HANUMAN CHAND Vs. STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.3.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras disposing, amongst others, the appeal filed by the present appellant against his conviction under Sections 120B r/w Section 420 r/w Section 511 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and with fine of L 1,000/-, in default, R.I. for three months for the charge under Section 120B r/w Section 420 r/w Section 511 IPC, and R.I. for two years and fine of L 3000/-, in default, R.I. for six months for the charge under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.
(2.) By the impugned judgment and order, the appeal filed by the appellant was partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction, the sentence of imprisonment was converted from one of rigorous imprisonment to one of simple imprisonment for one year on both counts.
(3.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that at the relevant time, the appellant was the Development Officer of the United India Insurance Company Limited. The co-accused tried as A2, was then employed as Assistant Divisional Manager in the same company at Royapuram Branch. A3 was the owner of a lorry bearing registration No. TMY 9655 and A4 was the financer of the said lorry. The lorry met with an accident on 22.9.1988 at about 9 p.m. when it did not have any insurance cover. The allegation against the accused persons was that all of them had entered into a criminal conspiracy and created the insurance policy for the vehicle in question backdating it on 22.9.1988 and thus caused wrongful loss to the insurance company to the extent of L 1,24,200/-. The charge against the accused persons was that the appellant, by misusing his official position as Development Officer, received the insurance premium for the policy after the accident on 23.9.1988 and directed co-accused A2 to prepare an acceptance advise and the insurance policy as if the same had been issued on 22.9.1988 itself. In pursuance of the same conspiracy, A2 prepared the acceptance advice, as if the vehicle had been insured on 22.9.1998 and on the strength thereof, A3 with the help of A4 avoided the financial loss arising out of the accident and thereby dishonestly caused wrongful loss to the insurance company to the tune of L 1,24,200/-;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.