LAWS(PAT)-2014-3-9

RATINDRA NATH BASU RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On March 10, 2014
Ratindra Nath Basu Rai Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge, CBI, South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No.68 of 1986 arising out of R.C.Case No.33 of 1986 and by judgment dated 20.12.1999, was found guilty of committing offence under Section 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as also offences under Sections 409 and 467 of the IPC. After being heard on sentence, he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years on each of the above three counts. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts admitted and those appearing from evidence appear that the National Aluminum Corporation Limited(NALCO) had awarded contract to construct 'A' type quarters for its NALCO Nagar, Orissa to M/S East India Construction Company, Chass, Dhanbad. It appears from the evidence of P.W.7 and other witnesses, like, P.W.10 N.S.Rao that the M/S East India Construction Company, Chass, Dhanabad( 'construction company' for short) had been awarded the contract and letter of intent was issued in its favour and they were required to enter into the agreement by furnishing a bank guarantee. It was alleged that the bank guarantees Exts -11/A to 11/D, were issued by the present appellant after forging it and without observing the rules laid down for issuing the bank guarantees. The further prosecution case was that the contract work was not completed in time and as such NALCO to wrote to the Bokaro Steel City Branch of the Bank of India, which was headed by the present appellant as its Branch Manager on 12.08.1984, the date of issuance of the four bank guarantees of the total value of Rs.5,10,200/ -, to extend the term of validity of the bank guarantees. When the letter was received from the NALCO requesting the extension in time of the bank guarantees, it was found that the bank guarantees had never been issued by the bank. The details were sought by the then Branch Manager of the Bank of India, Bokaro Steel City Branch of the bank by letter Ext -3 and other letter, like Ext -3A. The preliminary enquiry by the bank disclosed that the rules had not been followed. There had not been any request from the construction company for issuing the same and without there being any processing for issuing the bank guarantees Ext -11/A to 11/D series, the same had been issued by this appellant by forging the documents.

(3.) THE defence of the appellant was that the bank guarantee was forged and fabricated due to being created by the construction company by forging his signatures as also by fraudulently obtaining the seals of the bank over the document by alluring any peon of the Bank of India by the employees of the construction company as they were very much acquainted with the signatures of the appellant. The further defence was that there was no question of issuing the bank guarantees by the appellant or by his bank, that's, the Bokaro Steel City Branch of Bank of India, as the construction company did not have any account in that branch.