BINOD BIHARI PATNAIK Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the appeals concerning the same First Information Report, but split in six trials are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The Appellant was working as Inspector-cum-Development Officer in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, Berhampur Branch during the year 1981 to 1986. As per prosecution case, the Appellant obtained signatures of Miss Gitamayee Das (a prosecution witness) of Bhanjanagar and neighbour of the Appellant in two application forms for appointing her as an Insurance Agent of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company. The Appellant filled in those application forms in his own handwriting and submitted the same to the Divisional Office, Cuttack on 3/8/1981 along with his recommendation, and based on these applications and recommendations of the Appellant, the Division Office issued appointment letter in favour of Miss Gitamayee Das to act as the licenced agent of the Insurance Company for the period from 8/9/1981 to 30/8/1984. The Appellant received the appointment letter of Miss Gitamayee Das from the Divisional Office and without intimating her about her appointment as the Insurance Agent he himself did insurance business in the name of Gitamayee and received the commission cheques from the Division Office. The Appellant also opened Savings Bank Account No.282 in Indian Overseas Bank, Mujagarh Branch in the name of Gitamayee without her knowledge and operated the bank account by depositing agent commission cheques of Gitamayee received by him and withdrew money by presenting withdrawal cheques in the name of Gitamayee. During the relevant period, from 1981 to 1986, the Appellant undertook several insurance business in the name of Gitamayee putting her agent code number (3570/16/487) on the proposal forms and submitted commission vouchers forging signatures of Gitamayee and received twenty six commission cheques for different amounts from the period from 1981 to 1986, with details as follows:-

(3.) In all these six appeals the accused and victim are same. The accusations relate to same series of transaction starting from the year 1981 till 1986. One F.I.R. was registered and the same charge-sheet filed in all the six trials. The learned trial court while framing charge, split it into six charges confining the charge in each trial within the span of twelve months. In T.R. No.14/10 of 1999/90 concerning CRA No.70, the period of transaction is from January 1984 to December 1984, where the Appellant received three commission cheques for different amounts from the Division Office, deposited the same in SB Account No.282 and withdrew total sum of Rs.6652.00 from the account presenting cheques on 27/1/1984, 7/7/1984 and 25/10/1984 using forged signatures of Gitamayee Das on the withdrawal cheques. Similarly the period of transaction in T.R. No.12/8 of 1999/90 concerning CRA No.71 is for the year 1982, the period of transaction in T.R. No.13/09 of 1999/1990 concerning CRA No.72/2002 is for the year 1983, the period of transaction in T.R. No.11/02 of 1999/1990 concerning CRA No.73/2002 is from August 1981 to December 1981, the period of transaction in T.R. No.16/12 of 1999/19990 concerning CRA No.74/2002 is for the year 1986 and in T.R. No.15/11 of 1999/1990 concerning CRA No.75/2002, the period of transaction is for the year 1985.