Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Singh Chaudhary And Others vs State (Central Bureau Of ... on 5 January, 2010
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
-1-
Criminal Appeal No.809-SB of 2001.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
...
Criminal Appeal No.809-SB of 2001.
Date of Decision: January 05, 2010.
Rajinder Singh Chaudhary and others ...Appellants
VERSUS
State (Central Bureau of Investigation) ...Respondent
1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
Present: Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate,
for the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation.
-.-
MOHINDER PAL, J.
In this appeal, appellants Rajinder Singh Chaudhary, Baldev Raj Juneja and Amar Nath Juneja have impugned the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 20.7.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ambala, -2- Criminal Appeal No.809-SB of 2001.
whereby appellant Rajinder Singh Chaudhary was convicted and sentenced under Section 120-B read with Section 420, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') and appellants Baldev Raj Juneja and Amar Nath Juneja were convicted and sentenced under Section 120-B read with Section 420 and Section 420 of the Code. Under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Code, all the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Under Section 420 of the Code, all the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Under Section 13 (2) of the Act, appellant Rajinder Singh Chaudhary was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. All the sentences awarded to the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.
The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are as under:-
Appellant Rajinder Singh Chaudhary was posted as an officer in the Punjab and Sind Bank, Sonepat from October 1984 to October 1991. M/s. Amritsar Oil & Chemical Mills, of which appellant Baldev Raj Juneja was a partner and M/s. Amar Feed -3- Criminal Appeal No.809-SB of 2001.
Mills of which appellant Amar Nath Juneja was proprietor were having their current accounts with this Bank. The sanctioned limit of M/s. Amritsar Oil & Chemical Mills and M/s. Amar Feed Mills in these accounts (cash credit) was Rs.24,00,000/- (vide Letter dated 8.11.1999) and Rs.8,00,000/- ( vide letter dated 22.10.1988) respectively. However, appellant Rajinder Singh Chaudhary, in connivance with appellants Baldev Raj Juneja and Amar Nath Juneja, let M/s. Amritsar Oil & Chemical Mills and M/s. Amar Feed Mills avail cash credit limit to the extent of Rs.66,30,000/- and Rs.11,07,410/-, respectively. In this way, pecuniary gain to these concerns and wrongful loss to the Bank was caused by the accused. It is alleged that appellant Rajinder Singh Chaudhary, in connivance with appellant Baldev Raj Juneja , who was partner of M/s. Amritsar Oil & Chemical Mills, and appellant Amar Nath Juneja, who was proprietor of and M/s. Amar Feed Mills, allowed them to avail of the cash credit facility over and above their sanctioned limits with ulterior motive to give undue advantage to them. It has been revealed that on 30.6.1992 the balance due from M/s. Amritsar Oil & Chemical Mills was Rs.62,66,466.38 Ps whereas from the other party i.e M/s.
Amar Feed Mills an amount of Rs.8,67,712/- was due.
Appellant Rajinder Singh Chaudhary also allowed appellant Amar Nath Juneja to withdraw an amount of Rs.4,37,813/- from his account during the period from 15.6.1990 to 23.1.1991 without presenting any cheque or instrument in the -4- Criminal Appeal No.809-SB of 2001.
Bank supporting the said transaction. Though in normal course, it was the duty of the Dealing Clerk to make entries in the Ledger, but appellant Rajinder Singh Chaudhary made entries in his own hand in the concerned ledger and authenticated the said entries. As per allegations of the prosecution, this showed that Rajinder Singh Chaudhary took undue interest in making these payments to the parties.
After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented in Court.
The trial Court charge-sheeted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act (criminal conduct by a public servant), Section 120-B of the Code (criminal conspiracy) and Section 420 of the Code (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property). The accused did not plead guilty to the charge sheet and claimed trial.
The trial Judge, after recording evidence of the parties and hearing their learned counsel, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above.
I have heard Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate, appearing for the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation and have gone through the records of the case.
An amount of Rs.4,37,813/- is alleged to have been
withdrawn from the C.C Account of M/s Amar Feed Mills of
accused-appellant Amar Nath Juneja. It is alleged that appellant
-5-
Criminal Appeal No.809-SB of 2001.
Rajinder Singh Chaudhary, in criminal conspiracy with Amar Nath
Juneja, permitted withdrawal of the amount in driblets
without any cheques or instrument from Amar Nath Juneja.
Similarly, it is alleged that appellant Rajinder Singh
Chaudhary,in connivance with appellant Baldev Raj Juneja , who
was partner of M/s. Amritsar Oil & Chemical Mills, allowed him
(appellant Baldev Raj Juneja) to avail of the cash credit facility over and above the sanctioned limits of M/s. Amritsar Oil & Chemical Mills with ulterior motive to give an undue advantage to appellant Baldev Raj Juneja.
The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that the accused availed excess cash credit limit issued by the Bank.
It is admitted case that all entries are duly reflected in the accounts of the Bank. The accounts of M/s. Amritsar Oil & Chemical Mills and M/s. Amar Feed Mills are also duly audited by the auditors. It is significant to note that perusal of the evidence on record shows that the Bank, which had made the payment to the accused-appellants Baldev Raj Juneja and Amar Nath Juneja, is neither having any grievance nor any of the officials of the Bank has come forward to depose that they were deceived by accused-appellants Baldev Raj Juneja and Amar Nath Juneja and were induced to pay the amount with any dishonest intention. In fact, there is no evidence on record which may show that appellants Baldev Raj Juneja and Amar Nath Juneja made any fraudulent or dishonest misrepresentation to any -6- Criminal Appeal No.809-SB of 2001.
official of the Bank for securing payment of amount in excess of
the sanctioned C.C limit.
The payments received by appellants Baldev Raj Juneja
and Amar Nath Juneja were duly authenticated by the Bank
Manager and the Accountants. Appellants Baldev Raj Juneja and
Amar Nath Juneja never denied the receipts of the amount in
question from the Bank Accounts nor they ever disputed their
liability to pay the same. It has also come on record that
appellants Baldev Raj Juneja and Amar Nath Juneja had
closed their accounts with the Bank in April 1988 after full and
final adjustment and transferred their Bank Account to Oriental
Bank of Commerce. It is an admitted case that the entire
amount along with interest and penal interest had been paid to
the Bank immediately on demand and nothing is due towards
accused-appellants Baldev Raj Juneja and Amar Nath Juneja.
There is neither any allegation nor any evidence on record that
appellants Baldev Raj Juneja and Amar Nath Juneja had received
the said amount fraudulently or dishonestly by deceiving any
official of the Bank. Mere receipt of the amount, duly accounted for
in the account books of the concerns of appellants Baldev Raj
Juneja and Amar Nath Juneja, does not amount to any criminal
offence.
Insofar as appellant Rajinder Singh Chaudhary, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, there is neither any
averment nor an iota of evidence on record to show that he ever
-7-
Criminal Appeal No.809-SB of 2001.
received or demanded any illegal gratification from appellants
Baldev Raj Juneja and Amar Nath Juneja for favouring them
by abusing his (Rajinder Singh Chaudhary's) official position. In
order to make out an offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act,
the prosecution is required to prove that the accused abused his
position with dishonest intention to cause deliberate loss to the
Bank. Admittedly, no wrongful loss has been caused to the Bank
as the entire amount stands paid. No corrupt practice was
adopted by appellant Rajinder Singh Chaudhary to abuse his
official position.
From the letter 26.3.1991 (Exhibit D.W.4/1) written
by the Zonal Office of the Punjab and Sind Bank, it is revealed
that the Bank, after M/s. Amritsar Oil & Chemical Mills had
settled all the accounts and had closed its Account with the
Punjab and Sind Bank by opening its account with the Oriental
Bank of Commerce, the Punjab and Sind Bank made efforts
through its staff to contact the party (M/s. Amritsar Oil &
Chemical Mills) in view of the enhanced credit facilities sanctioned and ensure that the party continues dealing with the Punjab and Sind Bank. It is also mentioned in Exhibit D.W.4/1 that vide letter dated 16.5.1988, the Regional Office of the Bank had asked the concerned Branch of the Bank to contact the party to find if they were interested to avail the enhanced limits. The Branch Manager was asked to try and see that the party continued to deal with the Bank. The Branch Manager was thereafter asked to -8- Criminal Appeal No.809-SB of 2001.
report to the then A.G.M (P.S) on 25.6.1988 to discuss the accounts of the party. Had any fraud been played on the Bank by the accused, the attitude of the Bank would not have been like this. All these facts show that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal succeeds. The same is allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence order are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge framed against them.
April 05, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE