NETRAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application has been directed against the order dated 20.3.1999 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1996, whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner was tried for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Magistrate who acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Sections 467, 468. and 471 of the IPC but he was found guilty for committing the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed and the learned appellate court confirmed the order of conviction sentence as recorded by the trial Court.

(2.) SOME of the relevant fact may be stated that the petitioner was appointed as Nayak in B.M.P., 16 by the Selection Committee on 15.4.1983. He continued in service for a pretty long period but later on it was detected that petitioner has obtained employment by furnishing wrong information, inasmuch, as his name was Net Ram but in his service book filed by him his name was described as Net Ram Sharma. Similarly, the petitioner was shown working as Nayak in the military service but he was only a constable and his character was fair but in the service book produced by him character was mentioned as exemplary. Dy. S.P. of B.M.P., 16 (PW 3) was entrusted to make an enquiry into the matter and he went to Banglore to make verification from the service book and he submitted his enquiry report wherein it was stated that the petitioner had actually given wrong informations to the authority at the time of obtaining employment. As such, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and subsequently FIR was lodged against him under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not have been convicted for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC when the trial Court had acquitted him of the charges under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, inasmuch, as Section 420, IPC was a consequential offence of the main offences viz. Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and both the Courts below committed illegality in convicting the petitioner under Section 420 of the IPC. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of Guru Bipin Singh v. Chongtham Manihar Singh and another, (1996) 11 SCC 622, wherein the apex Court held as hereunder :