Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 807 (GAU)

Nani Gopal Palit v. Central Bureau of India

2019-06-28

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant Ronodip Das and Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Nani Gopal Palit. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, C.B.I. 2. Both appeals have been preferred against common judgment and order dated 30.06.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Guwahati, Assam in Spl. Case No. 13/2004 and hence, both the appeals taken together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that on 30.06.1993, the then S.P., C.B.I., ACP, Guwahati received a source information that during February, 1989 to May, 1989 while posted and functioning as Field Officer, SBI, Diphu Branch and Manager, Agricultural Banking Division, SBI, Diphu Branch, Sri Noni Gopal Palit and Sri Ronodip Das entered into criminal conspiracy with each other and in pursuant thereof Rododip Das sanctioned total number of 59 fishery loans under IRPD schemes on recommendation of Sri N.G. Palit, in the name of non-existing fictitious borrowers. Thereafter, they disbursed subsidy amount totally Rs. 2,95,000.00/- by issuing bankers cheque without debit confirmation from borrowers. Further, an amount of Rs. 2,80,000.00/- was also disbursed against the IRPD loans as subsidy to different suppliers fictitiously. On the basis of the said source information RC Case No. 15(A)/93-SHG was registered and investigation was carried out on the matter. 4. During investigation, several witnesses were examined, number of documents were seized and specimen handwriting and signatures of the suspects got examined through finger print and handwriting expert. On conclusion of the investigation after obtaining necessary prosecution sanction submitted the charge-sheet against 6 (six) accused persons namely, Ronodip Das, Sri Noni Gopal Palit, Kharsing Ronghang, Sudhir Nath Barman, Desoi Rongpi, Bokdul Ali under Sections 120(B), 420, 468 read with 109, 471 IPC read with section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) E.C. Act and forwarded all the accused persons to the court to stand the trial. 5. 5. The charge-sheet contains following facts and allegations against the accused persons: During 1989-89 Lumbajong Development Block and DRDA, Diphu made some loan applications under Integrated Rural Development Programme (in short IRDP) and those applications were collected from the people living below poverty line, after due verification and thereafter Block/DRDA, Diphu forwarded those applications to SBI, Diphu for sanctioning of loans against such applications. While posted and functioning Sri Noni Gopal Palit and Ronodip Das as stated above entered into criminal conspiracies with one Sri Sudhir Barman, Gram Sevak, and pursuant to such conspiracy Sudhir Barman removed some genuine loan applications, pertaining to IRDP from the concerned files maintained in the Block Office and replaced the same with some applications, filled up by said Sudhir Barman himself. Mr. Barman also affixed some photographs in new applications which he collected from applications already rejected by Block Officer/DRDA. Then Mr. Barman along with Sri Noni Gopal Palit and Ronodip Das and Kharsingh Ronghang forged some other documents such as arrangement letters, control cards, withdrawal slips etc. and on the basis of such forged documents Sri Das and Palit sanctioned an amount of Rs. 3,01,100.00 against 67 persons which were fictitious entities. Further Sri Ronodip Das and Sri Noni Gopal Palit entered into another criminal conspiracy with Kharsing Ronghang and Desoi Rongpi and pursuant to such conspiracy they disbursed Rs. 2,76,850.00/- to some equally fictitious suppliers through 10 (ten) bankers cheque, showing delivery of livestock to some non-existent persons, purported to be the beneficiaries under the IRDP. All the accused persons flouted all the banking rules and procedures while sanctioning the loans by preparing false documents in order to pecuniary gain illegally causing serious loss to the bank. The accused persons were stated to have committed the offence of cheating, forgery, impersonation and of criminal misconduct of abusing official position in active conspiracy with each other. 6. After submission of the charge-sheet all accused persons entered their appearance before the trial court but accused Desoi Rongpi died before the case put into trial and case stood abated against him. The other accused person Sri Sudhir Barman fled from the trial and he was declared absconder. One of the accused persons Bokdul Ali was discharged at the time of hearing on the point of charge. The other accused person Sri Sudhir Barman fled from the trial and he was declared absconder. One of the accused persons Bokdul Ali was discharged at the time of hearing on the point of charge. Only the remaining accused persons Sri Noni Gopal Palit, Ronodip Das and Kharsigh Ronghong faced the trial and denied the charge framed under Sections 120(B), 420, 468, 471 IPC read with section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the E.C. Act and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To bring home the charges prosecution examined 22 witnesses including finger print expert, handwriting expert and the Investigating Officer. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Plea of defence is of total denial. Defence also examined one witness in support of their contentions. At the conclusion of the trial under the basis of oral and documentary evidence led by prosecution, the learned trial court and held the accused persons Sri Noni Gopal Palit and Sri Ronodip Das guilty under Sections 120(B), 468, 471 IPC read with section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the E.C. Act and sentenced each of the accused person to suffer R.I. for 1 (one) year and a fine of Rs. 2000, in default R.I. for one month for offence under Section 120(B) IPC, sentenced to R.I. for 1 (one) year and a fine of Rs. 2000, in default R.I. for 1 (one) month under Section 420 IPC, R.I. for 1 (one) year and a fine of Rs. 2000, in default R.I. for 1 (one) month under Section 468 IPC, R.I. for 1 (one) year and a fine of Rs. 2000, in default R.I. for 1 (one) month under Section 471 IPC, and R.I. for 1 (one) year and a fine of Rs. 2000, in default R.I. for 1 (one) month under Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) E.C. Act, and the sentence will run concurrently. 8. The other accused Kharsing Ronghong was acquitted from the offences as the prosecution failed to prove the charges against him beyond all reasonable doubt. 9. The present two appeals have been preferred by the aforesaid two accused persons, challenging the legality and validity of the order of conviction passed by the trial court. 10. Mr. 8. The other accused Kharsing Ronghong was acquitted from the offences as the prosecution failed to prove the charges against him beyond all reasonable doubt. 9. The present two appeals have been preferred by the aforesaid two accused persons, challenging the legality and validity of the order of conviction passed by the trial court. 10. Mr. Bhattacharyya vehemently attacking the prosecution case primarily contended that the loan applications were sponsored and verified by DRDA and the same were forwarded to Bank only for sanction of the loan amount and thereafter Bank simply released the loans against those appellations on the recommendations made by the Block/DRDA. It contends that the Bank is under no obligation to verify those applications again in the nature of pre-sanction survey and it was optional and the accused/appellants were no way involved with the offence alleged and the evidence on record is highly insufficient to prove any of the charges against the accused/appellants. 11. Pointing towards the serious omission in the FIR as well as the charge-sheet and also in the entire evidence it has been submitted that although a subsidy amount of Rs. 2,95,000 has been mentioned in the FIR but nothing mentioned about the loan amount given to various borrowers, which ought to have found place in the FIR. However, the subsidy amount is to be debited from the loan amount given to various borrowers so there should be proper reflection of all loan amount and subsidy amount, otherwise subsidy amount cannot be factually debited. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- which was alleged to be disbursed against loan for supply of agricultural products, without such supply actually being made, the said loan amount is not mentioned in the FIR in order to debit the subsidy amount from the loan amount. The omission of such important facts in the FIR shakes the veracity of the prosecution case, although FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. That apart, it contends that there is no any evidence of commission of offence of conspiracy to robe the accused/appellants. 12. Relying on the decision of Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1975) 3 SCC 815 it has been submitted that omission of important fact in the FIR is very relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. 13. 12. Relying on the decision of Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1975) 3 SCC 815 it has been submitted that omission of important fact in the FIR is very relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. 13. Further contentions of the appellant side that the learned trial court has failed to give due appreciation to the defence evidence, whereas the defence by adducing the official witnesses has given reasonable explanation that there are sufficient compliance so far as regard the official procedure. 14. Relying on a decision in 1976 Rabindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233 it has been submitted that once the accused gives a probable and reasonable explanation and prosecution failed to disprove the same, the explanation is liable to be accepted. It has been urged before this Court that by way of adducing evidence of DW1, defence has given a probable explanation but the same was not considered. It is submitted that defence is not liable to prove his case with same amount of rigour and certainty as the prosecution required to prove a criminal charge. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence says that onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from the weakness or falsity of defence version while proving its case. 15. Relevant observations of Rabindra Kumar Dey (supra), Para 6 and 7 as relied by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, is quoted below: "6. In our opinion three cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence are well-settled, namely: (1) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case; (2) that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and (3) that the onus of the prosecution never shifts. It is true that under Section 105 of the Evidence Act the onus of proving exceptions mentioned in the Indian Penal Code lies on the accused, but this section does not at all indicate the nature and standard of proof required. The Evidence Act does not contemplate that the accused should prove his case with the same strictness and rigour as the prosecution is required to prove a criminal charge. The Evidence Act does not contemplate that the accused should prove his case with the same strictness and rigour as the prosecution is required to prove a criminal charge. In fact, from the cardinal principles referred to above, it follows that, it is sufficient if the accused is able to prove his case by the standard of preponderance of probabilities as envisaged by Section 5 of the Evidence Act as a result of which he succeeds not because he proves his case to the hilt but because probability of the version given by him throws doubt on the prosecution case and, therefore, the prosecution cannot be said to have established the charge beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the mode of proof, by standard of benefit of doubt, is not applicable to the accused, where he is called upon to prove his case or to prove the exceptions of the Indian Penal Code on which he seeks to rely. It is sufficient for the defence to give a version which competes in probability with the prosecution version, for that would be sufficient to throw suspicion on the prosecution case entailing its rejection by the court. 7. Once the appellant gives a reasonable and probable explanation, it is for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the explanation is absolutely false. In a criminal trial, it is not at all obligatory on the accused to produce evidence in support of his defence and for the purpose of proving his version he can rely on the admissions made by the prosecution witnesses or on the documents filed by the prosecution. In these circumstances, the court has to probe and consider the materials relied upon by the defence instead of raising and adverse inference against the accused, for not producing evidence in support of his defence, because as we have already stated that the prosecution cannot derive any strength or support from the weakens of the defence case. The prosecution has to stand on its own legs, and if it fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the entire edifice of the prosecution would crumble down. Thus it would appear to us that both the courts below have made an absolutely wrong approach in deciding the truth of the defence version and have not followed the principles laid down by this Court in judging the case of the accused." 16. Thus it would appear to us that both the courts below have made an absolutely wrong approach in deciding the truth of the defence version and have not followed the principles laid down by this Court in judging the case of the accused." 16. Decision in Devi Lal and Another vs. State of Rajasthan (1971) 3 SCC 471 has been referred to submit that the prosecution must have a definite and fix case, if the pivot of prosecution case is not accepted, a new case cannot be made to imperil defence. It contents that the benefit of doubt arising out of insufficient investigation must be bestowed upon the accused as has been held in the case of State of U.P. vs. Washid Haider. 17. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the learned trial court fell in error in accepting the evidence of handwriting in absence of corroborating evidence and has submitted that evidence of handwriting expert is merely an opinion but not conclusive evidence as provided under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Reliance has been placed on AIR 1967 SC 1326 , Fakaruddin vs. State of M.P., AIR 1977 Gau 27 . 18. Elaborating the evidence and record it has been urged that the learned trial court has erroneously accepted the evidence of prosecution regarding the fixation of photographs upon the loan applications while the negative of the photographs were not brought on record. In this context the learned counsel for the appellant has heavily relied upon the decision of AIR 1931 PC 189 United States Shipping Board vs. Ship "ST Albans", 1991 Crl.L.J. 978 State of Gujarat vs. Bharat @ Bhupendra @ Haka Naranbhai. 19. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also shows its concern over the trial of the criminal case relates to the government servants by holding that great care and attention should be devoted by the court to all questions of law and facts to avoid miscarriage of justice while particularly accused is a government servant and his whole career is at peril, as one would loss his whole service career on such conviction {as held in Pabitar Singh vs. State of Bihar, (1972) 3 SCC 354 .} 20. Refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Bank has no other liability after the loan applications forwarded from the DRDA authority, except releasing the loan, it has been contended that such a submission is not at all proper and contrary to the procedure of sanctioning the loan. It is submitted that on receipt of such applications from the DRDA, the Bank undertakes pre-sanction survey and if satisfied to the report submitted by DRDA, they call the beneficiaries from the Bank for necessary verification such as affixing of photographs of beneficiaries of the Bank documents, executing of agreement letters, control cards, mortgaged deed and on conclusion of such documentation bank sanctioned the loan and disburse the first installment in favour of beneficiaries. The persons who are selected are given assistance under IRDP in two components, first one is the loan component and second one is subsidy. Once the loan is sanctioned and disbursed by the Bank it intimates such sanction and disbursement to DRDA for release of the subsidy to those persons who were granted the loan. The loan disbursing officer is also under obligation to intimate his superior authority about sanctioning of such loan. On such intimation from the Bank DRDA verifies the utilization of the loan and then causes the Bank to disburse the subsidy in respect of beneficiaries in the account maintained in the Bank. DRDA also intimates the Block about commerce advising Bank to release the subsidy. Disbursement of second installment is dependent upon the proper utilization of the first one. The Bank as well as DRDA is required to supervise the proper utilization of the loans so given to the beneficiaries. 21. Referring to the evidence of PW2, PW4, PW10 and PW14 it has been submitted that they have stated all about the above procedure in disbursing the loan prevailing long before the codified circular, 1991 put into operation. It goes to show the above procedure was prevailing at the time of disbursing of loan by the Bank and defence could not show any other alternative procedure which was followed till the time of coming into operation of said codified circular, 1991. The above witnesses has clearly stated about the responsibility of the appellant No. 1 and 2 while disbursing the loan, there cannot be any escape from the proposition that the appellants owes no responsibility while disbursing the loan. 22. The above witnesses has clearly stated about the responsibility of the appellant No. 1 and 2 while disbursing the loan, there cannot be any escape from the proposition that the appellants owes no responsibility while disbursing the loan. 22. Further it has been submitted that from the testimonies of PW1, PW5, PW8, PW9, PW11, PW12, PW15, PW16, PW17, PW18, PW20 and PW22 it has been proved that the Ext. 1 and 5 and Ext. 40(6) to 104(6) are documents, such as control cards, agreement letters etc. which were executed in the Bank under the seal and signatures of these officials are vogus and fake documents. Those witnesses i.e., some of the beneficiaries, concerned Gaonbura and suppliers have denied the execution of such loan documents, seized from the appellant Bank. 23. Further it contends that the photographs attested by the appellants in the loan applications are not of genuine applicants/beneficiaries and such replacement of photographs as well as all attestations of photographs on Bank documents, drawn by other accused persons S. Barman and K. Kharsing with complicity of the accused/appellants. The evidence of Finger Print Expert/PW9 has testifies that the signatures in certain documents like loan applications etc. bears the signatures of one of the accused/employees Kharsing which indicates the falsity of documents regarding loan applications. The appellants even stated to have prepared false documents showing payment to the suppliers and issued 10 (ten) numbers of bankers cheque to non-existent suppliers. It is submitted that the appellant Nani Gopal Palit recommended loan on the basis of applications without holding pre-sanction survey as required and attested the photographs and signatures of those applicants who are non-existent and fictitious persons and the genuine applicants never come to the Bank for documentations in relation to loan in question and appellant disbursed the loan against cattle without obtaining certificate from the purchase committee neither they informed the DRDA or higher authority about granting of loan and subsidy by violating all the rules relating to payment nor they made an attempt for recovery of the loan they disbursed. Thus, it submits that it has been proved by necessary evidence that appellants had forged the bank documents such as agreement letters etc. as has been mentioned above and cheated the bank authority. 24. Thus, it submits that it has been proved by necessary evidence that appellants had forged the bank documents such as agreement letters etc. as has been mentioned above and cheated the bank authority. 24. Bearing in mind the above rival contentions of the parties let us briefly appreciate the evidence on record and the findings of the learned trial court whether decision rendered by the trial court is suffers from any illegality for non-consideration of the evidence, documents and any other legal aspect? 25. In the instant case there are three sets of evidence examined by prosecution. Apart from the Experts and the Investigating Officer. PW4, PW6, PW9 and PW14 are the Bank officials of the State Bank of India (appellants Bank), PW1, PW2, PW10 are the employees of Block and DRDA and the PW19, PW20, PW22 are Finger Print Expert, Handwriting Expert and Investigating Officer and remaining witnesses are local people either Gaonbura or cultivators, teacher and employee of District Council etc. 26. So far as the evidence of Bank official concerned it is found that they have stated in detail all about the procedure for processing the loan applications under IRDP in various branches of the office including the appellants Bank. PW4 Assistant Manager of the Bank has stated about the seizure of bankers cheque in connection with this case. As regard the IRDP scheme he has stated that such a loan are given to the section of people below poverty line to generate their income and as soon as loan is given to enable to have cattle and other articles, purchase committee is invariably to be formed to select those items and such committee will issue certificate that such articles are fit for the purpose for which loan is sanctioned. The Bank made payments against bill amount after the loanee acknowledged the receipt of the livestock. He goes on saying that on receipt of loan applications from DRDA the Field Officer of the Bank is to hold a pre-sanction survey to know whether survey done by the DRDA is reliable. Field Officer is required to make appraisal recommending Branch Manager to sanction the loan against such applications and on the basis of such appraisal Bank Manager sanctions the loan. Field Officer is required to make appraisal recommending Branch Manager to sanction the loan against such applications and on the basis of such appraisal Bank Manager sanctions the loan. His evidence reflects the entire procedure that is to be undertaken by the Bank at the time of disbursal of the loan, that after sanctioning the loans, documents of loan is made by the Field Officer, the beneficiaries have to come to the Bank, the Bank is to oversee whether loan disbursed has been utilized by maintaining the register. 27. The PW6, a teller of CBI, has stated that while he was working in the Diphu Branch, CBI, 1989 his duty was to make payment and Ext. 11 to Ext. 20 are the cheques against which payment were made and normally payments were made to the parties against the token tendered by them but in this case established procedure was ignored in the wake of request made by the Bank Loan disbursing Officer. PW6 however, without mentioning anything about the case as submitted that whenever he disbursed loan he gave it to the beneficiaries. The evidence of PW14, the Chief Manager of SBI, Zonal Officer is relevant when he says that it is the duty of the Branch Manager, Agriculture Sri Ronodip Das to supervise the implementation of difference policies like IRDP etc. He has exhibited the relevant documents vide Ext. 40 to Ext. 104 like control cards, agreement etc. which were executed in the Bank at the time of disbursement of the loan to the beneficiaries. His evidence is also specific that N.G. Palit made appraisal for sanction of loan against the applications received from concerned Department and on the basis of which Ronodip Das made the sanction of the loan. Various documents mentioned above clearly borne their signatures. He further stated that such documents reveal that appropriation of subsidy was not proper and photographs were not fixed in proper documents, like some photographs were fixed in loan sanction letters instead of loan applications, the purchase committee fixes the rates of the applicants and on the certificates issued by the purchase committee, bill amount is to be given to the supplier of the articles under the scheme. 28. 28. The employee from Lumbajong Development Block, Karbi Anglong working as a Gram Sevika/PW1 has stated that although she is required to fill the loan applications but in respect of applications from Seekari Timung and Longaki Sinha vide Ext. 1 and Ext. 5 are not filled up by her. Similarly, some other applications like Ext. 3 to Ext. 7 although not filled up by her but the BDO has given necessary certificates. The another Gram Sevak, PW2 has also stated about the procedure for fill up the loan applications and the process of sending the same to the BDO and thereafter BDO sends the same to the DRDA and only after re-verification of the same such applications will forwarded to the bank for doing needful. The bank concerned after receipt of such applications made its own pre-sanction survey before sanctioning the loans and the Bank has to inform the DRDA about disbursement of loan and to release the subsidy. But the bank concerned in this case has not given any intimation to the DRDA regarding disbursement of loan. The evidence of PW10, BDO echoed the testimony of above witnesses and regarding the procedure to be maintained by the Block, DRDA and the bank officials towards releasing the loans and if the Bank disbursed the loan without following procedure then the Bank will be responsible. 29. Another set of witnesses PW.11, PW.17, PW.18 & PW.21 are concerned Gaonburahs of different villages wherefrom the loan applicants belong to. The I/o. has seized relevant documents pertaining to the loan from the Bank vide Exhbt. 40 to 104 those documents are loan sanctioned letter, deed of hypothecation, mortgage deed and other relevant documents pertaining to landed property etc. PW.11 although had admitted name of certain applicants to be the resident of his village but the photograph shown vide Exhbt. 40 to 55 annexed to the loan documents were not the persons of his village and it is stated that he does not know the persons whose photographs were fixed to the loan applications. On the other hand, PW.17 has stated that certain applicants in the loan applications named therein (for the brevity all names not mentioned) were not the residence of his village as shown in the applications. PW.18 and PW.21 also stated that certain other persons named in the loan applications but the photographs affixed in the documents does not tally like Exhbt. PW.18 and PW.21 also stated that certain other persons named in the loan applications but the photographs affixed in the documents does not tally like Exhbt. 77 to 84 and 87. Suggestion was given to those witnesses that there may be similar persons in other village to which they denied. 30. On the next some of the beneficiaries (purported to be loan applicants) PW.8, PW.12, PW.13, PW.16 were also stated that they never applied for loans under IRDP neither they receive any loans nor they put any signature in any loan application under IRDP. PW.12 & PW.13 denied their photograph & signature in the loan documents in Exhbt. 44 & 49. 31. The PW.15 is an employee of district council has stated that he never dealt with the business of supply of cattle and he never put signature in Exhbt. 105 (supply order) as shown to him although his signatures appears in the said document. He denied the suggestion of defence side that he put his signature in Exhbt. 105. 32. PW.19 and PW.20 are the fingerprint and handwriting experts respectively. PW.19 has stated that he has examined several documents pertaining to the present case that was sent to him through Exhbt. 106 and he submitted his report/opinion vide Exhbt. 129. He has narrated that different questioned documents examined by him was found identical to the fingerprint of Kharshing Ranghang and Sudip Boruah. He has deposed that the CBI has taken the thumb impression of the person concerned and such disputed fingerprints were enlarged by the official photographer and he has narrated the grounds of his opinion in detail. 33. PW.20, the handwriting expert has stated that questioned documents marked as Q.1 to Q.75 was compared with S.1 to S.39 documents, those were sent to him in connection with the present case and he opined that the persons who wrote the S.50 to S.55 also wrote the signature similarly stamped as questioned document UD. 76 to UD. 85. He has given his opinion in Exhbt. 130 with reasoning. In his cross examination he has stated that although only individual feature is mentioned in the report, not the general characteristic but he has considered all those characteristic to form an opinion and has denied the suggestion that his opinion is incorrect for non mentioning of general characteristic. 34. 85. He has given his opinion in Exhbt. 130 with reasoning. In his cross examination he has stated that although only individual feature is mentioned in the report, not the general characteristic but he has considered all those characteristic to form an opinion and has denied the suggestion that his opinion is incorrect for non mentioning of general characteristic. 34. Lastly, the Investigating Officer as PW.22 has stated about his investigation upon receipt of the FIR. He examined the witnesses, seized the documents and obtained specimen handwriting and signature of accused Sudhir Barman and Desay Rongpi. Vide Exht. 34 and marked S.1 to S.51 are the signature and handwriting of Sudhir Barman. Similarly, specimen signature and handwriting of Desay Rongpi is Exhbt. 135 and S.2 to S.55. Similarly, other handwriting and signature Kharsing Ranghang and Jeevan Khetry was also collected vide Exhbt. 136 to 158 and also seized the documents pertaining to the case through Exhbt. 139 to 145 and he sent the handwriting and signature of those persons for expert opinion. After receipt of the expert opinion and completion of the investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. In cross-examination, he has stated that he visited the villages referred in the case during investigation but he did not visit the other villages except the villages figured in the case. He has also stated that there are several small villages in the district of Karbi Anglong. He stated that he do not know, if any persons by names figured in the case resides in other villages which he did not visit and the villages are identified by the block officials and DRDA officials in case of IRDP loans. After the identification of the beneficiaries by the block and DRDA, relevant documents are submitted to the lead Bank/Loanee bank and thereafter it is incumbent on the part of the field officers as well as Manager, Agriculture to again visit those villages on the basis of the forms of the beneficiaries already made by the DRDA and block to ascertain the place of residence. It is also stated that guidelines in this regard are laid down in codified circular as well as other guidelines issued by the DRDA under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and it is mandatory. It is also stated that guidelines in this regard are laid down in codified circular as well as other guidelines issued by the DRDA under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and it is mandatory. He do not know if the bank officials during their visit in their village took help of local persons and officials of Block and DRDA to identify the persons and officials of Block and DRDA to identify the beneficiaries. 35. During the course of investigation, he found that the names of the borrowers of control card and identity of the photographs affixed in control card are two different identities. He took photographs along with the thumb impression in presence of identifying the verifying officer and also in presence of local Gaonburah who identified the actual men of the photographs. He took the thumb impression of the photographed persons in column No. 6 of Exhbt. 148 whose identify is similar to the photographed persons as affixed in the respective control card shown in Exhbt. 148. During the investigation, he found about 13 persons whose photographs were used in the control card but in different names for disbursement of loans. He took specimen thumb impression of photographed persons and marked them as SF.-13, 27, 25, 16, 9, 10 and 5. He had sent corresponding control card of account number shown in column No. 1 of Exhbt. 148 and some of these control card have thumb impression which were marked by him as QA-13, 27, 25, 11, 16, 9, 10, 4, 5 and 7 to the expert of thumb impression. As per the report those thumb impression were affixed by Kharshing Ranghang and Sudhir Barman. The said thumb impression were certified to be taken in presence of field officer accused N.G. Palit. Exht. 147 chart was prepared on the basis of names of the beneficiaries who were reflected in the control card. At Sl. No. 5 of Exht. 147, photograph of Gemari Timung is affixed in the column of photograph bearing account No. 22/58 and his thumb impressions are marked as SE.9. Exht. 147 chart was prepared on the basis of names of the beneficiaries who were reflected in the control card. At Sl. No. 5 of Exht. 147, photograph of Gemari Timung is affixed in the column of photograph bearing account No. 22/58 and his thumb impressions are marked as SE.9. Similarly, photographs of Dalui Hanse bearing account No. 22/69, Sarthe Engty bearing account No. 22/92, Mondor Kramsa bearing account No. 22/101, Longki Kramsa bearing account No. 22/105, Rajen Singh Terang bearing account No. 22/107, the photographs of these persons were affixed in the column of the photographs and their thumb impressions were marked as SE.-15, 16, 22, 23 and 24. The thumb impression were taken by him and he put his signature vide Exhbt. 147(1) to 147(60 and Exhbt. 148(1) to 148(6). All the thumb impressions and signatures were duly identified and verified by local Gaonburah Kehai Ranghang of Desakideva village, Karbi Anglong and S.S. Rongpi, Gram Sevak of Lumbjan Development Block, Manza and of Sri P.K. Kalita, the then Field Officer, SBI, Diphu. During investigation, he also seized Guideliine in booklet form which is marked as Exhbt. 149. Pages 416 and 417 are containing the duties and responsibility of the Branch Manager and Field Officer. In cross, he has stated that he did not send the photographs for expert opinion. Exhbt. 149, the internal circular is exclusively for SBI and it was handed over to him by SBI people. He has denied the suggestion that Exhbt. 47 and 48 is prepared by him for the purpose of the case. 36. Now, let us examine the evidence adduced by the defence. One Branch Manager of SBI, Diphu was examined as DW.1, who has stated that as all the loan applications were verified by the Block and DRDA including identification and it is not mandatory for Bank officials for re-verification of the loan proposal and requirement is only to visit the place and contact with Gaonburahs. The beneficiaries were generally identified by Gaonburahs concerned. According to him, as per Exhbt. 139 Govt. Circular, bank deals with post disbursement and supervision and he being the successor of N.G. Palit, found that all the inspections registers vide Exhbt.-A, B & C were found maintained by the Bank which bears the signature of Sri N.G. Palit and stated that no irregularity is committed by Sri N.G. Palit while disbursing the loan. Similarly, Ext. 139 Govt. Circular, bank deals with post disbursement and supervision and he being the successor of N.G. Palit, found that all the inspections registers vide Exhbt.-A, B & C were found maintained by the Bank which bears the signature of Sri N.G. Palit and stated that no irregularity is committed by Sri N.G. Palit while disbursing the loan. Similarly, Ext. D is the register which reflects that there is signature of veterinary Surgeon who is the member of purchase committee. However, he has admitted that Ext. D is a carbon copy and the same was not prepared in his presence and tour diary does not reflect the name of borrowers. It is also stated that in case of visit to village is concerned, only the Field Officer is to go but not the Manager of the Bank. 37. From the evidence of the officials of DRDA as well as Bank officials mentioned above, it has been established that after receipt of the loan applications from the DRDA, pre-sanction survey is mandatory on the part of the Bank prior to disbursement of the loan. So far as the evidence of DW1 as regard the register Ext. A, Ext. B and Ext. C, the same is not at all specific to show that the said visit to the villages by N.G. Palit was related to pre-sanction survey in relation to the subject matter in hand. After going through the resister it reveals that purpose of visit was casual. The defence evidence cannot be treated as plausible explanation as has been pleaded. 38. According to the prosecution, complicity of the present accused-appellants is made out inasmuch as after receipt of such loan applications from DRDA they did not carry out the pre-sanction survey neither they informed the DRDA about the sanction and disbursement and they have released the subsidy in gross violation of the norms and practice and thereby committed serious infringement of banking rules vis-à-vis payment of cash etc. On the contrary, the plea of defence is that it is none of their business to carry out such survey after sending of lists of beneficiaries after due verification and they simply release the loans on the recommendation made by the Block and DRDA. On the contrary, the plea of defence is that it is none of their business to carry out such survey after sending of lists of beneficiaries after due verification and they simply release the loans on the recommendation made by the Block and DRDA. So far as the present accused-appellants, who were field officer and branch manager of the Bank, have not in any manner disputed about the receipt of loan applications from DRDA and disbursement of loan on their part. A lot of documents was seized from the Bank, which were executed by the loanee/beneficiaries before the Bank i.e. the present two appellants. There is no dispute at all as regards the execution of those documents by the appellants. As against the specific evidence rendered by the beneficiaries, Gaonburahs and suppliers that no such loan was ever disbursed to the loanees, defence except giving suggestion failed to challenge that loan has been duly disbursed to the beneficiaries properly or that there is no irregularity in disbursing the loan. 39. Following vital aspects have emerged from the evidence on record:- i. There is no pre-sanction survey conducted by the Field Officer as per the norms and the circular of the Government. The sum and substance of the said circular of 1991 is the same that was carried in practice since earlier, which prescribe of rules and procedures while disbursing the loan; ii. The Bank officials i.e. the appellants herein neither informed the DRDA and the higher authority regarding the disbursement of loan nor make any field inspection after such disbursement about the utilization by the beneficiaries; iii. The several documents that has been seized from the Bank alarmly reveals that those documents were irregularly executed like fixing of photographs in the sanction letters instead of loan applications, taking of thumb impressions in many documents like hypothecation deed, mortgage deed without any endorsement. In no circumstances, such photograph can be affixed in the loan sanction letters; iv. The photographs attested by the appellants were false and fabricated documents purportedly prepared by accused Sudhir Nath Barman with active connivance by the present appellants; v. Evidence of beneficiaries, Gaonburah and supplier reveals that those beneficiaries and suppliers are non-existent persons resultantly those documents purportedly prepared in the Bank are fictitious; vi. The photographs attested by the appellants were false and fabricated documents purportedly prepared by accused Sudhir Nath Barman with active connivance by the present appellants; v. Evidence of beneficiaries, Gaonburah and supplier reveals that those beneficiaries and suppliers are non-existent persons resultantly those documents purportedly prepared in the Bank are fictitious; vi. The loan under IRDP is to be given in two installments and second installments cannot be disbursed unless proper utilization certificate is obtained but in the instant case the loan amount has been sanction on single installments and subsidy was also released without intimation to the DRDA (Exhbit. 11 to 20 speaks about release of subsidy); vii. At the time of benefit given to the beneficiaries under the IRDP scheme, constitution of purchase committee for selection of livestock and other articles and obtaining certificate from such committee is sin-quo-non but the same is not at all adhered to by the accused-appellants; viii. Payment to the suppliers was made through Banker cheques Exhbt.-11 to 20 with confirmation Exhbit. 39 which was in gross violation of the procedures and in view of the evidence of PW.15 that he never supplied any article as shown in Exhbit. 105 (supply order), is enough to hold that such loanees, suppliers are fictitious persons; ix. The evidence adduced by the appellants with regard to the inspection report given by the veterinary Surgeon/member of purchase committee vide Exhbit. D is not at all admissible as its contents was not proved by relevant officials who prepared the same and it was a photocopy. Further, the Exhbit-A, B & C certain registers although have been produced by the successor of the accused N.G. Palit, but similarly content of those registers is not proved by the persons who prepared the same, as per law; x. Denial of the beneficiaries about their loan applications or about the photographs appeared in the loan documents prepared by the Bank, is a serious matter suggesting falsity of documents and the involvement of the accused-appellants is apparent in view of their signature on those documents either as Field Officer identifying the loanees and the Branch Manager as sanctioning authority; xi. The defence remains silent all about the discrepancies that have been emerged in evidence and no any plausible defence was put forward to rebut the prosecution case, save and except giving some suggestions. The defence remains silent all about the discrepancies that have been emerged in evidence and no any plausible defence was put forward to rebut the prosecution case, save and except giving some suggestions. The defence witness is of no help to the appellants to eschew from their liabilities. xii. The evidence on record indicates that there was no any certificate from the purchase committee prior to releasing of bill to the supplier which is mandatory. No such document was found in the related loan documents of the Bank. 40. The above glaring instances of irregularities on the part of the accused-appellants amounted to gross illegality, because of non-application of proper procedures, while disbursing the loan prior and subsequent. Despite the above irregularities pointed out, defence remain indifferent. As all the matters related to documents which were available in the Bank and the accused-appellant were in a position to rebut the allegation by producing relevant documents and the witnesses to substantiate their plea. Although prosecution cannot claim any success for the lapse of the defence side, but where the prosecution has sufficiently brought on record certain evidence raising the irregularities/illegalities on the part of the accused-appellant in disbursing the loan and in such eventuality the defence was in a position to produce those documents to prove their innocence which is not done in the instant case. The defence herein has contended about non-examination of all the beneficiaries named in the FIR, non-examination of other officials of DRDA and Block concerned etc. but even without examining all those persons, the prosecution has been able to establish the complicity of the accused-appellants in the entire matter. The submissions of the defence that the case is bad for non-production of negative of photographs and the documents is not helpful because of the fact that all those photographs were found attached to the documents in the custody of the Bank and as such, burden will shift to the defence to prove that the photographs exhibited by the prosecution is not authentic and they are in better position to produce the negatives of photographs, if not produced by the prosecution. The loan documents executed before the Bank officials bears the signature of the N.G. Palit as Field Officer who verified those documents and Ronodip Das as Branch Manager. The loan documents executed before the Bank officials bears the signature of the N.G. Palit as Field Officer who verified those documents and Ronodip Das as Branch Manager. Although the Manager of the Bank is not under obligation to carry out such pre-sanction survey and all he has to rely upon the examination by the Field Officer, but he being the head of the Branch obviously have responsibility and the obligation to look into the documents at the time of disbursing the loan. Evidence reveals that he put his signature in the relevant documents but those documents were not even duly filled-up, save and except certain thumb impressions without endorsement, no details of witnesses except bearing one name and the photographs of loanee was fixed on the loan sanctioned letters whereas it should be in the loan applications. 41. All above indicates that documents were not authentic and he was under an obligation for proper implementation of the scheme under IRDP as well as recovery of such loan. The duties enjoined to both the accused-appellants in post sanction are coextensive. The duty of the Field Officer is to conduct pre-sanction survey and on basis of his recommendation, the Manager to sanction the loan and even after disbursing the loan, their further duty is to ensure utilization of loan amount and recovery as such. None of the duties was discharged by these two accused-appellants. 42. Further the evidence of handwriting expert confirms that the loan applications bearing the handwriting of Sudhir Barman and Disoy Rongpi, who were employees of the Bank and it goes to show that loan applications were manipulated in the Bank itself and same aspect has also been corroborated by the witnesses, as discussed above. Although the said accused fled away from the trial, but findings of the expert relating to the loan documents unanimously reveals that those fabricated loan documents were entertained and allowed by the Bank officials like the appellants herein. Both the appellants cannot take the plea that they were not aware of such manipulation and anomalies. The loan applications vide Exhbt.-1 & 5 and Exhbt.-40 to 104 were admittedly executed by the Bank authority. Both the appellants cannot take the plea that they were not aware of such manipulation and anomalies. The loan applications vide Exhbt.-1 & 5 and Exhbt.-40 to 104 were admittedly executed by the Bank authority. All these speaks about the connivance between these two appellants in disbursing the loan by flouting the procedures laid down by the Government in implementation of such benevolent and ambitious scheme of the Central Government, by facilitating the commission of forgery in their office. 43. Most importantly, the role of the Branch Manager is of more honorious and responsible while implementing the scheme in question which was meant for assistance to the downtrodden people of the society and such a scheme has been frustrated. As a responsible officer, his duty is to verify the documents properly prior to signing ensuring presence of beneficiaries instead of sanctioning the loan in one installment, and he should disbursed the loan after obtaining the certificate from the purchase committee and should obtained the utilization certificate and thereafter, he should proceed to recovery of the loan and all these formalities are required to be informed to all concerned including the higher authorities. Non-compliance of all above indicates that the Branch Manager acted in active connivance with the other officials to facilitate the commission of forgery in disbursing the loan. 44. So far as the function of Filed Officer is concerned he recommended the loan application without holding pre-sanction survey and he also attested the photographs and signatures of those applicants who were fictitious and non-existent and prepared those documents while no such beneficiaries came to the Bank for such documentation. He along with the Branch Manager facilitate the releasing of loan without further relevant documents like certificate from the purchase committee and inspection as about utilization of loan by beneficiaries nor they adhered to the recovery of loan by flouting all the procedures. The appellant, Mr. NG Palit, being the Field Officer has signed all the documents identifying the persons who found to be fictitious. All these speaks about his active complicity with the other accused, the then Branch Manager by entering into conspiracy in forging the documents to facilitate disbursing loan to fictitious persons. Both the appellants certainly have acted in concert in order to acquire pecuniary gain to themselves and corresponding loss to the Government. 45. A conspiracy from its very nature is generally hatched in secrecy. Both the appellants certainly have acted in concert in order to acquire pecuniary gain to themselves and corresponding loss to the Government. 45. A conspiracy from its very nature is generally hatched in secrecy. It is, therefore, extremely rare that direct evidence in proof of conspiracy can be forthcoming from wholly disinterested quarters or from utter strangers. But, like other offences, criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Indeed, in most cases proof of conspiracy is largely inferential though the inference must be founded on solid facts. Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and subsequent conduct, among other factors, constitute relevant material. In fact because of the difficulties in having direct evidence of criminal conspiracy, once reasonable ground is shown for believing that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence then anything done by anyone of them in reference to their common intention after the same is entertained becomes, according to the law of evidence, relevant for proving both conspiracy and the offences committed pursuant thereto. Direct proof of a conspiracy is, of course, seldom available. In a case of conspiracy when there is no direct evidence, inferences from the proved facts and circumstances, to a larger extent, form the basis of the Court's conclusion. In dealing with such cases, based, on circumstantial evidence, an inference of guilt need only be drawn when the circumstances are such as to be incapable of being reasonably explained on any other hypothesis than the guilt of the accused. 46. The learned trial court in the impugned judgment has elaborately dealt with all the above aspects in proper perspective of facts and law. 47. The learned standing counsel for the CBI relying upon the decision of (2018) 9 SCC 429 (Motiram Padu Joshi & others Vs. State of Maharashtra) has submitted that non-disclosure of all details in the FIR is not fatal unless there is indication of fabrication in the FIR and the Court cannot reject the prosecution case merely because of omission of certain facts where the FIR itself lend assurance with the prosecution case. 48. State of Maharashtra) has submitted that non-disclosure of all details in the FIR is not fatal unless there is indication of fabrication in the FIR and the Court cannot reject the prosecution case merely because of omission of certain facts where the FIR itself lend assurance with the prosecution case. 48. It was the defence plea that the content of FIR so far as the amount misappropriated is not proved in the present case, and although same was found to be true to some extent that the exact amount siphoned off is not proved but from the overwhelming evidence on record indicates the complicity of the accused-appellants in regard to the conspiracy, forgery of documents and misconduct while disbursing the loan. In the given background, it can be noted that the matter is of far back of 1995 and it may not be feasible on the part of prosecution to bring on record all the beneficiaries which are large in number but from the handful of persons examined so far, clearly establish the offence against the accused-appellants. 49. The appeal stands dismissed. 50. Return the LCR with a copy of judgment.