Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 856 (JHR)

Madhabi Deb Burman v. State of Jharkhand

2010-09-03

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.7.2002 passed by Shri Bimlendu Bhushan Mangal Murti, Spl. Judge, CBI-cum-1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.3(A)/91-SIG, by which judgment he found the appellant no. 2, namely, Sisir Kumar Deb Burman guilty under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo 3 years. He also found the appellant nos. 1 & 3, namely, Smt. Madhabi Deb Burman and Subhash Chandra Mitra guilty under Sections 420 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them for 3 years R.1.on each count. The sentences shall run concurrently. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that as far as the accused-appellant no. 3, Subhash Chandra Mitra is concerned, there is no evidence that he cheated the Government or he directly received any money from the Government or he gave any kick back to the main accused, Prof. D.K. Sinha, Director, Indian School of Mines, hence the conviction of appellant no. 3, Subhash Chandra Mitra is bad in law and fit to be set aside. Learned counsel further submitted that even the allegation of any conspiracy or any fraud committed by accused-appellant no. 2, Sisir Kumar Deb Burman husband of Smt. Madhabi Deb Burman, has also not been proved and as such he also deserves some sympathetic judgment from this Court in the matter. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the C.B.1. has opposed the prayer and submitted that the allegation against the two appellants, namely, Sisir Kumar Deb Burman and Smt. Madhabi Deb Burman has been proved by the evidences and, it requires no interference by this Court. However, as far as appellant no.3, Subhash Chandra Mitra is concerned there is direct allegation against him that actually he printed the question papers at higher rates than the prevailing market rates and it has also been proved that kick backs were handed over to the concerned Govt. , Officer i.e. Director of Indian School of Mines. Hence, he is also guilty. 4. , Officer i.e. Director of Indian School of Mines. Hence, he is also guilty. 4. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of a First Information Report lodged by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Shri R.K. Dutta on 2.8.1991 stating therein that during the period April to August, 1990, Professor D.K. Sinha, while functioning as Director, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, entered into/was party to a criminal conspiracy with others and corresponding loss to Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his official position as public servant. He further submitted that Mr. D.K. Sinha took an advance of Rs.90,000/- in April/May, 1990 for printing 1990 Entrance Examination Question Papers of Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad at exorbitant rates to one Madhabi Deb Burman in violation of the rules and without the sanction of the competent authority. In furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy the entire amount of Rs.90,000/- was shown to have been paid as advance payment to the said Madhabi Deb Burman for getting the question papers of Entrance Examination, 1990 of ISM, Dhanbad. It was further alleged that Professor Sinha submitted adjustment claim vide note dated 14.8.90 enclosing bill of ABC Press and confirmed the fact of: receiving an advance of Rs.90,000/- in April/May, 1990, adding that Rs.5,000/- was lying unadjusted with him from 1989 thereby making a total advance of Rs.95,000/-. The prereceipted bills of ABC Press for advance of Rs.1,53,180/- was typed on a plain paper containing the signatures of Madhabi Deb Burman. Prof. Sinha dishonestly did not put up the said bill to the Chairman/Executive Board of ISM for approval although it was beyond his power as the amount exceeded Rs.1 lakh. He also enclosed two receipts showing advance payment of Rs.55,000/- on 20.4.90 and Rs.40,000/- only on 10.5.90. urportedly signed by Madhvi Devi Burman. The signatures on the two dvance receipts as Madhabi Deb Burman are of a different person then that of a person who signed on the pre receipted bill. Prof. Sinha himself passed the bill after deducting an amount of Rs.1,000/- and issued 395 instructions to the Dy. Registrar, (Finance and Accounts) that cheque of the balance amount be handed to him for onward transmission to the party. In pursuance of his order cheque no. Prof. Sinha himself passed the bill after deducting an amount of Rs.1,000/- and issued 395 instructions to the Dy. Registrar, (Finance and Accounts) that cheque of the balance amount be handed to him for onward transmission to the party. In pursuance of his order cheque no. 120737 dated 16.590 for Rs.57,180/- only favouring Madhabi Deb Burman of State Bank of India, ISM Campus, Dhanbad was handed over to Prof. D.K. Sinha. The payment of the said cheque was realised in the account of Madhabi Deb Burman through State Bank of India, Pandaveswar Branch, District-Burdwan, West Bengal. It is learnt that the rates of printing charges in the bill of ABC Press and passed by Prof. D.K. Sinha, are about 20 times more than the normal prevailing rates. The rates of paper charged are learnt to be at least thrice than the prevailing market rates. Rates of envelopes are learnt to be seven times for packing and transportation to be three times more than prevailing market rates. Thus, Prof. D.K. Sinha in criminal conspiracy with others by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his official position as public servant obtained pecuniary advantage for himself/others to the tune of Rs.95,000/- by getting the 1990 Entrance Examination Question Paper printed at exorbitant rates without the permission of the competent authority. 5. On the basis of the said First Information Report police registered a case under Section 120 B I.P.C., read with Sections 13(2), 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and substantive offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the P .C. Act and subsequently the case was transferred to the Court of Special Judge, C.B.1. where the case was tried being R.C. Case No. 3(A)/ 91-SIG. 6. It appears that the prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses. 7. Out of 20 witnesses, P.W. 2, K.P. Das, P.W. 3, AT Deshmukh, P.W. 4, Baidyanath Patra, P.W 10, Oewasis Rai Choudhary and P.W. 12, Professor R.K. Angar, who are on the question of rates of printing, envelope etc. They have also proved the Exhibits as prevalent rate. It appears that the prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses. 7. Out of 20 witnesses, P.W. 2, K.P. Das, P.W. 3, AT Deshmukh, P.W. 4, Baidyanath Patra, P.W 10, Oewasis Rai Choudhary and P.W. 12, Professor R.K. Angar, who are on the question of rates of printing, envelope etc. They have also proved the Exhibits as prevalent rate. At that time P.W. 5, R.C. Pal, P.W. 6, Nikil Kumar Bandopadhaya, P.W. 7, Samir Baran Das, P.W. 9, Sisir Kumar Ghosh, P.W. 11, Sanad Kumar Bhattacharjee, P.W. 17, Mritunjay Sen and P.W. 18, Lokendra Nath Mukherjee have proved the transaction which took place, namely, the payment made by ISM and distributed the money to the other partner and subsequently also payment made to Professor D.K. Sinha. 8. P.W. 13, Bangali Choudhary and P.W. 14, Harihar Nath Sinha, both have proved the seizure-list of the document seized from the office of the accused, Prof. D.K. Sinha during search. 9. P.W. 1, Ambar Sarkar is the Accountant of I.S.M. and he has proved the payments made at the direction of main accused, D.K. Sinha to Smt. Madhabi Deb Burman. 10. P.W. 15, Subash Chandra Mittal, is signature expert. He has proved the• signatures of the accused persons on the various cheques, orders and other documents. 11. P.W. 16, Vijay Bhattacharji, is also posted as Field Assistant in Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad. 12. P.Ws. 19 & 20, namely, Yogendra Nayak and Jai Swadesh, are the officers of the C.B.1. and they have also proved all the documents. 13. The defence has also examined 4 witnesses. D.W. 1, Arjun Das, D.W. 2, Ajit Sarkar, D.W. 3, Abhay Chatterjee and D.W. 4, Alik Kumar Sinha. 14. Thus, after going through the evidences, as stated above, I find that all the witnesses have proved the fact that the main accused, D.K. Sinha in connivance with the accused, Smt. Madhabi Deb Burman made a conspiracy of making gainfully money out of the Government money and Mr. 14. Thus, after going through the evidences, as stated above, I find that all the witnesses have proved the fact that the main accused, D.K. Sinha in connivance with the accused, Smt. Madhabi Deb Burman made a conspiracy of making gainfully money out of the Government money and Mr. D.K. Sinha gave charge of printing of Entrance Examination, 1990 at exorbitant rate of Rs.90,000/- and subsequently, after raising the amount by giving more charges for packing, transportation as also for envelope, the same was raised to the tune of Rs.1,53,180/-, which has also been proved that the husband of Smt. Madhabi Deb Burman had also any intention with his wife and he by their joint account made payments to the main accused, Professor D.K. Sinha. 15. In that view of the matter, as far as conviction of accused-appellant no. 1, namely Smt. Madhabi Deb Burman and accused-appellant no. 2, Sisir Kumar Deb Burman, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of conviction passed against them. 16. As far as appellant no.3, namely, Subhash Chandra Mitra is concerned, none of the witnesses have stated that Sisir Kumar Deb Burman in whose press the question papers were printed, had any knowledge that the printing work has been taken by Smt. Madhabi Deb Burman at an exorbitant price or that she has no (sic) got conspiracy with the main accused, Professor D.K. Sinha to give him monetary benefit after receiving the said amount from the ISM. Thereafter, it has also come in the evidence, which has been found by trial court in its judgment at paras 24 and 27 that the said accused-appellant Subhash Chandra Mitra only received Rs. 20,000/- while payments made through S.B.A./C. No. C-73 of S.B.1. vide Ext.-18/25-18/2 from Smt. Madhabi Deb Burman and Sisir Kumar Deb Burm:m. ADDarentlv, the printing was done Only for Rs.20.000/- which cannot be said that it was more than the market price for printing prevalent at that time. In that view of the matter, the appellant no. 3, Subhash Chandra Mitra is giving benefit of doubt and is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 17. As far as appellant nos. 1 & 2, namely, Smt. Madhabi Deb Burman and Sisir Kumar Deb Burman are concerned their conviction is upheld by this Court. In that view of the matter, the appellant no. 3, Subhash Chandra Mitra is giving benefit of doubt and is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 17. As far as appellant nos. 1 & 2, namely, Smt. Madhabi Deb Burman and Sisir Kumar Deb Burman are concerned their conviction is upheld by this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that two appellants, namely, Smt. Madhabi Deb Burman and Sisir Kumar Deb Burman are old people. The appellant no. 1, Smt. Madhabi Deb Burman was aged about 57 years on the date of judgment and now she is aged about 65 years while appellant no. 2, Sisir Kumar Deb Burman was aged about 62 years at the time of judgment and now he is aged about 70 years. They have suffered the rigour of trial and appeal right from 1991 and they are now senior and leniency may be shown while passing the sentence. 18. Considering their age in the rigour of trial since 1991 and seeing their age the sentence of 3 years passed against the appellant nos. 1 & 2 are reduced to a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and on default to undergo further period of 15 days each. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part. 20. The appellants are on bail. Learned trial court is directed to issue warrant of arrest against them for serving the sentence and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. .