(1.) Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.743 of 2016 wherein Ram Padarath Thakur is the appellant and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.763 of 2016 wherein Mangala Nand Jha is the appellant, arise out from common judgment of conviction and sentence dtd. 26/8/2016 passed by Special Judge, CBI, 1st, Patna relating to R.C. Case No.25 (A)/90, Special Case no.108/2011, on account thereof, have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
(2.) Both the appellants named above have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sec. 120B read with Ss. 418, 420, 468, 471, 477A of the IPC. The appellant M.N. Jha has further been found guilty for an offence punishable under Ss. 420, 418, 477A of the IPC, 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Appellant R.P. Thakur has been separately found guilty for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 468, 471 of the IPC. Appellant R.P. Thakur on account of being physically handicapped has been directed to undergo R.I. for three years as well to pay fine appertaining to Rs.2000.00 separately and independently for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 468, 471 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for six months under each head with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently with a further direction to set off the period having undergone during course of trial as provided under sec. 428 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 Appellant, M.N. Jha has been directed to undergo R.I. for three years for an offence punishable under Sec. 418 of the IPC, R.I. for three years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.2000.00 and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for six months, additionally under Sec. 420 I.P.C., to undergo R.I. for five years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.2000.00 in default thereof, to undergo R.I. for six months, additionally, for an offence punishable under Sec. 468 I.P.C. as well as 471 IPC, respectively, to undergo R.I. for three years for an offence punishable under Sec. 477A of the IPC, to undergo R.I. for five years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.2000.00 in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for six month, additionally, for an offence punishable under Sec. 13(2) of the P.C. Act with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently, with a further direction to set off the period having undergone during course of trial as provided under Sec. 428 Cr.P.C., 1973 However, there happens to be no indication with regard to infliction of sentence under Sec. 120B I.P.C. read with 420,418,468,471,477A IPC against both the appellants. However, rest of the accused were acquitted.
(3.) Informant R.S.S. Yadav (PW.10) recorded his own statement to the effect that he received information through reliable sources that Sri M.N. Jha, Branch Manager, Himadri Shekhar Mitra, Field Officer, Kalyan Kumar Vishwas, Field Officer, Chandrabhushan Choudhary, Cash Officer, Arvind Kumar Jha, Rural Development Officer, B.K. Jha, Agricultural Assistant SBI, ADB Branch Benipur, while occupying their respective post during the period of 1/4/1989 to 31/3/1990 entered into a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves including M/s Binod Khad Beej Bhandar, Habibpur, M/s Mithila Khad Bhandar, Aashapur along with some unknown persons and in furtherance of said conspiracy as well as misusing their official status, fraudulently and dishonestly sanctioned and disbursed Short Term Crop Loan amounting to Rs.23,26,831.00 to 311 farmers on the basis of forged and fabricated cash memos against purchase of fert ilizers and other agricultural inputs as well as also manipulated forged signature/certificate of the C.O. in order to facilitate the same and thereby defrauded the bank to the extent of Rs.23,26,831.00. It has also been alleged that aforesaid bank officials with an ill design flouted rules/circulars of the bank guiding the procedure for the short term loan, extended the loan facility to the loanees beyond the service area of the branch, no presanction survey was conducted and in some cases, it was done after disbursement of the loan, in some cases 100% of sanction loan amount were paid to the loanee at the first installment, against the circular wherein at a first instance 40% of sanctioned loan was to be paid while remaining 60% at second installment, in some cases land holdings certificate furnished along with the loan application were changed /altered, in some case landless persons were sanctioned loan and by such activity, they caused wrongful loss to bank having wrongful gain to them.