CR.A/1277/1986 1/20 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1277 of 1986 With CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 54 of 1987 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 564 of 1987 In CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1277 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= ARVIND KESHAVLAL SHAH - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR NS SHETH for Appellant(s) : 1, MS ML SHAL, LD.ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, MR YN RAVANI for Respondent (s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI Date : 25/09/2008 CR.A/1277/1986 2/20 JUDGMENT COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH) 1. The appellant-orig.convict has preferred present appeal under Section 374 read with Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29th October 1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, in Special Case No.6 of 1986, whereby the learned trial Judge has held the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 420, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the learned Special Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of CR.A/1277/1986 3/20 JUDGMENT payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offences punishable under Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. No separate sentence is ordered for the offences punishable under Sections 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The legality and validity of the aforesaid judgment and order of the conviction and sentence has been challenged by the appellant on various grounds mentioned in the memo of the appeal, however, Shri N.S. Sheth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that after payment of entire amount of fine of Rs.7,000/- on 19th November 1986, the appellant prayed for admission of the appeal, while in Jail. 3. This Court on 17th March 1987 while admitting the appeal ordered to issue notice to show CR.A/1277/1986 4/20 JUDGMENT cause as to why the sentence should not be enhanced. The Division Bench of this Court (Coram : M.B. Shah and B.S. Kapadia, JJ) ordered, “Appeal admitted. Enhancement notice against the appellant to issue.” Thus, issuance of the said notice, the Court initiated 'suo motu' proceedings by way of Misc. Criminal Application No.564 of 1987. Meanwhile, the Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda, Relief Road Branch, Ahmedabad, moved this Court by way of preferring Criminal Revision Application No.54 of 1987 being the original complainant, by expressing grievance that the punishment imposed by the learned trial Judge is inadequate for the grounds mentioned in the memo of the Revision Application. 4. The offence in question as was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI' for short), the Union of India is joined as a party respondent no.2 and the State of Gujarat is a party respondent no.3 in present proceedings. Today we have heard Shri N.S. Sheth, learned counsel appearing for the CR.A/1277/1986 5/20 JUDGMENT appellant; Shri Y.N. Ravani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CBI and Ms.M.L. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 5. Shri N.S. Sheth has taken us through the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge and the nature of charge which the appellant was asked to face on the strength of the papers of investigation and the nature of evidence collected by the Investigating Agency. The learned trial Judge has considered the oral as well as documentary evidence and on appreciation of the evidence objectively decided to acquit the appellant from the charge of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned trial Judge held him guilty for the offences as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of this judgment and sentenced him accordingly. 6. Before this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge could be heard, the appellant in the meanwhile served the sentence for entire CR.A/1277/1986 6/20 JUDGMENT period of four years as the sentence was ordered to run concurrently. In the year 1987 i.e. on 12th February 1987, the appellant had tendered one pursis for withdrawal of aforesaid Criminal Appeal preferred by him when he was undergoing imprisonment, and requested the Court that his appeal may be treated as withdrawn and disposed of as he is not inclined to press the appeal on merit. However, no formal order obviously has been passed by this Court, more particularly, keeping in mind the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as on account of two different proceedings pending i.e. Criminal Revision Application No.54 of 1987 preferred by the orig. complainant and the 'suo motu' proceedings initiated by the Court for enhancement of sentence. Today the Court is, therefore, supposed to deal with the Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant on merit. 7. On careful reading of the evidence evaluated by the learned trial Judge, it appears that the reasons assigned by the learned trial CR.A/1277/1986 7/20 JUDGMENT Judge are sound and adequate. The learned trial Judge while holding the appellant guilty has adopted the theory of elimination and has reached to a conclusion that the scope of involvement of other staff members of the appellant, including cashier, in actual commission of offence is not possible. The expert opinion and the evidence of expert who has examined the questioned document, also has been appreciated on the strength of the evidence of Assistant Examiner of the questioned document. So the oral evidence of witnesses has been found corroborated by the opinion evidence of the expert. The finding recorded is that the specimen hand-writings and/or the signatures of the appellant are tallying with the questioned writing and the signatures. When it was not the defence of the appellant that he was not a public servant and at least during the period in which the offence is found to have been committed, he cannot be said to be on duty. All these clearly transpire that the appellant is guilty of all the charges, except the charge of offences punishable under Sections 409 and CR.A/1277/1986 8/20 JUDGMENT 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant law has also been discussed by the learned trial Judge, which according to us, clearly helps the prosecution. 8. The documents relied upon by the prosecution have been appropriately proved and as per the scheme of the Indian Evidence Act. It is not possible for us to agree with the submission made by Shri N.S. Sheth today that as the trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the charge of offence punishable under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, he ought not to have been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code because both these offences have been proved individually on the strength of the evidence led by the prosecuting agency. The Court cannot ignore the evidence as to the status and role of accused as employee of the complainant-Bank i.e.Bank of Baroda. The appellant has been given fair play during the course of trial. It appears that as the appellant must have realized that there is no worth in prosecuting the appeal further, he CR.A/1277/1986 9/20 JUDGMENT with a view to accept the change filed a note before the Registry of this Court through his learned counsel that he (the appellant) is not interested in prosecuting the appeal further. According to us, it is relevant to note that at the time of submitting note for withdrawal of appeal, the appellant was serving the sentence after payment of amount of fine. 9. We are conscious of one fact that the Apex Court has observed that protraction of trial or pendency of a criminal appeal for long i.e. time gap between the date of offence and the order of final verdict, is not relevant and the appellant, if, is held guilty, he should be punished with adequate sentence. But according to us, this is not a case of sending the appellant in Jail for the first time or reversal of acquittal appeal or enhancement of sentence for the reason that the learned trial Judge had failed in imposing minimum punishment prescribed under the provisions of the Act in particular. 10. So adopting the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge, it is possible for us to CR.A/1277/1986 10/20 JUDGMENT conclude that even otherwise there is no merit in the appeal and, therefore, the same is required to be dismissed. We are not addressed by the learned counsel appearing for complainant-Bank of Baroda as the cause is taken up by the Investigating Agency namely CBI. Shri Y.N. Ravani while submitting on behalf of prosecuting agency has hammered that this is a fit case where the appellant ought to have been sentenced for maximum period as the appellant had acted dishonestly and in a corrupt manner by defrauding the complainant- Bank. At the end of investigation it was found that amount of more than Rs.82 lakhs has been misappropriated by the appellant. So the imprisonment imposed by the learned trial Judge ought to have been at least of 7 years and the amount of fine of Rs.5000/- imposed by the learned trial Judge is negligible. In such cases, the Court should normally impose an exemplary punishment of fine so that the same can deter others contemplating to commit such or similar offence in the capacity of an employee of a financial institution like Bank or Government treasury. The limit of CR.A/1277/1986 11/20 JUDGMENT imposition of fine of Rs.5000/- is only with the Magistrate trying small and petty offences or the offence which cannot be said to be so grave. It is even provided that in a given fit case the Magistrate can refer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for passing appropriate substantive sentence and punishment of fine of higher quantum. This case being a case tried for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code as well as the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Old), the learned trial Judge could have imposed fine of any amount, may be of Rs.1 lakh or Rs.2 lakhs or even Rs.5 lakhs and, therefore, the present appellant should be sent to Jail for at least three more years and should be asked to pay higher amount of fine which this Court may deem fit. 11. Similar submission has been made by Ms.M.L. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State. The grievance of the respondent-State is that inadequate punishment tempts the persons CR.A/1277/1986 12/20 JUDGMENT having criminal mentality to commit such economic offences and, therefore, this Court should observe that in the case of offences qua property, like criminal breach of trust, forgery, etc. with an intention to chit or misappropriate money, the Court should not feel satisfied by imposing inadequate punishment which would look symbolic as it has been done in the present case by imposing fine of only Rs.5000/-. 12. According to us, the learned trial Judge appears to have considered the scheme of punishment on establishment of guilt prescribed under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned trial Judge may have taken a liberal view while imposing fine looking to a particular ill-habit, which has come on record in the nature of evidence led by prosecution to prove the motive for committing such a grievous offence, so the family members of the appellant at least may not suffer any further inconvenience or loss merely because the habit of the head of the family or earning member of CR.A/1277/1986 13/20 JUDGMENT the family has dragged his life on a wrong track. 13. On evaluation of the totality of facts and circumstances emerging from record and more particularly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge, we are in agreement that the sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be an adequate punishment and, therefore, the sentence is required to be enhanced. At this stage, the say of Shri N.S. Sheth needs some consideration that the appellant has already served the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years. He is out of prison since 1990. When he was sent to prison, he was an able-bodied person to serve the sentence and face the hardships. Today he has grown old by about more 18 years. At present he is aged 67 years. A copy of the birth certificate of the appellant has been shown to us by Shri N.S. Sheth. So at least he may not be asked to go to prison again because it may create undue hardship not only to him but also to his family members. E.g. A grand child of such an CR.A/1277/1986 14/20 JUDGMENT accused may not be even aware or made aware that his grandfather had committed one such offence and had been to prison. If such an accused is sent to prison again after about 20 years to undergo enhanced punishment on account of 'suo motu' proceedings initiated in the year 1987, is likely to have number of repercussions. A person who has shaped well after serving the sentence would lose his image and impression in the mind of young growing up family members. One may lose faith in system. The severity in punishment is always preferred where a heinous crime is committed. Indisputably, the offence in question is grave but cannot be termed as heinous crime against the society as a whole. The rigorous imprisonment is being imposed by the Courts only with a view to see that true message goes to the society and the period of 4 years' rigorous imprisonment cannot be said to be grossly inadequate period of punishment. Condition of jails before 20 years was different than of present time. The present case is not of sending the appellant to prison for the first time on establishment of guilt. CR.A/1277/1986 15/20 JUDGMENT Court should look meaningful while while imposing punishment not liberal. The quantum of punishment must be moderate and sufficient to send the current with some impetus to the society and, therefore, in the present case we are not inclined to agree with the submissions of Shri Y.N.Ravani and Ms.M.L. Shah that the appellant may be sent to prison again for some more years. However, we are not in agreement with the finding of the learned trial Judge that the amount of fine imposed at the relevant point of time was grossly inadequate. True it is that in those days rupees had some value and in present time the amount of Rs.5000/- has no such value; but the learned trial Judge ought to have imposed a minimum fine of Rs.1 lakh or Rs.2 lakhs. Considering the value of a rupee, if the fine of Rs.6 lakhs is imposed today, over and above the amount of fine imposed by the learned trial Judge which has already been paid, it would be justified so that the complainant-Bank may also be paid some amount out of the amount so realized. CR.A/1277/1986 16/20 JUDGMENT 14. Indisputably, the appellant was an employee of the victim-Bank of Baroda and it is a nationalised Bank. Each employee of such a Bank like that of the appellant, even as per the scheme adopted by the Bank, would get pension as well as other handsome retiral benefits. However, as the present appellant was held guilty while he was in service, he would not be entitled for any such benefits and that loss also should not lose sight while determining the amount of fine which needs to be enhanced. 15. We have also considered one fact which has been pointed out by Shri N.S. Sheth that the complainant-Bank has already prosecuted the appellant and he is facing a litigation in the form of Special Civil Suit for damages and recovery of amount by the complainant-Bank. We do not known as to whether the complainant- Bank will be able to satisfy the decree if passed in the said suit or not; but we are not concerned with the same. At present, we are concerned with the adequacy of the punishment and we have shown inclination to enhance the CR.A/1277/1986 17/20 JUDGMENT sentence of fine imposed by the learned trial Judge. The imposition of additional amount of Rs.6 lakhs towards fine thus would meet the ends of justice and the appellant may not have to go to prison if he pays the amount of fine within the prescribed time limit. In default punishment can be and should be imposed if the appellant fails to make payment of Rs.6 lakhs, enhanced amount of fine. This order according to us would take care of the prayer made by the complainant-Bank in the Revision Application and also the submissions made by the respondent-CBI as well as the respondent- State. 16. According to Shri Y.N. Ravani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CBI, in those days Special Cases filed by CBI were being tried at different places in the State of Gujarat and the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) was one such Court. Today in the entire State of Gujarat, only two Courts are trying Criminal cases where the CBI has made investigation and filed chargesheet in respect of offences punishable under the provisions of CR.A/1277/1986 18/20 JUDGMENT the Prevention of Corruption Act. So the appellant may be directed to pay the amount of fine in the CBI Court dealing with Special Cases instituted by the CBI under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, the following order is passed : (1) Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 1986 preferred by the appellant is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction under challenge in this appeal is hereby confirmed. (2) Criminal Revision Application No.54 of 1987 and Criminal Misc. Application No.564 of 1987 are hereby allowed. (3) The order of sentence of fine imposed by the learned trial Judge is hereby modified to the extent that now the appellant shall pay the amount of fine Rs.6 lakhs (Rupees Six Lakhs only) with the concerned trial Court within a period of 15 days from the date of CR.A/1277/1986 19/20 JUDGMENT receipt of writ of present judgment by the concerned trial Court. (4) Registrar of the CBI Court is directed to accept the amount of Rs.6 lakhs (Rupees Six Lakhs only) from the appellant herein. (5) For the administrative convenience, a copy of this order be served to the Registrar of CBI Court in advance, if need be, by a special messenger so that the amount of fine can be accepted and no administrative inconvenience is caused to a party. (6) On receipt of aforesaid amount of fine, the victim-Bank of Baroda, Relief Road Branch, Ahmedabad, be paid the amount of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs only) be paid out of the amount of Rs.6 lakhs, towards compensation contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is clarified that this amount is not a compensation awarded under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. CR.A/1277/1986 20/20 JUDGMENT (7) In default of payment of aforesaid amount of fine of Rs.6 lakhs, the appellant is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. It will be open for the concerned CBI Court dealing with the Special Cases today, to issue a non-bailable warrant on the 16th day from the date of receipt of writ of this Court, so that the appellant can be arrested and sent to jail to serve the in default punishment. (8) It is hereby clarified that the payment made to the victim-Bank of Baroda to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs shall have no relevance qua the civil litigation pending against the appellant. Order and directions accordingly. (C.K. Buch, J) (H.B. Antani, J) Aakar