Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Shambhu Nath Bhatt And Others on 24 February, 2020
Author: Gautam Chowdhary
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 51 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 426 of 1981 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Shambhu Nath Bhatt And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Girdhar Nath,A.G.A. Counsel for Respondent :- Shri Kant Sharma,Dilip Kumar Kesharwani,Hare Ram Yadav,Indu Shekhar Tripathi,Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
We have Mairathan order sheet of this case running from 1981. This appeal is directed against judgement of acquittal passed against the accused respondents and we may observe that lot and lot efforts have been made only for securing compliance report regarding issuance of notice to the accused respondents and that kept pending this appeal for almost forty years which is mind blowing and shocking. Normally, such cases should not be delayed on account of mechanical routine functioning of the offices and court.
Even today we are confronted with the office report that the whereabouts of Babu Lal, the accused respondent is not known.
Under these circumstances, where delay is alarming we intend to proceed with the matter by appointing Amicus Curiae. The presumption of innocence that runs against Appellants is still alive and for securing services of Amicus Curiae, the matter can be disposed of on merit.
With a view to get finality of this appeal, now we would advert to the merit of the case by appointing Amicus for the accused respondents. However, a report has also been submitted that accused respondent Gurudev is no more. Consequently, this appeal in so far as is directed against the aforesaid accused stands abated. We hereby appoint Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra as the amicus for the accused respondent whose part is unrepresented here on account of his absence for various reasons. He is ready to act for the accused-respondents and he has also perused the relevant records made available to him during the course of the day.
Heard Sri Nafis Ahmad, learned A.G.A. learned Amicus Curiae Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra for the appellants and perused the record.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.09.1976 passed by the then Special Judge (Anti Corruption) East, U.P. Lucknow in Case No. 5 of 1971, under sections 420, 419, 467, 474, 471 read with section 120-B Indian Penal Code and section 5(i)(d) of Prevention of the Corruption Act etc and the accused respondents have been acquitted of aforesaid charges.
Contention is that the case of the prosecution was very much proved regarding mis directing the grain say - rice by manipulating things to their own interest by all the accused who were acting in connivance and were interacting with each other by playing separate role in facilitating the commission of the crime which caused huge loss not only to the government but also to the people for whom the distribution of rice was meant. The act of the accused can not be viewed with any leniency and no latitude can be given to their planned connivance by causing disappearance of large number of rice bags uploaded on goods train.
It is surprising that on the same set of evidence a number of other co-accused whose complicity with the present accused respondent was well proved has been skipped for no worthy reason. It being so the judgment and order impugned dated 14.09.1976 becomes erroneous perverse and not sustainable in the eye of law.
The brief facts gathered from the record appear to be that there was certain conspiracy amongst certain railway employees and some private persons to cause wrongful loss to the railways and to the rightful owners of various consignments by mis directing the consignment to selected railway stations and for receiving delivery of those consignments by fabricating forged railways receipts. The consignment of 124 bags of rice valued at Rs. 15,000/- was booked at Saharanpur (N.R.) to Basti (N.E.R.). This was misdirected to Ghosi station of the Northern Eastern Railway where Ram Vilas the accused received its delivery under the assumed name of Sanehi Ram upon the basis of forged railway receipt. Similarly a consignment of 220 bags of rice valued at Rs. 30,000/- was also misdirected to Ghosi and was so received by the accused Ram Vilas under the assumed name of Sanehi Ram. Similarly this misdirected rice was received by a number of persons who were branded as an accused in this case. Facts of this case also show that Ram Vilas played vital role in facilitating the commission of the crime by misdirecting the consignment and received the rice bags in assumed and fake name and this process related to a large number of transactions where the rice bags were consigned to various destinations at the various railway stations for misappropriating the grain (rice). Once complaint was made by the real consignee that the goods/rice bags were not received at their proper destination, inquiry took place only then the matter came to the fore and it being a clear-cut case of corruption and malpractice needed proper investigation. The matter was reported and handed over for investigation to the special branch of police (Central Bureau of Investigation and the investigation followed.
After obtaining proper sanction, due steps were taken and the investigation disclovered involvement of all the accused hence the charge sheet was filed. Consequently, charges under aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code and under the aforesaid section of corruption of prevention Act were framed against the accused and the trial proceeded on.
The learned Amicus Curiae Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra has claimed that it is true that certain charges were levelled but it is also true that the complicity of the present accused respondent was not established and as was required to be established within the four corners of law/charges levelled against the present accused respondents. In so far the case of other co-accused is concerned then their roles, their complicity and their being direct beneficiaries were proved but that is not the case as against the present accused respondent against whom only guess and surmises works/exist. The trial court has rightly found not them guilty and acquitted them of all the charges.
Now, in so far as the case of the present accused respondents is concerned, various links were discovered in the shape of certain documents chit, receipt etc. and it was claimed that they were also involved in the racket and were conniving with the main accused. However, that aspect was not properly established by the prosecution as against the present accused respondents. Therefore, the case was justifiably found to be bleak and under narrow compass against all the present accused respondents. Noting substantive was existing against them except grave suspicion. We may explicitly observe that suspicion howsoever graver or strong it may be, would not form basis of conviction. The trial court adverted to the material aspects and the evidence in the right perspective and has recorded finding of acquittal. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it can not be said that the view taken by the trial court as against the present accused respondents is not supported by material on record. Consequently, we hereby affirm the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused respondents. Consequently, this appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
Lastly we record our deep appreciation for the assistance provided by amicus curiae Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra, who has put in a lot of work in this regard. The court is pleased to note that at least this section of society has started feeling its responsibility towards good cause for helping people in need.
Order Date :- 24.2.2020 RPD Court No. - 51 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 426 of 1981 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Shambhu Nath Bhatt And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Girdhar Nath,A.G.A.
Counsel for Respondent :- Shri Kant Sharma,Dilip Kumar Kesharwani,Hare Ram Yadav,Indu Shekhar Tripathi,Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue this appeal on behalf of the appellants Shambhu Nath Bhatt and Others, shall be paid a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards his remuneration.
Order Date :- 24.2.2020 RPD