LALDAWNGLIANA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. For the sake of convenience, the appellant in Crl.A. No. 9/2022 will be referred to as Appellant No. 1 while the appellant in Crl.A. No. 10/2022 will be referred to as Appellant No. 2.

(2.) Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants who submits that the appellants being aggrieved with the Judgment and Order dtd. 24/6/2022 and the sentence order dtd. 24/6/2022 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Mizoram, Aizawl in SR (PCA) No. 2/2016 have filed the appeals separately. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant No. 1 under Sec. 120B/420/409/477A IPC read with Sec. 13(1)(c)(d) and Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act) and the Appellant No. 2 under Sec. 120B/420/403 IPC and accordingly sentenced Appellant No. 1 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years under Sec. 120B/420 IPC, two years under Sec. 120B/409 IPC, two years under Sec. 477A IPC and two years under Sec. 13(1)(c)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the P.C Act and to pay a fine of Rs.3,63,000.00 with a default clause while sentencing the Appellant No. 2 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two (2) years under Sec. 120B/420 IPC and 1 year under Sec. 403 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.3,63,000.00 with a default clause. The learned Trial Court has directed that all the sentences would run concurrently.

(3.) Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants by referring to paragraph 17 of the impugned Judgment and Order submits that the charge framed against the appellants nowhere alleges that the 66 rolls of 4 SWG Chain Link Wire-mesh was never supplied for use in Kau-Tlabung Small Hydel Project but the learned Trial Court vide the impugned Judgment and Order held that the same was not supplied to the said Electrical Sub-Division. The learned counsel also submits that the appellants have been convicted mainly on the basis of the deposition of PW-29 whose evidence otherwise was not even corroborated by any other witnesses. He further submits that the evidence of the two defence witnesses produced and examined by the appellants was not taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court before passing the impugned Judgment and Order. He therefore submits that the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and the order of Sentence are not sustainable in law and should be set aside.