9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truction of evidence and cheating the department - Accused No. 2 has played a pivotal role in the execution of conspiratorial agreement resulting in huge misappropriation of the funds of the Customs Department - Accused No. 1 to 3 is convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and is further directed to pay a fine - C.C. No. 103 of 1997 - - - Dated:- 15-12-2009 - Shri I.S. Antin, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri R. Mallaiah, Spl. P.P., for the Appellant. S/Shri Kiran S. Javali, Kashinath and B. Shankar Bhat, Counsels, for the Respondent. [Judgment]. Just as it is difficult to ascertain when a fish in the water drinks water, it is difficult to ascertain when and how a public servant incharge of public funds would misappropriate them. This is a classic case of the Commissioner, Additional Commissioner and Inspector of Customs whose names are reflected as Accused 1 to 3 in the arraignment unsuccessfully executing conspiratorial agreement to embezzle the bounty meant for the whistle-blower. The sub-rosa procedure of processing and disbursing reward amount to informer emboldens Accused No. 1 to 3 to presume that the coast is clear. They embark upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... committee. In the minutes of the meeting number of informers at some places is mentioned in singular. The investigation revealed that only one informer surfaced and there was no proof of division of the advance amount because of the informer being single. Thus the minutes of the meeting clarified, the informer being single. It was also corroborated by the fact that the work sheets prepared by R.J. Manohar (A2) and enclosed to advance reward proposal did not reveal plurality of the informer. After processing the bill S. Manikyan, CAO, brought Rs. 44 Lakhs in cash and DD of Rs. 11 Lakhs from the bank as per the instructions of Sri J.P. Kaushik (A1) and handed them to R.J. Manohar (A2) and G.B. Joshi on 29-7-1988 and obtained the acknowldgements. This amount was entrusted to them for disbursement of the informer as per the office order. It is also the allegation of the prosecution that a sum of Rs. 55 Lakhs was dishonestly appropriated on the pretext of disbursement to informer No. 1, a fictitious person on 29-7-1988 at Bangalore by Sri J.P. Kaushik (A1) who obtained the left thumb impression of alleged informer No. 1 on two sheets i.e., (1) on the back of the information slip and (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons for deviating the proposed amount of Rs. 1.10 Crores was mentioned in the minutes of the meetings and the file was given to Sri J.P. Kaushik (A1) to carry it to Bangolore. The Prosecution would further allege that the minutes of the meeting dated 1-2-1989 held at Delhi was dishonestly destroyed by Sri J.P. Kaushik (A1) who made note in his writing in the file certifying that the final reward to informer and officers was sanctioned by the reward committee at Delhi. Sri Kaushik (A1) did not bring to the notice of final reward committee, the fact of the advance reward being split up for two informers. It was confirmed by the statements of Mukhopadhyay and Govindan Tumpy that the final reward was sanctioned for one informer and not for two informers. Pursuant to the approval of the final reward of Rs. 45 Lakhs by the final reward committee, a bill was prepared and a cheque for Rs. 45 lakhs was prepared and for such amount DD was purchased from SBI on 15-11-1989 favouring Administrative Officer, Customs, Mangalore . After encashing the DD, the amount of Rs. 45 Lakhs was entrusted to Sri R.J. Manohar (A2) by Sri A. Selvarajan, Administrative Officer, Customs, Mangalore. Sri R.J. Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) made interpolations in the despatch register of CSP, Kundapur to create an impression that source information dated 4-4-1988 recorded by him was despatched to Additional Collector Sri R.J. Manohar (A2) on 5-4-1988, although it was not dispatched on that day. Thus, the accused manipulated information slip as well as payment vouchers despatch registers of officers, CSP, Kundapur, destroyed original DRI. I and minutes of final reward committee meeting dated 1-2-1989 and abused their official position as public servants to obtain the undue pecuniary advantage for themselves so as to constitute commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 201, 467, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. After perusal of the material on record and hearing the prosecution and the accused, by learned predecessor in office framed charge for the offences punishable under Sections 120E, 409, 201, 467 r/w 471 and 477A r/w S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. Charge was read over and explain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Point No. 1 In the Affirmative, Point No. 2 In the Affirmative, Point No. 3 In the Affirmative, Point No. 4 In the Affirmative, Point No. 5 In the Affirmative, Point No. 6 In the Affirmative, Point No. 7 In the Affirmative, Point No. 8 In the Affirmative, Point No. 9 As per final order, for the following : REASONS 7. POINT No. 1 : - As for the validity of the sanction for prosecution of Accused No. 1 to 3 it may be noticed that both Accused No. 1 and 3 had retired from services as on the date of filing of the charge sheet. The requirement of sanction for prosecution of accused No. 1 and 3 can be dispensed with. As for prosecution of Accused-2, prosecution has examined P.W. 43. He has testified that file relating to the sanction for prosecution of Accused No. 1 and 2 was processed by Chief Vigilance officer under whom he was working. After perusal of the records he issued sanction order for prosecution of Accused-2. He has also adverted to the sanction order produced at Ex. P122. It is of relevance to notice that there is no independent cross-examination by counsel for A2 and it was submitted that the cross-examination made by learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority and the Recruiting Officer respectively is not in dispute. Whether the accused No. 1 to 3 disbursed the sum of Rs. One Crore to any genuine Informer is a core issue and the crux of the matter that needs to be examined on the basis of charge indicated by the prosecution and the defence plea set up in the case. Of equal relevance is the fact that the material defence plea set up in the case is that the Department of Customs operated under a degree of secrecy and the whole process of maintaining confidentiality of the identity of the Informer was secretive. The Department of Customs followed such unique procedure with a solitary object of ensuring safety and security of the informer. 9. The prosecution has conceded that the Investigating Agency for such obvious reason could not pierce through the protective valve to identify the informers and to interrogate. According to the prosecution, the racket was unearthed when one of the alleged informers invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Hon ble High Court and sought appropriate direction to the Customs Officer to grant reward amount to him on the specious plea that he was the sole informer. The testimony of P.W. 1 to 3 would satisf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The testimony of P.W. 10 to 13 has substantial bearing on the machination employed by Accused No. 1 to 3 and on the adventurous course embarked upon by them. These material witnesses being high ranking Officers in the Department of Customs have testified to unravel the overt acts of the accused. They relate in a satisfactory manner about the due procedure required to be followed in the matter of proposal, processing and disbursement of reward amount to informer. Their evidence unfolds not merely the irregularities but the serious manipulations and fabrication of documents to defraud the department under the guise of disbursement of large amount of Rs. Once Crore to the alleged informer. In this context, it is discernible from the testimony of these material witnesses that the accused taking advantage of the situation enabling them to keep the records of the process under wraps committed various overt acts of commission and omission. In this context the defence plea bearing on the plurality of informers is over emphasised and the reward amount is shown to have been disbursed between two informers. Such specific stand of the defence in clearly reflected from material available on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... knowing the number of informers and the exact information provided by each informer, because the DRI-I has not been prepared properly, as it does not reproduce the exact text of the information given by the informers. In case the Reward Committee meant to sanction a lump-sum amount to all the informers to be shared by them on their own, then this was not correct as reward has to be based on the role of informers. The Committee did not know the exact role of each of the informers. However, if in spite of this the reward was to be shared by them equally then this should have specifically mentioned by the Committee. Without mentioning these facts, the matter has been left to the discretion of the disbursing officer who in fact had himself split the reward amount of Rs. 55 lacs and paid two informers (Rs. 44 Lacs and Rs. 11 Lacs respectively). 10. Again in para 3 of Ex.P. 43 the relevant clarification bearing on the dubious nature of the processing of the proposal for reward which merits careful scrutiny is incorporated as hereunder :- As per the DRI-I filed the nature of information given by two informers seems to be identical. As per the endorsement on the envelope containing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvincing. It has been highlighted that in the absence of specification of number of informers, it would be well-high impossible to allow the accused to play on the plural noun informers . The reply produced at Ex.P. 47 would further reveal that the proposal, the forwarding note and the concluding sentence would reveal single informer, and the sponsoring collector (Accused No. 1) that had not never pointed out existence of informers. Had he pointed out such fact, the members would have certainly asked him (A1) to indicate the relative role of the informers. In order to justify their stand that DRI-I available in the file was only a substituted copy, these material witnesses in their joint reply furnished as per Ex.P. 47 assign the following reasons :- 1. DRI-I original copy is not available in DRI HQ at Delhi. 2. DRI-I original copy is also not available at Bangalore, DRI office. 3. DRI-I has not been despatched from Coondapur, where Shri G.B. Johsi, Inspector was stationed. 4. It is supposed to have been despatched from Mangalore office, which was the Addl. Collector s office. This is highly unusual. 5. The DRI-I was recorded on 4-4-1988 at Coond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imself and it was without the authority of the reward sanction order. It may also be highlighted that the relative role of the two informers should have been pointed out by Accused No. 1 at the time of deciding advance reward in the relevant meeting of the committee. The decision of Accused No. 1 who was the sponsoring Collector to give reward to two informers is not merely irregular and unwarranted but also highly suspect. The Joint Report produced at Ex.P. 47 would further unravel the fact that information slip was handled by Accused No. 1 himself and that there was misplacement of the final reward committees note and it has also substantial bearing on the overt acts of the accused No. 1 in the matter of substitution of DRI-I. The Inward Register bearing No. Nil maintained for the relevant period 1988 by the Personal Assistant to Additional Collector does not show any entry regarding respective DRI-I DRI-II. Such fact is reflected in Ex.P. 48(a) at Sl. No. 4(ii). Ex.P. 51 is another relevant document which is a joint reply submitted by S. Mukhopadhyay (P.W. 10) and G.S. Tampy (P.W. 12). This joint reply is accompanied by covering letter produced at Ex.P. 50. This material docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only one informer. He has further asserted that neither the accused nor accused No. 2 informed the committee members about informers being more than one. He has adverted to other material documents namely Ex.P. 41 which contains the minutes of the meeting held on 19-4-1998, a perusal of this material document would make it apparent that there is smudging of the words were and they to make it look like plurality informers. This witness has further testified in a cogent and convincing manner that there was a separate note which was go typewritten after dictating to the Stenographer and P.W. 12 dictated such note and such note is missing and such note was in addition to Ex.P. 45. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witnesses to erode his credibility. P.W. 11 would also corroborate the version of P.W. 10 as regards the manipulation of the records by Accused No. 1 in the matter of creating evidence of plurality of informers. His evidence is also reflective of the fact that accused No. 1 had no competence or authority to apportion the reward amount and any apportionment of the reward should have been specifically authorised by the Reward Committee. Some stray a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce reward amount was paid to a person said to be an informer in his presence. He has adverted to relevant document produced at Ex.P. 26 and has identified his signature at Ex.P. 26(h). He has identified the signature of Accused No. 1, 2, 3 at Ex.P. 26(f), P. 26(g) and 26(c) respectively. As per Ex.P. 26 a sum of Rs. 11 Lakhs is apparently received by an informer. As for the payment of Rs. 11 Lakhs to an informer under Ex.P. 26, it is substantiated by other evidence including the opinion of the Handwriting and Finger Print Expert who has testified as P.W. 24. 17. The testimony of P.W. 15 has some bearing on the case of prosecution. He would only testify that he received Ex.P. 39 on 29-4-1988 and he has also adverted to the endorsement made by Accused No. 2 to the effect received information slip . He would further advert to the work sheet for the calculation of reward amount produced at Ex.P. 39(b) and would make reference to Ex.P. 41(e) which is the minutes of the committee for advance reward to the informers. He would also testify that he had written and put up note by issuing advance reward sanction orders to the informers and he has identified the signature of Mr. Prasanna Ku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed to Accused No. 1. He would also refer to Ex.P. 27 which relates to disbursement of Rs. 55 Lakhs towards advance reward. He has also adverted to the letter dated 4-4-1988 addressed by accused No. 3 as per Ex.P. 74. 22. The evidence of P.W. 22 would reveal that Accused No. 3 despatched the letter as per Ex.P. 76 from Kundapur office and that the entry was effected in the Inward Register as per Ex.P. 76(a). He has also identified the signature of Accused No. 3 at Ex.P. 76(c). His testimony has relevance only to the extent of Accused No. 3 despatching sealed cover containing relevant information regarding landing of gold biscuits along with a covering letter. 23. P.W. 23 would speak about Outward Register for the period 2-11-1989 to 27-4-1988, marked Ex.P. 77. He has identified the entries in Ex.P. 77(a) as being in his handwriting. He would further assert that as against Sl. No. 5091 after DRI-I, the words Joshi Inspector written inside the bracket were not in his handwriting. The testimony of P.W. 26, 27, 28 and 29 have only little bearing on the prosecution case. Their evidence would only relate to the role of P.W. 25 who is the alleged informer. P.W. 31 is a witness to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28. P.W. 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 would speak about the Investigating Officer obtaining finger prints of Accused No. 2, CW-50, P.W. 25, Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 3 respectively. 29. P.W. 44 speaks about accord of sanction for prosecution of Accused No. 1 and 2. His evidence would merit consideration only to the extent it concerns prosecution of Accused No. 2 since Accused No. 1 had already attained age of superannuation at the time of submitting charges sheet. 30. P.W. 44 and 45 would speak about search of house of CW. 50 and accused No. 1 respectively. 31. P.W. 46 who is the retired Deputy Commissioner of Vigilance in the Directorate of Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi would testify regarding the guidelines to the Department in the matter of preparation of Information slip (DRI-I) and disbursement of reward amount. He has adverted to Ex.P. 63 and 64 which are the certified copies of Preventive Manual issued by Govt. of India. His evidence would substantiate the procedure followed by the officers concerned in the Department of Customs. His testimony is also reflective of the fact that the officer who records the secret information received from the informe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Mangalore and proceeding towards PVS building where CW-24 was found chewing pan. The witness would assert, they returned to Kundapur. CW-50 Pokoyya remained at Kundapur and he (witness) proceeded to Gangolli. Thereafter Pokoyya came to his house and asked for keys of his office which was situated close to his house. He would further assert that one Mysore minerals stores is situated in his land at a distance of 11/2 furlong from his house and used to go there to telephone to Customs Office, Kundapur. He would assert that on 6-4-1988 at about 6.30 or 7 PM he went to the said store and telephoned to the Customs office to inform that some landing was to take place on that night. The person who received the telephone call asked for some details. He would further assert that on that night some unknown persons had gone to the house of Abdulla. During the night intervening 6th April and 7th April 1988 some officers were waiting in his office for the landing to take place. Mr. Abdulla who had gone to his house did not return. He would further assert that he told the Customs Officers that landing was to take place in the seashore and that they should go there. He would further relate a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 89 and there was an interim order to the Customs Department not to disburse reward amount. He has adverted to copy of the writ petition produced at Ex.P.108 and the interim order produced at Ex.P. 109. The statement of objections filed by Respondents therein is also available on record and is marked Ex.P. 110. The witness has further testified that he has given specimen thumb impression before the Investigating Officer in Ex.P. 79. This witness has been cross-examined at length. His cross-examination would reveal that after the dismissal of the writ petition he did not initiate any legal proceeding for claiming the reward amount. The testimony of this material witness assumes pertinence in the context of the fraudulent overt acts of Accused No. 2 and 3 which have substantial bearing on the change. 33. It is of significance to note that there is nothing in the cross-examination of this material witness to deny the payment of Rs. 25,000/- by Accused No. 2 in Hotel Sheron. The witness has testified before this court that the vague impression of the cutlines of the ridges found towards left of thick thumb impression in Ex.P. 21(m) is his thumb mark. He would also assert that the adja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iate the forgery committed by accused by creating false documents. However, the disputed LTMs marked Q6, A8, Q9 and Q10 purporting to belong to alleged informers are certified to be that of Pokoyya (CW-50), by the expert witness. There is no proof of the left thumb marks at Q3 and Q5 as being of same person so as to justify the defence plea that the alleged first informer received Rs. 36 Lakhs towards disbursement of final reward. Of equal relevance is the opinion of the expert witness that there is no similarity of LTM mark Q1 purporting to belong to the first informer receiving advance reward of Rs. 44 Lakhs, with Q4 marked Ex.P. 25(b). It is thus manifestly clear that the left thumb impression of purported first informer are forged ones. As for the left thumb impressions of the purported 2nd informer, the disputed left thumb impressions namely Q7, Q8, Q9 and Q10 have been examined by the Handwriting Expert (P.W. 24) who has clearly opined that out of these five questioned thumb impressions, of the purported 2nd informer, Q6, Q8, Q9 and Q10 tally with the specimen left thumb impressions of CW-50 Pokoyya. However, there is no proof of the other disputed left thumb impression marke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re also adverted to by the witness and they are marked in evidence as Ex.P 34 to Ex.P. 136. It is of relevance to notice that Accused No. 1 to 3 claim the privilege of maintaining secrecy in the matter of identity of the informers for the obvious reason of security and safety of the informers. However, I cannot restrain an observation that the Investigating Officer should not have rest content with such responses of the accused without examining the validity of their stand. The Investigating Agency should have pierced through the protective valve of espionage. However, such omission, in my considered view, is not fatal to the prosecution. For prosecution has been able to place satisfactory and convincing material on record to put across its case that Accused No. 1 to 3 who were an instrumental in making recommendations and disbursing of the large reward of One Crore were duty bound to account for proper disbursal of the large sum. The manipulation of records and replacement of original disbursal DRI-I and deliberate misplacement or destruction of relevant nothing put by the members of the committee who examined the proposal for reward are writ large on the face of the record. Accus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-disbursal of 80% of the reward amount and consequently accused No. 1 to 3 who are solely responsible for recommendation and disbursement of the reward amount are guilty of the offences complained of. Elaborating on such contention, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has further emphasized that Accused No. 1 to 3 had admittedly dominion over the property, namely, the reward amount and that they have not been able to satisfactorily account for the disbursement of such amount charge against accused No. 1 to 3 for the offences under Section 120B r/w 409, 201, 467 r/w 471 and 477A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 stands established. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied on the following decisions in the course of his argument :- (1) AIR 2008 SC 368 (2) AIR 1995 SC 1959 (Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab with Shivakumar v. State of Punjab) (3) 2004 AIR SCW 3006 (AS Krishnan Others v. State of Kerala) (4) AIR 1957 SC 840 (Evidence Act, u/s 133. Approver Evidence) (5) 2005 Crl. L.J. 1677 (Desraj v. State of J K) (6) 2005 SC (Crl.) 135 (Alamgir v. State of New Delhi) (7) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urpose of cheating and misappropriated the reward amount meant for the informer. The disbursement of 80% of the amount in favour of fictitious informer No. 1, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would emphasise, is established by cogent and satisfactory evidence. The replacement of original DRI-I amounts to creation of false documents, and removal of relevant note would fall within the ambit of offence of destroying evidence under Section 201 IPC. Besides there are several instances of forgery as highlighted in Ex.P. 47. He also submitted that Ex.P. 40 is a fabricated document which has been substituted in place of the original and that Ex.P. 43 has also been substituted by replacing the original. He further highlighted that sealed cover referred to in Ex.P. 41(e) is destroyed by the accused. It was also emphasised by learned Special Public Prosecutor that even if the admitted documents are taken at their face value they would only bear out the fact of disbursal of Rs. 20 Lakhs to CW-50 and there is no accounting by accused for disbursal of Rs. 80 Lakhs. He lastly contended that but for filing of the Writ Petition 4481/1989 by P.W. 25, accused No. 1 to 3 would have gone scot-fre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f P.W. 25 being of civil nature, an appropriate civil proceeding could be instituted for recovery of the reward amount. He highlighted some contradiction in the evidence of P.W. 10 and further convassed that there is no evidence in proof of destruction of minutes of final meeting relating to final reward. 38. The learned defence counsel for Accused-1 has also highlighted in his written arguments that the documents produced at Ex.P. 40. (sic) D2(d), P51(h-1) and Ex.P. 47(e-1) are Photostat copies of the same documents and they were recovered by prosecution in the course of investigation. None of these recoveries have been held by the prosecution to have been tampered with. It is further contended that there is no specific allegation of destruction of DRI-I and the allegations of the prosecution regarding replacement or insertion of documents is without any basis. He has adverted to the testimony of P.W. 13 to put across his contention that the proposal for advance reward was considered by the advance reward committee EX.P. 40 was the basis for such advance reward. He further contended that deposition of P.W. 10 does not establish destruction of DRI-I or falsification of DRI-I. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs, prosecution has been successful in establishing the fact that there was no disbursement of 80% of the reward amount of Rs. One Crore to alleged Informer No. 1. 40. As for the written arguments submitted by learned counsel for Accused No. 2, the main thrust of the argument is that the reward was based on the relevant information received by the Recruiting Officer, namely, Accused No. 3 and that recommendation and disbursement of the reward amount between two informers was based on the approval by the committee constituted for consideration of the proposal. It is also highlighted in the written arguments that there is no basis for alleging that DRI-I has been falsified/substituted. It is next contended that there is no effort made by the Investigation Officer to verify the genuineness or otherwise of Ex.P. 40. It is also highlighted that there is sufficient material to bear out the fact that there are two informers between whom the reward amount was rightly disbursed after the approval of the reward committee. Validity of the joint report as per Ex.P. 47 has also been assailed in the course of written arguments. It is next contended that there is no proof of forgery and the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 1995 and has been attending the court for the last 13 years regularly by travelling all the way from New Delhi. He further submits that he suffered heart attack in the year 1999 and he has been on medication. He would also submit that his wife has breast cancer. 49. Accused No. 2 would submit that he suffered slip disc and is aged 64. Accused further pleads for leniency in the matter of sentence. 50. Accused No. 3 submit that he is 75. He is a heart patient and is diabetic. 51. Having regard to the period of pendency, mitigating circumstances pleaded by accused No. 1 to 3 in the matter of leniency in the sentence, and taking into consideration the gravity of the offences and the magnitude of the fraud, I consider it just and expedient to pass the following : ORDER The punishment of the offence under Section 120B IPC could be similar to the one under Section 409 of IPC, which is gravest of the offences complained of. For the offence under Section 120B IPC, Accused No. 1 is convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-; in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for a period of six mont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the offence under Section 471 IPC, Accused No. 2 is convicted and sentenced to udergo Simple Imprisonment for two years. For the offence under Section 477A IPC, Accused No. 2 is convicted and sentenced to udergo Simple Imprisonment for two years. For the offence under Section 3(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused No. 2 is convicted and sentenced to udergo simple imprisonment for three years and is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 70,000/-; in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for a period of one year. For the offence under Section 120B IPC, Accused No. 3 is convicted and sentenced to udergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-; in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for a period of four months. For the offence under Section 409 IPC, Accused No. 3 is convicted and sentenced to udergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-; in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for a period of six months. For the offence under Section 201 IPC, Accused No. 3 is convicted and sentenced to udergo Simple Imprisonment f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
