NIRAD KUMAR MAHAPATRA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 4th November, 2004 of the learned Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati in Special Case No. 16/2004, convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) months for the offence under Section 120(B) IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year and fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only and in default rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) months for the offence under Section 409 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year and fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only in default rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month for the offence under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for l(one) year and fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only in default, rigorous imprisonment for another l(one) month for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. All the sentences were to run concurrently but the accused/appellant has not undergone the sentence fully in view of the order dated 22nd December, 2004 passed in Misc. Case No. 629/2004, by which the execution of the sentence was stayed. As recorded in the impugned judgment of conviction, the accusation against the accused/appellant identified in the impugned judgment is A-1 and another Shri Deb Raj Singh identified as A-2 (since deceased) was that he entered into a criminal conspiracy with A-2, who happened to the managing partner of M/s. Everlite Engineering Industry, Panitola, Tinsukia to cheat various Banks and pursuant to such criminal conspiracy, they siphoned away huge sum of public money from the Banks in question. It was alleged that the accused/appellant in his capacity as Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Tinsukia and that of Duliajan Branch misappropriated an amount of Rs. 42.40 Lakhs being the cash remittance from different Branches of Allahabad Bank and also from the Bank of Baroda. In the said process, the accused/appellant abused and misused his official position as public servant.

(2.) On the basis of the FIR lodged by one Shri S.K. Saikia, the then SP, CBI, ACB, Shillong, a case was registered under Sections 120(B)/409/420/461/471 IPC as well as under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against the accused persons, i.e. A-1 and A-2. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted alleging commission of the offence, as aforesaid. In due course, charge was framed against the accused/appellant under Section 120(B)/409 IPC and under Section 5(1)(c)/5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. On the other hand, charges under Section 120(B)/420 IPC were framed against the accused A-2. Charges levelled against the accused/appellant being read over and explained, he pleaded not guilty of the same and claimed to be tried.

(3.) During trial, prosecution examined as many as 32(thirty-two) witnesses. It also placed reliance on a number of documents. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. The defence examined 1 (one) witness. Before conclusion of the trial, accused A-2 died and as such, the case against him stood abated. On the basis of the evidence on record including the confessional statement (Exhibit-204), the learned trial Court having convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforesaid, he preferred this appeal. As noted above, ever since the appeal was admitted, the impugned sentence is under order of suspension.