BRIJESH KUMAR PAL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the accused against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentences passed by the Special Judge, (C.B.I.) Indore holding him guilty of offences punishable u/s. 420; 120 -B; 409; 468; 471; 477A of the IPC and Section 13(2) r/w S. 13((i)(c) and 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (hereafter referred to as the Act, for short). During trial, the other co -accused jumped the bail and on 10.1.2002 he was declared absconding as a result he has not been brought to books so far.

(2.) APPELLANT was holding a senior and responsible post of the Officers' Grade in the State Bank of India. At the relevant time, i.e. between 1.4.1993 and 30.8.1993, he was in -charge of Personal Investment Cell, Main Branch Indore. The Main Branch, like other Branches in Metro cities had introduced the 'Personal Investment Cell' as a "Single Window Investment Shop" to attend to the investment counseling and tax planning of small customers by handling the portfolios of constituents on a non - discretionary basis. The status of the Cell was as sub -broker for stock exchange, sub - agent for other securities and as such, entertained business of buying and selling of shares in the secondary market for Bank's individual customer intending to make small investment and not as regular business on behalf of registered brokers. Certain irregularities were detected in the working of the appellant as in -charge of the Cell. This turned out to be the tip of iceberg as huge financial scam was later surfaced causing ripples in the placid financial waters. Internal Vigilance enquiry showed active involvement of appellant and co - accused Dr. Rajan Saxena in the nefarious activities. This started the investigation by the CBI and ultimately led to filing of the Charge -sheet. Extent of scam can be gauged from the FIR (Ex.P.111) which reads as under: -

(3.) LEARNED Special Judge on a careful scrutiny of evidence that is placed on record, found appellant guilty of all offences charged and accordingly passed the order imposing various sentences together with fine and default stipulation. It was directed that the sentences would run concurrently. Hence this appeal as aforesaid.