Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The two accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Sections 5(2) r/w (1)(c) of the P.C Act 1947 and also under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined 42 witnesses and also marked Exts.P1 to P40 documents. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C the two accused denied the incriminating circumstances and submitted that they had not in fact misappropriated anything from public funds, and that they had not created any false bill or voucher for drawing amount from public funds. They further submitted that the estimate was prepared on the basis of some rough sketch regarding the extend available for afforestation, and that nobody had committed any fraud in identifying the total area available for afforestation. They contended that the required plants  Crl.A Nos.324 & 354 of 2001 were procured, and the whole plants were in fact planted in the forest area available. In defence the accused examined two witnesses and also marked Exts.D1 to D6.

3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the two accused guilty of having dishonestly misappropriated huge amount from public funds by making use of false and forged vouchers in the name of fictitious persons. The trial court found that plants were planted in a lesser area whereas the two accused submitted sketch identifying a vast area of forest land dishonestly. On conviction the first accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of 40,000/- under Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(c) of the P.C Act, 1947, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of 20,000/- under Section 409 of IPC and to undergo another period of rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 477A of IPC. The second accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of 20,000/- under Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(c) of the P.C Act 1947, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to  Crl.A Nos.324 & 354 of 2001 pay a fine of 5,000/- under Section 409 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 477A of the IPC. The two accused were convicted with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, dated 30.3.3001 in C.C. No.7/1998 the two accused have come up in appeal. Crl.A No.324/2001 is the appeal brought by the first accused against the conviction and sentence, and Crl.A No.354/2001 is the appeal brought by the second accused.

"In Ext.P3(c) to P3(g) the date of actual survey or the date when those sketches were prepared are not seen mentioned. A1 also did not take care to get it noted by A2 nor did A1 himself do it. Similarly, the office of the DFO also did not think it necessary to get the dates mentioned in those documents. It seems A1 and also PW32 wanted to see that the dates were not put thereon with ulterior motives."

10. Thus on the basis of materials that came out during trial the learned trial judge found the vicious and dishonest role and involvement of PW32, and also found that PW32 was in fact behind everything. The effect of this finding, or the purport of this finding is that these two accused alone cannot be made liable for the alleged irregularities or mal practices. We will have to appreciate and analyse the evidence and come to a finding regarding the alleged acts of these two appellants, in this background regarding the findings made as regards the dishonest role of PW32 in the process of afforestation. On a reading of the  Crl.A Nos.324 & 354 of 2001 entire judgment, I find that the real purport of the findings made by the learned trial judge regarding the dishonest role of PW32 is that everything was in fact managed and processed by him, and ultimately these two appellants became the scapegoats. It has came out during trial that a departmental enquiry was made as regards the alleged transaction, and in the said enquiry the accused and also PW32 were found guilty by the enquiry officer. It is not known why PW32 was not arraigned as accused in this case. The learned counsel submitted that adequate punishment was already imposed on the two appellants on the basis of the report of enquiry, and that the amount of loss sustained by the department was in fact recovered from the accused. The learned counsel also submitted that what is at the most proved is some irregularities on the part of the two accused in the process of afforestation, which can be only the subject matter of departmental enquiry, and that on the basis of those irregularities alone a conviction is not possible under the provisions of the P.C Act or under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477A of the IPC. The learned counsel  Crl.A Nos.324 & 354 of 2001 strenuously argued that in the absence of any material to prove dishonest misappropriation or forgery of false vouchers in the name of fictitious persons a conviction is never possible under the P.C Act or the other sections of the IPC. The learned counsel submitted that what is at the most possible is only disciplinary action for the alleged irregularities and mal practices without amounting to dishonest misappropriation, and that the two accused have already received adequate punishment on the basis of the report of departmental enquiry.