B. VENUGOPAL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In C.C. No. 2/2009 on the file of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-2 Ernakulam the appellant was tried for the offences under Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. In 2006 - 2008, he was working as Manager and Project Director of National Highwayss Authority of India. He was attached to project implementation unit at Palakkad. He claimed travelling allowance and daily allowance from the department for his alleged stay at Hotel Star at New Delhi from 21.06.2006 to 13.07.2006, and for his stay on 03.01.2007 and 13.01.2007 at Hotel Geeth, Thiruvananthapuram. His claims were allowed and for his stay at New Delhi Rs.61,875/- and for his stay at Thiruvananthapuram Rs.4,950/- (2475 + 2475) were paid to him. The allegation is that the documents filed by him along with his claims were false documents. The trial ended in his conviction. For the offence under Section 13(2) P.C.Act he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) and in default of payment of the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year; for the offence under Section 420 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand Only) and in default of payment of the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year; for the offence under Section 468 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and in default of payment of the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year, and for the offence under Section 471 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. There is a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. The convictions and the sentences are challenged in this appeal.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent, CBI. Perused the lower court records.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that it is not proper for this Court to dismiss the appeal at the threshold. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shivaji Narayan Bachhav Vs. State of Maharastra [AIR 1983 S.C 1014], Lal Mandi Vs. State of W.B [AIR 1995 S.C 2265] and K. Pandurangan Vs. S.S.R. Velusamy [2003(8) SCC 625] . In the first case the Supreme Court held: "Summary rejection of the appeal with the laconic expression 'dismissed' seems to be a drastic step in such cases. To so reject an appeal is to practically deny the right of appeal". It is clear that the impugned judgment before the Supreme Court did not contain any reasons for the dismissal. In the second case the apex court has mentioned the duties of an appellate court. It has emphasised the duty of the appellate court to appreciate the evidence on record. In the last of the three cases what has been held by the court is that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of hearing before the appellate court on merits of the case. That was a case in which the appellate court did not consider the merits of the case, but only the legality of the sentence imposed on the appellant. None of these decisions are applicable to the present case. The appellant has been heard on merits. It is not in dispute that under Section 384 Cr.P.C. this Court has the power to dismiss an appeal at the threshold.