B. RAGHUVIR ACHARYA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Sahara India and IDBI,· the evidence on record shows firstly, that on the applications of IDBI and Sahara India there is no broker's stamp, and A-3 had wrongfully and dishonestly claimed brokerage on 9.3.1992. The evidence of the employees of IDBI and Sahara India, namely, PW.2, H 136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. A PW.6 and PW.7, shows that no broker was involved in the transactions involving purchase of CANCIGO units of Rs. 32 crores face value, nor was A-3 authorised by IDBI and Sahara India to collect brokerage from CMF between September, 1991 and March, 1992. [para 48, 49 and 51] [157-B-C, E-F; 158-D] B

2.3 Therefore, it is clear that A-3 was not the broker with regard to four investments in question. The prosecution has proved that A-3 is guilty of making a false representation to CMF with full knowledge and it was so made to deceive CMF to part with an amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. [para 50-51] [158-B, D-E] C

3.1 This Court, in Devender Pal Singh, has held that acquittal of one accused does not raise doubt against D conviction of another accused. Acquittal of the co accused on the ground of non-corroboration has no application to the accused himself. [para ~5] [159-D-E] Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. E 2002 (2) SCR 767 = (2002) 5 SCC 234 - referred to. F

3.2 In the instant case, the prosecution proved that A-3 deceived CMF by making a false representation dated 9.3.1992 and dishonestly induced the official of CMF to deliver Rs.32.50 lakhs in his favour and he dishonestly received the amount and thereby committed offence u/s 420 IPC. Accused No.3 was originally charged for the offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust for receiving stolen property/falsification of accounts u/s 120-B, s. 420/ · 409, IPC apart from s. 411 and s.477-A IPC. This Court, G therefore, alters his conviction from that of u/s 409 to s.420 IPC and convicts him of offence u/s 420 IPC. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Further, as the prosecution successfully established the ingredients of dishonestly receiving H stolen property from Canara Bank i.e. Rs.32.50 lakhs B. RAGHUVIR ACHARYA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 137 INVESTIGATION against A-3, this Court upholds the order of his A conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court ul s 411, IPC. However, in view of the acquittal of A-1 and A-2, the order of conviction of A-3 uls 477-A is set aside. The judgment of the Special Judge is affirmed with modification. [para 58-59] [164-B-F] B