Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through State Economic Crime Investigation Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:13425 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment received: 23.10.2024 Judgment delivered: 20.03.2025 CRA No. 1641 of 2019 1 - G.P. Pandey S/o Shri Jhumuk Lal Pandey Aged About 62 Years Occupation Retired Assistant Project Officer District Panchayat Bemetara, R/o Village Akoli Post Office Devri District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through State Economic Crime Investigation Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 1670 of 2019 1 - Subhash Chand Barik S/o Late Bihari Lal Barik Aged About 69 Years Occupation Assistant Grade-3 (Contract), Janpad Panchayat Pusoure, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---appellant Versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau, Chhattisgarh. Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate (In CRA No. 1641/2019) Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate (in CRA No. 1670/2019) For Respondent(s) : Mr Mayur Khandelwal and Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. C A V Judgment 1. Both these criminal appeals are arising out of the same criminal case and same crime no, therefore, both these appeals are being heard and decided together. 2. Both these appeals are arising out of the common judgment dated 06/11/2019 passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Act, 1988/ 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Special Criminal Case No. 04/2017 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- For the appellant G.P. Pandey S.No Conviction Sentence 1. 2. 3. U/s 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 U/s 409 of IPC U/s 420 of IPC R.I. for 4 years and Rs. 1 lakh fine, in default of payment of fine, 1 years additional R.I. R.I. for 2 years and Rs. 10,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine, 06 months additional R.I. R.I. for 2 years and Rs. 10,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine, 06 months additional R.I. 4. 5. 6. 7. U/s 467 of IPC U/s 468 of IPC U/s 471 of IPC U/s 120B of IPC 3 R.I. for 2 years and Rs. 10,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine, 06 months additional R.I. R.I. for 2 years and Rs. 10,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine, 06 months additional R.I. R.I. for 2 years and Rs. 10,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine, 06 months additional R.I. R.I. for 2 years and Rs. 10,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine, 06 months additional R.I. all the sentences shall run concurrently. For the appellant Subhash Chand Barik S.No Conviction Sentence 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. U/s 409 of IPC U/s 420 of IPC U/s 467 of IPC U/s 468 of IPC U/s 471 of IPC U/s 120B of IPC R.I. for 2 years and Rs. 10,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine, 06 months additional R.I. R.I. for 2 years and Rs. 10,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine, 06 months additional R.I. R.I. for 2 years and Rs. 10,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine, 06 months additional R.I. R.I. for 2 years and Rs. 10,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine, 06 months additional R.I. R.I. for 2 years and Rs. 10,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine, 06 months additional R.I. R.I. for 2 years and Rs. 10,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine, 06 months additional R.I. all the sentences shall run concurrently.
Legal Reasoning
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant G.P. Pandey was the Chief Executive Officer at Janpad Panchayat, Pussore and the appellant Subhash Chand Barik was posted as Assistant Grade 3 at Janpad Panchayat, Pussore in between the period of 29/05/2012 to 04/09/2014. In between that period in the T.L. Meeting, the Collector, Raigarh has directed for organizing the camp for extending the benefit of pension scheme and ration card to the respective beneficiaries. Showing the said camp organized on the particular date, a cheque of Rs. 5,83,000 was issued in the name of co- 4 accused Shawet Kumar and a cheque of Rs. 4,82,000 was issued in the name of appellant Subhash against the expenditure towards the tent, water supply, loud speaker to 77 gram panchayats by the appellant G. P. Pandey. However, on the inquiry, it is found that as per the list of 77 gram panchayats, no camps were organized and no amount towards tent, water supply and loud speaker were disbursed to panchayat secretaries and forged bills/ vouchers were submitted. Total Rs. 10,65,000/- of the government fund was misappropriated and adjusted it in the amount of national security pension. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused Shawet Kumar and the appellant Subhash instead of paying the amount of cheque to the owners of the tent house and stationary supplier, giving it to appellant G.P. Pandey and conspired together in preparing and managing the forged bill/ vouchers. The co-accused Sanjay has issued the forged bills of stationary which comes Rs. 3,40,000 to accused Shawet Kumar Yadav whereas the accused kartik has issued the forged bill of Rs. 1,50,000 towards photo copy of the documents and given it to the accused Subhash without any actual payment of bills. Further the absconding accused Sobhnath has issued the forged bill of Rs. 4,80,000 towards tent house, water supply and loud speaker and given it to accused Shawet Kumar. All the forged bills were given it to the appellant G.P. Pandey who using it as genine bills, misappropriated the amount of Rs. 10,65,000/-. There is no camp organized at any place of panchayat/ school campus. The complainant Ramesh Kumar Thawai (PW/9) has lodged report to the State Economic Wing, Raipur. The said forged bills were sent for hand writing experts report and considering the fact that without organizing the camp, the amount is shown to be disbursed towards payment in the respective persons whose services have been taken in organizing camp and misappropriated government fund, the FIR (Ex-P/2) has been registered 5 against the accused persons for the offence under Section 409 of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Statements of the witnesses have been recorded. The relevant bills/ vouchers and other official records have been seized and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 13/11/2017 before the learned trial Court. 4. After filing of charge-sheet in execution of arrest warrant issued against the accused persons, the appellant Subhash was arrested on 27/08/2018 whereas the appellant G.P. Pandey was declared as absconding vide its order dated 29/09/2018 by the learned trial Court and permanent warrant of arrest was issued against him. On 04/02/2019 the appellant G.P. Pandey surrendered before the learned trial Court and he was taken into custody. 5. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the present appellants and co-accused Shawet Kumar for the offence under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. The charge against the accused persons Subhash and Shawet Kumar were framed on 11/10/2018 and charge against the appellant G.P. Pandey was framed on 22/02/2019. the appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 32 witnesses. Statement of the appellant/ accused persons and co-accused Shawet Kumar have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, plead innocence and the appellant G.P. Pandey has submitted that the amount was legally withdrawn for disbursement towards pension and the various government schemes. He suspended one Ramesh Kumar against no confidence motion against him, therefore, to settle his score he falsely implicated him in the 6 present case whereas the other accused persons Subhash and Shawet Kumar have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. Five defence witnesses have been examined by the accused persons in their support. Considering the evidence available on record and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Shawet Kumar from all the offences, however, convicted and sentenced the accused G.P. Pandey and Subhash Chand Barik as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment hence this appeal.
Legal Reasoning
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant G.P. Pandey would submit that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. The said cheques by which the amount is allegedly withdrawn was not in the name of G.P. Pandey and he is no were concerned with the alleged offence. There are material discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. She would further submit that from the evidence of the witnesses, it established that the camp were organized and the payments have been made to the respective service providers while organizing the camps. It is the frivolous allegation that the camp was not organized. There is no evidence that the appellant G.P. Pandey has withdrawn the amount from the Bank and misappropriated the same. She would also submit that the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant has intentionally and knowingly that the forged bills have been submitted, issued the cheques whereas there was a direction of the Collector to organize camp at different places for the respective beneficiaries. From the evidence of PW-10 N.P. Patel, it has specifically come on record that during the course of inquiry, he found that the camp was to be organized at school building but for the reason that school entrance festival was going on, the camp was organized in gram 7 panchayat building instead of school building. During the inquiry, he has not made any query from the shop keepers who issued the bills/ vouchers for the services provider by them. Therefore, in absence of any cogent and clinching evidence against the appellant G.P. Pandey, he is entitled for acquittal from the alleged offence. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the accused Subhash would submit that the present appellant is the Asst. Grade 3 and he was not involved in any withdrawal of the amount or misappropriation of the government fund. The present appellant has to work under the direction of his senior officer. At the present appellant withdrawn the amount from the Bank, report should have been lodged immediately by his superior officer because the present appellant was not the signatory of the said cheque. There is no evidence with regard to the conspiracy for misappropriation of government fund rather there is sufficient evidence on record that the camp were organized at various places under the direction of Collector for which the payments have been made to the respective service provider. Therefore, the appellant Subhash Chand Barik is also entitled for acquittal. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the respective counsel of the appellants and submitted that there is clinching and cogent documentary as well as oral evidence against the appellants in the case to hold conviction for the alleged offence. But for minor omission and contradictions the evidence of prosecution witnesses are reliable. There is sufficient evidence also that no camp were organized at the place shown in the documents whereas the forged bills/ vouchers have been prepared by the accused persons after entering into conspiracy and they have withdrawn all the amount from the Bank for its alleged disbursement whereas instead of 8 disbursing the same, they misappropriated the government fund. The appellant G. P. Pandey is signatory of the cheques and one cheque bearing no. 463265 was enchashed by the appellant Subhash Chand Barik. The manner in which the accused persons are acted and misappropriated government fund, they are not entitled for any leniency, withdrawal of the amount on the basis of forged bills and vouchers by the authorities are very serious matter for which they have been convicted, therefore, there is no merits in the appeal filed by the appellants and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. The allegation against the present appellants are that the appellant G.P. Pandey had issued two cheques bearing no. 463266 and 463265. In both the cheques, the appellant G.P. Pandey is the signatory. In the cheque No. 463265, the signature of the present appellant Subhash is there which has been proved by J.L. Dewangan (PW/32) who is the Branch Manager of the Bank whereas the said witnesses have not verified the signature of the accused Shawet Kumar in another cheque No. 463266. The core allegation against the appellant in the case are that without organizing any camp, they withdrawn the amount from the Bank for payment of service providers who provided their services like tent house, water supply, loud speakers etc. at the spot of camp allegedly organized at that place by which they cause loss of Rs. 10,65,000/- to the government fund and misappropriated the same. 12. Mohan Bharti (PW/1) who is the Head Constable at Economic Office Wing, ACB, Raipur is the witness or seizure memo (Ex-P/1) by which the documents of Article-A/1 to Article-A/23 and register Article- A/24 to A/29 has 9 been seized. 13. Jonit Ram (PW/2) is also the Head Constable at EOW/ ACB Raipur and he too is the witness of the seizure memo (Ex-C/1) 14. PW/3 Laurence who is the Dy Superintendent of Police EOW/ ACB, Raipur and stated that on 06/08/2014, a complaint was made by Ramesh Kumar at EOW, Raipur and he was instructed to register the FIR, the said complainant was inquired by the Collector and based on the inquiry report and complaint, he registered the FIR of Crime No. 43/2014 for the offence under Section 409 of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR is Ex-P/2 and the inquiry report is Article-A/2. The complaint made by Ramesh is Article-A/4. In cross-examination, he admitted that he has not investigated the matter but only registered the FIR On 13/10/2014. 15. PW/4 Lochan Pandey was also the Dy. Superintendent of Police posted at EOW, Raipur. He wrote a letter to the Collector, Raigarh (Ex-P/3) for making the document available to him and claimed the documents of inquiry report, the complaint, statement of the panchayat Secretary, report submitted by Janpad Panchayat, Pussore, statement of the accused persons, pension related cash book, stock register and distribution register. 16. PW/5 Smt. Guruwari is the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Gorra. She stated in her evidence that in the year 2013-14, there was no camp organized in gram panchayat Gorra and no amount was allotted for the same, neither any articles were received by her. Her statement was recorded on 13/09/2014 which is Article-A/11. In cross-examination, she stated that the application for grant of social pension was distributed to the beneficiaries by 10 herself but she could not remember its date. She admitted that with respect to the organization of camp and allotment of funds or receiving of articles, the same are to be endorsed in Panchayat register. She has not submitted any register of Gram Panchayat Gorra of the year 2013-14 before the investigating officer. 17. PW/6 Smt. Saraswati Sidar who is also the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Tribhawana has stated in her evidence that in the year 2013-14 a pension camp was organized by Janpad Panchayat Pussore in which, the application was to be filled up from the retired persons. The said camp was organized at Panchayat Bhawan, Tribhawana, but no tent was fixed there, neither any fund was allotted to her for the said tent to be fixed at Panchayat Bhawan, Tribhawana. In cross-examination, she stated that the camp was to be organized by the Janpad Panchayat, Pussore, once in the year. It was to be organized by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat and the fixation of tent as well as allotment of fund to Panchayat was being done by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. 18. PW/7 Smt. Deeplaya another Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Bhasanpali, has stated in her evidence that in the year 2013-14, there was no camp organized at school campus nor any tent was fixed there even no fund was allotted to her for the camp. She admitted that in the year 2013-14 there was no direction given by the Panchayat to organize the camp there. She further admitted that the allotment of fund to be made by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat and since no camp was organized in the year 2013-14 no fund was allotted to her. 19. PW-8 Vidyadhar Patel, the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Dumarpali has stated in her evidence that they have not organized any camp 11 at their Gram Panchayat and no fund was allotted to them for organizing camp even no tent was fixed for the camp. In cross-examination, he admitted that the responsibility to organize the camp, fixing of tent and disbursement of the amount of pension in upon the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. He voluntarily stated that the relevant fund was transferred to the concerned Gram Panchayat through the Bank account by the Chief Executive Officer and they after withdrawing it from the Bank to the concerned beneficiaries. When the appellant G.P. Pandey was arrested, this witness has again cross-examined on 22/05/2019 and then he stated in his cross-examination that in the year 2013 there was a camp organized at Panchayat Bhawan, however, he denied that in the year 2013, the tent was also fixed for the camp organized at Gram Panchayat Bhawan, Dumarpali. 20. PW/9 Ramesh who is the complainant in the case and the Assistant Grade 3 posted at Janpad Panchayat, Pussore has stated in his evidence that in the year 2013, he along with two other officers of the district namely Sarthi and Dewangan had gone to Janpad Panchayat Pussore for making entries in the pass-book of the bank account and after inspection of the passbook of pension account, it reveals that the cash amount of Rs. 5,83,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- was withdrawn. There is no rule of cash withdrawal, however, the cash amount was withdrawn from the Bank account. When he inquired in the office, his inquiry was came into knowledge of the accused G.P. Pandey who was the CEO there then he suspended him. Thereafter, he made an application (Ex-P/4) to the Collector, Raigarh. The Collector, Raigarh instructed him to made his complaint before CEO, Zila Panchayat when the CEO, Zila Panchayat has also not been taken any interest in the complaint, he made a written complaint (Article-A/4) to the Economic Offence Wing, Raipur. On the instruction of EOW, Raipur, the 12 Collector, Raigarh has directed the then Chief Secretary Panchayat and Social Welfare, Raigarh Mr. N.P. Patel for inquiry. During the inquiry, the shop keeper has disclosed that they have not received a single penny and have not supplied the goods, the owner of tent house has also disclosed that he neither received any amount nor supplied any goods. Some of the Panchayat Secretaries have also been interrogated about organizing any camp in their field and they also disclosed that no camp was organized and no goods and no articles were supplied to them. In the inquiry report of Mr. N.P. Patel, it was found that the government fund was withdrawn in forged manner and in the statement of Sobhnath is Article-A/18 and another persons’ statement is Article A-19. In cross-examination, he stated that the withdrawal of amount from the Bank can be made through the signature of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. He admitted that the Chief Executive Officer is to take a decision as to from which account, in whose name, what amount and for what purpose is to be withdrawn. He further admitted that the note-sheet is also to be prepared on the instruction of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat and if he was not satisfied with the note-sheet, he can refused to sign it. He further admitted that the responsibility to organize the pension camp is upon the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. In his further cross-examination by the appellant G.P. Pandey, he stated that in the year 2013, Subhash was incharge of pension account and he did not inspected the said account. The co-accused Shawet has taken the key good from Rajendra Patel, he received the pass- book of pension account from Rajendra for getting entries in it. He admitted that in the year 2013, the accused G.P. Patel was Chief Executive Officer at Panchayat, Pussore. He was suspended on 02/07/2013-14. He admitted that on 11/08/2014, show cause notice was issued by the Chief Executive Officer, 13 Janpad Panchyat, Pussore and charges have been framed against him. In the said departmental inquiry, the accused Subhash, G.P. Pandey and Sanjay were the witnesses and he was suspended by G.P. Pandey. After the detailed inquiry, he admitted that till the time when the accused G.P. Pandey, remained there as Chief Executive Officer, at Janpad Panchayat, Pussore. He was not reinstated and on 04/09/2014 when the accused G.P. Pandey relief from Bemetara, he could be reinstated. He admitted that two cheques were issued for cash withdrawal from the pension account. Relevant note-sheet was also there with respect to the issuance of cheque. Both these cheques were issued for self withdrawal but note-sheet was to be prepared by the concerned clerk. He further stated that, he made complaint to EOW, Raipur after his suspension by G.P. Pandey. His complaint was inquired by N.P. Patel, the then Dy. Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Raigarh. 21. PW-10, N.P. Patel has stated in his evidence that in the year 2014 when he was posted as Dy Director, in Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Raigarh, he was directed by the Collector, Raigarh to inquire the complaint made by Ramesh. During the inquiry, he recorded the statement of Sanjay, Secretary Gram Panchayat, Nawapali, Someswar Prasad Patel, Secretary Gram Panchayat, Telipali, Dharam Singh Yadav, Secretary Gram Panchayat, Tilgi, Secretary Gram Panchayat Dumarpali, Saraswati Sidar, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Tribhawana, Purnima, Guruwari Sidar, Jai Kishore, Parakshit Chouhan and Hiralal who have stated in their statement that neither any camp were organized in their area nor any tent was fixed and even no fund were allotted by the Janpad Panchayat. The statements recorded by him is Article-A-5 to A-14. During the inquiry, he found that the 14 complaint of the complainant is genuine and there is misappropriation of government fund of Rs. 10,65,000/- which was withdrawn through forged bills/ vouchers for which G.P. Pandey, Subhash and Shawet are personally responsible. The inquiry report is (Ex-P/5) and it was submitted before the Collector, Raigarh. In cross-examination, he stated that the forged bills/ vouchers of Rs. 10,65,000/- was with respect to the tent and purchase of stationary items. He admitted that the fixation of tent in the camp and purchase of stationary items is not the responsibility of the present appellants. He had seen the documents of cash withdrawal and the cash was withdrawn on the signatures of Subhash and Shawet Kumar. The said cheques were issued by G.P. Pandey, CEO. The authority to issue cheques is upon the CEO and the present appellants are subordinate to CEO. He shown his ignorance, the fact that the accused G.P. Pandey has deposited the withdrue amount after resolution passed in general body meeting. In his further cross-examination by the accused G.P. Pandey, he stated that he has not recorded the statement of complainant but he inquired the matter in his presence. He recorded statements of various Panchayat Secretaries and tent house owners and stationary shop owners. He admitted that he has not inquired from Shobhnath Pradhan about fund allotted to him for fixation of tent at the place of camp. He also not inquired from Trinath Pradhan for fixation of tent. He inquired the bill/ vouchers/ receipts issued from Sobhnath, tent house in which the signature of Sobhnath Pradhan was there. He has not recorded any statement of Bank authority and has not seized any document with respect to the disputed cheque from the State Bank of India, Pussore Branch. He admitted that he received the letter dated 03/09/2014 from Janpad Panchayat, Pussore and according to which the amount of Rs. 10,65,000/- which was withdrawn from the disputed cheque 15 was adjusted. He voluntarily stated that it cannot be adjusted through deposition in one head from withdrawing from another head. The amount which was withdrawn from the Bank through the disputed cheques was the amount of interest of pension fund and the amount which was deposited was also being deposited in pension fund. In document Ex-P/5 it has been endorsed that the withdrawn amount has been adjusted. He further admitted that he inquired the matter only on two points as to whether the camps were organized or not and tent in the said camps were fixed or not. He admitted that the camps were to be organized at school building but it was the time of school admission festival, therefore, the camps were organized at Panchayat Bhawans. He further voluntarily stated that the shop keeper has disclosed before him that they have not received any amount and no goods were supplied by them. He further admitted that the bills/ vouchers which was inquired by him, was having the endorsement that the amount was paid towards the bills. He further stated that Rs. 4 lakh were withdrawn for fixation of tent and the remaining amount was withdrawn for stationary items. He further admitted that during the inquiry proceeding on 25/08/2014, the accused G.P. Pandey has made an application before him appraising the actual position, however, he denied that without there being any inquiry he submitted the inquiry report (Ex-P/5). 22. PW/11 Sanjeev Kumar who is the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Nawapali has stated in his evidence that in the year 2013, a camp was organized in his Gram Panchayat under the social co-operation in which the pension forms were filling up but tent was not fixed in that camp. No funds were also allotted from Janpad Panchayat. In cross-examination, he stated that the responsibility to organize camp, fixation of tent and disbursement of pension was upon the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. In cross- 16 examination by the appellant G.P. Pandey, he admitted that the camp was organized in the year 2013 at Panchayat Bhawan for filling up the pension form. He further admitted that during the camp, a tent was fixed outside of the Panchayat Bhawan. 23. PW/12 Bharat Bhushan who is peon at State Bank of India, Pussore Branch has stated in his evidence that he has taken a letter received from economic offence bureau which was given to him by the Branch Manager to submit it at Raipur office. In cross-examination he stated that he did not know what was there inside the said letter. 24. PW/13 S.K. Sonwani, has stated in his evidence that he was posted as Development Officer at Janpad Panchayat, Pussore the specimen signature of the accused Sanjay Sahu and Kartik Ram was taken up by the Police in his presence. In his cross-examination, he stated that the Ramesh Kumar Thawai was suspended by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pussore after departmental inquiry against him. 25. PW/15 M.K. Upadhyay, who was the Block Project Officer has stated in his evidence that on 24/05/2016, the Police has seized the bills from Sanjay Sahu vide seizure memo (Ex-P/6) and his signature is there in the said memo (Ex-P/6). On the same day vide Ex-P/7, one page of register has been seized from Kartik Ram Shriwas in which his hand writing was there. The seized bill is Article-A/30 and the page of the register is Article-A/31. 26. PW/16 Devkant Patel is the witness of seizure of another bill from Brijesh Gupta vide seizure memo (Ex-P/8) 27. PW/17 Hem Kumar Choudhari, who is the Assistant Grade 3 at Janpad Panchayat, Pussore and the witness of the seizure memo (Ex-P/9) from Sanjay Sanu and the seizure document are Article-A/32 to A/42. 17 28. PW/18 Pramod Patel who is the Head Master of Primary School, Tapparra has stated in his evidence that under the social coordination programme, no camp was organized in his school and no tent was fixed there. In cross-examination also he remained firm that in the year 2013 no camp was organized in the school. 29. PW/19 Rohit Chandra Patel is also the Head Master at primary school Sondekela and he too has stated in his stated in his evidence that no camp was ever organized in his school and no tent was fixed. In cross- examination, he stated that he did not know as to on 01/07/2013, the camp was organized at Gram Panchayat Bhawan. 30. PW/20 K.W. Pradhan who is also the Head Master of Primary School, Tetala and has stated that no camp was ever organized in his school and no tent was fixed. He also stated that he did not know as to on 01/07/2013, camp was organized at gram panchayat bhawan or not. 31. PW/21 Virendra Singh who is Chief Executive Officer at Janpad Panchayat, Pussore, from November, 2014 to May, 2015 has stated in his evidence that Sanjay Sahu was running his stationary shop in front of Janpad Panchayat office. In reference to the letter dated 21/10/2014 sent by Economic Offence Bureau, Raipur, he submitted the point wise detail on 25/11/2014 which is Ex-P/10. Along with the details, he has also sent the list of beneficiaries of pension to the EOW, Raipur. The said list of beneficiaries is Ex-P/11. The letter issued by the appellant G.P. Pandey for fixation of tent and organizing the camp was also sent to the EOW which is Ex-P/12. The note-sheet of CEO, G.P. Pandey is Ex-P/13 and the letter issued to State Bank of India, Pussore branch by G.P. Pandey is Ex-P/14. The CEO, G.P. Pandey has also return letter to all Panchayat Secretaries for organizing the 18 camps which is Ex-P/15 and Ex-P/16. The details information was also sent for the EOW-Raipur which is Ex-P/18. The attested true copy of pass book from page No. 4 to 9 was also sent to EOW which is Ex-P/19. In cross- examination, he stated that he has not inquired matter but send the relevant documents in the capacity of existing CEO. He admitted that there is no instruction from the State government with respect to the expenditure on the tent and stationary items at the time of organizing camp with respect to the pension of the beneficiaries. The expenditure shown in the case was made from the interest on the amount of pension scheme and it was the decision taken by the then CEO. He further admitted that both the cheques were issued by the then CEO and the amount which was withdrawn was subsequently adjusted. In further cross-examination by the accused G.P. Pandey, he stated that he was posted at Janpad Panchayat From November, 2014 to May 2015. During his tenure Ramesh Kumar Thawait was suspended and his head quarter was Tamnar. He admitted that after preparation of note-sheet and cheque book, the same was produced before the CEO and then the cheques were issued after signature of the CEO. He did not tell as to in whose name the disputed cheques were issued. He also did not tell without seeing the record as to who had issued the relevant bills/ vouchers, receipts of tent house. He admitted that in the year 2013, the camp were organized at Gram Panchayats. 32. PW/22 Nila Ram Patel who was also the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pussore, from 25/05/2015 to 13/08/2018 and has stated that he issued the certificate with respect to the posting of G.P. Pandey as CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Pussore, Subhash Chand Barik, Assistant Grade-3 and Shawet Kumar Yadav, Assistant Grade 3 which is Ex-P/20. He admitted in 19 cross-examination that the accused Subhash and Shawet Kumar were temporary employee. 33. PW/23 Brijesh Gupta is the owner of the tent house at Village- Darripali has stated in his evidence that he has never fixed any tent at any gram panchayat or school campus and has not received any amount for the same. He has never fixed any tent in any government work and is not having any receipt or bill. His specimen signature is Ex-P/21 to Ex-P/27. In cross- examination made by the accused G.P. Pandey nothing could be extracted from this witness to disbelieve his evidence. 34. PW/24 G. D. Paikara who is the Block Education Officer at Pussore Block, has stated in his evidence that on 09/12/2015 he sent the information about the organizing camps in the school campus to the EOW, Raipur which is Ex-P/28. The certificate which he has sent is Ex P/29 to Ex P/93. In cross- examination he stated that the responsibility to organize camp in the school campus is upon the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. On being the demand made by the Anti Corruption Bureau, he furnished the information to them. He admitted that the place of the camp can be changed if the teaching in the school or examination were going on. He did not know as to at that time the camp was organized at Gram Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat Bhawan. When the Anti Corruption Bureau asked for information, he called the necessary information from 63 schools. There is no information about camp in the document Ex-P/29, 32, 37, 44, 45, 47, 50, 54, 55, 59, 68, 69 and 80. He admitted that the document (Ex-P/29 to 93) have not been verified by him and he send it to the ACB as it is received by him. He himself has not inquired into the matter. 35. PW/25 Narsingh Ram who is the Inspector of Police at Economic Office 20 Bureau, Raipur on 24/05/2016 he seized a non judicial stamp of Rs. 50 in which signature Shobhnath was there and seizure memo is Ex-P/94. The stamp paper is Ex-P/95. He also seized the withdrawal memo from State Bank of India, Pussore Branch having signature of Sobhnath in it through seizure memo Ex-P/5 and the withdrawal form is Ex-P/96. On 04/03/2014, bill issued by Sanjay Sahu was seized through seizure memo Ex-P/6 and the said bill is Ex-P/97. On 24/05/2016 from accused Kartik Ram, one page of register has been seized seizure memo Ex-P/7 and the page of register is Ex-P/98 in which the supply of stationary item is mentioned. On 15/06/2016, another bill issued by Dev Kumar to Janpad Panchayat, Pussore, was also seized various other bills issued by Sanjay to CEO Janpad Panchayat, Pussore have been seized which is Ex-P/99 to P/108. On 24/05/2016, the tent house bill was also seized vide seizure memo (Ex-P/8) in which signature of Brijesh Gupta was there and the copy of said bill is (EX-P/27). On 24/05/2016, he has taken the specimen signature of the accused Sanjay Sahu, Kartik Ram and Sobhnath which is Ex-P/109 to P/126 and it was sent to the hand writing experts whose report is Ex-P/127. During the investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses. In cross- examination, he admitted that against the accused Shawet and Subhash, he has not inquired in the matter. When he was again cross-examined by the accused G.P. Pandey, he admitted that Ramesh has not given his written complaint to him. He voluntarily stated that he made his written complaint to economic offence bureau and when he received the case diary for the investigation, he started the investigation. He denied the suggestions given by the accused about the procedure of the investigation done by him. He further denied that the note-sheet and cash book bears with the 21 endorsement of withdrawal of the cash amount. He also denied that the cash amount was withdrawn legally. He is having the knowledge that the amount withdrawn from the Bank was the amount of pension account and subsequently, the said amount was adjusted from the fund of Janpad Panchayat. He admitted that he has not taken specimen signature of the accused G.P. Pandey and have not sent it to the hand writing expert. He further stated that he has not recorded the statements of all the head masters whose certificates have been sent to him but he recorded the statements of some of them. 36. PW-26 Deepak Agrawal, who was the then Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raigarh has furnished the information with respect to the certificate of the G.P. Pandey which is Ex-P/129. 37. PW/27 Arjun Kumar Singh who is the Inspector of Economic Offence Bureau, Raipur has stated in his evidence that on 12/11/2014, he received a letter (Ex-P/6) from Mohan Bharti along with inquiry report (Ex-P/5), complaint against G.P. Pandey (Article-A/4), copy of the pass-book of bank account no. 11356576534 and its transaction, complaint of Ramesh Kumar (Ex-P/4), bill no. 207, 155, 156, 157, 158 and 159 issued by Sahu Stationary, Janpad Panchayat Complex, complaint against Ramesh Kumar Thawai, a bill of Rs. 4,82,000/- of Sobhnath tent house and the list of beneficiaries in which the payment of Rs. 4,83,000/- was shown, has been received by him. He seized the cheque no. 463222 dated 07/10/2013, a bill of Rs. 75,000/- of Sahu Stationary, Janpad Panchayat, Shop No. 1, Pussore, another bill of Rs. 88,000/- of the same shop with respect to photography refilling, another bill of Rs. 67,000/- of the same shop with respect to MB book, pen, carbon, tag, less, another bill of Rs. 35,000/- with respect to pension form, printing bill, 22 other bill of Rs. 60,000/- of Shriniwas Photocopy, shop No. 260, with respect to the flex, another bill of Rs. 90,000/- of shop no. 262 and a bill of Rs. 60,000/- of Brijesh tent house dated 07/10/2023, a copy of resolution along with the letter dated 03/09/2014 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pussore has been seized vide seizure memo (Ex-P/1). He further seized the letter issued to Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pussore (Ex-P/130) and in compliance of the said letter, the information furnished by the Chief Executive Officer which is Ex-P/17, register (Article-A/24 , A/25 and A/26) have been seized on 21/11/2014. He also wrote a letter of CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Pussore for furnishing the information which is Ex-P/131. He recorded the statement of Ramesh Kumar and Mohan Bharti on their own will. In cross-examination, he stated that he has not verified the authenticity of the document seized by him. He further cross-examined by the G.P. Pandey and he stated that after preliminary inquiry of complaint (Article-A/4), the offence has been registered against the accused persons. He admitted that he has not visited to the Janpad Panchayat, Pussore for investigation and he has seized the document in his own office. He has not interrogated the accused G.P. Pandey. 38. PW/28, Fakir Patel is the witness of seizure memo (Ex-P/94) and PW/29 Gajanand Verma is the Senior Constable at EOW, Raipur and the witness of seizure memo (Ex-P/1). PW/30 R.K. Patel, is the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Pussore from 2014 to Septemeber, 2015. He stated in his evidence that the EOW, Raipur has asked for the information about cheque no. 463265 dated 11/10/2013 that Rs. 4,82,000/- and payment made in December, 2013 and the cheque No. 463266 dated 07/10/2013 for Rs. 5,83,000/- payment made in December, 2013 and in compliance of that he furnished the necessary information along with the copy of the cheques on 23 28/11/2014 to ACB. In his information, he furnished that the payments towards cheques was made to Subhash Barik and Shawet Kumar. Both these cheques were issued by G.P. Pandey and his signature is there in the said cheques. His information is Ex-P/132 and the copies of the cheque is Article-A/27 and A/28. The original cheque is with the bank. In cross- examination, he admitted that the payment has not been made by him but it was made by the concerned accountant. He did not identify personally the persons to whom the payments have been made. 39. PW/31 V.N. Swarnkar, Assistant Grade 3 at Law and Legislature Department, Raipur has proved the sanction order dated 30/08/2017 for prosecution of G.P. Pandey. The said sanction for the prosecution is Ex-P/132, on 20/09/2017 an amended sanction order for prosecution was passed which is Ex-P/133 and P/134. The said sanction order was forwarded to ACB vide memo Ex-P/135. On 22/09/2017, the amended sanction order was sent to ACB, Raipur through memo Ex-P/136. 40. PW/32 J.L. Dewangan was the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Pussore Branch, from 2011 to 2012. He stated in his evidence that he has brought the original cheque with him and the cheque No. 463266 for the amount of Rs. 5,83,000/- dated 07/10/2013 was issued in the name of Shawet Kumar and cheque no. 463265 for amount of Rs. 4,82,000/- dated 01/10/2013 was issued in the name of Subhash Chand, his copy is already available in the case which is Article-A/28 and A/29. The said cheques were issued by the signature of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pussore and in the back side of the said cheques, the authority to withdraw the amount was given to Subhash and Shawet by the Chief Executive Officer and their signatures have also been verified by him. Both the cheques were 24 cleared for its payment by the accountant Pramod Kumar and he identified the signature of the said accountant Pramod Kumar. In cross-examination, he admitted that the specimen signature of the person who issued the cheque or who is having the bank account was available with the bank in the scanned copy in the computer and after the comparison of the signature available with the bank that all the cheques payment are to be made. He admitted that there is no separate authority letter was issued along with Article A/28 and A/29 but in the back side of the said cheques itself the authority was returned. In further cross-examination he admitted that he personally did not tell as to whom the amount of cheque was paid. He voluntarily stated that the person to whom the amount was paid, his signature was taken in the said cheque. He admitted that in the back side of cheque no. 463266, there is no signature of Shawet Kumar. But in the other cheque no. 463265, the signature of the receiver Subhash Chand is mentioned. 41. From these evidences, it is quite vivid that the said two cheques no. 463266 and 463265 for Rs. 5,83,000 and Rs. 4,82,000 was issued by the signature of the accused G.P. Pandey who was the then Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pussore. From perusal of the said cheques Article-A/28 and A/29, it reveals that the cheque No. 463265 dated 01/10/2013 was issued in the name of Subhash Chand and the cheque no. 463266 dated 07/10/2013 is issued in the name of Shawet Kumar. It also reveals that the said cheques were issued by the signature of G.P. Pandey and it was the bearer cheque and not the account payee cheques. When the account was withdrawn through bearer cheques by the accused Shawet Kumar and Subhash Chand, it was for the accused G.P. Pandey to establish the purpose for which the amount was withdrawn from the Bank that too in 25 the name of Subhash Chand and Shawet Kumar. Had there been the payments made towards the camp organized at various gram panchayats and they are required to fix the tent or paid the charges, the amount or charges should have been paid to the concerned person/ service provider directly either by executing cheque in their own name or by transfer the amount in their bank account. From the evidence of the witnesses, it comes on record that no camp were organized in their school campus in the year 2013 and no tent were fixed yet the bills were generated either for fixation of tent or for stationary items which appears to be never used in any camp because the camp itself was not organized. There is no denial from the appellant G.P. Pandey that he has not issued the cheques or not signed the cheques. 42. The accused persons have also examined the defence witnesses. The DW/1 Mrityunjay Singh who is the Sarpanch of gram panchayat Kodatarai who proved that in the year 2013-14 a camp was organized at gram panchayat bhawan, kodatarai, in which tent, table and loud speaker were fixed probably it was the time of May or June. He is also the witness of the fact that he made a complaint against Ramesh, CEO, Zila Panchayat and he was suspended. In cross examination he stated that when the camp was organized in village Kotatarai he did not know it is date. He admitted that the applicants were decided in the camp and register was also maintained. He has not filed any panchayat record with respect to the register maintained by them regarding organization of camp in the village or any proceedings drawn in the camp. 43. DW/2 Sushil Kumar Sahu is the Panchayat Secretary, at gram panchayat Tadola, too is the witness of the fact that the camp was organized at 26 panchayat tadola in which the tent, table and loud speaker was fixed. He too have not filed any document or any register with respect to the fact that any camp was organized and any application was decided. Although, he admitted that a register was maintained for organization of the camp. 44. DW/3, Ashok Kumar is the Branch Manager of Bharti from 18/06/2018, who stated in his evidence that he brought records of two cheques no. 813003 and 813004 dated 03/09/2014 which was for the amount of Rs. 5,83,000 and Rs. 4,12,753 which was issued by the then Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pussore and was issued in the name of Branch Manager, Bharatiya State Bank, Pussore which is Ex-D/1 and D/2 and the statement of account of account no. 11356576704 is (Ex-D/3). In cross- examination, he admitted that the amount mentioned in the Ex-D/1 and D/2 was transferred in the bank account no. 11356576534 through the letter dated 03/09/2014 issued by CEO. He further admitted that prior to 03/09/2014, the said amount was not transferred in the pension account. 45. DW/4, Shiv Sagar Gupta who is the accountant at Janpad Panchayat, Pussore and has stated in his evidence that a resolution was passed on 29/08/2014 for adjustment of panchayat fund in the pension account and the register is Article-A/27. After resolution, a note-sheet was prepared on 03/09/2014 and then the cheques Ex-D/1 and D/2 was issued. Along with the said cheques the note-sheet Ex-D/5, letter Ex-D/6 and contingency expenses bills Ex-D/7 was annexed. In cross-examination, he did not know as to why the amount was adjusted from the panchayat fund to the pension account. He admitted that in page no. 139 by which the resolution was passed, only the signature of G.P. Pandey, CEO is there. He did not now as to whether the information about resolution was given to his senior officer or not. 46. The DW/5, G.P. Pandey (Accused himself) has stated in his evidence that 27 under the instructions of Collector, Raigarh, he issued instructions/ orders for organizing camp in the concerned schools for beneficiary pension scheme. After issuance of the order, the Collector has instructed that since in the month of July, 2013 the admission festival was started in the schools, therefore, instead of organizing camp in the school campus, the same may be organized at Panchayat Bhawan. In accordance to that he issued another order for organizing camp at the Panchayat Bhawan. The camp were organized in all the gram panchayat bhawans and shobhnath tent house was authorized to fix the tent, loud speaker, mate, table, chairs and for drinking water and he supplied the necessary articles in the camps. He raised the total bills of Rs. 4,82,020/-. He further stated that the allotment of the amount for organizing camp was to be made by Dy. Director Panchayat and Social Welfare Department but no account was allotted at that time, therefore, he withdrew the account from pension account after preparing the note-sheet and maintain the cash book and issued the cheque of Rs. 4, 82, 000/- in the name of Subhash and after this withdrawal the said amount was paid to Sobhnath tent house, through, the employee. Further for the office use, the stationary articles, computer articles, cash book, ration card, pension form, MB book (1000 pieces) development books and flaxed banners and 73 items of granite stone and another cheque of Rs. 5,83,000 was issued in the name of Shawet Kumar and after withdrawing the said amount, he paid the concerned persons, who have raised bills against supply of their items. When the amount was not allotted even after 6-7 months, then a resolution was passed for adjustment of the amount from the Janpad fund and then he issued two other cheques (Ex-D/1 and D/2) and the total amount of Rs. 9,95,753 was adjusted in pension fund. The balance amount was already 28 adjusted from the amount receipt from gram panchayats. The said resolution is article A/27, contingency expenditure bill is Ex-D/7, note-sheet Ex-D/5, letter Ex-D/6, in which his signature is there. In cross examination, he admitted that he is not annexed any letter issued by the Collector with respect to organization of the camp. He further admitted that there is no letter in the case with respect to change of place of camp. He also admitted that there is no resolution to organize the camp. He further admitted that for government work, there is a procedure to call the tender but in the present case, no tender was issued. He voluntarily stated that due to knowledge of time, tender was not called. He further admitted that there is no resolution for shifting the camps from school building to gram panchayat building. He admitted that at page no. 38 and 39 of Article-A/27 there is hand writing and it is not there in the resolution as to what amount is to be adjusted in pension fund. He has not informed the Collector or Zila Panchayat the process of adjustment of the amount in pension fund. 47. From the evidence of DW/5 who is the appellant G.P. Pandey who is the signatory of the disputed cheques, it is quite vivid that there is no order placed at record with respect to organization of camps. From his evidence at also reflects that the Subhash tent house had raised bills of Rs. 4,82,000 for the work done by him and the amount of Rs. 4,82,000 was withdrawn by the cheque no. 463265 through the accused Subhash and paid the same to Sobhnath tent house. When the bills were raised by the Sobhnath for Rs. 4,82,000, the cheque can be directly issued in the name of Sobhnath tent house and there is no need to withdraw the cash amount from the bank. Further there is no resolution to withdraw the amount from the bank in cash and paid it to Sobhnath tent house. When the gram panchayats have denied that there is no camp organized in their gram panchayats and no tent were 29 fixed, then the raising the bills, withdrawal of the amount from the bank in cash and payment of the same to Sobhnath tent house through cash itself creates a doubt on the bona fide transaction. There is no process of tender adopted by the Chief Executive Officer likewise the disbursement of Rs. 5,83,000 towards stationary item use in the office or use during the camp was also suspenced as the payments can be made directly to the concerned persons/ service providers by issuing the cheques in their names or transferring the amount in their bank accounts. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire transaction is doubtful except the fact that the amount of Rs. 4,82,000/- and Rs. 5,83,000 was withdrawn in cash from the bank through two cheques issued by the then Chief Executive Officer, G.P. Pandey and the accused Subhash Chand and Shawet Kumar where the person in whose name the cheques were issued and withdrawn the amount from the bank. Although, the co-accused Shawet Kumar has been acquitted from the offences on the ground that there is no signature at the time of withdrawal of the amount from the bank in the said chques by Shawet Kumar. He is acquitted whereas from the evidence of PW/32 that in chqeque no. 463265, the signature of Subhash is there. 48. In the matter of "Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation" (2003) 3 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust by Public Servant, cheating and forgery of documents or valuable security and also the criminal misconduct by the public servant. In para 359 to 384, the Hon'ble Apex court has held that:- 359 -Section 409 deals with criminal breach of trust by a public servant a or by a banker, merchant or agent. Section 30 405 defines criminal breach of frust. The offence like the offence of criminal misappropriation is characterized by an actual fraudulent appropriation of property. There is not originally wrongful taking or moving as in the case of theft but the offence consists in wrongful appropriation of property, consequent upon a possession which is lawful. The offence is distinguishable from criminal b misappropriation because the subject of it is not the property which by some casual act or otherwise, but without criminal means, comes into the offender's possession, but the property which is entrusted to the offender by the owner or by others lawful authority and which the offender holds subject to some duty or obligation to apply it according to the trust. 360- Sections 407 to 409 make special provisions for various cases in e which property is entrusted to the enumerated categories of persons who commit the offence. The offence of breach of trust and dishonest misappropriation are sufficient to constitute an offence under the relevant provisions. 361- To constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust, there must be an entrustment, there must be misappropriation or conversion to one's own use, d or use in violation of a legal direction or of any legal contract; and the misappropriation or conversion or disposal must be with a dishonest intention. When a person allows others to misappropriate the money entrusted to him, that amounts to a criminal breach of trust as defined by Section 405. The section is relatable to property in a positive part and a negative part. The positive part deals with criminal misappropriation or e conversion of the property and the negative part consists of dishonestly using or disposing of the property in violation of any direction and of law or any contract touching the discharge of trust. 362. In Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay it was held that if the Managing Director of the Bank entrusted with securities owned by the pledgor disposes of their securities against the stipulated terms of the contract entered into by the parties with an intent to cause wrongful loss to the pledgor and wrongful gain to the Bank, there can be no question but that the Managing Director has necessarily mens rea required by Section 405. 363. The term "entrustment" is not necessarily a term of law. It may have different implications in different contexts. In its most general signification g all it imports is the handing over 31 possession for some purpose which may not imply the conferring of any proprietary right at all. 364. When a person misappropriates to his own use the property that does not belong to him, the misappropriation is dishonest even though there was an intention to restore it at some future point of time. conversion. 365. As noted by this Court in Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai v. State of Bombayt to establish the charge of criminal breach of trust, the a prosecution is not obliged to prove the precise mode of misappropriation or misapplication by the accused of the property entrusted to him or over which he has dominion. The principal ingredient of the offence being dishonest misappropriation or conversion which may not ordinarily be a matter of direct proof, entrustment of property and failure in breach of an obligation to account for the property entrusted if proved, may, in the light of other circumstances, justifiably lead to an inference of dishonest misappropriation or conversion. 366. Section 420 deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The offence of cheating is made of two ingredients: deception of any person and fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any e property. To put it differently, the ingredients of the offence are that the person deceived delivers to someone a valuable security or property, that the person so deceived was induced to do so, that such person acted on such inducement in consequence of his having been deceived by the accused and that the accused acted fraudulently or dishonestly when so inducing the person. To constitute the offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the ddeception should be by express words, but it may be by conduct or implied in the nature of the transaction itself. 367. Section 467 relates to forgery of such documents as valuable securities and of other documents mentioned. 368. Section 468 deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating. The offence is complete as soon as there was forgery with a particular intent. 369. Section 471 deals with using as genuine a forged document. For the purpose of convicting an accused under Section 467 read with Section 471 IPC, it has to be shown that an accused either knew or has reason to believe that the document was forged. 32 370. Section 463 defines forgery and Section 464 deals with making a false statement. Section 463 reads as follows: "463. Forgery. Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery." 371. In order to constitute forgery, the first essential is that the accused should have made a false document. The false document must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community. 372. The expression "intent to defraud" implies conduct coupled with an h intention to deceive or thereby to cause injury. In other words, defraud involves two conceptions, namely, the deceit and injury to the person deceived, that is infringement of some legal right possessed by him but not necessarily deprivation of property. The term "forgery" as used in the statute is used in its ordinary and popular acceptation. 373. The definition of the offence of forgery declares the offence to be completed when a false document or false part of a document is made with specified intention. The questions are (1) is the document false, (ii) is it made by the accused, and (iii) is it made with an intent to defraud. If at all the questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused is guilty. 374. In order to constitute an offence of forgery the documents must be made dishonestly or fraudulently. But dishonest or fraudulent are not tautological. Fraudulent does not imply the deprivation of property or an element of injury. In order to be fraudulent, there must be some advantage on the one side with a corresponding loss on the other. Every forgery postulates a false document either in whole or in part, however small. 375. The intent to commit forgery involves an intent to cause injury. A person makes a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently signs with an intent or cause to believe that the document was signed by a person whom he knows it was not signed. 33 376. A false description makes a document of forgery when it is found that the accused by giving such false description intended to make out or wanted it to believe that it was not he that was executing the document but another person. 377. The accused persons have tried to take shelter behind what they have described as "market practices". Such practices even if existing, cannot take the place of statutory and regulatory functions. There is no public interest involved in such practices and they cannot be a substitute for compliance with the regulatory or statutory prescriptions. An attempt was made to show that there was subsequent disapproval of the market practices; at the point of time when the transactions took place there was no embargo. It is their stand that the practices were a part of accepted norms. We do not find anything plausible in these explanations. A practice even if was prevailing, if wrong, is not to be approved. The subsequent clarifications do not in any way put seal of approval on the practices adopted in the past, on the other hand it condemns it. 378. When the factual background highlighted is considered in the light of the various provisions, it is clear that the alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code have been established against the accused persons. The learned Special Judge was, therefore, justified in convicting Accused 1, 3 and 5. 379. Section 13(2) of the PC Act is intended to deal with aberrations of public servants. In view of the finding that A-1, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, in his capacity as a public servant abused his position by causing and/or allowing MUL's funds to be utilized for the wrongful gain of A-5, provisions of Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) are clearly applicable. h Similar is the position vis-à-vis A-3. 380. The offences in these cases were not of the conventional or traditional type. The ultimate objective was to use public money in a carefully planned manner for personal use with no right to do it. 381. Funds of the public bodies were utilized as if they were private funds. There was no legitimacy in the transactions. Huge funds running into hundreds of crores of MUL, a government company, were diverted and all the accused persons concerned A-1. A-3 and A-5 played dubious roles in these illegitimate transactions. Their acts had serious repercussions on the beconomic system of the country, and the magnitude of financial impact involved in the present appeal is only the tip of the iceberg. There were several 34 connected cases and interestingly some of the prosecution witnesses in the present case are stated to be accused in those cases. That itself explains the thread of self- perseverance running through their testimony. Therefore, the need to pierce the facadial smokescreen to unravel the truth to lift the veil so that the apparent, which is not real, can be avoided. The proverbial red herrings are to be ignored, to find out the guilt of the accused. 382. The cause of the community deserves better treatment at the hands of the court in the discharge of its judicial functions. The community or the State is not a persona non grata whose cause may be treated with disdain. The entire community is aggrieved if economic offenders who ruin the d economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of the moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye, unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest, as was aptly stated in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal22, 383. Unfortunately in the last few years, the country has seen an alarming rise in white-collar crimes which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. These cases are nothing but private gain at the cost of the public, and lead to economic disaster. 384. The convictions of Accused 1, 3 and 5 are in order and are maintained. A question about the sentence was raised. Normally, cases involving offences which corrode the economic stability are to be dealt with sternly. It is, however, noticed that A-5 has died during the pendency of the appeal. A-1 and A-3 were small flies who appear to have been caught in the web of A-5's machinations. Apparent reason for their involvement is greed and avarice. There may be substance in the plea raised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that higher-ups of MUL and banks cannot certainly be unaware of the goings-on, and have not been proceeded with and given a clear chit. Though this is certainly a matter of concern, yet that cannot be a ground for taking a sympathetic view of A-1 and A-3's conduct. 35 Considering the fact that the occurrence took place a decade back, and the trial has spread over a few years, and the death of A-5, we feel custodial sentence for the period already undergone (which we are told was for a number of months) would meet the ends of justice. While fixing the quantum of sentence, we have duly considered the fact that in the instant case the amounts have been paid back, which as noted above, learned counsel for the prosecution conceded was a factor for fixing the quantum of sentence. The fine amounts imposed remain unaltered with the default sentence. Appeals by b A-1, A-3 and A-5 are dismissed subject to modification of sentence. We respectfully agree with conclusions of learned Brother Shah, though not with the reasoning in their entirety regarding dismissal of the appeals against acquittal of A-2, and setting aside the conviction of A-4. 49. In the present case also, the appellant, G. P. Pandey, was entrusted with the funds of the Janpad Panchayat, and he, being the Chief Executive Officer, withdrew the amount through the co-accused Subhash Chand Barik, who is also Asstt. Grade-3 in the same office. They withdrew the amount from the bank in cash for payment of concerned persons who allegedly gave their services of fixing tents and supplying stationary for the camp, which was not organised, and fake/forged bills were raised. The act of the appellants completely satisfies the requirements of Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, and the act of the appellant G.P. Pandey satisfies the offence of Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 50. This court, therefore, is of the view that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants for the alleged offences and there is no scope for interference in their conviction and sentences awarded to them. 51. In the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, (2006) 8 SCC 693, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that corruption by public servants is a gigantic problem that affects and everyone has to suffer on that count. In para 32, it has been held that:- 36 32. It is difficult to accept the prayer of the respondent that a lenient view be taken in this case. The corruption by public servants has become a gigantic problem. It has spread everywhere. No facet of public activity has been left unaffected by the stink of corruption. It has deep and pervasive impact on the functioning of the entire country. Large-scale corruption retards the nation-building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. As has been aptly observed in Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralising the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. The reputation of corrupt would gather thick and unchaseable clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke. 52. From the foregoing considerations, both the appeals filed by the appellants fail and are hereby dismissed. 53. The appellants shall serve the entire sentence as awarded by the learned trial court. The appellants are reported to be on bail; they shall be taken into custody to serve their sentence. 54. The trial court record be sent back along with a copy of this judgment to the trial court concerned. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika