9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (9) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 1967 was Barneshwar Prasad Sinha alias Lallan. He was the Development Head Clerk in the Deputy Commissioner's office at Daltongani during the relevant period. Harihar Prasad. the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1967 was the Project Executive Officer in . his capacity of the Block Development Officer of Mahuadar throughout the relevant period. One Muhammed Usman Beg. was an overseer, and one Nand Kishore Prasad. was the Asstt. Engineer, attached to the Block. Among the contractors was Krishna Lal Sahani who was the appellant in Cri. Appeal No. 117 of 1967. now deceased, whose interests are being looked after by his son under an order of this Court, and Banarsi Lal Kohili. the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1967. There remains the third contractor - appellant Jwala Prasad. whose Appeal No. is Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1967. 3. Mahuadar is situated in the interior of Palamau a District in Chhota-Nagpur. It is the headquarters of a Block comprising about 106 villages. The headquarters of the District is at Daltongani situated at a distance of about 64 miles from Mahuadar. In the villages of this Block the popul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner. Palamau. the appellant Harihar Prasad. Block Development Officer, re-designated Project Executive Officer, prepared an ad hoc schematic programme for Mahuadar for five years. He forwarded this to the Deputy Commissioner. In his covering letter Harihar Prasad indicated that the programme, after approval, may be returned to him for obtaining the approval of the Block Advisory Committee. Copies of the schematic budget, prepared by Harihar Prasad. were sent to the Assistant Development Commissioner. Chhota-Nagpur, Ranchi. by the Deputy Commissioner under a forwarding letter in which he stated that he had been informed by the Block Development Officer that the programme had been drawn after discussion with the Assistant Development Commissioner. 6. N.K. Banerjee admitted that the draft of this letter forwarding the schematic programme bears his signature But Harihar Prasad said that it was not sent with his knowledge. There can. however, be no doubt that Harihar Prasad was the author of the ad hoc schematic programme. The document bears his signature on every page. The ad hoc schematic programme as prepared by Harihar Prasad was in due course returned to the Deputy Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence at Ranchi on 10th 14th of July 1957. No mention. strangely. is to be found in the proceedings of any amended programme for the grant of subsidies to the tribal families as regards Rural Housing the Conference seems to have taken the view that any alterations should have the approval of the Executive Engineer. Copies were in due course forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner. Palamau. and the Project Executive Officer. Mahuadar. 11. For the execution of the programme allotments of funds were made by the State Government from time to time. The first allotment was for a sum of ₹ 58,500/-for 1956-57 made by letter dated March 4. 1957. Out of this sum of ₹ 39.000/-were earmarked for subsidy to 78 families at ₹ 500/-each to be paid in kind and ₹ 15,500/-were surrendered. The second allotment was for ₹ 1.20.000/-by letter dated March 21. 1957. but this expenditure was for other heads and we are not concerned with that matter in this case. 12. For 1957-58 there were two interim allotments one for the first three months by letter dated April 11. 1957. for ₹ 51.250/-and the other on June 12. 1957. for ₹ 78.000/-. Then followed an allotme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) On July 28, 1957. Harihar Prasad drew eight bills as follows:- (i) for ₹ 17,500/-in favour of Kohili as advance for construction of drains: (ii) for ₹ 24.500/-in favour of Kohili as advance for payment of roads or lanes: (iii) for ₹ 24,000/-in favour of Sahani as advance for construction of causeways: (iv) for ₹ 20.000/-in favour of Sahani as advance for construction of causeways: (v) for ₹ 3,500/-in favour of Sahani as advance for construction of culverts: (vi) for ₹ 14,690/-is favour of Sahani: (vii) for ₹ 14.690/-in favour of Kohili; (viii) for ₹ 1.951/-in favour of Kohili. Nos. (v). (vi) and (vii) were final payments for supplies of bullocks, implements, seeds etc. and No. (Via) for paying transportation charges for bullocks supplied by Kohili. The total of all these eight items came to ₹ 1.20.831/-All these bills were encashed at Latehar between August 1 and August 12. 1957. The advances in some cases represented 90 per cent, of the value of the contracts. (f) On August 14. 1957. Harihar Prasad drew three more bills in favour of Jwala Prasad: the bills were (i) for ₹ 16.000/-: (ii) for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e disregarded. Some decisions taken by the District Officers' Conference were also willfully contravened. Huge expenditures were incurred, although necessary allotment of funds had not been made by the State Government. Bills for large amounts were drawn up in favour of the contractOrs. N.K. Banerjee himself drew a bill, although he was not the drawing and disbursing Officer, and undue favour was shown to the contractors in various ways. The contractors were selected because they were known to the trio - i.e. N.K. Banerjee. Harihar Prasad and B.P. Sinha. Contracts went to them without calling for the tenders. Huge advances were made to them without taking any security from them. To secure easy passage of bills through the treasury, advance payments were not mentioned as such. No care was taken to see that the contractors executed proper agreements. The articles supplied by the contractors and the works executed by them were worth far less than the amounts paid to them, but payments were made to them at full rates. The favours shown to the contractors were in consideration of illegal gratification paid by them to N.K. Banerjee, Harihar Prasad and B.P. Sinha, Harihar Prasad so ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be spent, two conditions must be fulfilled: (i) it must be sanctioned by competent authority: and (ii) funds must have been appropriated for it Rule 201 provides for the administrative approval at various stages. It further provides that if in the case, whether on grounds of urgency or otherwise, an executive officer is required by superior authority to carry out a work or incur a liability which involves any infringement of these financial rules, the orders of such authority should be conveyed in writing. In case of some emergency the officer may proceed to carry out the necessary work on his own responsibility, but he must immediately intimate to the Accountant General that he was incurring an unauthorised liability So far as the Blocks are concerned the allotments used to be made by the Development Commissioner. It is in evidence that no money could be spent by any Block or Project without allotment by the Government, i.e. by the Development Department. Only the Development Department can make allotments. 19. Further evidence is that the Deputy Commissioner was not competent either to make allotment or re-appropriate for any work of a Project. Re-appropriation has been define ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 90,950/-. This was for giving advances to the contractOrs. Sahani Jwala Prasad and Kohili for supplies of bullocks etc. for giving subsidy to 250 tribal families. The only letter of allotment regarding this matter which had been received from the Development Department was dated April 11. 1957 for an amount of ₹ 51.250/-. This was meant for expenditure 'on all heads. Out of this sum only ₹ 6.250/-were earmarked for irrigation which included the head relating to subsidy to tribal families. In that letter it was clearly indicated that the Block Development Officer was authorised to incur expenditure to the extent shown in the statement enclosed . It follows that the action of Harihar Prasad taken under the directions of Banerjee in drawing these bills much in excess of the allotted amount was in utter disregard of the Government order. The total expenditure under these three bills exceeded even the entire allotment of ₹ 51.250/-. It appears that on April 20. 1957. Harihar Prasad drew three bills covering ₹ 2,38,200/-. At that time no amount was at all provided for expenditure under the head Rural Housing so that this entire amount was wholly una ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the funds from time to time. If it were true that the entire amount of ₹ 27 lakhs had been allotted from the very beginning then such periodical allotments would have been unnecessary. In one of the allotment letters it was clearly stated that The Project Executive Officers are authorised to incur expenditure to the extent shown in the statement enclosed . This shows that the State Government was insisting upon the expenditure to be limited to the extent of allotments made. 28. N.K. Banerjee and Harihar Prasad must have known that the responsibility for allotting additional funds for the speedy implementation of the Project was that of the State Government, and it was not proper for them to proceed to incur the expenditure under the cover of speedy implementation of the Project. The excess expenditure under the various heads could not be justified as bona fide action on the part of N.K. Banerjee or Harihar Prasad. 29. Another feature of this case is that not a single contract was entered into after reference to the Deputy Commissioner. In fact the only order of the Deputy Commissioner S.K. Sinha is dated March 11. 1957. upon a note in connection with the expenditure fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... away from the headquarters. It therefore stands to reason to hold that the transactions had been entered into behind the back of the Deputy Commissioner by arranging things in such a fashion that each time Harihar Prasad was able to secure the approval of Banerjee to his actions. It could not have been due to mere chance but in pursuance of the conscious design to keep the Deputy Commissioner in dark. 30. This Court has given the matter its utmost consideration. It is of the view that it was not a matter of mere accident. The act was deliberate. The design reflected the mind of the conspiratOrs. For several months, from time to time, fraud was woven into the texture of this pattern. At last the enormity of the defalcations caused suspicion, and ultimately caused a split in the veil of secrecy and fraud became known. 31. A point was made about the letter which Harihar Prasad addressed to the Deputy Commissioner on July 18, 1957. It appears that in spite of requisition for much larger funds in connection with the revised programme made under letters dated April 24. 1957. the Development Department had allotted no funds for expenditure under the head Rural Housing and the fun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed could not have known the true manner in which the expenditures were being incurred. 35. The matters regarding the payment of ₹ 23.400/-as advanced to Kohili and ₹ 7.500/-which was paid to Kohili on March 30. 1957. have been dealt with by the High Court in detail and we agree with those findings. 36. With regard to the payment of ₹ 23.400/-it was argued that there was urgency of spending about ₹ 50.000/-by March 31. 1957. for the financial year 1956-57. N.K. Banerjee was in the position of the Deputy Commissioner and he directed the payment of ₹ 23.400/-to Kohili so that the work could be expeditiously done. There might have been irregularity in the making of the payment, it was urged, but the transaction was a bona fide transaction. It was urged that he called for tenders. It was also urged that he was not an outsider or an interloper and that he did not do anything with a guilty mind. There has been said his counsel. Mr. Mukerjee. some departure from the strict rules of procedure but his conduct does not show a guilty mind. We have considered every one of the propositions urged by Mr. Mukerjee but find there is no substance in any of them. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The order was passed by N.K. Banerjee who directed, the Block Development Officer to take agreements from each contractor and to make him an advance payment to the extent of 75 per cent, of the total supply. The supply was to be completed within a fortnight of the advance. N.K. Banerjee further recorded that the order for supply of seeds and implements should be placed by the Block Development Officer. 39. The next order is dated April 17. 1957. This was recorded by Harihar Prasad as follows: Record received. Agreement executed by the three contractors have been accepted and the payment orders for ₹ 36,375/-. ₹ 36,375/-and ₹ 18.200/-have been signed and bills made over to the contractOrs. Under the tender notice bullocks were to be specifically supplied at Mahuadar. but a clause was added in the agreement to the effect that transportation charges could be claimed for transport from Daltongani to Mahuadar. This was a contravention of the tender notice. 40. The relevant three bills were written out by the appellant Barmeshwar Prasad and drawn by Harihar Prasad and they were all drawn from the treasury on April 18. 1957. The final payments of suppli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in November 19570 though the meeting was held in June 1957. It did not bear the signature of the Commissioner who presided over the meeting. This contention, therefore, has no substance. 43. It follows from what has been stated above that the revised schematic programme was prepared without either the approval of the Block Advisory Committee or the technical heads of the District and that it was forwarded to the superior authorities by N.K. Banerjee, assisted by Harihar Prasad and the Development Clerk B.P. Sinha. It does not appear that the amended schematic programme was ever placed before the Deputy Commissioner. The High Court has said that the amended schematic programme was prepared during the absence of the Deputy Commissioner from his headquarters and there is no wonder that he had not seen it either before its despatch or even subsequently It is strange that although he had returned from casual leave and was present at the headquarters on April 24. 1957 he was not asked to sign the forwarding letter, although in the case of the ad hoc schematic programme the forwarding letter was signed by him. Prosecution suggests that this showed that the Deputy Commissioner was kept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was passed on 9-4-1957; (iii) The tender notice (Ext. 61 mentioned in the order was not issued at all: (iv) The order to pay transport charges amounting to ₹ 1.951/-passed by N.K. Banerjee was wholly unjustified in face of Ext. 6 which bore his signature: (v) The notice (Ext. 61 was totally silent as to the number of bullocks and the price per pair at which they were to be purchased: (vi) The order-sheet and the agreements were totally silent as to the Quantity of seeds or the nature of implements which were to be purchased: (vii) A clause relating to transportation charges was added in each of these agreements in contravention of the tender notice (Ext. 61: (viii) The total advances amounting to ₹ 90,950/-exceeded even the amount mentioned in the ad hoc programme and far exceeded the allotment of ₹ 6.250/-received under the allotment letter. Therefore, a substantial part of this expenditure was unauthorised: (ix) In the bills no mention was made that the amounts mentioned therein represented advances to contractors as enjoined by the relevant rule of the Bihar Treasury Manual. Therefore. the fact of payment of advance was suppressed from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il 21. 1957. Reference has been made to the decision of the Block Advisory Committee for construction of all the 28 colonies in a single year at a cost. of ₹ 1.950/-per unit. This was a false recital of facts in the order-sheets. These order-sheets further mention that necessary provision of fund has accordingly been made in the schematic programme and budget estimates. Kohili was given contract for construction of 2 colonies and Sahani and Jwala Prasad for 8 colonies each. The three contractors were advanced sums to the extent of 80% of the estimated cost. The reference to the statement in the order-sheet that provision had been made for funds in the schematic programme and budget estimate was false. There was a statement that Harihar Prasad had selected the contractors after a long per-suasion by the then Deputy Commissioner. It is clear that the selection of the three contractors had been made by Harihar Prasad at his own initiative and 85% of the proposed cost was advanced to each of them. All this was done when the Deputy Commissioner had proceeded on casual leave and the order-sheets could not have been out up before him. The advantage of the Deputy Commissioner's a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad there was no doubt that he was acting in concert with the contractOrs. Stamps for the agreements with Sahani and Kohili were purchased on April 17. 1957. and for Jwala Prasad had been purchased on April 19. 1957. These were purchased even before Harihar Prasad had recorded his first order in the order-sheets. This indicates that Harihar Prasad had privately arranged with Kohili, Sahani and Jwala Prasad for grant of contracts for construction of colonies and it was falsely mentioned in the order that he had had fixed up the contractors as advised by the Deputy Commissioner. 48. In making the advances a point should be noted. Although the Rules provided that security should be taken from the contractOrs. Harihar Prasad was guilty of contravention of these Rules and his action could not be said to be bona fide. 49. There is another aspect of the matter. When the original contract was given, the work of construction of houses proceeded at so slow a rate that the contractors asked for extension of time and ultimately when the work was stopped there was a total loss of at least ₹ 20,000/-. The total value of 12 houses not built, at ₹ 1,950/-per house, for which 85% h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n connection with the construction of drains and paving of roads, in which advance of 90 per cent, of the cost of the contract was asked. These applications were allowed, and on the same date bills were prepared in favour of Kohili. one for ₹ 17.500/-as advance for construction of drains and the other for ₹ 24,500/-as advance for the paving of roads. 53. The next document is dated September 24. 1957. It is an application of Kohili asking for final measurement and early payment. An overseer was appointed to take the measurements of the drains and pavements. On the next day. i.e. on September 27. 1957. the overseer so deputed had taken measurements and the value of the work done worked out at ₹ 51,691/-. whereas the allotment sanctioned in the budget during the entire schematic programme was ₹ 39.500/-. Similarly with regard to the. work for paving of village roads, the value worked out at ₹ 2,66.415/-and the balance payable to the contractor was ₹ 1.75.311/-. After interim payment, a bill was prepared in favour of Kohili for ₹ 1.55.780/-representing the final payment. It. therefore, appears that the total payments made to Kohili were as f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tures. But the Deputy Commissioner's evidence is there, and it is manifest that his denial was false. N.K. Banerjee has been proved to have been acting in concert with Harihar Prasad in showing undue favours to Kohili. 56. Kohili had submitted completion report and had mentioned therein that the total length of drains cut was 37.014 running feet and total payings done was 47.075 sq. feet. Although no drains had been cut in five of the villages, and no Payings had been done in eleven of the villages, vet Harihar Prasad took no action against Kohili. On the other hand he lost no time in drawing up bills for making payments for these words. Such payments exceeded the schematic programme. It is clear that Harihar Prasad had in this matter acted far in excess of his powers and had knowingly exceeded the ceilings fixed in the original Government letter as well as in the amended schematic programme. 57. The allotment letter had in unmistakable terms stated that the Block Development Officer must see to it that the actual expenditure under any of the primary units should, on no account, exceed the ceiling limits prescribed in schematic budget. Harihar Prasad was responsible for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prepared by Usman Beg; (ix) The final bills... were drawn up by mentioning false figures in the column meant for showing the appropriation for the current year. In fact there was no actual allotment of funds as mentioned therein: (x) The total ceilings for both these works fixed for the entire schematic period of five years was shown to have exceeded in less than two months or in less than one month, if... were to be relied upon as genuine; and (xi) The nature and duality of the works were most superficial and it resulted in a loss of nearly two lacs of rupees to the Government. We hold that the High Court was right in making these observations. 59. The last of the series of transactions related to the grant of contracts for construction of causeways and culverts. Under letter of the Government dated April 15. 1956. it was the ' Deputy Commissioner who had been delegated with the cowers of the Head of Department for the purpose of working such. Blocks and the Project Executive Officer was declared to be the drawing and disbursing officer in regard to his Block in respect of allotted funds placed at his disposal. The Additional Collector had absolutely no financi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade to Jwala Prasad. The total sum so advanced, namely. ₹ 64.5007-represented 90 per cent, of the total estimated cost of construction of causeways and culverts. Two roads were mentioned, but it was not mentioned in the order-sheet or in any other document about the actual spots where causeways were to be constructed on the two roads. Thus by splitting up one work into 15 items Harihar Prasad had accepted tenders for construction of causeways at a cost more than three times in excess of his powers. 62. With regard to the construction of culverts the relevant order-sheets are both in the names of Jwala Prasad and Sahani. In the first order. it was mentioned that the Deputy Commissioner had given administrative sanction. As in the other case two roads were mentioned, but the orders did not give any indication of the actual spots where the construction had to be made. As in the other case N.K. Banerjee as Additional Collector had approved the action taken by Harihar Prasad in connection with the works for construction of causeways and culverts. The Additional Collector was aware that he had no power to give approval. Therefore, he knowingly acted beyond his powers. The case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... November 25. 1957. This was followed by correspondence in which the contractors claimed that they were entitled to claim for the materials, labour and transportation charges which they had incurred in connection with the contracts. It is alleged by the State that the contractors were not in any mood to refund the advances and the Government sustained substantial loss because no security had been taken from the contractOrs. The High Court was right in holding that both Banerjee and Harihar Prasad were actuated with dishonest intention in suffering the contractors to secure large sums of Government money for their benefit. The attitude of the contractors was such, says the High Court, that both the public servants concerned (Banerjee and Harihar Prasad) and the contractors (Sahani and Jwala) had one design, namely, that of causing wrongful loss to the Government and securing wrongful gain to the contractOrs. With these observations we agree. Therefore, there is sufficient material on the record to bring home the charge of criminal conspiracy that has been framed against them under Section 120B read with Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 66. In order to show that the accused pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nth in August 1957. His total earnings from pay and travelling allowances from January 1957 to December 1957 amounted to about ₹ 1,307/-. He had a postal savings-bank account in the name of his wife Shanti Devi. On April 16. 1957. ₹ 5,000/-were deposited in the said account. There were also two other savings bank accounts standing in the names of his minor daughters. In 1957 there were three deposits in this account - ₹ 1.500/-on March 25. 1957; ₹ 1.500/-, on. April 10. 1957: and ₹ 2.000/-on April 16. 1957. Another account was opened on April 10. 1957 with a cash balance of ₹ 1.451/-. Only six days later on April 16. 1957 a significant date, there was another cash deposit of ₹ 2.550/-in this account. On June 25. 1958 a' sum of ₹ 3,990/-was withdrawn from this account, leaving a balance of ₹ 101/-. There was also a fixed deposit account which B. P. Sinha had opened in the name of his wife Shanti Devi in the Punjab. National Bank at Ranchi with a deposit of ₹ 10.000/-on April 29. 1957. This account was later transferred to Daltongani. Another account was opened in the name of Shanti Devi on August 3. 1957. with a deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... servants, only N.K. Banerjee and B.P. Sinha have been proved to have had bank accounts. 69. Summing UP the position of misappropriation, the High Court observed as follows: The various ways in which various Government orders were contravened or disregarded and large sums of Government money were paid to the different contractors in the shape of wasteful expenditure and special solicitude was shown to them in making those payments, lead reasonably to the conclusion that a criminal conspiracy had been entered into in which Banerjee. Harihar Prasad. B.P. Sinha. Kohili. Sahani and Jwala Prasad were participating. The object of the conspirators obviously was to misappropriate Government money under the pretext of speedily executing the project sanctioned for the block. The actual misappropriation of funds was made by the contractors, while facilities for making the misappropriations were afforded to them by the public servants concerned, namely. Banerjee. Harihar Prasad and B. P. Sinha and the conspirators had . succeeded in achieving their objective in a large measure. We are in agreement with these observations. 70. A considerable argument before this Court took place on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Government money, under the pretext of speedy implementation of the project. to secure pecuniary advantages to contractors selected by N.K. Banerjee at his own initiative without calling for tenders in the usual manner. Upon the most modest estimate, the High Court observed, the net loss caused to the Government by reason of these transactions was ₹ 2.80.191/-as detailed below: (i) Subsidies for 78 tribal families ... ₹ 8,191/-(ii) Subsidies for 250 tribal families ... ₹ 20,000/-(iii) Construction of rural colonies ... ₹ 20,000/-(iv) Construction of drains and pavements ... ₹ 2,00,000/-(v) Construction of causeways and culverts ... ₹ 32,000/ ______________ ₹ 2,80,191/-_______________ 72. On the question of bona fides, the High Court observed: I feel convinced that there was total lack of bona fides on the part of the public servants concerned in the matter, of handling Government money and it would be perfectly legitimate to hold that Banerjee. Harihar Prasad. B.P. Sinha., Saharil. Kohili. and Jwala played their respective roles in pursuance of a conspiracy, the real purpose of which was to make illegal gains for all of them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 97. CrPC, the principle laid down in two cases, namely. Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay. and Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu. was as follows: It is not every offence committed by a public servant that requires sanction for prosecution under Section 197(1) Criminal Procedure Code; nor even every act done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties: but if the act complained of is directly concerned with his official duties so that, if questioned, it could be claimed to have been done by virtue of the office, then sanction would be necessary. The real question therefore is whether the acts complained of in the present case were directly concerned with the official duties of the three public servants. As far as the offences of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B read with Section 409. I.P.C. and also Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned they cannot be said to be of the nature mentioned in Section 197 of the CrPC. To put it shortly, it is no part of the duty of a public servant, while discharging his official duties, to enter into a criminal conspiracy or to indulge in criminal misconduct. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egislature the proper course is to examine the language of that statute and to ascertain its proper meaning uninfluenced by any consideration derived from the previous state of the law - or of the English law; upon which it may be founded. 80. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in the Sales Tax Officer v. Kanhaiya Lal. . 81. On behalf of Kohili it was urged that mode of execution is important in such matters. Secrecy. . it was said, is the badge of conspiracy. Openness destroys the evidence as to the conspiracy. All transactions, it was stated, were open. That this submission is not correct is evident from the efforts which had to be made and the mass of evidence which had to be called to disprove one document only i. e. the proceedings of April 9. 1957, The accused persons tried to keep the veil of secrecy.. This continued until by the very weight of the wrongful acts the veil was split and the conspiracy was out. But this was not apparent from the very beginning. 82. Then it is urged on behalf of Kohili that one must look at the individual acts to test a charge of conspiracy. It is pointed out that 40 bullocks were rejected by the Block Development Officer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months and to pay a fine of ₹ 20,000/-or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more. N.K. Banerjee is also convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year. (ii) The appellant Harihar Prasad is convicted under Section 120B read with Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months and to pay a fine of ₹ 20.000/-and in default a further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Harihar Prasad is also convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a year. (iii) The appellant B.P. Sinha is convicted under Section 120B read with Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months and to pay a fine of ₹ 20.000/-or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more. B.P. Sinha is also convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and is sentenced to undergo rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
