BINOD MORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 read with Sections 401 and 397 of the CrPC has been filed challenging the order dated 8.4.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam in special case 29/2004 whereby the court has formed the opinion as regards framing of charge against the accused petiti-oner and by the order dated 6.5.2005 the court has framed charge against the petitioner under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC.

(2.) The facts leading to the launching of prosecution is that the accused petitioner who is one of the partners of M/s Joyti Flour Mills of Nagaon has received Rs 33,74,550/- as settlement of fire insurance claim against the policy from Oriental Insurance Company on the basis of concocted facts and manufactured documents as against the fire broke out in its premises on 17.6.1994. A survey was made in respect of the damage and loss of the mill and machinery by two insurance surveyors, Mr. SP Sarma and Mr AK Pansari who assessed the loss of the mill and machinery at Rs. 48,48,069/-. However, the insurance company made the assessment at Rs 33,74,550/-. On the basis of the said assessment the insurance company has made payment. An FIR was lodged alleging that the petitioner in conspiracy with the Executive Officer of Nagaon Municipal Board(A2) and Gnanda Kr. Bora, Assistant Engineer of the said municipality have hugely inflated the claims and they have fabricated false damage certificate showing 6500 quintals of wheat being gutted in fire. It is also alleged that the wheat stock weighing 375.71 quintals was inflated to 3153.72 quintals by using false documents. Thereafter the petitioner in order to grab the entire insurance money had conspired with Tua Ram Bora, Sub-registrar (A3) and prepared false retirement deed bearing no.699/94 showing retirement of Mr. Pawan Kr More and other partners.

(3.) Charge sheet has been filed against four persons under Section 120B read with Section 420/511 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(I)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner and the accused A2, A3 and A4. The learned Special Judge framed charge against the petitioner along with other accused(A3 and A4) on 6.5.2005 under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC, and discharged A2 with reasons therefor.