TRILOCHAN KAPOOR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Accused/Appellant was charged with a total of thirteen counts, for offences under Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter, the 'IPC'), and one count under Sec. 13(1)(d)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter, the 'PC' Act). It is alleged that he defalcated a total sum of ? 62,511/- (Rupees sixty two thousand five hundred and eleven) only, during the period January, 2012 to May, 2012, from the Department of Economics, Statistics, Monitoring and Evaluation (for short, the 'DESM&E'), Government of Sikkim, where he was serving on deputation as a Deputy Director (Administration). The Appellant entered a plea of 'not guilty' to the Charges. On conclusion of the trial he was convicted of all the offences (supra), vide the impugned Judgment, dtd. 29/9/2018, in Sessions Trial (Vigilance) Case No.01 of 2017, of the Court of the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, South Sikkim, at Namchi. By the assailed Order on Sentence of the same date, for the offences under the IPC, he was sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment under each count, with fine imposed and default clause of imprisonment. For the offence under the PC Act, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with fine imposed and a default clause of imprisonment. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently, setting off the period of imprisonment already undergone by the Appellant during the investigation and trial. Aggrieved thereof, he is before this Court.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant put forth multipronged arguments contending firstly that;

(3.) Repudiating vehemently the arguments placed by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-Respondent submitted that, there are no medical documents to establish, that the Appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind during the period of offence i.e., January, 2012 to May, 2012, neither does the evidence of D.W.2 substantiate this ground. Relying on State of Sikkim vs. Rupesh Manger (Thapa) Crl.A. 08 of 2020, High Court of Sikkim, decided on 24/8/2022. it was urged that the requirements of insanity have been elucidated therein and the Appellant has failed to fulfill the criteria. That apart, Exhibit 17, the apology letter was issued on 23/5/2012, as the Appellant admitted therein to having committed the said offence, thereby ruling out the excuse of mental illness. That, the allegation made against P.W.8 pertaining to duress on the Appellant to submit the apology letter is dispelled by the evidence of P.W.5. The Appellant on having admitted his guilt before P.W.8 and others voluntarily submitted the apology letter. P.W.16 too heard the Appellant voluntarily admitting to P.W.8 about having cheated the Department, submitting false transfer Orders, false relieving Order, false last pay certificate pertaining to Priya Sharma and Ranjit Rai. P.Ws 7, 14 and 15, officials of the Department have also established the fact of embezzlement by the Appellant. Inviting the attention of this Court to Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. vs. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath and Others (1991) 2 SCC 141, it was contended that the offence was a continuing offence, planned and executed by the Appellant over a period of time, from where he reaped financial benefits, hence the plea of mental unsoundness is obnoxious. That, the evidence of D.W.2, the Appellant"s wife, in fact supports the Prosecution version, having deposed that her husband regularly attended office in a normal condition prior to registration of the case and during that period he was promoted from Administrative Officer to Deputy Director.