. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Appeal Nos. 454 of 2002 (S.J.) 1. Shiv Nandan Sahay Srivastava, S/o Sri Jagdish Narayan Lal, resident of Mohalla-Jagarnathpur, P.S. Rajghat, Distt. Gorakhpur (U.P.) 2. Raj Kishore Sinha, S/o Shri Saryu Sharan Sinha of D/115, P.C. Colony, P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna ……. Appellants Versus The State of Bihar through C.B.I. …………………. Respondent ----- With Cr. Appeal No. 471 of 2002 (S.J.) Madhvendra Prasad Singh, son of Late Devendra Singh, resident of Devendra Bhawan, Gosai Tola, P.S. Patliputra, District- Patna ………………. Appellant Versus The State of Bihar through C.B.I. …………………. Respondent ----- With Cr. Appeal No. 472 of 2002 (S.J.) Rajendra Prasad Singh, son of Shri Shiv Pal Singh, resident of Quarter No. 104, Shanti Lok, Nehru Nagar, P.S. Patliputra, District- Patna …………………Appellant Versus The State of Bihar through C.B.I. …………………. Respondent ------ With Cr. Appeal No. 477 of 2002 (S.J.) 1. Sardar Papindra Singh 2. Sardar Narendra Singh, Both sons of Late Rawel Singh, Resident of Sarswati Apartment, S.P.Verma Road, P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna ………………….. Appellants Versus The State of Bihar …………………. Respondent ----- With Cr. Appeal No. 485 of 2002 (S.J.) Ajay Kumar Sinha, S/o Late Bhubneshwar Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Naya Tola Patna, P.S. Kadamkuan, District- Patna ……………….. Appellant Versus The State of Bihar through C.B.I. …………………. Respondent ----- With Cr. Appeal No. 487 of 2002 (S.J.) Rana Ranjeet Singh, son of Late Bankey Bihari Singh, at present residing at 2H/45 Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Police Station- Agam Kuan, District- Patna ……………. Appellant Versus The State of Bihar …………………. Respondent 2 ----------------- Counsels for the Appellants:- M/S Mahendra Prasad Bhartee and Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocates (In Cr. Appeal No. 454/2002) Mr. Arvind Saroj, Advocate (In Cr. Appeal No. 471/2002) Mr. R.K. Singh, Advocate (In Cr. Appeal No. 472/2002) M/S Madan Mohan No.1, Sr. Advocate and Neeraj Madan, Advocate (In Cr. Appeal No. 485/2002) M/S. Chandra Shekhar, Sr. Advocate, Dilip Kumar Tiwary, L.B.Singh, Rana Randhir Singh and K.K.Tiwary, Advocates. (In Cr. Appeal No. 487/2002) Counsel for the C.B.I. in all the six cases:- Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, SC, CBI ------------- Against the judgment and order dated 17.8.2002 passed by Shri Braj Nandan Sahay, Spl. Judge, C.B.I., South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 41/87 (R.C.No. 15/87) ------------- P R E S E N T THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA R.K.Datta, J. All these six appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.8.2002 passed by Shri Braj Nandan Sahay, Special Judge, C.B.I., South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 41/87 (R.C.No. 15/87) by which the appellants, Raj Kishore Sinha, Madhvendra Prasad Singh, Rana Ranjit Singh, Ajay Kumar Sinha, Shiv Nandan Sahay Srivastava and Rajendra Prasad Singh have been convicted under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Sections 468 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for two years under each count and they have also been convicted under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468 and 477A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years; they have further been convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to undergo RI for two years, all the sentences are to run concurrently. Appellants Sardar 3 Papinder Singh and Sardar Narendra Singh have been convicted under Sections 420, 471 read with Section 468 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years under each section and they have been further convicted under Section 120B read with Sections 420,468,477A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years; they have been further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, in default of which, they would have to undergo SI for a period of six months and the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The FIR in the present R.C. Case No. 15/87-Pat dated 29.4.1987 was originally lodged for an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120B IPC stating that Tulsi Madhav Dutta, Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, Patna during the period 1984-85 entered into a conspiracy with R.P.Singh, Insurance Agent and M/s. Sabya Agency, Kankarbagh, Patna and in furtherance of which the said Tulsi Madhav Dutta sanctioned and paid a sum of Rs. 87,000/- to the said firm towards compensation claim on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents resulting in wrongful loss to the Insurance Company and corresponding wrongful gain to M/s Sabya Agency. It was alleged that the said firm, a dealer in T.V. sets, was not insured till 30.10.1984/1.11.1984 when it was looted by miscreants but in connivance with said R.P.Singh, the officers of Punjab National Bank had managed to procure a Bank draft of Rs. 2281/- dated 27.10.1984 and used the same in obtaining a back dated insurance form. It is further alleged that the claim of M/s. Sabya Agency was received in United India Insurance Company, Patna on 12.11.1984 and despite being advised by the Dealing Assistant to refer the same to the Regional Office, Kolkata since the occurrence had taken place within a week from the date of insurance, the said Tulsi Madhav Dutta without having the power to settle the same, sanctioned and paid the said amount without seeking instructions from the Regional Office, for which recovery has been ordered from the firm by the Regional Office subsequently. 4 3. After investigation the charge sheet dated 31.1.1989 was submitted by the CBI stating that after investigation it was found that the firm M/s. Saluja Agency, and not Sabya Agency as stated in the FIR, a partnership firm of Sardar Narendra Singh and Sardar Papinder Singh was looted by miscreants on 30.10.1984/1.11.1984 at which time it did not enjoy any insurance cover. The partners of the firm in connivance with said R.P.Singh, Insurance Agent, R.K.Sinha, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sampatchak Branch and Shiv Nandan Sahay Srivastava, Clerk-cum-Cashier of the Bank, obtained back dated Bank draft dated 27.10.1984 of Rs. 2281/- and used the same as premium for ante-dated insurance of the firm. Since purchase of Bank draft on payment of cash was not feasible, hence a cheque for Rs. 2500/- was issued in favour of Narendra Singh who was having an Account in the said Branch but without sufficient balance for the issuance of draft, notwithstanding the fact that the firm maintained a current Bank Account in SBI, Kankarbagh in which there was sufficient credit balance; the cheque was filled in by R.K.Sinha who got the bank draft prepared by Shiv Nandan Sahay Srivastava and signed the same. To prevent the detection of the ante-dating, various records of the Bank like ledger-sheet pertaining to SB Account of Sardar Narendra Singh, daily abstract and transfer journals were falsified by R.K.Sinha, Branch Manager and Ajay Kumar Sinha, and S.N.S.Srivastava, Clerks-cum-Cashiers in the Branch. It was found that original ledger-sheet of the SB account of Sardar Narendra Singh indicated the bank draft as having been issued on 5.11.1984 and R.K.Sinha removed the said ledger-sheet, kept the same in his house and got another ledger-sheet prepared with the help of Ajay Kumar Sinha without indicating that the same was duplicate. The original ledger-sheet was recovered from the house of said R.K.Sinha. R.P.Singh, Insurance Agent issued the Cover Note bearing No. 124892 in favour of the firm showing the period of insurance from 27.10.1984 to 26.10.1985. The bank draft of Rs. 2281/- being the amount of premium for granting insurance of Rs. 5 2,60,000/-, an undated proposal obtained from Sardar Papinder Singh along with undated cover note dishonestly and fraudulently counter signed by Madhvendra Prasad Singh, Inspector without putting date was received in the United India Insurance Company, Patna Branch-I on 12.11.1984 and Rana Ranjit Singh, the Branch Manager, fraudulently and dishonestly accepted the Cover Note and paved the way for the issue of acceptance advice on ante-dated application of Sardar Papinder Singh regarding looting of the firm received in the Branch of the Insurance Company which was seen by Arvind Prasad, Assistant Administrative Officer, P.W. 12. He put question mark and the same was brought to the notice of Rana Ranjit Singh. The Divisional Office was informed about the looting and T.M.Dutta, Sr. Divisional Manager ordered to depute Surveyor and on noting the discrepancies Shri K.K.Mishra, P.W. 10 and N.N.Das, P.W. 11, both Officers of Insurance Company were deputed to ascertain the date of issue of draft, who were deceived by Raj Kishore Sinha by showing forged papers to believe that the Bank draft was issued on 27.10.1984 and accordingly they submitted the report and on orders by T.M.Dutta, they also paid surprise visit to the firm to ascertain the extent of loss and finally payment of Rs. 87,000/-, i.e., 50% of the loss assessed by the Surveyors was ordered by T.M.Dutta and paid to Sardar Papinder Singh on 11.3.1985. On the basis of the aforesaid investigation, it was found that there was prima facie case under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471, 477A IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused persons. All the accused-appellants were accordingly put on trial. 4. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. The defence also examined two witnesses, namely, Uday Kumar, D.W.1 and Basant Paswan, DW 2. The specimen writings of the accused persons were also sent to the Government Examiner of documents, Central Forensic Science Institute, Government of India, Kolkata for comparison and the Examiner Darshan Dayal Goel was examined as P.W. 15 who found that the 6 admitted/specimen writings of the accused persons tallied with the writings on the documents sent. On the basis of the evidence on the record, the learned Special Judge, CBI came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charges leveled against the accused persons-appellants and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 5. The convict-appellants fall into three categories. In the first category are the two partners of the firm M/s. Saluja Agency, Kankarbagh, Patna, namely, Sardar Papinder Singh and Sardar Narendra Singh, who after the goods of their firm were looted in anti-Sikh riot immediately after the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister on 31.10.1984, managed to get a back-dated bank draft of Rs. 2281/- issued from Sampatchak Branch of Punjab National Bank and used the same for the purpose of premium for getting the Insurance Cover Note for the period from 27.10.1984 to 26.10.1985 covering what were already looted goods of the firm and thereafter made the claim and got half the claim amount paid by the Insurance Company. 6. The second category of convict-appellants are Raj Kishore Sinha, the then Branch Manager, Shiv Nandan Sahay Srivastava and Ajay Kumar Sinha, both cashier –cum- Clerk at the relevant time in the Punjab National Bank, Sampatchak Branch. The allegation against them is of having conspired with the partners of the firm M/s. Saluja Agency in getting back dated bank draft for Rs. 2281/- issued in favour of the firm so that the same could be used as premium for the issuance of back dated Cover Note. In the said process they had also manipulated and forged and fabricated various records of the Branch. 7. The third and last category consists of Rana Ranjit Singh, the then Branch Manager, Branch-I, United India Insurance Company, R.P.Singh, the Rural Representative/ Insurance Agent and Madhvendra Prasad Singh, the Insurance Inspector-cum-Development Officer who had taken part in the conspiracy at the level of the Insurance Company by issuing an ante-dated 7 Cover Note for the period from 27.10.1984 to 26.10.1985, countersigning and accepting the same which resulted ultimately in half the claim, i.e. Rs. 87000/-, being paid by the Divisional Office to the firm. 8. The prosecution allegation is that M/s. Saluja Agency maintained a current account in the State Bank of India, Kankarbagh Branch, Patna in which there was sufficient money which could have been used for preparation of draft. However, since the appellants, Sardar Papinder Singh and Sardar Narendra Singh intended to get a back-dated Cover Note of Insurance prepared in respect of goods which had already been looted on 31.10.1984/1.11.1984, they took assistance of the appellants, Branch Manager and two clerks-cum-cashiers of the Punjab National Bank, Sampatchak Branch where they also had an Account. However, the account did not contain sufficient balance for the preparation of bank draft and for the said purpose, the Branch Manager, Raj Kishore Sinha used the cheque book of one Anil Kumar Singh, P.W.9, Proprietor of Ranjan Engineering Works who had a cash credit Account with the Bank and had handed over a blank signed cheque book to the Manager of the Bank; a back-dated cheque was accordingly issued from the said account of Anil Kumar Singh in favour of Sardar Narendra Singh on the basis of which the back-dated bank draft of Rs. 2281/- dated 27.10.1984 was issued in favour of the United India Insurance Company. 9. In support of its case P.W. 6 Dhirendra Narayan Prasad, cashier-cum-clerk and P.W. 7 Jai Prakash Das, Accountant-cum-Second Officer, Punjab National Bank, Sampatchak Branch have been examined by the prosecution. P.W. 6 has stated that the writings on Cheque No. 337579 of Rs. 2500/-, Ext. 3, is that of appellant, Raj Kishore Sinha, the endorsement on its back to issue draft in favour of Insurance Company has also been proved as that of the same appellant. Ext. 4,5 and 6 the Transfer Credit Voucher dated 27.10.1984 for Rs. 2281/- have also been proved to be in his handwriting and signature and posting has also been made by him. Similarly, Ext. 7, the credit 8 pay-in-slip for Rs. 2500/- has also been proved by him to be in the handwriting of R.K.Sinha. The bank draft, Ext. 8 dated 27.10.1984 for Rs. 2281/- has also been proved by him to be in the signature of R.K.Sinha and Ext. 9A Transfer Journal and its entry dated 27.10.1984 at page 96 has also been proved by him to be in the handwriting of R.K.Sinha. It is stated that the said entry is in between the entries of 26.10.1984 and 29.10.1984 and the opinion was expressed by the witness that it appears to have been inserted. 10. Similarly, P.W. 7 Jai Prakash Das has proved Exts 3 to Ext. 10C. He has also stated that the writing, signature and posting at Exts. 4 to 7 are that of appellant Raj Kishore Sinha, except the signatures of Sardar Narendra Singh therein. He has further stated that the draft Ext. 8 is in the writings of appellant Ajay Kumar Sinha; so also the Sl. 1211 at page 16 of the Local and Outward Register are in the writing of Ajay Kumar Sinha. He has further stated that the entries on Ext. 9A Transfer Journal at page 96 pertaining to 25/26.10.1984, Ext. 10A is in his handwriting and checked by him. With respect to entry made on 29.10.1984, Ext. 10B, the same is in the handwriting of Raj Kishore Sinha and Basant Paswan, checked and signed by him. With respect to entry dated 27.10.1984, Ext. 10C, it is stated by him that the same is in the handwriting of appellant Raj Kishore Sinha. He has further submitted that when he checked the entries of 26.10.1984 and 29.10.1984, then on that date the entry dated 27.10.1984 had not been made on the said page. 11. P.Ws. 8 and 10 to 13 are the Officers of the United India Insurance Company. P.W.8, Manoj Kumar Sinha was Divisional Assistant Manager in the Divisional Office, Patna of the United India Insurance Company from 1985 to 1987. He has stated that the work of insurance is carried out in two parts, the first part is underwriting which is done at the level of the Branch and the other relates to claim which is done in the Divisional Office. He has stated that the Cover Note consists of one original and four carbon copies out of which the original is handed over to the Bank or the Insurer, the 2nd and 3rd 9 copies are kept in the Branch Office and one copy each are kept by the Agent and the Development Officer. He has further deposed that it is essential to mention the date of issue in the Cover Note. He has proved the Cover Note No. 124892 and also proved the writings and signatures of appellant R.P.Singh, Insurance Agent on the same. He further deposed that neither the original Cover Note (Ext. 11) nor the two carbon copies (Exts. 11A/11B) contain the date at the relevant column or near the signature nor is the date of issue mentioned therein. He has pointed out that the two carbon copies contain the signature of the Development Officer, Madhvendra Prasad Singh and Ext. 11A the signature of the Branch Manager, R.R.Singh but they have not put the date under their signatures. He has further proved the proposal (Ext. 12). He has stated that the Cover Note along with two carbon copies is sent to the Branch Office along with the proposal form and premium in the form of cash, cheque or draft. He also stated that the proposal form of M/s. Saluja Agency was sent with the carbon copy of the Cover Note. The proposal contained the signature of the Branch Manager, R.R. Singh below which the date 12.11.1984 has been mentioned which has been exhibited as Ext. 12. He has also proved the claim file, Ext. 13 of M/s. Saluja Agency maintained in the Divisional Office of the Insurance Company and the money receipt for Rs. 2281/- bearing the signature of Arvind Prasad (PW 12, the then AAO) as Exts. 12A and 12B. He has further proved the signatures on the various notes contained in the said file by different officials. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that the Inspector/Development Officer is fully competent to issue the Cover Note and it must contain his counter signature. He has stated that the Branch-I is a very big Branch and is number one or number two Branch of Bihar by size. (He has deposed in 1994, prior to re-organization of the State). He has admitted that he was Branch Manager in the said Branch in 1982-83 and at that time a large number of documents were received by post every day and he used to put his initials over the same which signature is in token of receipt of the paper. He has 10 further stated that on every bunch of documents initials and dates are given but on other pages the dates are not necessarily given. If the Branch Manager was busy, then the documents received by post were signed at times by the AAO or by an authorized Assistant also as token of receipt of the same and thereafter it was sent to the concerned sections for further action. The concerned Department used to examine the documents and make entries in the Register and thereafter acceptance of advice was made and was placed before another Officer. He has further stated that the acceptance advice in the present case was prepared on 12.11.1984 by Arvind Prasad, (PW 12). Thereafter it was sent to the Accounts Department and on all the documents being checked, the money receipt was made and after that it was sent to the concerned Department for preparing the policy. He has also admitted in his cross-examination after looking at Ext. 13 that in the present case after the documents were received from the Rural Representative/ Mufassil Inspector, Appellant Rana Ranjit Singh has not done any work with respect to Acceptance Advice and Money Receipt. He has further deposed that in the present matter the policy was never prepared. He has also stated that issuance of advice means that the company has accepted the business finally and the underwriter has also accepted it. He has stated that it is the Development Officer who is alone and totally responsible for agreement, commitment, transaction and acceptance. He has also stated that the payment in the present matter was made by the Senior Divisional Manager, T.M.Dutta and after him Rana Ranjit Singh took over charge as the Divisional Manager and he had recommended the matter to be fully investigated again by sending telegram to the Regional Office by appointment of another Surveyor. He has also stated that before allowing the claim the matter ought to be fully investigated at the level of the Divisional Office and only if everything is found to be in order, the claim should be given. 12. P.W.10, Kaushal Kishore Mishra was, at the relevant time, Branch Manager of Branch-II of the Insurance Company and P.W. 11, 11 Narendra Narayan Das was an Assistant Administrative Officer in the Divisional Office. They have deposed that they had been deputed by T.N.Dutta to enquire regarding the date of preparation of the draft from the Sampatchak Branch of Punjab National Bank. Both of them had gone there and had been told by the appellant, R.K.Sinha, Branch Manager that the draft had been prepared on 27.10.1984. They have also stated that the Transfer Journal was shown to them and the same was clearly written whereas the Transfer Journal which has been produced in Court, Ext. 9/A is having interpolations and the same was not shown to them. They have also stated that they gave their report dated 17.12.1984 (Ext.17). They have also stated that the entries in the Transfer Journal produced in Court shows interpolations which were not there in the Transfer Journal shown to them by the Branch Manager. They have further stated that they enquired regarding the postal receipt of the registered post through which the Bank draft was sent to the Bank but the postal receipt was not shown to them. It is also stated that they made query to the Branch Manager as to what interest he had with regard to the business as it was not clear for what purpose the Branch had sent the draft by incurring postal expenses. It was only after 2-3 days of their visit that it was informed that Xerox copy of the postal receipt dated 27.10.1984 was handed over which was marked as Ext. 22. 13. P.W.12, Arvind Prasad was the then Assistant Administrative Officer in the Branch-I of the Insurance Company. He has proved his signature on Acceptance Advice, money receipt, claim intimation slip, etc. He has also stated that on receipt of the proposal along with cover note, etc. it is the duty of the Branch Manager to see that it is filled up properly and only thereafter to send it to the office. It is stated that the proposal form had been accepted by the Branch Manager-appellant, R.R.Singh. He has also stated that the Rural Representative R.P.Singh had received the premium in the present matter without authority as he had no authority to issue the Cover Note. 12 14. P.W.13 is an Officer of the Insurance Company who has proved the signatures of various Officers of the Company including the report of the Surveyor. In his cross-examination he has stated that Cover Note can be issued by the Development Officer or the duly authorized agent of the Company as per rule. He has also supported the procedure followed in the Branch office of the Insurance Company in this regard as stated by P.W. 8. He has stated that the proposal along with the Cover Note, draft, etc. on receipt by post are put up before an Officer of the Branch, like the Branch Manager or the Officers posted there, who is required to put his signature and date and then send it to Section and thereafter the sections scrutinize the proposal form, Cover Note, Bank draft, etc. and then entry is made in the premium Register and number is allotted. 15. P.W. 9 Anil Kumar Singh is the proprietor of Ranjan Engineering Works from whose Bank Account the cheque of Rs. 2500/- was issued for transfer to the Account of appellant,