NIRMALENDU BISWAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 2-11-79 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam, at Gauhati in Special Case No. 10 of 1975. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Court found the accused person guilty under S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption. Act, 1947 and under S.420, I.P.C. and convicted him accordingly. The learned Special Judge sentenced the accused person to undergo rigorous imprisonment for term of one year and fine of Rs. 800/- for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under S.420, I.P.C. The sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) On 9-4-73, the Superintendent of Police, Delhi Special Police Establishment, Shillong filed the First Information Report and from the said F.I.R. I find that according to the prosecution Late B.N. Borbora while functioning as Extra Assistant Commissioner and Ex-officio Assistant Director (Establishment) in the office of the Director of Supply and Transport, Arunachal Pradesh at Jorhat entered into a criminal conspiracy with the accused Sri. N. Biswas, the then Office Superintendent (Establishment) in the same office and in pursuance of such a conspiracy made a fake appointment order in the name of one fictitious person Sri. N. Ahmed for the post of peon in the office of the Assistant Director, Supply and Transport, Arunachal Pradesh at North Lakhimpur without the approval of the Director for the period from 1-7-71 to 30-11-71. The said alleged fake appointment order No. Estt-R/67 (PER)/25 was issued on 4-2-72. It is further alleged that pay and allowances of the said peon Sri N. Ahmed for the above period amounting to Rs. 775/- was drawn on 9-2-72 at Jorhat and was sent to North Lakhimpur with an Acquittance Roll through accused N. Biswas for payment. It is further alleged that the signature of the payee on the Acquittance Roll was not attested by any officer nor a disbursement certificate by the officer-in-charge of North Lakhimpur Branch Office was obtained along with the Acquittance Roll. This amount was entered in the cash book maintained at Jorhat office on 16-2-72 and was attested by late B.N. Borbora. According to prosecution, no such person known as Sri N. Ahmed ever worked for the above period and as such the amount was drawn falsely and was shown falsely as disbursed and thereby the administration of Arunachal Pradesh was cheated. However, after investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against accused N. Biswas and one Praduyat Barkataki, Cashier in the office of the Director of Supply and Transport at Jorhat and in the charge-sheet, it was alleged that accused N. Biswas and Sri Barkataki, Cashier conspired together and as a result of such conspiracy Cashier Barkataki handed over the said amount of Rs. 775/- to the accused Sri N. Biswas although no such person by name Shri N. Ahmed was appointed or was working for the aforesaid period. No charge-sheet however, was submitted against late B.N. Borbora, but he was cited as a witness for the prosecutor. From the F.I.R. and charge-sheet, it transpires that one Sri B.P. Sharma was working in the office of the Assistant Director of Supply and Transport at North Lakhimpur and he went on leave with effect from 2-1-71 and one Sri K. Tayo was recommended for appointment in the vacancy caused due to leave of Sri B.P. Sarma. Since this was not accepted one Sri S. Tapno was recommended for appointment who was appointed as peon with effect from 1-12-71. It is alleged that in processing the appointment of Sri Tapno accused N. Biswas made a false statement that Sri N. Ahmed worked as peon from 1-7-71 to 30-11-71 in the vacant post of Sri B.P. Sarma. According to the prosecution on the basis of the above note of the accused, appointment order of Sri N. Ahmad was issued on 4-2-1972.

(3.) The learned Special Judge discharged Sri P. Barkataki but framed charge against the accused-appellant under S.5(1)(d) punishable under S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for short, 'the Act' and under S.420, I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty.