AMAR CHOWDHURY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convicted of an offence under S.420 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year in Special Court Case No.1 of 1978 by Additional Special Judge, Howrah, by his judgment dt. 22-6-1971 the appellant has come up in appeal. He faced the trial on twofold charges; the first charge was under S.420 I.P.C. for cheating Sunil Pal by dishonestly inducing him to deliver Rs. 200/- on 6-5-1971 on the assurance of securing a job for him in the E.S.I, Hospital The second charge was under S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for misconduct manifested in the above noted Act. The prosecution relied on Ext.18 purported to be a sanction under S.6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which was a primary requisite for the prosecution. The learned Judge, however, held that the same sanction was illegal and invalid and, therefore, acquitted the appellant of the charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In short, the point for consideration in this appeal is if the appellant's conviction under S.420 I.P.C. is maintainable.

(2.) The prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows: At the relevant time the appellant was a General Duty Assistant attached to Balitikuri E.S.I. Hospital and as such a public servant. This point is not disputed. It is further alleged that P.W.1 Sunil Pal, the de facto complainant, was unemployed and in dire need of a job in May 1971 when he happened to meet the appellant at a bus stand at the mouth of Bellilious lane, Howrah. It was alleged that at the bus stand a conversation ensued between the P.W.1 and the appellant in course of which P.W.1 informed the appellant that he was in need of a job and the appellant assured him with a job and requested him to see him at his residential quarters within the compound of Balitikuri E.S.I. Hospital. After several meetings with the appellant the informant pursuant to the appellant's advice handed over to him a sum of Rs. 200/- for registration of his name for the job assured and granted him a kutcha receipt under his signature. The receipt has been marked Ext. I. It is the further prosecution case that sometime later the appellant gave him a letter purporting to be an appointment letter signed by the Director of E.S.I. Mr. Kader Newaz. Prior to that when the informant had demanded a pucca receipt for the money handed over the appellant had stated that on receipt of a further sum of Rs. 400/- he would give him a pucca receipt. However, on receipt of the purported appointment letter Sunil Pal became suspicious as he was not called for an interview by any authority for any job nor any police verification regarding him was made. Sunil Pal against above background met Mr. Kader Newaz, showed him the purported appointment letter and was informed that the appointment letter was forged as it did not bear the signature of Mr. Newaz. Then and there Mr. Kader Newaz obtained an application in writing from Sunil Pal to enable him to make further investigation into the matter and on receipt of such application investigation was entrusted to the police. On the basis of materials collected during the course of investigation, the Special Court Case was filed on complaint made by Ranjit Kumar Das, S.I. of Police, Central Investigation and the result of the trial arising out of the complaint has already been indicated.

(3.) In the complaint an offence under S.161 I.P.C. was alleged. An offence under S.161 I.P.C. is contemplated in S.5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and as such along with the complaint a sanction of the Director of E.S.I. contemplated under S.6 of the aforesaid Act was filed. Before trial, however, two charges were framed against the accused as earlier noted.