JUDGMENT/ORDER : 1. These three criminal appeals, being Criminal Appeal Nos. 181/2008, 184/2008 & 187/2008, have arisen out of the judgment in Special Case No. 54/2004 (new) [Special Case No. 4 (c) /1997 (old) ] preferred by the accused-appellants, Khanindra Kr. Dutta, Ekhthiaruddin Talukdar, and Bhupendra Kr. Deka, respectively. The learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, vide judgment and order, dated 12.9.2008, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants to (1) rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Section 120 (B) read with Section 420/471/465/477 (A) of the IPC, (2) rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Section 477 (A) of the IPC, (3) rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Section 120 (B) read with Section 420 of the IPC, (4) rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for 1 month under Section 471/465 of the IPC, and (5) rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for 1 year under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. I have heard learned senior counsel, Mr. T.J. Mahanta, for the accused-appellant, in Criminal Appeal No. 181/2008, learned counsel Mr. B.M. Choudhury, for the accused-appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 184/2008, and learned counsel Mr. P. Kataki, for the accused-appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 187/2008. I have also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned standing counsel for the CBI in all these appeals for the respondents. 3. The fact leading to the prosecution case is that, the accused-appellants are respectively the officers and office assistant in the Veterinary department at Mangaldai. The accused-appellant Khanidra Kr. Dutta was the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and in-charge of the medicine store at the office of the DVO, Mangaldai. The accused-appellant, Ekhthiaruddin Talukdar, was the accountant and the accused-appellant Bhupendra Kr. Deka was the store-keeper in the said office. 4. During the period of their working in the said office in the year 1992, an amount of Rs. Dutta was the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and in-charge of the medicine store at the office of the DVO, Mangaldai. The accused-appellant, Ekhthiaruddin Talukdar, was the accountant and the accused-appellant Bhupendra Kr. Deka was the store-keeper in the said office. 4. During the period of their working in the said office in the year 1992, an amount of Rs. 5,97,200/- received by the Veterinary department under a forged Letter of Credit (LOC) as well as the sanction order, submitted false RCC Bills for supply of medicines to the said office by a non-existing firm making entry in the store register about receipt of the medicines allegedly supplied and issuing certificates to the fact of receipt of the medicines although no medicines were ever supplied or received by the department. 5. On the above facts, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Assam made a complaint on 23.7.1993. The complaint was registered by ACB Police Station, being Case No. 8/1993, under Sections 409/468/420/120 (B) of the IPC read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was then transferred to CBI. The CBI registered the case, being No. RC 4 (A) /1994, investigated into it, and after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against 7 (seven) accused persons including the present appellants under Sections 120 (B) /420/467 read with Section 471 IPC, 477 (A) IPC and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. The learned trial court, after exhausting all the required legal formalities, framed charge against the accused-appellants and their co-accused. They pleaded not guilty to the charge. Hence, the trial. 7. To prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 62 witnesses who were examined in cross by the defence. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused-appellants and their co-accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. In their such statements, the accused-appellants Khanindra Kr. Dutta and Bhupendra Kr. Deka admitted that they respectively certified in the fictitious bills about receipt of the medicines in Ext. 5 and entered the medicines in the stock register, Ext. 9. The appellant Ekhthiaruddin Talukdar has taken the plea that at the instance of his superior officer he prepared the bills and the accused-appellants certified in the bills that the medicines were received. Deka admitted that they respectively certified in the fictitious bills about receipt of the medicines in Ext. 5 and entered the medicines in the stock register, Ext. 9. The appellant Ekhthiaruddin Talukdar has taken the plea that at the instance of his superior officer he prepared the bills and the accused-appellants certified in the bills that the medicines were received. The bills were passed by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, i.e. DVO of Mangaldai. The accused-appellant Bhupendra Kr. Deka examined himself as defence witness. 9. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, delivered the judgment, appealed against, acquitting 3 (three) accused persons and convicting and sentencing 4 (four) including the present 3 (three) accused-appellants, as indicated above. 10. I have perused the judgment appealed against and have also scanned the evidence on record. To avoid repetition and avoidable narration of evidence, it is proposed to deal specifically the evidence specific to the individual accused-appellants and their role/involvement with the offences they are charged with. 11. The accused-appellant, Bhupendra Kr. Deka, being the store-keeper, entered the medicines, allegedly supplied in the store register at the instance of his senior officer although no medicine was received by him or seen by him to have been supplied. 12. Accused-appellant, Khanindra Kr. Dutta, was the in-charge of the store, who certified the medicines to have been received in spite of the fact that no medicine was received. 13. Accused-appellant, Ekhthiaruddin Talukdar, was the accountant, passed the bills against the supply of such medicines against a non-existing firm, which was shown, in the record, to have been supplied. 14. The evidence of PW24, PW30, PW31, PW32, PW33, PW34, PW35, PW36 who were working, at the Veterinary dispensaries in various parts of the state, at the relevant period of the offence. They are all categorical in their evidence that none of them received any medicine against which the challans were shown to have been issued and bills were ultimately passed for payment to a non-existing firm. The actual owner of the firm, M/s Drug Sea, who was supposed to supply the medicines, has been examined as PW24. It appears from his evidence that his firm never supplied any medicine nor he received payment of any bill and rather it was paid to a non-existing firm. 15. The actual owner of the firm, M/s Drug Sea, who was supposed to supply the medicines, has been examined as PW24. It appears from his evidence that his firm never supplied any medicine nor he received payment of any bill and rather it was paid to a non-existing firm. 15. Upon hearing respective learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the appellant, Khanindra Kr. Dutta, issued certificates about receipt of the medicines in good conditions vide Ext. 5. He did it in his capacity as the in-charge of the store where the medicines were supposed to be kept after receipt of the same. The evidence reveals that no medicines were supplied and received by him in spite of the fact that he issued the Ext. 5 certifying that he received the medicines. In fact, Ext. 5 aforesaid is the bill wherein he incorporated the certificate, as aforesaid. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC also, he is heard admitting the above facts. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge, Assam, in respect of the accused-appellant, Khanindra Kr. Dutta appears to have based in evidence on record. In respect of accused-appellant, Bhupendra Deka, it has clearly come out from the evidence that he entered in the store register, receipt of the medicines without there being any medicine received, of course, as stated by him, at the instance of his superior officer. But, he had led defence evidence. The DW1 has categorically stated that he has made the entry in the store register about the medicines which he never received. The prosecution evidence on this aspect appears to be consistent and coupled with the evidence of DW1, there is no denying that he has made some entries in the store register about receipt of the medicines, which he never received. Ext. 9 is the store register where he had made the entries. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial court, holding the accused-appellant guilty appears to have based on evidence on record. 16. So far the accused-appellant, Ekhthiaruddin Talukdar, is concerned, he being the accountant in the Veterinary department, passed the bills against the challans, certified by the accused-appellant Khanindra Kr. Dutta, in spite of the fact that the bills were based on fake supply. 16. So far the accused-appellant, Ekhthiaruddin Talukdar, is concerned, he being the accountant in the Veterinary department, passed the bills against the challans, certified by the accused-appellant Khanindra Kr. Dutta, in spite of the fact that the bills were based on fake supply. There is no dispute in respect of the fact that this accused-appellant Ekhthiaruddin Talukdar had prepared the bills and then forwarded it to the treasury for payment. Learned counsel for this accused-appellant has submitted, with reference to the evidence of PW57, that he (PW57) being an Upper Division Assistant in the office of the DVO, Darrang, sometimes used to take charge of the accountant. He worked with the accused-appellant, Ekhthiaruddin Talukdar. The accountant prepared the RCC bills on the basis of the bills submitted by the contractors/suppliers. The purchase order is issued by the DVO on the basis of requisition from the sub-centre/first aid center etc. His further evidence is that once goods are received in the store by the store-keeper, the store keeper is to give a report certifying that the materials have been received in good condition. The accountant prepares the bill only on receipt of the necessary documents, such as, order number, LOC, Sanction order, and stock entry made in the store register. The bills, vide Ext. 5, was prepared by the accused-appellant, Ekhthiaruddin Talukdar, and he also prepared Ext. 38 and Ext. 40. But, the fact remains that on receipt of the certificate in the bills at Ext. 5, he had processed the same for payment. The certificate was issued by the accused-appellant Khanindra Kr. Dutta being the in-charge of the store. Therefore, it does not appear from such evidence on record that he had prepared the RCC Bills for payment against supply of medicines, which were never supplied, on his own, without there being any process as required, such as certification of the receipt of the medicines as well as the entry in the stock register and in the cash book. In the instant case, all these formalities were observed before he had drawn the bills which were ultimately signed by the DDO i.e. the DVO concerned. 17. Now, on perusal of the judgment, it is found that the accused-appellants are convicted and sentenced under Sections 120 (B) /420/471/465/477 (A) of the IPC as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 17. Now, on perusal of the judgment, it is found that the accused-appellants are convicted and sentenced under Sections 120 (B) /420/471/465/477 (A) of the IPC as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 18. The evidence on record reveals that the accused-appellant, Khanindra Kr. Dutta and Bhupendra Kr. Deka, made entries in the store register and also issued certificate respectively about receipt of the medicines which they never received and on the basis of such certificates and entry in the store register, the bills in question were prepared for payment. There is no evidence on record to show as to whether both of them obtained for themselves any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by their commission or commission, referred to above. However, the fact remains that the bills were passed in favour of a non-existing firm against no supply of medicines, and thereby, their actions were such that the same gave pecuniary advantage to a non-existing firm. Therefore, their conviction under Section 13 (2) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, appears to have based on evidence on record. 19. The omission or commission on the part of the accused-appellant Bhupendra Kr. Deka, entering in the store register about the medicines which he never received an issuance of certificate of receipt in the Ext. 5, by the accused-appellant Khanindra Kr. Dutta, makes it appear, beyond reasonable doubt, that they conspired to commit the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and therefore, they are guilty under Section 120 (B) of the IPC also as their omission and commission amounted the facilitating drawal of fake bills for supply of medicines. 20. So far the conviction of the accused-appellants Khanindra Kr. Dutta and Bhupendra Kr. Deka, is concerned, there does not appear any materials in the evidence on record to justify their conviction under Sections 420/471/465/477 (A) of the IPC as the offences alleged are not covered the said provisions of the IPC rather it covered by Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120 (B) of the IPC. 21. There is no evidence as regards the offences under Sections 471/465/468/477 (A) of the IPC as regard committing forgery in respect of the documents prepared by the accused-appellants as there is no dispute that the certificate, in Ext. 21. There is no evidence as regards the offences under Sections 471/465/468/477 (A) of the IPC as regard committing forgery in respect of the documents prepared by the accused-appellants as there is no dispute that the certificate, in Ext. 5, was issued by the accused-appellant Khanindra Kr. Dutta and that in Ext. 9 the entries were made by the accused-appellant Bhupendra Kr. Deka. Therefore, the said exhibits were not forged rather prepared by them to facilitate pecuniary advantage to the non-existing firm. 22. In view of the above discussions, and the findings recorded during the discussions, this court is of the view that the accused-appellant Ekhthiaruddin Talukdar, deserves to be acquitted in the absence of any evidence against him to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 23. So far the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant Khanindra Kr. Dutta and Bhupendra Kr. Deka, is concerned, the conviction and sentence imposed upon both of them under Sections 420/471/465/477 (A) of the IPC are set aside. 24. However, they are convicted under Section 120 (B) of the IPC as well as under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120 (B) of the IPC, is maintained. 25. So far the sentence is concerned, the accused-appellants Khanindra Kr. Dutta and Bhupendra Kr. Deka, are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for another 1 year each, under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 26. However, there is no independent sentence imposed upon the aforesaid two accused-appellants under Section 120 (B) of the IPC. Therefore, as the accused-appellants Khanindra Kr. Dutta and Bhupendra Kr. Deka are found and held guilty for the offence under Section 120 (B) of the IPC also, in the absence of any substantive sentence against them in the judgment of the learned trial court, this court is of the view that rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for another 1 months each, is imposed by this judgment for offence under Section 120 (B) of the IPC. 27. The punishment imposed upon the accused-appellants Khanindra Kr. Dutta and Bhupendra Kr. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for another 1 months each, is imposed by this judgment for offence under Section 120 (B) of the IPC. 27. The punishment imposed upon the accused-appellants Khanindra Kr. Dutta and Bhupendra Kr. Deka, under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, if reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each, and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 3 months each, will meet the ends of justice. 28. Accordingly, the sentence imposed upon the accused-appellants Khanindra Kr. Dutta and Bhupendra Kr. Deka, under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is modified and reduced from 3 years each to 1 year each with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for another 3 months each and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each under Section 120 (B) of the IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 1 months has been imposed. The sentences are to run concurrently. 29. The period of detention during the investigation and trial, if any, shall be set off against the substantive sentences in respect of the accused-appellants Khanindra Kr. Dutta and Bhupendra Kr. Deka. 30. So far the accused-appellant Ekhthiaruddin Talukdar is concerned, as discussed above, his appeal is allowed holding that his guilt could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 31. The appeals, being Criminal Appeal No.181/2008 and Criminal Appeal No. 187/2008 are, partly allowed. 32. The Criminal Appeal No. 184/2008 is allowed. 33. The accused-appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 181/2008 and Criminal Appeal No. 187/2008, Khanindra Kr. Dutta and Bhupendra Kr. Deka, respectively, shall surrender before the learned trial court within 1 (one) month to serve out the sentence. 34. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.