AJIT KUMAR PATNAIK Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 29-6-1988 in T.R. No. 34 of 1983 passed by Shri D M. Patnaik. Special Judge, Bhubaneswar convicting him under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under Sections 420/467/468/471 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count and directing the sentences to run concurrently. Further he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.

(2.) Prosecution case briefly stated is as follows. During the period 1979-80, one Ramakanta Mohanty (who was a coaccused of the present appellant and since acquitted) who was a probation officer of the Indian Overseas Bank was deputed to work as the Branch Manager of Pun Branch of Pun Gramya Bank which was sponsored by the Indian Overseas Bank and the appellant (Ajit Kumar Patnaik) (hereinafter referred to as the Taccused) was working as a Field Officer in Pun Branch of Pun Gramya Bank. The former had been appointed by the Deputy General Manager. Indian Overseas Bank and the latter had been appointed by Subodh Kumar Misra (P.W. 3), Chairman of Pun Grarnya Bank. The Puff Gramya Bank used to advance various types of loans including loans to small traders, artisans and small farmers. it is alleged by the prosecution that during the course of business, three loans amounting to Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) each were sanctioned on three applications bearing number 144/79 purported to have been submitted by One Ratna Chandra Sahu, number 148/79 purported to have been submitted by one Madhusudan Mohanty and number 7/80 purported to have been submitted by one Govinda Chandra Mohanty, all of Pun Town, by both the accused persons in connivance with each other by forging all the documents, viz application forms, security bonds, demand promissory notes, etc. and both the accused persons misappropriated the said amount of Rs. 3,000/-. On source information. B.N. Mishra, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar submitted the first information report on 4-8-1992 to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar and the case was registered and investigation was taken up. During investigation, the Investigating Officer (P.W. 22) examined witnesses and several documents and found that the loanees Rama Chandra Sahu, Madhusudan Mohanty and Govinda Chandra Mohanty and their guarantors named in the guarantee forms were non-existent and as such both the accused persons had forged the documents in the names of fictitious persons and had sanctioned the loan amounts for the purpose of misappropriation. After completion of investigation P.W. 22 submitted charge-sheet against both the accused persons. The trial Court held that the loan application No. 148/79 purported to have been submitted by Madhusudan Mohanty had been forged by accused Ajit Kumar Patnaik, whereas prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the other two loan applications, i.e. Nos. 144/79 and 7/80, were forged by any of the accused persons. Consequently he held accused Ajit Kumar Patnaik guilty and convicted him of the charge and passed the sentences as stated above, while acquitting his co-accused Ramakanta Mohanty of the charge. The plea of defence is one of denial and false implication.

(3.) Mr. S.S. Das, learned Counsel for the accused, and Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned Counsel for C.B.I., were heard at length. Mr. Das strenuously urged for setting aside the impugned judgment and to acquit the accused of the charge contending that the trial Judge fell into errors in coming to the conclusion that the accused forged the loan application bearing No. 148/79 and the other relevant documents and misappropriated the sanctioned loan amount and acquitting his co-accused on the same set of evidence recorded in the case. Mr. Mohanty supported the impugned judgment as legally justified warranting no interference.