accounts alleged to have been falsified has been brought into

evidence in this case. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that the learned trial court failed to consider the fact that the

appellant-convict is not named in the First Information Report and could not properly consider the defence put forth by the accused persons in the

case. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that the learned court below failed to consider that the prosecution withheld

material documents from the court like the peon book which is fatal for the case of the prosecution. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellant-convict that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellant-convict be acquitted of the charges.

Mr. Rohit Sinha the Learned Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation on the other hand defended the impugned judgment of conviction and

order of sentence and submitted that there is absolutely no discrepancy in the evidence put forth by the prosecution and nothing has been elicited in the

cross-examination of any of the 24 witnesses examined by the prosecution in this case to disbelieve their testimony in any manner. It is next submitted

that the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution in this case are unimpeachable and trustworthy. The oral testimony of the witnesses

examined by the prosecution is supported by the documentary evidence which has been marked exhibits as also the material exhibits. It is then

submitted that there is no dispute that the appellant convict was working as the SIB Manager at the relevant point of time nor there do any challenge

to the evidence put forth by the prosecution that inter alia the appellant-convict was instrumental in purchase of cheques which were subsequently

dishonoured causing wrongful loss to the bank. It is then submitted that the recovery of the blank payment advises of the bank from the house of the

co-accused R.K. Biswas speaks volumes about the criminal conspiracy and the involvement of the appellant-convict therein as there is evidence in the

record that such payment advises of the bank are not to be kept at any place other than the bank. So it is crystal clear from the evidence put forth that

the said blank forms of payment advice of the bank was utilized for forging fake payment advises, upon which inter alia the appellant-convict acted

upon causing wrongful loss to the bank. It is next submitted by Mr. Sinha that the First Information Report is not an encyclopedia of prosecution case;

so the fact that the name of the appellant-convict was not appearing in the First Information Report is of no consequence at all as after investigation

the Central Bureau of Investigation collected ample material which has been put forth by way of evidence in the record to show the involvement of

the appellant-convict in this criminal conspiracy by which the offences involved in this case were committed. It is also submitted by Mr. Sinha that the

criminal offence is complete when the ingredients of the offence are committed by the appellant -convict in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused

persons and the subsequent payment of the wrongful loss amount of the bank by the co-accused persons will certainly not obliterate the offence

committed by the appellant convict. It is lastly submitted by Mr. Sinha that the conviction and sentence of the appellant-convict is proper and the same

ought not to be set aside and this appeal, being without any merit be dismissed.

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that

so far as the conviction of the appellant-convict for the offence punishable under section 477 A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned; it is a settled

principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S. Harnam Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1976) 2 SCC

819 that in order to bring home an offence under section 477 A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish (1) that at the relevant time,

the accused was a clerk, officer or servant; and (2) that acting in that capacity he destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified any book, paper, writing,

valuable security or account which belonged to or is in the possession of his employer or has been received by him for and on behalf of his employer

etc.; (3) that he did so wilfully and with intent to defraud. Further in the said judgment it has been enunciated that “Wilfully†as used in Section

477-A of the Indian Penal Code means “intentionally†or “deliberatelyâ€. In that case it was also observed in paragraph- 18 by the Supreme

Court as under:

“Xxxxxxx from the mere fact that these entries were made “wilfullyâ€, it does not necessarily follow that he did so “with intent to

defraud†within the meaning of Section 477-A of the Penal Code. The Code does not contain any precise and specific definition of the

words “intent to defraudâ€. However, it has been settled by a catena of authorities that “intent to defraud†contains two elements

viz. deceit and injury. A person is said to deceive another when by practising “suggestio falsi†or “suppressio veri†or both he

intentionally induces another to believe a thing to be true, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true. “Injury†has been

defined in Section 44 of the Code as denoting “any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or

propertyâ€​.

Now coming to the facts of this case, after carefully going through the evidence in the record this court finds that there is absolutely no evidence in the

record to suggest that the appellant-convict destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified any book, paper, writing, valuable security or account. Thus in the

absence of any evidence in record regarding this vital ingredient of the offence punishable under section 477 A of the Indian Penal Code; this court is

of the considered view that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under section 477 A of the

Indian Penal Code. Accordingly this Court set aside the conviction of the appellant-convict for the offence punishable under section 477 A of the

Indian Penal Code as made by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment and acquit him of the said offence.

So far as the conviction of the appellant-convict in respect of the other offences is concerned; it is a settled principle of law that it is extremely

difficult to adduce direct evidence to prove conspiracy and existence of conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding

circumstances and the conduct of the accused and in cases, indulgence in the illegal act or legal act by illegal means may be inferred from the

knowledge itself as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P. and another (2017) 8 SCC

791, paragraph 45 of which reads as under:

“45. The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the

agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal

means. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal

means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy. It is extremely difficult to adduce direct evidence to prove conspiracy. Existence of

conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. In some cases, indulgence

in the illegal act or legal act by illegal means may be inferred from the knowledge itself.â€​

The evidence which the prosecution has put forth through the 24 witnesses examined by it; are trustworthy and reliable. Nothing has been elicited in

the cross-examination of any of the witnesses to discard or demolish any part of their testimony or their testimony in total. The evidence put forth by

the prosecution as already discussed above is established beyond reasonable doubt about inter alia the appellant-convict purchasing the cheques of the

co-accused persons in violation of the stipulation of the bank for not doing so and also on the basis of forged payment advice marked off the liability of

the co-accused persons with the bank hence it is not difficult to fathom that he did so in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons. True it is

that the D.W.1 has been examined by the defence to falsify the claim of the prosecution that the blank payment advises were recovered from the

house of the co-accused R.K. Biswas. But this testimony of the D.W.1 is insufficient to dislodge the evidence put forth by the prosecution in this

respect principally for 2 reasons. Firstly admittedly the D.W.1 was dependent upon the alms given to him by the co-accused persons for his survival at

the time of his deposing in court and thus was prone to depose falsehood in order to save his benefactor and Secondly because such recovery has

been confirmed by independent witnesses like P.W.5-an officer employed by the government of India in the Department of posts who is signatory to

the seizure memo and has deposed in court supporting the seizure besides P.W.23 and P.W.24 being the responsible police officers themselves, who

have categorically stated about the D.W.1 having signed the receipt of the seizure memo in respect of the recovery and seizure inter alia of the blank

payment advice forms from the iron safe kept in the house of R.K. Biswas and though the signature of the D.W.1 is not disputed yet the D.W.1 has

failed to come up with any explanation as to why he put his signature; if the said blank payment advises were not recovered and seized from the house

of R.K. Biswas when undisputedly it has been mentioned in the said seizure list that such blank payment advice forms were also recovered besides

other documents and materials from the house of Mr R.K. Biswas. The evidence put forth by the D.W.2 and 3 are of not much consequence so far

as dislodging the case of the prosecution is concerned. Thus despite the evidence put forth by the D.W.1 this court is of the considered view that the

evidence in the record put forth by the prosecution by oral testimony as well as the documentary evidence as also the material exhibits establishes

beyond reasonable doubt that the blank payment advice forms of the bank were recovered from the Iron chest of the co-accused R.K. Biswas.

As already indicated above in this judgment in detail the witnesses of the prosecution have vividly stated about each of the ingredients of the

offences punishable under sections 120B/420/471 read with Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The evidence in the record, as already discussed in detail in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment,

establishes that the appellant-convict entered into a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy

the co-accused two Biswas brothers in their individual capacity as well as partners of the firm produced forged payment advises and inter alia the

appellant-convict, knowing the said payment advises to be forged, dishonestly with intent to facilitate further accommodation to the co-accused

persons; marked off the liability of the said firm of the said co-accused persons on the basis of the said forged payment advises and also helped them

by purchase of the cheques in deliberate violation of the rules and regulations of the bank, drawn by the said firm and its partners to keep the debit

balance in their bank account within the functional limits and in this process inter alia the appellant-convict negotiated and also purchased 97 cheques

issued under the signatures of R.K. Biswas in the individual capacity as well as in the capacity of the messenger of the partnership firm to enable the

accused firm; in contravention of the stipulation that no cheques payable to the tenderers or its sister units would be purchased and the said cheques

were forwarded inter alia by the appellant-convict to State Bank of India, Calcutta Main Branch for collection from the drawee bank. But the said

purchased cheques were dishonoured causing wrongful loss of ₹ 57.24 lakhs to the State Bank of India. Thus the evidence in the record is sufficient

to prove the charges for the offences punishable under section 120B/420/471 read with Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2)

read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly conviction of the appellant-convict for the

offences punishable under section 120B/420/471 read with Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as made by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment is confirmed.

So far as the sentence is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that rampant corruption is seen in every walk of our life. People, particularly

those holding high office, are frequently seen accepting illegal gratification. In such serious cases showing mercy to such corrupt official may send

wrong signals. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 7 SCC 80 has

observed thus in paragraph -30

“Xxxxxxxxxxx It should be paramountly borne in mind that corruption at any level does not deserve either sympathy or leniency. In fact,

reduction of the sentence would be adding a premium. The law does not so countenance and, rightly so, because corruption corrodes the

spine of a nation and in the ultimate eventuality makes the economy sterile.â€​

The appellant-convict has also not raised any grievance regarding the quantum of sentence in the appeal memo nor was anything in this respect

agitated on behalf of the appellant-convict at the time of hearing of the appeal. Thus in this backdrop, considering the huge amount of wrongful loss

caused to the bank by the appellantâ€"convict, the sentence of one year also appears to be proper. Because of the facts of the case as well as law

discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence of the appellant-convict so far as the offences punishable under section

120B/420/471 read with Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1947, as already mentioned above in paragraph- 2 of this judgment, as imposed by the trial court in the impugned judgment is proper.

Accordingly, the impugned Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 30.08.1988 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. (South Bihar),

Patna in Special Case No.3 of 80; so far as it relates to the offences punishable under section 120B/420/471 read with Section 468 of the Indian Penal

Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947 is upheld but his conviction and sentence in respect

of the offence punishable under section 477 A of the Indian Penal Code as already indicated above is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge in

respect of the offence punishable under section 477 A of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part.

The appellant-convict Arjun Prasad is on bail. In view of his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under section 120B/420/471 read

with Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947, being upheld,

bail granted to him is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of this judgment to

serve out the sentence failing which the trial court is directed to take all coercive steps against him for undergoing the sentence.

Let the lower court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith.