Judgment : HAN SHANKAR PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15. 10. 1996 passed in R. C. Case Nos. 13, 14 of 1974 and 3 to 6 of 1975, whereby and whereunder the learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi held the appellants guilty under Sections 477-A, 468, 120-B, and 420, IPC also under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (i) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted and sentenced them to undergo RI for three years each and also directed appellants R. C. Lal, S. P. Agarwal to pay a fine of Rs. 1. 00 lac each and appellants Mukhlal Singh, R. B. Gupta and B. B. N. Singh were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5. 00 lakhs each for causing heavy loss to Bokaro Steel Ltd. and in default of payment they were further directed to undergo RI for one year each. However, sentences were directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that the raw materials Department of Bokaro Steel Limited entered into an agreement with the contractors namely, M/s. Jawahar Lal Jaiswal and Company of Nagar Untari, M/s. Bahal and Company, M/s. Uni Construction Company, M/s. B. P. Gupta and B. P. N. Singh and M/s. Mukhlal Singh for excavation of trenches for extraction of limestone from Saraiya Mines area to Bhawanathpur limestone mines including transporting and dumping over burden soil at waste dump and raising sizing and stock of quality limestone at pit head from the trenches. Pursuant to the agreement six trenches were allotted to the aforesaid contractors separately. Trench No. 1, was allotted to M/s. Jawahar Lal Jaiswal and Company, Trench No. 2 was allotted to M/s. Bahal and Company, Trench No. 3 was allotted to M/s. B. P. Gupta and B. P. N. Singh, Trench No. 4 was allotted to M/s. Mukhlal Singh, Trench No. 5 was allotted to M/s. Uni Construction and Company and Trench No. 6 was allotted to M/s. Bahal and Company. At the relevant point of time Sri S. R. Bhattacharya was the Chief Superintendent of Raw Material Division of Bokaro Steel Ltd. and S. P. Agrawal (accused) was the Mines Manager-cum-Officer Incharge of Bhawanathpur Lime- Stone Mines and R. C. Lal (accused) was the Surveyor, Raw Material Department of B. S. L. and B. P. Gupta (accused) and B. P. N. Singh (accused) were the proprietor of firms M/s. B. P. Gupta and B. P. N. Singh and they were allotted trench No. 3 Mukhlal Singh was the proprietor of firm M/s. Mukhlal Singh and he was allotted trench No. 4. Charanjeet Lal and Ajeet Ram are the contractors of M/s. Bahal and Company, who were allotted trench Nos. 6 and 2. Charanjeet Lal is now dead and, therefore, proceeding against him was dropped. Similarly Kanhay Kunwar, proprietor of M/s. Uni Construction is also dead, who was allotted trench No. 5. Jawahar Lal, the proprietor of M/s. Jawahar Lal Jaiswal and Company is also dead, who was allotted trench No. 1. Further case of the prosecution is that S. K. Bhattacharya, the Superintendent of Raw Material Department, B. S. L. , dishonestly split up the work of excavation of the trenches and allotted the contract work to the different contractors in order to keep the value of the work within his financial competence and also to avoid financial scrutiny by the superior authority. He also entered into an agreement with the private contractors for excavation of trenches in question to extract limestone with intention to make financial gain to himself and to put wrongful loss to B. S. L. and for this purpose he made S. P. Agrawal Mines Manager Incharge of the work and R. C. Lal a Surveyor and they all in collusion with the private contractors showed favour to the private contractors by recording inflated measurement of trenches in question in the measure-ment book by accused R. C. Lal (accused) which were duly certified by S. P. Agrawal (accused) and on the basisof inflated measurement of trenches in question in the measurement book by R. C. Lal, all the contractors received more payments from B. S. L. than the actual work done by them. Thus, the authorities of B. S. L. i. e. S. K. Bhattacharya, the Superintendent of Raw Material Division of B. S. L. and S. P. Agrawal the then Mines Manager of B. S. L. and R. C. Lal, Surveyor of B. S. L. conspired with the proprietors of the five private contractors namely M/s. Bahal and Company, M/s. Jawahar Lal Jaiswal and Company, M/s. Uni Constructions, M/s. B. P. Gupta and B. P. N. Singh, M/s. Mukhlal Singh and contractors were paid more than the actual amount of work done by them. On information that the contractors have fraudulently received excess payment for the work, which they have actually not done, a committee to supervise the work and make measurement was formed headed by Mr. K. A. Chincholkar to check and measure the depth etc. of the trenches and it was found that actually inflated measurement of trenches was recorded in the measurement book by the surveyor R. C. Lal, on the basis of which the contractors have received payment of money even for the work they have not done. On the basis of aforesaid measurement by Mr. K. A. Chincholkar altogether six cases were registered by the CBI, which are as follows (i) R. C. No. 13/1974 relating to trench No. 6 has been regis-tered against S. P. Agrawal, R. C. Lal, Charanjeet Lal (since dead) and against Ajeet Ram, the proprietor of M/s. Bahal and Company. This case rela-tes to trench No. 6. (ii) R. C. Case No. 14/1974 relating to trench No. 1 has been registered against accused S. P. Agrawal, R. C. Lal and Jawahar Lal Jaiswal (since dead ). (iii) R. C. Case No. 3/1975 relating to trench No. 5 was registered against S. P. Agrawal, R. C. Lal, S. K. Bhattacharya (now dead) and Kanhai Kuer, proprietor of M/s. Uni Construction (now dead) (iv) R. C. Case No. 4/1975 relating to trench No. 2 has been registered against S. K. Bhattacharya (now dead), S. P. Agrawal, R. C. Lal and M/s. Bahal and Company. (v) R. C. Case No. 5/1975 relating to trench No. 3 has been registered against S. K. Bhattacharya (now Dead), S. P. Agrawal, R. C. Lal, B. P. Gupta B. P. N. Singh of M/s. B. P. Gupta and B. P. N. Singh. (v) R. C. Case No. 5/1975 relating to trench No. 3 has been registered against S. K. Bhattacharya (now Dead), S. P. Agrawal, R. C. Lal, B. P. Gupta B. P. N. Singh of M/s. B. P. Gupta and B. P. N. Singh. (vi) R. C. Case No. 6/1975 relating to trench No. 4 has been registered against S. K. Bhattacharya (now dead), S. P. Agrawal, R. C. Lal and M/s. Mukhlal Singh. ( 3 ) IN course of investigation CBI officials seized the relevant papers and trenches were again measured by Mr. H. P. S. Sesachar, the Technical Examiner of Control Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, who submitted a report (Ext. 34) and in course of investigation a prima facie case was found against eleven accused persons including three public servants and accordingly CBI submitted charge-sheet No. 2/77 dated 22. 2. 1977, on the basis of which cognizance has been taken against all of them and they have been put on trial. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION has examined 21 witnesses and has also brought on record a number of documents including measurement book etc. ( 5 ) PW 1 is Jagdish Singh. PW 2 is Jagdish Chandra Bansal. PW 3 is K. A Chincholkar, PW 4 is Byas Ojha. PW 5 is R. G. Singh. He was Additional General Manager, Finance PW 6, is Baldeo Raj. PW7 is Dinkar Gadgil. He has been tende-red. PW 8, is S. N. Chattopadhyay. He has also been tendered. PW 9 is Suman Tiwary. He has also been tendered. PW 10 is Suchit Mishra. He has come to say that CBI officials seized bills and vouchers from the office. PW 11 is B. S. Sen Gupta. He is a Geologist. He used to go to measure limestone extracted from the Bhawanathpur mines. When he visited Bhawanathpur he found works are going on in trench Nos. 1 to 6 and supervision of which was being made by S. P. Agrawal (accused ). As per contract, contractor had to bring the limestone from the mines and to put the same on the trench after preparing stack. When he had gone to measure the volume of limestone then Gadgil and Raw Saheb showed the trench. The limestone extracted from those mines were used to be sent to Steel Plant Bokaro and Durgapur. ( 6 ) PW 12 is H. C. Sinha. When he had gone to measure the volume of limestone then Gadgil and Raw Saheb showed the trench. The limestone extracted from those mines were used to be sent to Steel Plant Bokaro and Durgapur. ( 6 ) PW 12 is H. C. Sinha. PW 13 is A. K. Ghosh, he has been tendered, PW 14 is Krishnalal Sethi. He is a formal witness. PW 15 is Chandrakant Mishra. According to this witness, wrong payments were made to the contractors in respect of extraction of work from Trench Nos. 1 to 6 and he had gone to investigate the matter along with other officials of CBI and B. S. L. He has stated that from the side of B. S. L. , K. A. Chincholkar and J. S. Tomar as experts and from the BSL Vigilance, he, R. Kumar and others as experts went to re-measure the trench Nos. 1 to 6 and they re-measured Trench Nos. 1 to 6 in presence of R. C. Agrawal and S. P. Agrawal and along with measurement, levelling book was also prepared. He has proved Ext. 22, which is a memo of joint surprise check of the measurement of Trench No. 1, which has been prepared from the original in the same process and it bears the signatures of all authorities concerned. Similarly he has proved Ext. 23, which is joint check memo of location of trench No. 1. He has further proved memo of joint surprise check of trench No. 2 (Ext. 24 ). He has also proved memo of joint surprise check of trench No. 3, which is Ext. 25 and memo of joint surprise check of trench No. 4 is Ext. 26. Memo of check measurement of trench No. 5 is Ext. 27 and memo of check measurement of trench No. 6 is Ext. 28, similarly he has proved the level books of trench Nos. 1 to 6, which have been marked as Exts. 29, 29/1, 29/2, 29/3, 29/4, 29/5 respectively. ( 7 ) PW 16, is C. Achhuta Menon. He has done the measurement of trench Nos. 1 to 6 along with S. C. Sheshacharya and some other persons who prepared maps of trench Nos. 1 to 6 (Exts. 32 to 32/5 ). ( 8 ) PW 17 is H. S. Tudeja. He is Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents. ( 7 ) PW 16, is C. Achhuta Menon. He has done the measurement of trench Nos. 1 to 6 along with S. C. Sheshacharya and some other persons who prepared maps of trench Nos. 1 to 6 (Exts. 32 to 32/5 ). ( 8 ) PW 17 is H. S. Tudeja. He is Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents. He was engaged for examining the handwritings of accused persons in the admitted documents. ( 9 ) PW 18 is Narayan Johan. He was Inspector in CBI. ( 10 ) PW 19 is Baliram Dubey. He was S. P. , CBI at the time of occurrence. ( 11 ) PW 20 is A. K. Nizami. He was Chief of Town Administrator. He was posted as PS to Managing Director in the year 1976 he has proved sanction order. ( 12 ) PW 21 is Rai Satendra Prasad. He was Inspector CBI at the relevant time. On the basis of evidences of these witnesses, appellants were held guilty and were convicted and sentenced. ( 13 ) CASE as made out by the prosecution is that S. K. Bhattacharya in order to make wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to B. S. L. split up excavation work of limestone of Bhawa-nathpur mines into six units and work of each unit for extraction of limestone from trench Nos. 1 to 6 was allotted to six separate contractors and he did so in order to bring the tender work or excavation work within his financial competence, otherwise he had to allot the excavation work of all the six trenches to only one contractor as he was not empowered to invite tender for such a big amount which was beyond his financial power but in order to cause wrongful gain to himself he split up the work into six units and work of each unit was allotted to one contractor each and R. C. Lal (appellant) was authorized to make measurement of extraction of limestone from trench Nos. 1 to 6 and he made measurement of all six trenches and measurement work was verified by S. P. Agrawal and all these three officers were involved with one another and in this way they also brought the contractors into their connivance and conspiracy and inflated measurements of work were shown and certified by S. P. Agrawal and on the basis of those inflated measure-ments, excess payments were made to the contractors and thereby they put the Bokaro Steel Limited to wrongful loss. This fact somehow or other came to the knowledge of the authorities and an FIR was lodged and re-measurements of extraction of limestone from all the trenches were made by PW 1 and others and it was detected that inflated measurement for the work was given, which was certified by appellant S. P. Agrawal and on the basis of that, excess payments of money, more than the actual work done, were made. The running bills and final bills were prepared by R. C. Lal, which was duly certified by S. P. Agrawal. The writings appearing on the running bills, final bills and inflated measure-ment books were examined by PW 17, Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, who found that the writings on those documents are tallying with the handwritings of R. C. Lal, S. P. Agrawal and contractors, who were entrusted with the excavation work of limestone from trench Nos. 1 to 6 and thus it was established that conspiracy and defalcation of money were made and in this connection it was found that wrongful loss has been caused to the B. S. L. unit to the tune of Rs. 29 lakhs and odd. ( 14 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there is no excess payment nor there was any conspiracy for cheating the Bokaro Steel Ltd. in the manner as alleged by the prosecution and there is no case of over payment and moreover any excess amounts which are claimed to have been paid, should have been adjusted towards the final bills of the contractors and the final bills have not yet been made. It was further pointed out that all the six cases registered on different dates could not have been amalgamated together and could not have been disposed of by a single trial, as a date of occurrence, place of occurrence and accused persons are different and in this connection Mr. T. R. Bajaj, learned counsel for the appellants, referred to Section 218 andsubmitted that when persons involved as accused persons are different, place of occurrence is different and date of occurrence is different then there should have been separate trial for each of the offence, but in the instant cases for all the six cases, six separate FIR were lodged, have been tried together and, therefore, trial stands vitiated and accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. Section 218 Cr. P. C. is quoted herein below 218. Separate charges for distinct offences (l) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately Provided that where the accu-sed person, by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions of Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223. ( 15 ) THUS, referring to Section 218, Cr. P. C. , learned counsel submitted that separate charges should have been framed for distinct offences and the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellants were not identical and were distinct and, therefore, trial stands vitiated as all the distinct offences, for which separate FIRs were lodged, have been tried and disposed of by a common judgment and, therefore, this trial stands vitiated and appellants are entitled to acquittal. He further pointed out that Section 218, Cr PC embodies the general rule as to the trial of accused persons, which provides for separate trial of each accused person for each distinct offence and is based on the fundamental principles of common law. The accused must have noticed to the charge, which he has to meet and in the instant case there is complete violation of funda-mental principle of criminal law. The accused must have noticed to the charge, which he has to meet and in the instant case there is complete violation of funda-mental principle of criminal law. The learned counsel further pointed out that since final bills were not clear, the excess payments so alleged could have been adjusted at the time of clearance of final bills. It was further pointed out that there is no iota of evidence that the work, which was not done, measurement of that work has also been made and payments of the same have been made. ( 16 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI, submitted that Section 218, Cr PC is not applicable in the case, as nature of the work was the same and offences have been committed in series of the same nature. Learned counsel further pointed out that though six separate cases have arisen and all the six cases have been tried together and have been disposed of by a common judgment but nature of offence, alleged in all the six cases, is the same and more or less the persons involved in the case are the same. He further referred to Section 220, Cr PC and submitted that trial has been conducted in pursuance of the provisions as laid down under Section 220, Cr PC, which says that if in one series of cases so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offence than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence. Section 220, Cr PC is quoted hereinbelow 220. Trial for more than one offence (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. (2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 212 or in sub-section (1) of Section 219 is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. (3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for each of such offences. (4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would be itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, or such acts. (5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ). ( 17 ) FROM perusal of Ext. 1 series, which are measurement reports made by PW 1, along with others, it will appear that appellants made inflated measure-ments of Trench Nos. 1 to 6 and on the basis of such inflated measurements made by appellant R. C. Lal, duly certified by appellant S. P. Agrawal, running bills were prepared and amount more than the actual work done was paid and it was detected by re-measurement done by PW 1, along with other persons (Ext. 1 series ). Learned counsel further pointed out that huge amounts were involved and when it came to light that by inflated measurement excess payment of money more than the actual work done has been made then re-measurement was ordered or enquiry was ordered and on re-measurement these facts, have come to light and hence there is no question of any adjustment of excess payment of amount at the time of final payment because it was not a dispute relating to fixation of rate of work done, it was a matter relating to inflated measurement which could have been detected only by remeasurement which have actually been done in this case and on re-measurement of the trench Nos. 1 to 6 (Exts. 5 to 10 respectively ). Ext. 1, series have been prepared which were measurements done by PW 1, along with other persons and on re-measurement done by these authorities (Ext. 1 series), it was detected that inflated measure-ments were recorded by R. C. Lal duly certified by S. P. Agarwal (appellant ). 1 to 6 (Exts. 5 to 10 respectively ). Ext. 1, series have been prepared which were measurements done by PW 1, along with other persons and on re-measurement done by these authorities (Ext. 1 series), it was detected that inflated measure-ments were recorded by R. C. Lal duly certified by S. P. Agarwal (appellant ). Surprising aspect of the matter is that remeasurement by PW 1, and other authorities was done in presence of R. C. Lal and S. P. Agarwal and they did not raise any objection and even put their signatures on the memo of check measurement which has been marked Exts. 22 to 28. From the evidence of PW5 1, 3 and 15, it is apparent that check measurement of all the trenches were made in presence of appellants R. C. Lal and S. P. Agarwal and on the basis of these measurements, entries were made in the level book (Ext. 1 series) and joint check memo was prepared in which both the appellants R. C. Lal and S. P. Agarwal have put their signatures without raising any objection. They also put their signatures in the level book (Ext. 1 series) on the basis of measurements done by R. C. Lal duly certified by S. P. Agarwal, running Bills and final Bills were prepared and on the basis of running Bills, payments were made which were in excess of the actual work done. PW 6, Baldeo Raj, who is Chief Finance Manager of Bokaro Steel Plant, has been examined by the prosecution and he has proved measurement book and running account Bills and the final Bills on the basis of which, payments were made to the private contractor. The first running account Bill prepared by R. C. Lal is Ext. 5/3 and this Bill has been passed by S. P. Agarwal vide Ext. 5/4. Similarly in this way other running account Bills were prepared and passed which are Exts. 5 and 6 series. According to this witness measurement book of trench No. 1 is Ext. 5, and measurement book of trench No. 6 is Ext. 10 and measurement book of trench Nos. 1 to 6 are Exts. 5 to 10 respectively and on the basis of these measurements, running account Bills and final Bills which are Exts. 5 and 6 series. According to this witness measurement book of trench No. 1 is Ext. 5, and measurement book of trench No. 6 is Ext. 10 and measurement book of trench Nos. 1 to 6 are Exts. 5 to 10 respectively and on the basis of these measurements, running account Bills and final Bills which are Exts. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 respectively, have been prepared and on the basis of these so prepared running Bills, excess amount on the basis of inflated measurement have been paid to the contractor. In all, on the basis of inflated measurements, excess amount to the tune of Rs. 29 lakhs and odd has been paid to the contractors. ( 18 ) OBJECTION was also raised about grant of sanction which is said to be not in order in anyway and in accordance with law, but on perusal of evidence of PW 20, it is clear that sanction has been properly granted. ( 19 ) CONSIDERING all the facts in question, I am of the view that there is no merit in these appeals, which is accordingly dismissed. One thing is very important in this case that these cases were registered in the year 1975-76 and since then, about 28 years have elapsed and these appellants must have remained in mental tension throughout, although the offences are serious ones and also under Prevention of Corruption Act but considering the long duration of the case from the beginning of the year 1975-76, I think it proper that period already undergone by them in custody will meet the ends of justice. However, so far as sentences relating to fine are concerned, they will have to pay the fine and in case of failure to pay the fine, they will have to undergo the period as specified in the impugned orders of the learned Court below. ( 20 ) WITH these observations, these appeals are dismissed. Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence. --- *** --- .