Goura Hari Das vs State thru C.B.I.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.—None present on behalf of the petitioner. Likewise there was no appearance on the previous dates of hearings namely

26.7.2006 and 17.11.2006.

This revision is preferred against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the

Metropolitan Magistrate on 18.12.1994 on the petitioner. He was convicted of offences u/s 120B read with Section 419/468/471 IPC.

The allegation against the petitioner was that he had petitioned the Supreme Court, being aggrieved by an order of the Orissa High Court,

upholding the award of contract for shrimp farming/prawn catching to someone else. The court issued notice but declined to grant ex parte stay.

The further allegation was that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused caused a fabricated document i.e. a telegram to be issued

ostensibly on behalf of the Joint Registrar of the Supreme Court, holding out that the court had given the ex parte ad interim stay. The first

information report was lodged at the behest of the Registrar General of the Supreme Court; after considering the materials the court took

cognizance and charged the petitioner. He pleaded guilty and stood trial.

In the course of the trial court proceedings the prosecution relied upon the testimony of several witnesses as well as documentary evidence. The

trial court by its judgment dated 15.12.1995, convicted the petitioner as charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 16

months, for offences punishable u/s 120B read with Section 419/468/471 IPC and also directed him to pay fine to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- in

respect of each of the offences.

The petitioner appealed to the District and Sessions Judge who by the impugned order upheld the conviction and sentence. The material part of

the impugned order reads as follows:

By the order on sentence dated 18.12.95 the Ld. M.M. has sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I., for 16 months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for

the offence punishable u/s 419/468/471 IPC for having forged the telegram dated 2.2.94 in the name of Joint Registrar, Supreme Court of India in

conspiracy with one Bhagwan Panigrahi. The detailed facts are mentioned in para 2 of the impugned judgment. The circumstances relied against

the accused are mentioned on page 22 of the judgment. The most incriminating evidence against the accused are circumstances 7 and 8 on page

22 which show that he along with Bhagwan Panigrahi introduced a person as L.N. Pradhan, who infact was not L.N. Pradhan and in his name a

SLP has been filed in the Supreme Court. Before filing the petition in the Supreme Court, they have also consulted with a lawyer Mr. B.A.

Mohanty and Mr. P.K. Jena where L.N. Pradhan had not appeared as per the case of the prosecution, but ultimately SLP came to be filed in his

name. During investigation the signatures of L.N. Pradhan on the SLP and his Advocate''s signature were compared, but even to the naked eye as

per the impugned judgment, they were different.

The other circumstantial evidence mentioned on page 22 accused has been taking active interest in the case from Civil Court to High Court and

thereafter, in the Supreme Court on different date of hearings. He spoke to P.W.12 and after that he had become party in the matter. During

arguments in this Court, it has transpired that accused is a civil servant in the Department of Forest in Orissa, which itself acts as circumstance to

show his extra ordinary interest in the case which was nowhere connected with him personally or as a remote beneficiary. These circumstances

alone do go to suggest the element of agreement with the other accused persons to pursue the illegal act of filing the petition in Supreme Court in

order to direct the stay of operation of High Court order against catching of prawns. The offence of conspiracy not only consist in agreement as

rightly pointed out by the counsel for the accused, who has relied on three judgments i.e. State of Kerala Vs. P. Sugathan and Another, , Vijayan

@ Rajan Vs. State of Kerala, , P.K. Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala, but also consists of knowledge of conspiracy as mentioned by Supreme

Court in judgment of Som Nath Thapar 1996 (4) SCC 569.

In this case the accused has all through the knowledge of the conspiracy and of the subject perused. Therefore, I do not find any wrong

appreciation of facts and circumstances by the trial court, so as to say it was perverse or not based on the facts, and no reason to interfere.

In these circumstances, I uphold the impugned order dated 18.12.94 of the Ld. Trial Court and maintain the sentence. It is also stated that he has

already undergone the period of 16 months awarded by the trial court and has also paid the find. The appeal is dismissed.

The petitioner in these revision proceedings has raised various factual issues mainly pertaining to appreciation of evidence by the courts below,

particularly as far as the testimony of witnesses is concerned. It is Therefore urged that the courts below committed an error in concluding that he

was guilty as charged.

I have also considered the fact that the petitioner has already undergone the sentence of sixteen months'' rigorous imprisonment as is evident

from the muster roll submitted, in the proceedings.

Learned Counsel for the respondent has taken me through the judgments of the court below. The scope of Section 379/401 in such cases is

extremely limited; unless the court is convinced that the orders complained of would result in miscarriage of justice or are palpably erroneous or

illegal, it would decline to exercise jurisdiction. The court cannot act as a second Appellate Court having regard to the limitations inherent u/s 397.

In view of these parameters I am satisfied that no case calling for interference with the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner is made

out. The petition is, Therefore, dismissed.