SHEO BALAK SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above named four appellants were convicted by Sri Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Special Judge, (Vigilance) North Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 25 of 1989 for the offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 420, 467/34, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 467/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and furthermore, all the appellants were also fined of rupees five hundred each for the offence punishable under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 25.05.2001. However, all the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. Since all the aforesaid appeals have arisen out of the aforesaid common judgment of conviction and sentence order, all the above stated criminal appeals were heard together and a common judgment is being passed in all the above stated criminal appeals.

(2.) THE brief fact giving rise to file these criminal appeals is that P.W.8, Rameshwar Nath Mishra, the Police Inspector, Cabinet (Vigilance Department Investigation Bureau), Patna gave written report to officer in charge of Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Police Station, Bihar, Patna on 11.10.1982 stating therein that preliminary enquiry against appellant Dr. Janardan Narayan Prasad, the then in charge of Medical Officer, State Hospital, Raxaul, was conducted and prima facie it came to light that he, in collusion with rest appellants, misappropriated government money amounting to Rs. 530.00 after showing the same as distributed amongst 19 patients and 15 motivators in vasectomy operations which were actually not performed and the amount was distributed amongst them after forging the documents. He further stated in his written report that the thumb impressions of patients and motivators were examined by the expert and thumb impressions of 19 patients and 15 motivators were found similar.

(3.) IN course of trial, altogether, ten prosecution witnesses were examined and besides the oral evidence, prosecution also got exhibited signature of P.W.2 on seizure list as Exhibit-1, signature of P.W.7 on seizure list as Exhibit 1/1, sanction orders as Exhibit-2 series, verification report of P.W.8 as Exhibit-3 series, entries in vasectomy register as Exhibit-4 series, expert report of Director Finger Print, CID, Bihar, Patna as Exhibit-5 and formal first information report as Exhibit-6. The statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution story. Two defence witnesses were also examined on behalf of the appellants.