STATE OF BIHAR Vs. JATASHANKAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -State has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.12.1990 passed in Cr. Appeal Nos. 28, 29 and 30 of 1986. Respondent No. 1 (Jatashankar Prasad), preferred Cr. Appeal No. 28/86, respondent no. 2 (Jamuna Prasad) preferred Cr. Appeal No. 30/86 where as respondent no. 3 (Bhikham Prasad) preferred Cr. Appeal No. 29/86 being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 3.4.1986 passed by the learned Trial Court Tr. 717/86 (State V/s. Jamuna Prasad & Ors.) whereby the said respondents were convicted under various Sections of i.P.C. and sentenced thereunder. In order to put the record straight, it is to be recorded that during the pendency of this appeal, respondent no. 1 Jatashankar and respondent no. 3 (Bhikham Prasad) are reported to be dead (vide report.at Flag - 'B ').

(2.) There is no application for substitution filed on their behalf. In that view of the matter, the present Government appeal so far as respondent nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, stands abated. Now, the present appeal survives only In respect of respondent no. 2 Jamuna Prasad who was convicted by the learned Trial Court under Section 409 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, the said respondent further found guilty and convicted under Section 120B of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) THE prosecution case in short, is that the respondent no. 2 Jamuna Prasad (hereinafter to be referred as 'sole respondent ') was appointed as Government stockist of cement by S.D.O., Motihari sometimes in February, 1964 and he executed an agreement on 10.3.1964, deposited security in the form of National Saving Certificate(s) (8.3.1964) and thereafter started functioning as such for Mainatand block. It is further the prosecution case that the sole respondent took delivery of 26,958 bags of cement between April 1964 to February, 1968 and stored them in the godown located in Laxmipur village. The prosecution case further is that on permission/permits, the sole respondent supplied 7677 bags of cement between April. 1964 to September, 1968 and the balance of cement (19281 bags) remained in the custody/godown of aforesaid stockist (sole respondent). It has further been alleged that as there was no need of the remaining cement, the aforesaid balance stock was auctioned on 11.6.1969 and co -accused Jatashankar Prasad became the highest bidder but subsequently he defaulted in depositing the bid amount and to take delivery. It is further alleged that when the highest bidder namely Jatashankar Prasad did not deposit the bid amount, the remaining stock of cement was again auctioned on 26.7.1970 and one Harishankar Prasad this time became the highest bidder followed by accused Bikham Prasad who was adjudged the second highest bidder. This time also the highest bidder failed to deposit the money which was/is indicative of the fact that these highest bidders had also hands in gloves with the sole respondent.