Delhi District Court
Kamlesh Verma vs . State (Cbi) on 12 April, 2010
Crl. Appeal No.:22/08
Kamlesh Verma Vs. State (CBI)
RC No. 1 (S)/1990SIU (IX)
U/s: 120 B/420/467/468/471/477A IPC
12.4.2010
Present: Sh. Komal Giri, Ld. PP for CBI.
Appellant on bail with counsel Sh. K.K. Sharma, Adv.
1.Present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 27.5.2008 and order of sentence dated 4.6.2008 passed by Ld. CMM whereby Ld. CMM convicted the appellant U/s 120B IPC r/w sec. 420/467/468/471/477A IPC and sentenced her to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/, in default, SI for two months for the offence U/s 120 B IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. One Lakh, in default, SI for four months for the offence U/s 420 IPC, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and and fine of Rs. one Lakh, in default, SI for four months for the offence U/s 467 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and and fine of Rs. one Lakh, in default, SI for four months for the offence U/s 468 IPC, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. One Lakh, in default, SI for four months for the offence U/s 471 IPC and to Crl. Appeal No.:22/08 1/4 under rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. One Lakh, in default, SI for four months for the offence U/s 477A IPC.
2. Fact giving rise to the present appeal are that a complaint dated 12.4.1990 was sent by the Deputy General Manager, Bank of Baroda with the allegations that Mr. John W.M.R. Laithplang (accused no.1 in the chargesheet) was officer in charge of Bank of Baroda was posted at extension counter of the said bank at RML Hospital. As per the allegations, he defrauded the bank during the year 1986 to 1989 by opening a saving bank account in the name of coaccused KiranJit Sant and by making fictitious credit entries and withdrawing the amount fraudlently from the said account in connivance with the present appellant and one more accused Kiran Jit Sant. After filing of the charge sheet, prosecution examined 23 witnesses in support of its case and statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P. C. was recorded wherein the appellant also chose to lead evidence in defence and after hearing the arguments from both sides, Ld. CMM passed the impugned order convicting the present appellant for the offence U/s 120B IPC r/w sec. 420/467/468/471/477A IPC and sentenced her accordingly. It is against this order of conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been filed.
3. After the filing of appeal, TCR was summoned and notice was also given to the state (CBI). Ld. PP for CBI appeared and argued his case Crl. Appeal No.:22/08 2/4
4. I have heard the Ld. PP for CBI as well as Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. K.K. Sharma at length and have carefully perused the record.
5. Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. K.K. Sharma argued at length on merits of the case but while concluding his arguments, he submits that he is not challenging the conviction of appellant/accused but so far as the order of sentence is concerned, he prays for leniency and submits that probation be granted to the appellant as it is the first offence of appellant. She is an aged lady and also retired from her job now. She is facing trial for the last 20 years. He further submits that the appellant has been through the long drawn ordeal of trial for all these 20 years and has a family to support.
6. Since Ld. Defence counsel is not challenging the conviction of appellant/accused, therefore judgment dated 27.5.2008 passed by Ld. CMM whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence U/s 120B IPC r/w sec. 420/467/468/471/477A IPC is upheld. So far as the order of sentence is concerned, then there are no past antecedents reported against the appellant. Appellant is an aged lady and also retired from her job now. She has suffered the agony of trial since the year 1990 and till date has no other prior antecedents.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and the fact that it is the first offence of appellant and she has no other prior antecedents, she is released on probation for a period of one year on her furnishing a Crl. Appeal No.:22/08 3/4 probation bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/ and one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court. During this period she shall maintain peace and tranquility and will also keep good behaviour.
8. In view of the above discussion, the judgment dated 27.5.2008 of the trial court convicting the appellant 120B IPC r/w sec. 420/467/468/471/477A IPC is upheld and the order on sentence dated 4.6.2008 of the trial court is modified as discussed above. In case the appellant fails to furnish the bond before the trial court, then the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court would remain in force. So far as the amount of fine already deposited by the appellant is concerned, then same be taken as compensation paid by her to the state. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off. Trial court record be sent back along with the attested copy of this order. Appellant is directed to appear before the trial court on 21.4.2010. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
9. Copy of order be given dasti.
(MADHU JAIN) Additional Sessions Judge3 (North) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
12.4.2010 Crl. Appeal No.:22/08 4/4 Crl. Appeal No.:22/08 5/4