Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2795 of 1999 Ramendra Nath Sarkar (Died and deleted as per order dated 22.11.2013) through Legal Heir - Sulata Sarkar W/o Late Ramendra Nath Sarkar, Aged About 52 years, R/o Sillge Prochipara, P.S. Jarapara, District – Koraput (Orissa). The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) versus ... Appellant ... Respondent RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI For Applicant : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate, as well as Mr. Mohit Kaushal, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 12.08.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.10.1999 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), in Special Criminal Case No. 01/96, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 420 Rigorous imprisonment for 2 read with Section 120- 03 years and fine of Rs. B of the Indian Penal 7,000/-, in default of Code, 1860 (In short, payment of fine further RI ‘IPC’) for 09 months. Under Section 468/471 Rigorous imprisonment for read with Section 120- 02 years and fine of B of the IPC Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 06 months. Under Section 477A Rigorous imprisonment for read with Section 120- 02 years and fine of B of the IPC Rs.5,000/-. in default of payment of fine further RI for 06 months. Under Section 13(1)(d) Rigorous imprisonment for read with Section 13(2) 03 years and fine of of the Prevention of Rs.7,000/-. in default of Corruption Act, 1988 payment of fine further RI (In short, ‘PC Act’) for 09 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. At the very outset, it is to be mentioned that the appellant Ramendra Nath Sarkar died during the pendency of the present appeal, on account of which the appellant’s wife (Sulata Sarkar) moved an application seeking permission to contest the appeal on behalf of her husband, on the ground that the retiral benefits of late Ramendra Nath Sarkar had been withheld due to the pendency of the present appeal. Hence, she moved an application to contest the appeal after the death of the accused/appellant Ramendra Nath Sarkar, and the appeal is being contested by wife of the deceased, namely, Sulata Sarkar. 3 Accordingly, the Court now proceeds to hear the present appeal in respect of appellant’s wife, namely, Sulata Sarkar. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Conviction is challenged on the ground without there being any iota of evidence that the original appellant/accused has demanded and accepted illegal gratification other than legal remuneration, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph and thereby committed illegality. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in April 1992, the accused Ramendra Nath Sarkar was posted as Chief Cashier at Central Bank of India, Saraipali Branch, and accused B. P. Routray was also posted in the said bank as Clerk/Special Assistant. Both the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Central Bank of India, Saraipali Branch. In furtherance of this conspiracy, when the account- holder Krishna Pradhan, from Account No. 1605, for withdrawing money from his account, filled in the withdrawal slip given by accused B. P. Routray and passed it for payment, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, appellant made payment of Rs.12,000/- from Account No. 1605 to accused B.P. Routray. From the account bearing No. 22330 of Bhagwat Prasad, through withdrawal slips (Ex.P-11) and (Ex.P-12), on 08.04.1992, a sum of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/-, totaling Rs.30,000/-, were withdrawn. Similarly, from the Savings Account No. 1854 of Madhu Prasad Nande, on 13.04.1992, through withdrawal slip (Ex.P-16), a sum of Rs.15,000/-, and through withdrawal slip (Ex.P- 17), another sum of Rs.15,000/-, totaling Rs.30,000/-, was withdrawn. Furthermore, from the Account bearing No. 3216 of Narasingh Sahu, on 13.04.1992, through withdrawal slip (Ex.P-19), a sum of Rs.15,000/- was withdrawn. In all these instances, accused B.P. 4 Routray had forwarded the withdrawal slips for payment, and appellant had made the payments. Thus, the accused persons withdrew a total amount of Rs.87,000/-. 5. When the account-holders came to know these facts, account-holders Bhagwat Prasad Pandey and Krishna Pradhan submitted a written complaint (Ex.P-10), M.P. Nande submitted a complaint (Ex.P-46), and Narasingh Sahu submitted a complaint (Ex.P-143 and Ex.P-22) to the Central Bank of India, Sarai Pali. Upon receiving these complaints, C. K. Pande, Internal Auditor, acting under orders from the Chief Internal Auditor, Central Bank of India, Raipur, conducted an enquiry of the Central Bank of India, Saraipali Branch. In this enquiry, it was found that accused B. P. Routray had fabricated entries in the accounts in question and had withdrawn money. C.K. Pande submitted his report to the Regional Manager, Raipur. Thereafter, the matter was handed over to the C.B.I., Jabalpur. Superintendent of Police, S.R. Jaiswal registered the First Information Report (FIR) as R.C. No. 54(A)/92 on 30.11.1992 and entrusted the investigation to Devendra Singh, Police Inspector, C.B.I., Jabalpur. 6. During the course of investigation, the Inspector of CBI seized documents from R.G. Agrawal under seizure memo (Ex.P-245) and from N.K. Mehar under seizure memo (Ex. P-246). Police Inspector, C.B.I., Jabalpur, Dhirendra Kumar, also seized certain documents. During investigation, specimen writings and signatures of appellant R.N. Sarkar and accused B.P. Routray were obtained. Similarly, specimen writings and signatures of N.K. Mehar, Umesh Chandra Guchhayat, Bhupendra Kumar Bhoi, Narasingh Sahu, M.P. Nande, Krishna Pradhan, and Bhagwat Prasad Pandey were also obtained. 5 These were sent for examination to handwriting expert Suresh Chandra Gupta, who examined the documents and submitted his opinion as Ex.P-143 along with its detailed basis. On completion of the entire investigation, since offences were found established against appellant and the absconding accused. Sanction (Ex.P-23) was obtained against appellant from the competent authority R.R. Sharma, General Manager and Chief Vigilance OfÏcer. As for the absconding accused B. P. Routray, since he had already been suspended from service, no sanction was required. Accordingly, without sanction, the charge-sheet was prepared and presented before the competent Court. 7. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. Upon the charges being read out and explained to the appellant, the appellant denied having committed the offence. His defence was that he had been falsely implicated in this incident. 8. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), in Special Criminal Case No. 01/96 convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant for the offences as mentioned above. It is further submitted that the prosecution has filed to prove the necessary ingredients of the offences as mentioned above beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant. It is further submitted that the 6 statements of all the prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions, omissions and improvements hence no implicit reliance could be placed on such kind of testimony. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to consider that there is absolutely no evidence on record against the appellant for constituting the offence of conspiracy for committing cheating and forgery with the main accused B.P. Routray. It is further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have very specifically stated that all the withdrawal forms were signed by the absconded accused, and in the whole case, there is no charge of forgery and cheating directly against the appellant.
Legal Reasoning
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI/respondent supports the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, and states that no interference is called for. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. 12. In order to prove the sanction, the prosecution has examined R.R. Sharma (P.W.-3), who in his statement at point No.1 has stated that in November, 1994, he was posted as General Manager at the Central Bank of India, Central OfÏce, Bombay. In his statement at point No. 2, he has further stated that in his bank, only the General Manager is the competent authority to suspend any employee posted as Chief Cashier during the course of disciplinary proceedings. If any employee is found to have committed a criminal act, then the General Manager is the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution against such employee. On behalf of the appellant, no cross-examination was conducted on this testimony, nor has it been denied under Section 313 Cr.P.C. From the statement of R.R. Sharma, it stands established that 7 valid sanction was granted by the competent authority against the original appellant R.N. Sarkar. 13. R.R. Sharma (P.W. 3), in his statement at point No. 3, has further stated that in April 1992, R.N. Sarkar was posted as Chief Cashier at the Central Bank of India, Saraipali Branch. The C.B.I. made a request for grant of sanction to prosecute the accused, therefore, R.R. Sharma (P.W.-3) had analyzed the documents and statements of witnesses, and after finding that the appellant had indeed committed the offence, he granted the sanction (Ex.P-23) to C.B.I. In cross-examination, this witness stated that earlier also, there had been complaints regarding withdrawal of money, and he had conducted an inquiry in that matter too, in which persons outside the department, apart from departmental staff, were also involved. Accordingly, a report was sent to the C.B.I. on 30.11.1992. From the noting dated 20.08.1993, it appears that on 05.09.1992 the fraud came into light. The fraud had been committed with the connivance of B.P. Routray and R.N. Sarkar. Departmental proceedings were also initiated against the appellant. 14. From the above statement of R.R. Sharma (P.W.-3), it is clear that he had analyzed all the documents and, after being fully satisfied with the facts of the case, granted the sanction to prosecute the accused, and it was his ofÏce which handed over the matter to the C.B.I. 15. Now, it has to be considered whether the evidence produced by the prosecution proves that the appellant, in collusion with B.P. Routray, committed fraud in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy. In the context of the defense put forth by the accused, the cross-examination of witness Umeshchand Guchhayat (P.W.-2), at point No. 17, has stated that it was correct that on 08.04.1992 and 13.04.1992 there 8 was a shortage of staff at the Central Bank of India, Saraipali Branch, and it was correct that on both these dates, accused B.P. Routray had been specially appointed as the ‘Passing OfÏcer’. It is also correct that, in case of staff shortage, if the amount exceeds Rs. 10,000/-, then the amount may be passed by a single passing ofÏcer, as per the practice in the bank. 16. T.R. Sahu (P.W.-9), in his cross-examination at point No. 8, stated that it was not incorrect to say that due to staff shortage or work pressure, several rules cannot be strictly followed. Thus, from the statement of T.R. Sahu, it is clear that rules cannot be relaxed merely because of staff shortage. Although the prosecution has not produced any circular, merely on this ground the testimony of P.C. Loonia cannot be deemed unreliable. P.C. Loonia, in his statement at point Nos. 1 and 2, has explained the procedure, wherein he has stated that an OfÏcer or Special Assistant can pass only up to the limit of Rs. 10,000/-. 17. Also considering the statement given by Umeshchand Guchhayat (P.W. 2) in his cross-examination at point No. 17, it also appears that according to procedure, a single passing ofÏcer can pass only up to Rs. 10,000/-, and for amounts exceeding this limit, approval of two ofÏcers is required. T.R. Sahu (P.W.-9) in his statement at point No. 2, has made a similar assertion, and in his cross-examination at point No. 7, the statement given by him also shows that for payments exceeding Rs. 10,000/-, the approval of two passing ofÏcers is mandatory. 18. T. R. Sahu (P.W.-9), in paragraph 3 of his statement, has also stated that withdrawal slips marked Ex. P-16, Ex. P-17, Ex. P-19, Ex. P-11, and Ex. P-12 were paid by the appellant. In paragraph 4 of his 9 statement, he said that the payment of withdrawal slip (Ex. P-4) was also made by appellant. Furthermore, in paragraph 5 of his statement, he explained that appellant was aware of the fact that for payments exceeding Rs. 10,000/-, withdrawals had to be passed with the signatures of two ofÏcers. Even if, for a moment, it is assumed that on 13.04.1992 and 08.04.1992 there was no other passing ofÏcer apart from B. P. Routray and T. R. Sahu, then in such a situation it was the duty of the appellant that, when two vouchers from the same account were being passed for withdrawal on the same day, he should have obtained clarification on this matter from Branch Manager T. R. Sahu. However, no such action was taken by the appellant. 19. In response to a question asked during cross-examination, T. R. Sahu (P.W.-9) stated that the payment slips on which his signatures were not taken were not brought before him, and therefore he did not sign them. In paragraph 9 of his statement, he said that it was the duty of the ofÏcer authorized to ensure that such facts were brought before him. Thus, from the statement of T. R. Sahu (P.W.-9) it is clear that neither B.P. Routray nor R.N. Sarkar informed T.R. Sahu that vouchers exceeding Rs. 10,000/- were being passed by only one ofÏcer. The appellant was the cashier, and before making payments, it was necessary for him to be satisfied, but no such action was taken by him. 20. The above circumstances indicate that the appellant, knowing that withdrawal slips (Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-12) were both presented from the same account on the same date, and without ensuring that on the same day Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- were being withdrawn twice from the same account, went ahead and made the payments. 10 Similarly, payments were also made on the basis of withdrawal slips without the passbook, and the payments were made to B. P. Routray himself. In such a situation, the defense taken by the appellant that due to staff shortage only one passing ofÏcer had passed the vouchers, so he made the payments, cannot be accepted. Although only B. P. Routray was appointed as the passing ofÏcer, when two withdrawals from the same account were presented, it was the duty of the appellant to inquire about the matter either from B.P. Routray or from Branch Manager T.R. Sahu. However, no such inquiry was made by him, which indicates that the appellant, along with the absconding accused B.P. Routray, had the intention of misappropriating funds from the account of account holders. 21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further the fact that the present appeal has been preferred by the legal heir of deceased, R.N. Sarkar, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that although the trial Court has convicted the appellant, it failed to examine the complainant in the case. Hence, it is contended that the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. 22. From the perusal of the record, it appears that in the instant case, the appellant made payments on the basis of forged withdrawal slips, and it is certain that this caused wrongful loss to the department. The appellant misused his position, which was undoubtedly done with a dishonest intention. Moreover, the deceased appellant did not take any defence either of false implication or otherwise in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Over and above the prescribed amount when he was fully knowing hat the withdrawal 11 voucher was to be signed by two OfÏcers if the same exceeded Rs. 10,000/- and he cannot take a plea that he was merely a cashier and had disbursed the amount. Being an employee of the Bank, it is obvious that he was fully aware of the rules and regulations governing the Bank. Hence, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and sentenced as detailed in the opening paragraph. 23.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Rajshekhar Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice