SITARAM JHA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16th December, 2013 of the learned Special Judge, CBI/District & Sessions Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland in R.C. 11/1985, by which the accused/appellant has been convicted under Sections 409/420 IPC, read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Pursuant to such conviction, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years for the offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 5(five) years for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. The prosecution story in brief is that the accused/appellant during his incumbency as Manager, Allahabad Bank, Changtongya Branch (Nagaland) from August, 1979 to August, 1981 entered into a criminal conspiracy with some unknown person(s) and dishonestly removed 15(fifteen) numbers of blank demand drafts Form from the Bank with the intention to defraud the bank. Out of the said demand drafts, 5(five) demand drafts had been issued on various Branches of Allahabad Banks for different amounts, such as Rs. 45,000/- (Khurseong); Rs. 48,000/- (Darjeeling); Rs. 20,000/- (Silchar); Rs. 20,000/- (Silchar) and Rs. 24,000/- (Silchar) in favour of Tapan Paul; Tapan Paul; Asit Roy and Sujit Paul, respectively. Out of the aforesaid 5(five) demand drafts allegedly issued by the accused/appellant, 4(four) Drafts aggregating to Rs. 1,12,000/- had been paid by the respective drawee Branches, whereas, according to the records of Changtongya Branch, Allahabad Bank, no money had been received at the Branch in consideration of the demand drafts so issued. It was alleged that the accused/appellant was responsible towards issuance of those demand drafts either without receiving any consideration money or misappropriated the entire amount of consideration money received against the same. It was further alleged that to facilitate the payment of those demand drafts, signatures/endorsements of the payee were also attested by the accused/appellant on the reverse of the instruments as also on the relative Draft advices sent to the Branches concerned.

(2.) To the above effect, Annexure-III complaint was lodged by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, SPE-Division, Silchar vide Crime No. 11/85-SIC dated 28th August, 1985, alleging offence against the accused/appellant under Sections 120B/409/420 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the then Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) In due course, investigation was carried out and charge-sheet No. 7/1986 dated 29th December, 1986 was submitted against the accused/appellant. From the materials on record, it appears that there was considerable delay in commencing the trial. Although the case was registered way back in 1985 but the judgment could be delivered only on 16th December, 2013. It is in the evidence that there was delay as documents had to be collected by the prosecution to establish the prosecution case in the trial.