IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36706 of 2008 RAJDEO SINGH … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU. VIG. … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Kr.Singh With Cr.Misc. No.36896 of 2008 ASHOK KUMAR SINGH … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU.VIGILANCE … Opp.Party For the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh For the Vigilance : Mr. Rakesh Kumar ( in both the cases) - - - - 2. 1.10.2008 Heard Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner Rajdeo Singh, Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner Ashok Kumar Singh and Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Vigilance. Petitioner Rajdeo Singh was holding he post of Assistant Accountant of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Ltd. Gaya(‘Corporation’ in short) and petitioner Ashok Kumar Singh was its District Manager. The case relates to the alleged manipulations in creation of bank drafts and supply of grains to different Public Distribution System dealers of three Districts- Gaya, Arwal and Jehanabad. The dealers were confined to five Blocks of three 2 Districts and their number was 49. What was the mode of defalcation has been detailed in the F.I.R. and as per it the dealers used to purchase the bank drafts from different banks for receiving the supply of food grains from the Godown of the Corporation. However, from the level of the Marketing Officers and the dealers, under a planned conspiracy, the amount of the drafts used to be increased. This has been illustrated by the prosecution in the table appearing at page 1 of the typed report. One could pick up any serial of the table to get the reality behind the defalcation. If the draft was, say, of the value of Rs. 950/- what used to be done was that any numerical was put behind on the left side of the amount so as to increasing it many fold. At serial no. 4 the bank draft was of Rs. 900/- and it was enhanced to Rs. 8900/-, thus, increasing the value of draft of Rs. 900/- to Rs. 8,000/- by putting ‘8’ behind ‘900’. Naturally, the supply order has to be inflated. The duty of petitioner Rajdeo Singh was to receive the supply orders from the Supply Officers/Marketing Officers along with 3 the bank drafts and had to make entries in the relevant register, the value of the draft and issue store issue order along with the quantity of the grains or commodities supplied and the amount of the draft. It was a well planned and thought out execution of the offence of defalcating the amount and grain which was either illegally supplied or sold in black market by the petitioners. The entire amount which was defalcated was to the tune of Rs. 31,87,617/- and this was within a short period spread over from May, 2007 to May 2008. While arguing for petitioner Rajdeo Singh learned counsel Shri Ashwani Kumar singh submitted that, in fact, the petitioner did not have any knowledge of the inflated amount of the draft and he had to handle a huge number of such drafts which could be running into many thousands on a day and has to issue the Store Issue Orders for issuing the grains or commodities to the dealers and on account of heavy workload, he could not be expected to so minutely examine the drafts and find out the anomaly. The further contention was that these bank drafts were received ahead of 4 receipt of the supply orders from the Marketing Officers and store issue orders used to be issued and it could not be possible for the petitioner to find out the anomaly. The other contention was that as soon as the matter was detected the Public Distribution System dealers were contacted and they accepted the act of enhancing the amount in the drafts and also deposited various sums of money as is indicated at page 14 of the typed report. It was contended that it could be an act of financial irregularity or an act of dereliction of duty of the petitioner for which the petitioner could not be prosecuted as it may not constitute any offence. As regards the prayer for bail of petitioner Ashok Kumar Singh, the District Manager, of the Corporation, Gaya, the contention was that he joined in the year 2006 and as soon as he came to know that there was some irregularity committed in issuance of store issue orders, in the light of the bank drafts, he took up the matter with the Managing Director of the Corporation and requested for getting the accounts of the 5 Corporation audited and, accordingly, a firm of Chartered Accountants was requested to audit the accounts of the Corporation and submit a report. As such, the petitioner could not be said to be having any mensrea. It was further contended that it was the duty of other staff/employees of the Corporation to attend to the acts of receipt of the bank drafts and ensure entry of the same in the relevant register and issue of store issue orders to different Public Distribution System dealers. Learned counsel also submitted, as was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner Rajdeo Singh that the total No.of 3460 dealers were being handled by the godown in Gaya and it was an extremely heavy work load upon the godown staff and it could not have been possible to so minutely reading and scrutinizing each and every document before issuance of store issue orders prior to supply of the commodities. It was further contended that in any view of the matter, all the amounts which were the difference amounts between the enhanced amount and the real draft amount, have been deposited by the 6 dealers as per the details appearing at page 14 of the F.I.R. A similar contention was raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Ashok Kumar Singh that it could be an act of dereliction of duty or a financial irregularity which could not have invited as serious an action as lodging of the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the Vigilance department has drawn the attention of the Court to certain parts of the F.I.R. specially that appearing at page 2 of the report as to what was the real amount of defalcation and how the amount was defalcated and contended that this appears a well planned and executed act of defalcation and that is accepted by the fact that the petitioners who were required to maintain the accounts properly by creating Bank Reconciliation Statements after reconciling statements received from different banks in respect of drafts issued in favour of the Corporation with those which were duly received by it and the anomaly could very well be there at the time of the audit of the accounts of the Corporation, yet, they did 7 not take care of it and it was only when the Vigilance Department was investigating similar complaints in some other districts that a concerted effort was made by all the accused persons to control the damage and to create an evidence in their favour by forcing the dealers to deposit the difference- sums as indicated in the F.I.R. The corporation, as per the ordinary logic, was expected to create reconciliation statement or atleast could be required to verify the record of draft by seeking statements from different banks as regards its genuineness. Even if there had been any anomaly it could be the ordinary practice of any institute which is engaged in trade and commerce to verify the real worth of an instrument like the bank draft even if it had supplied the article or commodity to any of its dealers. It was excepted that it could have been done even after the supply. This could be simply for the reason to satisfy itself that there is no fraud upon the corporation by any organization indulging in trade or commerce. This was a real part of 8 the duty of the Godown Manager as also the Assistant Accountant, like, the petitioners and as appears from page 5 of the report they could have found the real difference but still they were not doing anything except to hire a firm of Chartered Accountants, as named in column of the accused of the F.I.R., for creating an eye wash and an evidence in defence that everything in the Corporation was normal. The petitioner Ashok Kumar Singh being the head of the Corporation could not shirk his responsibility or to plead that he was not ordained to pay his attention to the real cause as to what had happened. As regards petitioner Rajdeo sigh, it was his duty. The facts stated in the F.IR. indicate that the defalcation was in respect of thee District and the duty of receiving the bank drafts, making the entries of those drafts in the relevant register and then issuing the store issue orders was of one person. So definitely there was only one employee of the Corporation and that was petitioner Rajdeo Singh. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that it was done with a particular purpose by keeping the acts of 9 defalcation and misappropriation confined to the petitioners District Manager and the Assistant Accountants. These are the circumstances which clearly give the replies to the contentions of counsel for the petitioners that the facts really constitute an offence. Before I part with the matter, I could direct that that the lower courts, specially, the trial court shall not keep these observations in its mind while it is delivering the final judgment. In the result, I do not find any merit in these two petitions. They are dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)