R.R.SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.11.2003 passed by Special Judge,C.B.I.-cum- Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in R.C. Case no. 30(A)/85( PAT), whereby he convicted the appellants under sections 420/409/471 read with Sections 467/477A of the I.P.C. as also under sections 5(1)(c) and (d) punishable under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three years under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 with fine of Rs.1000/- and further sentenced themto undergo R.I. for one year for the offence committed under section 420 I.P.C., two years R.I. for the offence committed under section 409 I.P.C. , two years R.I. for the offence committed under section 477A I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.1000/- and three years R.I. for the offence committed under section 467 I.P.C.. He further ordered that all the sentences will run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief, as alleged in the F.I.R. (Ext.1) is that both the appellants hatched a conspiracy to cheat Railway for their illegal pecuniary gain. It is further alleged that in pursuance of aforesaid conspiracy , they prepared inflated bill for the month of April, May and June 1985 of Unit no. CPB 361( office staff) of Loco Fore-man, Eastern Railway,Dhanbad . It is then alleged that said bills were signed by appellant Akbar Hussain. It is alleged that appellant R.R. Sinha received entire amount mentioned in aforesaid inflated bills from the office of Senior Cashier and after disbursement retained excess amount i.e. Rs. 21,708=65, drawn fraudulently and mis-appropriated the same in collusion with appellant Akbar Hussain.

(3.) On the basis of aforesaid allegation , C.B.I. instituted a case bearing R.C. case No. 30(A)/85(PAT) dated 31.10.85 under section 120B/ 409/420/477A I.P.C. and sections 5(2) read with section 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and took up investigation. It further appears that after completing investigation, C.B.I. submitted charge-sheet against appellants under sections 120B/420/409/467/477A of the I.P.C. and Sections 5(2) read with section 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It appears that on the basis of said charge-sheet Special Judge, C.B.I. took cognizance of aforesaid offences and thereafter framed and explained charges to the appellants under sections 120B/420/409/471/467/477A I.P.C. and sections 5(1)(c) and (d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to which appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, prosecution examined altogether 14 witnesses in support of its case. It also adduced documentary evidence details of which given in exhibit list.