Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 523 (JHR)

Khurshid-Uz-Zaman v. State of Bihar

2001-07-30

D.N.PRASAD

body2001
Judgment Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.-Both the criminal appeals are heard together as they are arisen out of the same judgment of conviction and sentence and are being disposed of by the common judgment. 2. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, CBI Dhanbad, in Connection with R.C. Case No. 14 of 1983 and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Sections 120-B, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The prosecution case in brief as alleged is that in 1981 nine delivery orders (hereinafter referred to as 'the DO') bearing D.O. Nos. 13 dated 11.8.1981, D.O. No.9 dated 11.8.1981, D.O. No. 12 dated 11.8.1981, D.O. No. 8 dated 10.8.1981, D.O. No. 172 dated 29.7.1981, D.O. No. 22 dated 10.8.1981, D.O. 14 dated 18.8.1981, and D.O. No. 15 dated 18.8.1981, D.O. No. 31 dated 8.8.1981 against which soft cokes have already been lifted from Kumardhubi Colliery were stolen away from Meera Weigh bridge in the year 1981. The appellant No. 1 Khursid Uz-Zaman was the Sales Officer whereas the appellant No. 2 Kalipada Mishra was the Sales Clerk at the relevant time. It is further alleged that seven out of nine pilfered delivery orders being D.O. Nos. 9, 12 and 13 dated 11.8.1981, D.O. No. 8 dated 10.8.1981, D.O. No. 172 dated 29.7.1981, D.O. No. 22 dated 10.8.1981 and D.O. No. 14 dated 10.8.1981 were again utilised in lifting soft coke from Kapsara Colliery by manipulating and extending the date of validity. The appellant Harender Singh 'lifted the coal by committing forgery over the delivery orders. The appellant Kalipada Mishra and the appellant Khurshid-Uz- Zaman authenticated and validated the said delivery orders by putting their signature on the basis of which soft cokes were lifted second time also from Kapsara Colliery on 21.8.1981, 25.8.1981 and 27.8.1981. The appellant Harender Singh manipulated two bills by writing "no" over the said delivery orders before word "billed" and forged the signature of Sri B. Das, the Delivery Clerk. Accordingly, first information report was lodged against the appellants. The investigation was made and thereafter charge-sheet was submitted against all the appellants. 4. Altogether 23 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of its case. From the side of the defence, the appellant Harender Singh was himself examined during trial. Accordingly, first information report was lodged against the appellants. The investigation was made and thereafter charge-sheet was submitted against all the appellants. 4. Altogether 23 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of its case. From the side of the defence, the appellant Harender Singh was himself examined during trial. 5. There is specific allegation against the appellant who have used the delivery orders for lifting coal second time and they have committed forgery over the said delivery orders. It may be noted here that the appellants Harender Singh himself admitted in his evidence that he had written 'no' over two delivery orders before the word 'billed' and also made the signature of Sri D. Das, though, according to him, he had written those words on coercion and pressure of the Investigating Officer as he was offered a cup of tea and after taking tea, he started losing his sense and thereafter two delivery orders (Ext. 1 and Ex. 1/a) were presented before him and the CBI Officer got the word 'no' and 'B. Das' written by him and thereafter he became senseless. This particular evidence of the appellant becomes falsified itself as he had never reported such thing either to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or to the Superintendent of Police, CBI at any point of time. This evidence also goes in vein by itself as he had never taken this plea in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer and he has never been controverted and he has never stated anything in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This such statement made at the belated stage cannot be relied upon. 6. PW 2 Das emphatically stated in his evidence that he had not put the word 'no' on the said delivery orders nor he had signed over the same. The denial of this witness is sufficient to establish that the word 'no' over those two delivery orders and putting the signature as 'B. Das' have been forged by the appellant Harender Singh who had himself admitted in his evidence. Furthermore, the Hand Writing Expert (PW 19) who stated to have examined the writing of the appellants and compared the same over the delivery orders in question and he found the writing of the appellant Harender Singh were similar to the writings of the said delivery orders. He proved his report (Ext. Furthermore, the Hand Writing Expert (PW 19) who stated to have examined the writing of the appellants and compared the same over the delivery orders in question and he found the writing of the appellant Harender Singh were similar to the writings of the said delivery orders. He proved his report (Ext. 13). 7. PW 1 was the Clerk in Despatch posted at Kumardubhi Colliery along with Bhagwan Das, PW 2. According to him, after the delivery of coal, the word 'billed' is written on the delivery orders No. 172 and 14. The word 'billed' has been written but the word 'no' was not written there which has been narrated later on as well as the signature of B. Das is also not of Bhagwan Das. PW 2 also claimed in his evidence that the signature is not of his signature and he had not written the word 'no'. According to him, if the coal is not available at the place then they use to write 'no stock' which has not been written in the said delivery orders. He further stated that nine delivery orders were stolen away from the Meera Weigh Bridge and the matter was reported to the Agent. However this fact is also corroborated by letter dated 1.9.1981 (Ext. 2/b) as the information was given to the General Manager, Kapsara Area that nine old delivery orders for soft cokes are missing. There is also mention in the said letter that after the delivery of soft coke, the Weigh Bridge Clerk has mentioned 'bill' on each delivery order and has signed the same but apparently word 'no' has been inserted over two delivery orders which is obvious itself and also established from the evidence of the appellant Harender Singh who admitted to have written 'no' and also made the signature of B. Das vide Exts. 1 and 1/a. There is no doubt that soft cokes were lifted twice through the said delivery orders from Kapsara Colliery and the appellants were employees there at the relevant time. 8. PW 3, the Agent of Kumardubhi Colliery admitted to have given information about the theft of the said delivery orders to the General Manager vide ext. 1/b. According to PW 10 who was the Sales Clerk in Kapsara Colliery at the relevant time. D.O. Nos. 8. PW 3, the Agent of Kumardubhi Colliery admitted to have given information about the theft of the said delivery orders to the General Manager vide ext. 1/b. According to PW 10 who was the Sales Clerk in Kapsara Colliery at the relevant time. D.O. Nos. 8, 9, 12 and 13 which are in his writings were diverted to Kapasara Colliery endorsed by the appellant Kalipada Mishra signed by Khursid-Uz-Zaman. PW 11, another Sales Clerk also stated in his evidence that D.O. No. 22 dated 10.8.1981 was diverted to Kapasara Colliery with endorsement by the appellant Kalipada Mishra and signed by K. Zaman. Another witness PW 12 further stated that D.O. 14 dated 18.8.1981 was prepared by him for lifting coal from Kumardubhi Colliery, but this delivery order was diverted to Kapasara Colliery and endorsement about diversion was written by Kalipada Mishra and signed by K. Zaman. 9. Thus it is evident that these appellants were also directly involved in diverting the said delivery orders from Kumardubhi Colliery to Kapasara Colliery for lifting the coal second time. Some specimen writings of the appellant Kalipada Mishra were also examined and it was found similar to the writings over the delivery orders vide Expert Report, Ext. 13. 10. According to the Investigating Officer (PW 22), he had taken the specimen signature of appellants Kalipada Mishra, Khursid-Uz-Zaman and Harender Singh along with Bhagwan Das (PW 2) and sent for comparison with the disputed writings and signatures. When the Expert (PW 19) already submitted his report (Ext. 13) and found the similar writings and signatures of the appellants Kalipada Mishra and Harender Singh as to the writings and signatures over delivery orders. The witnesses working' under Khursid-Uz-Zaman identified his signature in diverting the delivery D.O. to Kapasara. PWs 15 and 16 who are the drivers also deposed that they had lifted the coal for Hardeo Singh in Truck No. WBK 5416 and WBQ 7116 which finds support from Exts. 7/1 and 7/2 disclosing the coal was loaded on 27.8.1981. In this way there appears no doubt about committing forgery by these appellants in the said delivery orders using the same twice for illegal advantages. 11. 7/1 and 7/2 disclosing the coal was loaded on 27.8.1981. In this way there appears no doubt about committing forgery by these appellants in the said delivery orders using the same twice for illegal advantages. 11. It is true that appellant Harender Singh was examined as a defence wit• ness and, according to him, the said wore 'no' and 'B Das' were written only be, cause of coercion put by the Investigating Officer but such statement itself be, lied in view of the fact that no any com plain was made to this effect earlier to any official nor such statement was made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said story cannot be believed at the belated stage. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants emphatically argued that those delivery orders which are said to be used second time have not been crossed as well as there is no denial about the payment of money of the coal delivered even second time. It is also submitted that PW 2 knowing the delivery orders being forged as on 30.8.1981, prior to the lodging of the First Information Report, as the matter was reported to the Agent about the theft of the delivery orders but why the First In-formation Report has been lodged after much delay. It is also submitted that Harender Singh was actually assaulted brutally by the Investigating Officer which finds support from the injury report and got the word 'no' and 'B. Das' written on the delivery orders under coercion and pressure. 13. The above submissions of the learned counsel have got no substance at all in view of the fact that the appellant Harender Singh himself submitted to have written the said word 'no' and 'B. Das' over the said delivery orders and thereby he admitted to have committed forgery. If there was any coercion or pressure from the side of the Investigating Officer, he would have made complain to the officials. Moreover, the letter giving information about the theft of the delivery order only indicates that nine delivery orders for soft cokes were missing though soft cokes were delivered to the parties against the delivery orders and there was a 'billed'. Moreover, the letter giving information about the theft of the delivery order only indicates that nine delivery orders for soft cokes were missing though soft cokes were delivered to the parties against the delivery orders and there was a 'billed'. Thus, there appears sufficient evidence against the appellants that they have actively participated in diverting the said delivery orders to Kapasara Colliery after committing forgery and facilitated to lift soft coke second time. So far injury report is concerned, it is superficial in nature and also falsifies the story of senselessness. Hence, the submissions of the learned counsel as advanced cannot be sustained. 14. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances coupled with the overwhelming evidence on the record, there is no doubt to hold that the prosecution has fully established its case beyond all reasonable doubts against all the three above appellants. 15. In the result, I find that the court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants which does not require to be interfered with. Thus, the judgment of conviction and sentence under challenge is affirmed. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in both the appeals which are dismissed. Since, all the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender in the court below to serve out the remaining period of sentence.