Anil Chandra Chowdhury v. State — 1979 DIGILAW 153 (CAL)

JUDGMENT Mukherji. J. This is an appeal against an order of conviction dated 29.6.73 passed by Sri A.K. Nayak, Judge, Special Court, Burdwan in Special Court case no. 1 of 1971 under Sections 511/420 and 471/468 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on each court. It was ordered that the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused Anil Chandra Chowdhury a class III employee in the machine shop at Durgapur Steel Plant, in October, 1969 attempted to cheat the Durgapur Steel Plant Authorities to the extent of Rs. 698.50 by submitting a false claim for reimbursement of his travelling allowances claiming that he had travelled along with the members of his family from Andal to Lucknow and back in the First Class by railways and for using a false money receipt as genuine in support of his claim as aforesaid. It is alleged that the accused committed offences under Sections 511/420 I.P.C. and 471/468 I.P.C. 3. It is the prosecution case that the accused was working as a class III employee in the wheel and Axle Plant, Axle Machine Shop in October, 1969 and onwards. It is the further prosecution case that the employees of the Steel Plant are entitled to avail themselves of the leave travel concession entitling them to reimbursement of the full fare for their journeys both ways from the Headquarters to a distance situate within 730 kilo meters, on actual proof thereof. An employee is also entitled to an advance for the proposed journey and to leave for the said purpose. The accused took leave from 15.10.69 to 31.1.69 under leave travel concession scheme declaring the proposed place of his visit at Lucknow with his wife, three daughters, one son and accordingly withdrew an advance of Rs. 535/- towards that end in view on 16.9.69 on the basis of calculation of his First Class fare from Andal to Lucknow with the members of his family to be Rs. 657.50. On 8.11.69 the accused submitted a bill under his signature claiming a total sum of Rs. 698.50 as the First Class fare from Andal to Lucknow and back together with incidental charges for himself, his wife, three daughters and a son. 657.50. On 8.11.69 the accused submitted a bill under his signature claiming a total sum of Rs. 698.50 as the First Class fare from Andal to Lucknow and back together with incidental charges for himself, his wife, three daughters and a son. It is alleged that the accused produced a false money receipt dated 15.10.69 purported to have been issued to him from Andal railway station for the sale of First Class railway ticket from Andal to Lucknow and back in support of his claim for T.A. Bill knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false. According to the prosecution, no such receipt was issued to the accused, but a money receipt bearing the same number of the same date was issued in favour of one S.D. Chatterjee for his journey from Andal to Puri by Third Class. It is the further prosecution case that the records show no sale of any First Class ticket from Andal to Lucknow or any reservation in the name of the accused and his family in the First Class, or any other Class on the relevant date from Andal to Lucknow. It is alleged that the accused submitted a false claim for reimbursement falsely showing that he had travelled with his family from Andal to Lucknow and back and with that end in view used a forged document, namely, the money receipt as genuine knowing it to be forged. According to the prosecution, after adjustment of the final T.A. bill he was found to have been entitled to reimbursement of a sum of Rs. 132.50. Subsequently, the offence was detected by special police establishment on receipt of an information. A.B. Mukherji, Inspector attached to C.B.I., special Police Establishment, took up investigation after drawing a suo-motu F.I.R. dated 20.4.70. T.A. bill submitted by the accused and the records concerned of the railways were seized and after examining witnesses and completing investigation and receiving allotment from the Government submitted charge-sheet on 29.1.71 before the learned Judge. The learned Judge took cognizance after examination of as many as 13 witnesses and charges were framed as stated above. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be innocent. The learned Judge took cognizance after examination of as many as 13 witnesses and charges were framed as stated above. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be innocent. The defence is that he undertook the journey to Lucknow with the members of his family on 18.10.69 and purchased tickets from railway guard or T.T.I., Andal Railway Station and got a money receipt which was submitted along with his T.A. bill at the time of final adjustment and reimbursement of his claim. The accused admitted that he availed himself of the leave travel concession taking an advance of Rs. 535/-, together with necessary leave. It is the case of the accused that he had no knowledge that the ticket purchased at Andal was false and the money receipt granted to him was not genuine. After charge another witness was examined, namely the Vigilance Officer Durgapur Steel Project. All the witnesses, except P.W.1, were tendered for cross examination. The learned Judge, on a consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record; was of the opinion that the prosecution succeeded in proving the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It that view of his finding, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. Hence, the appeal. 5. Mr. Dilip Kumar Dutta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, raises several points. In the first place, Mr. Dutta contends that, admittedly, the accused is an employee of Durgapur Steel Plant which is a branch organization of Hindusthan Steel Plant. There is no doubt that Hindusthan Steel Plant is a Government Company. But Mr. Dutta contends that for the application of the provisions of the Special Court Act it will have to be established that the allegation against the accused that he committed some offence was with regard to Government Money. Mr. Dutta submits that true that Durgapur Steel Plant, or for the member of that Hindusthan Steel Plant, is a Government of India Undertaking and a Government Company. But even then it has a separate legal entity and that being so, the money which the Steel Plant deals with cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as Government money. In support of his contention, Mr. Dutta refers to a number of decisions, such as AIR 1957 Patna 10; AIR 1967 patna 441; 72 CWN 144, 398 & 410. In support of his contention, Mr. Dutta refers to a number of decisions, such as AIR 1957 Patna 10; AIR 1967 patna 441; 72 CWN 144, 398 & 410. All these decisions, no doubt, lay down that a Government Company has a separate and distinct legal entity and as such the protection of article 331 of the constitution is not available to an employee. None of the decisions referred to above, has dealt with the question whether the money which the Government Company deals with is Government Money or not. The very fact that it is a Government Company can only lead to the conclusion that the money which the Company deals is Government money. In such circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Dutta and we are of opinion that the provisions of the Special Court Act are not applicable in the present Case. 6. In the second place, Mr. Dutta contends that the charge framed under Section 471/468 of the Indian Penal Code is misconceived, because it is never the prosecution case that the accused himself committed forgery for the purpose of cheating. If the accused commits forgery for the purpose of cheating, then the offence of 468 is complete. That being so, when the allegation is that the accused attempted to commit the offence of cheating and for the said purpose used a forged document knowing it to be forged, then the accused could have been charged under Section 471/467 I.P.C. and not under section 471/468 I.P.C. Mr. Dutt, in this connection, further submits that 467 is a graver offence and as such for the charge under section 471/468 he cannot now be convicted under section 471/468 I.P.C. We accept the contention of Mr. Dutta and hold that the conviction under section 471/468 is illegal. 7. Mr. Dutt next submits that the charge under section 511/420 I.P.C. is also defective as it did not specify the person whom the accused wanted to cheat. In the charge, it has been stated that the accused a public servant in the Hindusthan Steel Plant, a Government Undertaking at Durgapur, attempted to commit the offence of cheating and in such attempt submitted a false bill supported by a false money receipt etc. etc. It is true that the particular person has not been mentioned in the charge. In the charge, it has been stated that the accused a public servant in the Hindusthan Steel Plant, a Government Undertaking at Durgapur, attempted to commit the offence of cheating and in such attempt submitted a false bill supported by a false money receipt etc. etc. It is true that the particular person has not been mentioned in the charge. But, neveretheless, the charge as framed goes clearly to show that the allegation is that the accused attempted to cheat the authorities of Hindusthan Steel Plant at Durgapur. We, therefore, think that there is no defect in the charge and the defect, if any has not prejudiced the accused in any way. 8. It now requires to be seen whether the charge under sec. 511/420 I.P.C. has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Dutta contends that assuming that the money receipt marked "X" is a forged document there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the accused used the same with guilty knowledge and if that is not established then the charge under Section 511/420 I.P.C. cannot be said to have been established. Mr. Dutt, in this connection, also submits that the learned Judge wrongly disbelieved the defence case that the money receipt was given to the accused by the railway authorities and as such, the accused could not have any knowledge that the same was forged. Mr. Dutta further submits that the learned Judge failed to consider that the alleged money receipt which was produced by the appellant was in the form used by the railway authorities and the same could not have been obtained unless it was granted by a railway servant. Let us now examine the evidence which the prosecution has adduced to prove the charge against the accused. P.W.3 the head booking clerk of Andal Railway Station proves the Money Receipt No. 589572. This number is the same as appearing on the money Receipt marked 'X'. This witness states that this money receipt (Ext. 3) is in F series book. While the money receipt marked 'X' appears to be of "G" series. He further states the R.B. Barooah, R.K. Gupta, H.L. Baul, S.N. Kundu, S.P. Sharm, A.N. Ganguly, D.P. Maity and N.C. Roy work under him in Booking Office and Parcel Office. He knows the handwriting and signature of all of them. 3) is in F series book. While the money receipt marked 'X' appears to be of "G" series. He further states the R.B. Barooah, R.K. Gupta, H.L. Baul, S.N. Kundu, S.P. Sharm, A.N. Ganguly, D.P. Maity and N.C. Roy work under him in Booking Office and Parcel Office. He knows the handwriting and signature of all of them. This money receipt, marked 'X' is not written or signed by any one of them. He also proves the Foreign Blank paper ticket and states that the ticket (Ext. 4) shows that no ticket was issued for Lucknow on 15.10.69. He also proves daily train cash cum-summary book which also shows that no ticket was issued for Lucknow on 15.10.69 from Andal Railway Station. P.W.4 a ticket clerk deposed that the money receipt Marked 'X' not written by him, or any one or the booking clerks at Andal. The money receipt is of G series. But the money receipt (Ext. 3) is a F series. On going through the forged blank return ticket (Ext. 7) the witness states that on 15.10.69 no First class railway ticket was issued for Lucknow from Andal P.W.5 a ticket collector at Andal Railway station who gave the message for reservation in connection with 7 (seven) tickets including Ticket No. 089839, in the name of S.D. Chatterji for journey for Andal to Puri in 3 Tier Berth. It was suggested to the I.O. that the accused was standing in a quene when he was told by a railway staff that he would not be able to avail the journey while in a queue. The said railway employee took money from the accused and did supply the money receipt marked 'X' for identification. The witness, however, denies his knowledge to any of the facts stated above when the above suggestions were made to the I.O. The accused while examined under section 364 of the Code states that he purchased the First Class return ticket from Andal to Lucknow and back. He further submits that there was heavy congestion in the booking at Andal railway station. He got the ticket from a railway guard or T.T.I. He cannot say actually. He is innocent. Had he known the ticket to be false, he would not have purchased it. He, however, does not say that along with the ticket a money receipt was also granted. He got the ticket from a railway guard or T.T.I. He cannot say actually. He is innocent. Had he known the ticket to be false, he would not have purchased it. He, however, does not say that along with the ticket a money receipt was also granted. The learned Judge could not believe the defence story that while he was standing in the queue a railway official approached and helped him in the matter of getting a ticket. The learned Judge thought that it also could not be believed that such a First Class ticket could be handed over to the accused without any reservation. Even assuming that such a ticket was handed over to the accused, it cannot be believed that along with the ticket a money receipt was also granted by the said official. From the oral and documentary evidence of the railway employees in this case, it has been satisfactorily proved that the money receipt, marked 'X' is not a genuine money receipt. The fact that the accused was granted leave for travel and that he took advance and submitted a bill along with the money receipt marked 'X' for adjustment of his T.A. bill has been satisfactorily proved by the prosecution and has also not been challenged by the defence. On a consideration of the entire evidence on record we have no hesitation to say that the money receipt marked 'X' which was submitted by the accused along with his T.A. Bill is not genuine document. It is true that the money receipt marked 'X' appears to be in a form which is used by the railway. It is also true that the accused could not be in possession of such a money receipt unless any railway employee helped him in the matter. We do not know why steps have not been taken to go deep into the matter to find out as to who is the person who handed over the money receipt to the accused. Be that as it may, in this case we agree with the learned Judge that the allegation against the accused so far as the charge under section 511/420 IPC is concerned has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The order of conviction and sentence passed under Section 471/468 IPC is set aside. The order of conviction under sec. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The order of conviction and sentence passed under Section 471/468 IPC is set aside. The order of conviction under sec. 511/420 IPC is maintained the sentence is reduced. The accused is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months. He is directed to surrender to his bail bond and to serve out t he sentence. Guha, J. : I agree.