Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohan Singh Noriya vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 17 October, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082
1 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998
& Cr.A. No. 2113/1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2016 of 1998
SMT. VEENA SAREEN
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Appearance:
Shri Shivam Singh- Advocate for appellant.
Shri Vikram Singh- Advocate for respondent.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2113 of 1998
MOHAN SINGH NORIYA
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Kumar Dixit- Advocate for appellant.
Shri Vikram Singh- Advocate for respondent.
JUDGMENT
By this common judgment Criminal Appeal No.2016/1998 filed by Satish Chandra Sareen and Criminal Appeal No.2113/1998 filed by Mohan Singh Noriya shall be decided.
2. Both the criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 02.09.1998, passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur in Special Case No. 1/1997 by which the appellants have been convicted for the following offences:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082 2 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998 & Cr.A. No. 2113/1998 Sr. Name of the Conviction under Sentenced No. appellant Section
1. Satish Chandra Section 420 read with R.I. for 2 and 1/2 Sareen Section 120-B of IPC years and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default R.I. for six months.
Section 468/471 read R.I. for 2 years and with Section 120-B of fine of Rs.2,000/-, in IPC default R.I. for three months.
Section 13(1)(d) read R.I. for 2 and 1/2 with Section 13(2) of the years and fine of Prevention of Corruption Rs.5,000/-, in default Act, 1988 R.I. for six months.
2. Mohan Singh Section 420 read with R.I. for 2 and 1/2 Noriya Section 120-B of IPC years and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default R.I. for six months.
Sections 468/471 of IPC R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default R.I. for three months.
Section 13(1)(d) read R.I. for 2 and 1/2 with Section 13(2) of the years and fine of Prevention of Corruption Rs.5,000/-, in default Act, 1988 R.I. for six months.
3. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
4. It is not out of place to mention here that the appellant Satish Chandra Sareen expired during the pendency of this appeal and accordingly I.A. No. 7274/2021 was filed under Section 394(2) of Cr.P.C. pleading that the appellant Satish Chandra Sareen has expired on 13.04.2021 and accordingly his widow wife Smt. Veena Sareen wants to continue this appeal.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082 3 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998 & Cr.A. No. 2113/1998
5. The factum of death of Satish Chandra Sareen was also verified by CBI and accordingly I.A. No. 7274/2021 was allowed and Smt. Veena Sareen was permitted to prosecute this appeal.
6. Thus, Criminal Appeal No. 2016/1998 is being prosecuted by legal representative of deceased appellant Satish Chandra Sareen.
7. The undisputed facts are that Satish Chandra Sareen was posted as Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company, Branch-II, Jabalpur whereas appellant-Mohan Singh Noriya was posted as Probationary Development Officer. It is also an admitted fact that on the verbal instructions of accused Satish Chandra Sareen a book of cover notes was given to the appellant M.S. Noriya who was posted as Probationary Development Officer. It is also admitted fact that an entry is also made in the stationery issue register with regard to issuance of cover note book and at one time only one cover note book is issued to the development officer. It is also an undisputed fact that Probationary Development Officer cannot issue the cover note under his signatures. It is also an admitted fact that whenever a party approaches the insurance company for insurance, then an entry is made and proposal is received which is placed before the Branch Manager for approval. It is also undisputed fact that the cover notes P/20 and P/23 contains the signatures of the appellants.
8. It is the case of the prosecution that although the cover note book should not have been issued to the Probationary Development Officer but still Satish Chandra Sareen issued two cover note books to the Co- accused Mohan Singh Noriya. Furthermore, Probationary Development Officer had no jurisdiction to issue a cover note to the party but Mohan Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082 4 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998 & Cr.A. No. 2113/1998 Singh Noriya issued a cover note bearing No. 019790, Book No. 792 in favour of Krishna Kumar Gupta for insurance of Truck No. M.P.O. 5090 after receiving a premium of Rs. 1365/-. Similarly, Mohan Singh Noriya also received Rs. 1350/- from Ajay Kumar Gupta for insurance of his Truck No. M.P.O.2453 and issued a Cover Note No. 28992. Both the trucks met with an accident and Moto Accident Claims were presented. Truck No. M.P.O.2453 met with an accident on 02.08.1994 and a claim case to the tune of Rs. 14,03, 243/- was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which were registered as M.A.C.C. No. 48/1994. Similarly, Truck No. M.P.O.5090 in respect of which Cover Note No. 19790 was issued on 04.01.1994 met with an accident on 02.09.1993 and a claim case for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 94780/- was filed before the Commissioner Workman and Compensation and Labour Court, Jabalpur which was registered as Case No. 14/1994. Thus, it was the case of the prosecution that in view of the unauthorized issuance of cover note, insurance company was forced to face the claim case to the tune of Rs.14,95,023/-. It was further alleged that an amount of Rs. 1365/- which was received by accused No. 2 Mohan Singh Noriya in respect of cover note No. 19790 and an amount of Rs.1365/- which was received by Mohan Singh Noriya in respect of Cover Note No. 31743 were never deposited with insurance company. Similarly, Mohan Singh Noriya had received Rs. 6212/- from Nilesh Kumar Jain was also not deposited by Mohan Singh Noriya and accordingly it was alleged that total amount of Rs.10,738/- was received by Mohan Singh Noriya which was not deposited by him with the New India Insurance Company and same was used for personal purposes. It Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082 5 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998 & Cr.A. No. 2113/1998 was further alleged that an amount of Rs.6212/- which was received by Mohan Singh Noriya from Nilesh Kumar Jain was in respect of Truck No. M.P. 20 G 0700 which was already insured and whose premium amount has already been deposited still the appellant No. 2 collected the said amount from Shri Nilesh Kumar Jain. Similarly, Mohan Singh Noriya had collected Rs.175/- from P.J. Singh on 14.09.1994 in respect of insurance of Rajdoot Motor Cycle bearing registration No. M.P.Q.2543 and an amount of Rs.286/- was collected from A.K. Sanyal on 14.09.1994 for insurance of Bajaj Scooter No. C.I. K. 3546 but neither the said amount was deposited by the Mohan Singh Noriya in the New India Insurance Company nor receipt was given. Accordingly, it was alleged that not only the amount meant for New India Insurance Company was embezzled by the accused persons but on account of misdeeds of accused persons New India Insurance Company had also suffered loss of Rs.14,95,023/-.
9. A preliminary enquiry was conducted and accordingly, FIR was lodged.
10. After the relevant documents were seized, the statements of witnesses were recorded as well as after obtaining the sanction for prosecution, the prosecution agency filed the charge sheet against the appellants for offence under Section 420 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
11. The trial Court by order dated 12.02.1997 framed the charges against the accused persons for offence under Sections 468, 471, 420 or Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082 6 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998 & Cr.A. No. 2113/1998 in alternative Section 120-B of IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act .
12. The appellants Mohan Singh Noriya and Satish Chandra Sareen abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.
13. The prosecution examined Nitin Pohekar (P.W.-1), Krishna Kumar Gupta (P.W.-2), P.J. Singh (P.W.-3), Ashok Kumar Sanyal (P.W.-4), Shankarlal Sondhiya (P.W.-5), K.C. Jain (P.W.-6), Anil Bodkhe (P.W.-7), Bharat Kumar Shrivastava (P.W.-8), Shayam Kumar Gupta (P.W.-9), Seikh Rafiq (P.W.-10), Sanjay Vijayvargiya (P.W.-11), Nilesh Kumar Jain (P.W.-12), S.K. Mahapatra (P.W.-13), Smt. Sudha Dubey (P.W.-14), Ravi Kumar Vanwashi (P.W.-15) and B.K. Singh (P.W.-16).
14. The appellants examined one witness in their defence.
15. The trial Court by impugned judgment and sentence convicted the appellants for the offences mentioned above.
16. Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the Court below, it is submitted by counsel for appellant Smt. Veera Sareen that a practice was prevailing in the office to issue cover note to Probationary Development Officer and the Co-accused Satish Chandra Sareen had issued cover note book to Mohan Singh Noriya with a solitary intention to enhance the business as well as in accordance with a prevailing procedure. Whereas, counsel for appellant-Mohan Singh Noriya has stated that Nilesh Kumar Jain had withdrawn his complaint since amount was returned and accordingly the appellant may be acquitted.
17. Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for CBI. It is submitted that even if a wrong practice was prevailing in the office Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082 7 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998 & Cr.A. No. 2113/1998 which was contrary to the law, then following the same by the appellant Satish Chandra Sareen would not absolve him from his criminal liability. It is further submitted that Mohan Singh Noriya who was Probationary Development Officer and was not incompetent to issue cover note, not only issued the cover note but also did not deposit the premium amount which was collected from the insured and even the original cover note was torn in such a manner that the amount collected from the insured could not be read. It is submitted that since the accused No. 2 Mohan Singh Noriya had committed illegality and embezzled the amount on account of which even the insurance company had suffered a loss of Rs.14,95,023/-, it is clear that the entire illegality was committed by both the accused persons in furtherance of common intention. Thus, it is submitted that the trial Court did not commit any mistake by convicting the appellants for offences mentioned above.
18. Heard learned counsel for parties.
19. During the course of arguments it was fairly conceded by counsel for Satish Chandra Sareen (now the appeal is being prosecuted by his widow Smt. Veena Sareen) that cover note book was issued on his verbal instructions to Moahn Singh Noriya who was the Probationary Development Officer. It is submitted that a Probationary Development Officer was not competent to issue the cover notes but it is submitted that since the act of the appellant Satish Chandra Sareen was in good faith and was with a pious intention to enhance the business of the company, therefore, at the most the mistake of Satish Chandra Sareen was of negligence without any mesne ria.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082 8 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998 & Cr.A. No. 2113/1998
20. Satish Chandra Sareen in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has admitted that from the years 1991 to 95 he was posted as Branch Manager, Branch No. 2, New India Insurance Company, Jabalpur. In reply to question No. 3 it was also admitted by Satish Chandra Sareen that cover note book was issued to Mohan Singh Noriya on his verbal orders. In reply to question No. 4 it was once again admitted by Satish Chandra Sareen that cover note Nos. 197762 to 19800 were issued to Mohan Singh Noriya after he had instructed that the same may be issued after comparison. In reply to question No. 16 it was admitted by Satish Chandra Sareen that Probationary Development Officer cannot issue the cover note under his signatures. However in reply to question No. 18 it was claimed by Satish Chandra Sareen that he had issued the cover note to M.S. Noriya with an intention to improve the business. Even if Satish Chandra Sareen had admitted his signatures in the cover note Exhibit P/8. In reply to question No. 71 it was submitted by Satish Chandra Sareen that the co-accused M.S. Noriya had not deposited the amount of premium with the insurance company. Satish Chandra Sareen had also admitted in his reply to the question No. 72 that complaints Ex.P/4 and P/5 were made by the insured persons. In reply to question No. 74 it was admitted by Satish Chandra Sareen that Nilesh Kumar Jain (P.W.-12) had informed that he had paid a premium of Rs. 6212/- to Co-accused Mohan Singh Noriya. The question with regard to issuance of cover note Ex.P/8 which bears the signatures of Satish Chandra Sareen as admitted by him in reply to question No. 41, a vague answer was given by Satish Chandra Sareen that M.S. Noriya might have issued the cover note Ex.P/8. In reply to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082 9 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998 & Cr.A. No. 2113/1998 question No. 79, it was also admitted by Satish Chandra Sareen that an amount of Rs. 6212/- was not deposited with the Insurance Company. In reply to question No. 94, it was admitted by Satish Chandra Sareen that on perusal of cover note Ex.P/13 it appears that the said document has been torn at various places i.e., the places where the name of the original owner, year of manufacturing, premium amount as well as Chasis Number were mentioned and it was admitted by Satish Chandra Sareen that on perusal of the same, the documents appears to be torn at vital places. He also admitted that Shri S.K. Mahapatra (P.W.-13) was posted as Assistant General Manager in the New India Insurances Company, Headquarter, Bombay. In the defence it was claimed by Satish Chandra Sareen that he had worked for improvement of business of the company.
21. Similarly M.S. Noriya in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. admitted the question No. 3 and admitted that cover note book was issued to him. Similarly question No. 4 which was to the effect of issuance of cover note No. 19776 to 19800 was also admitted by M.S. Noriya. He also claimed that the cover notes were issued on the verbal instructions of co-accused Satish Chandra Sareen. He also admitted that cover note book cannot be issued by the Probationary Development Officer. In reply to question No. 16, he claimed that under the orders of the Branch Manager, the Probationary Development Officer can issue cover note and he also stated that he was working as per the direction of Satish Chandra Sareen. He also claimed that the cover notes were issued by him under the orders of Satish Chandra Sareen. He also admitted that who so ever approaches the insurance company for insurance, then initially a proposal is prepared and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082 10 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998 & Cr.A. No. 2113/1998 same is placed before the Branch Manager and after obtaining the signatures of Branch Manager, the document is handed over to the ensured. He also admitted that whenever a premium is received, the cover note in four copies is prepared and the original copy is handed over to insured. He also admitted that out of four copies one copy is retained by Development Officer and remaining two copies along with proposal are to be deposited with the Branch Officer within 24 hours. He also admitted that record with regard to issuance of cover note is maintained in the Branch Officer in the form of cover note control chart.
22. A specific question was put to him that whenever the cover note is cancelled, then reasons for the same are required to be mentioned and the original copy along with other copies of the cover note are to be deposited in the Branch Office but it was submitted by M.S. Noriya that during his tenure the reasons for cancellation of cover note were not required to be mentioned. In reply to question No. 38 it was submitted by M.S. Noriya that the amount mentioned in cover note Ex.P/3 was not collected from the insured, therefore, there was no question of depositing the same with the company. Similarly in reply to question No. 39 it was claimed by appellant M.S. Noriya that amount of Rs. 1365/- was not collected from insured, therefore, it was not deposited. In reply to question No. 40 M.S. Noriya claimed that an amount of Rs.6212/- was returned to the insured. In reply to question No. 42, it was claimed by M.S. Noriya that since cover note Ex.P/15 was cancelled and the amount was not collected by the insured, therefore, it was not deposited. In reply to question No. 48, it was claimed by M.S. Noriya that cover note No. 19790 Ex. P/10 was cancelled. Similarly in Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082 11 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998 & Cr.A. No. 2113/1998 reply to question No. 53, it was submitted by M.S. Noriya that cover note 28922 was cancelled. Similarly in reply to question No. 58 that Sheikh Rafiq (P.W.-10) has stated that he had given an amount of Rs.1350/- to M.S. Noriya and cover note Ex.P/15 was issued to him. It was submitted by M.S. Noriya that cover note was not issued. Similarly in reply to question No. 74 it was stated by M.S. Noriya that an amount Rs.6212/- was returned back to Nilesh Kumar Jain which was collected for insurance of his Truck No. M.P. 20 G 0700. In reply to question No. 86, it was stated by M.S. Noriya that since the cover note No. 19790 was cancelled, therefore, the amount was not deposited. Similarly in reply to question No. 89 which was to the effect that cover note No. 82922 which was issued by M.S. Noriya was in respect of Luna but it was submitted by M.S. Noriya that cover note was cancelled. As per question No. 90 which was to the effect that premium collected from insurance of Luna was not deposited with the Insurance Company, it was replied by M.S. Noriya that cover note was cancelled and amount was returned. In reply to question No. 99 which was to the effect that on Ex.P/1, P/9 and P/10 the word "cancelled" was written but on Ex.P/2 which is the photocopy there is no mention of cancellation. However, it was submitted by M.S. Noriya that cover note was cancelled. At the end it was submitted by M.S. Noriya that he has not misappropriated any amount and in fact the cover notes were cancelled.
23. Thus, it is clear from the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that it was admitted by them that cover notes could not have been issued to the Probationary Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082 12 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998 & Cr.A. No. 2113/1998 Development Officer but it was done on the verbal instruction of Satish Chandra Sareen.
24. Now the only question for consideration is that "as to whether the act of Satish Chandra Sareen in issuing the cover note book to M.S. Noriya contrary to law was correct or not?"
25. The only defence which has been taken by S.C. Sareen is that since that practice was prevailing in the office, therefore, with an intention to increase the business, he had issued the cover note book to M.S. Noriya. Counsel for the appellant could not point out even a single provision of law which provides that following a wrong procedure would absolve a person from criminal liability. It is not a simple case of issuance of cover note book to M.S. Noriya contrary to law, but it is a case where M.S. Noriya misappropriated the amount which was collected by him from insured persons by not depositing the same with the Insurance Company and without any authority M.S. Noriya had also issued cover notes, as a result, not only the amount of Rs.10,738/- was embezzled by M.S. Noriya, but the Insurance Company also suffered a loss of Rs.14,95,023/-. Admittedly, complaint Ex.P/4 and P/5 were also received by S.C. Sareen, but no action was taken by S.C. Sareen, which clearly indicates that he was in hands in gloves with M.S. Noriya and was sharing common intention with him. This Court has gone through the cover note no.28922, Ex.P/13. This cover note is in a semi torn condition. The entire cover note is intact except certain pieces of paper where name of insured, amount collected, date of collection of amount from the insured, date of manufacturing of vehicle etc. were mentioned. The manner in which this cover note no.28922, Ex.P/13, has been torn, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082 13 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998 & Cr.A. No. 2113/1998 it is clear that it is a deliberate act of somebody and not on account if mishandling of documents. A photocopy of cover note no.28922 is also available on record as Ex.P/15, which is a complete document, in which words, name of insured, amount of Rs.1,350/-, year of manufacturing and engine as well as chassis number are clearly visible, but aforesaid entries were torn in such a manner that in the original cover note the same were not visible.
26. Krishna Kumar Gupta (PW-2) has stated that he had got his truck insured by making payment premium of Rs.1,365/- and cover note, Ex.P/1, was issued to him and the vehicle was got insured through Shekh Rafiq. His truck met with an accident in the year 1993 and his driver had suffered injuries and accordingly, a claim under the Workmen Compensation Act was instituted. Thereafter, Shekh Rafiq came to him and demanded the cover note back on the ground that it requires some correction, but thereafter he did not return the same. This witness had also brought photocopy of the cover note, which has been exhibited as Ex.P/2. Although the original cover note which has been exhibited as Ex.P/1 bears the word "cancelled", but photocopy which has been exhibited as Ex.P/2 does not bear any such endorsement, therefore, it is clear that the word "cancelled" must have been mentioned by somebody after the vehicle had met with an accident.
27. Similarly, P.J. Singh (PW-3) had stated that he had paid premium of Rs.175/- to M.S. Noriya, but he did not issue the cover note and accordingly, he made complaint to S.C. Sareen, who arranged for a meeting with M.S. Noriya. When he went to the office, he found that M.S. Noriya had not deposited the premium amount of Rs.175/- and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082 14 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998 & Cr.A. No. 2113/1998 accordingly, a complaint was made. By pointing out to S.C. Sareen it was stated by this witness that he was working as Branch Manager. The complaint made by this witness is Ex.P/4, which bears the acknowledgement of receipt of S.C. Sareen and his signatures are at B to B.
28. Ashok Kumar Sanyal (PW-4) has also stated that he had given a premium amount of Rs.286/- to M.S. Noriya, but thereafter, M.S. Noriya did not give him the cover note and accordingly, he made a complaint to S.C. Sareen, which is Ex.P/5 and the signatures of S.C. Sareen acknowledging the receipt of complaint are at B to B.
29. Shyam Kumar Gupta (PW-9) has stated that he had contacted Shekh Rafiq for insurance of Truck No.M.P.O2453 which was in the name of his brother. An amount of Rs.1,350/- was given and after 2 or 3 days, he got the cover note which is Ex.P-15. The cover note was given to the Police after vehicle met with an accident which was received back from the Court. Thereafter after two months of the accident, vehicle was sold to one Ravi Kumar Vanwasi and all the necessary documents were handed over to the purchaser. Since the period of insurance was going to expire, therefore Shekh Rafiq took back the original cover note from Ravi Kumar Vanwasi with an assurance that a new cover note would be issued. It was further submitted the Truck No.M.P.O2453 was never registered as Luna. He further stated that cover note (Ex.P-12) is in respect of his vehicle but he stated that Ex.P-13 and photocopy of which is Ex.P-15 was in respect of the Truck of Ajay Kumar Gupta.
30. Neelesh Kumar Jain (PW-12) had also stated that he had paid the premium of Rs.6,212/- to M.S. Noriya and cover note (Ex.P-8) was Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082 15 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998 & Cr.A. No. 2113/1998 issued to him truck insured and accordingly, he went to the Company and met with accused S.C. Sareen for return of the amount of Rs. 6,212/-, as by mistake insurance was got twice but on verification, it was found that amount was not deposited. However, it was admitted that after long time, amount was returned back by M.S. Noriya.
31. From plain reading of evidence of this witness, it is clear that amount was collected by M.S. Noriya. Even an amount of Rs.1,350/- was collected from Shyam Kumar Gupta and cover note was issued, photocopy of which is Ex.P-15. However, the original cover note, Ex.P- 13, was deliberately torn, as a result the make of vehicle, vehicle number, engine and chassis number as well as year of manufacturing was torn. In fact, it appears that Ajay Kumar Gupta was not owing any Luna and by cover note, Ex.P-12, which is a duplicate copy of original cover note, an amount of Rs.30/- was shown to have been deposited for insurance of Luna.
32. Thus, it is clear that for insurance of Truck, an amount of Rs.1,350/- was collected by M.S. Noriya and the original cover note Ex.P-13 was also issued but in the duplicate copy of the said cover note, it was mentioned that for insurance of Luna, an amount of Rs.30/- was collected by way of premium.
33. Thus, if the evidence lead by the prosecution is read along with the admissions made by the accused persons in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., it is clear that S.C. Sareen issued the cover notes to the accused M.S. Noriya unauthorizedly and M.S. Noriya after collecting the premium amount from insured persons either did not deposit the amount at all or manipulated the cover note showing that Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082 16 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998 & Cr.A. No. 2113/1998 Luna has been insured, whereas the original cover note shows that Truck was insured. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,350/- was collected from Ajay Kumar Gupta. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that the Trial Court did not commit any mistake by holding the appellants guilty for the offences mentioned above. Accordingly, conviction of the appellants for offence under Sections 420 read with Section 120-B, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act is hereby affirmed.
34. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, accused S.C. Sareen has already expired.
35. So far as sentence awarded to accused M.S. Norioya is concerned, the Trial Court has already adopted a very lenient view by awarding a jail sentence of two and half years and two years respectively. Insurance of a vehicle is a pious agreement between the insured and in the insurer, by which insurer indemnifies the insured that in case of any loss caused to him on account of use of vehicle, then the same shall be indemnified by the Insurance Company. Thus, by collecting premium and issuing insurance policy or cover note, the insurer creates a faith and belief in the mind of the insured that he will be indemnified against all the loss and if that belief is shattered by the officers of the Insurance Company itself, then no liberal view can be adopted. Even otherwise, the Trial Court has already adopted a very liberal view by awarding rigorous imprisonment of two and half years and two years respectively for the offences committed by accused M.S. Noriya, therefore, the sentence awarded to M.S. Noriya does not require any interference.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52082 17 Cr.A. No. 2016/1998 & Cr.A. No. 2113/1998
36. As a consequence thereof the judgment and sentenced dated 02.091998 passed by 5th Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur in Special Case No. 1/1997 is hereby affirmed.
37. The appellant Mohan Singh Noriya is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled. He is directed to immediately surrender before the trial Court on or before 13th of November, 2024, failing which the trial Court shall be free to issue warrant of arrest and sent for compelling to undergo the remaining jail sentence.
38. So far as appellant Satish Chandra Sareen is concerned, since he has already expired, therefore, nothing more is required to be done.
39. Let a copy of this judgment be immediately sent to the trial Court along with its record for necessary information and compliance.
40. Criminal Appeal No. 2016/2018 and Criminal Appeal No. 2113/1998 fails and are hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE AL Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Signing time: 19-10-2024 14:04:28