- (1.) The Challenge in these two revision applications is to the legality, validity and propriety of the judgement and order dated 30.6.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, North 24-Parganas at Barasat in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1996 whereby affirming the judgement and order dated 19.1.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 3rd Court at Barrackpore against the Bhabesh Chowdhury (Petitioner) and Mrinal Kanti Ghosh under section 408/471/477A/ 120B of IPC; on the following grounds: i) that the learned Trial Court as well the learned Fast Appellate Court erred in holding that the provision of section 197 Cr. PC was not applicable in the case; ii) that the learned Trial Court as well as learned Fast Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective; iii) that while both the Courts found the petitioners did not commit offences under sections 467/468, both of them erred in coming to a conclusion that the petitioners committed an offence under sections 471 and 477A of IPC; iv) that the learned Appellate Court failed to take note of the fact that the learned Trial Court did not consider the role of the petitioners in the matter of disbursement of salary and making necessary entries thereof; v) that the learned Appellate Court erred in upholding the judgement of the learned Trial Court without considering the fact that no explanation was given by the prosecution or non-production of some important registers; vi) that the petitioners were not liable for making entries in the respective register in respect of undisburse salary which was supposed to be maintained only by Mrinal Kanti Ghosh; and vii) that the judgement impugned, being otherwise bad in law, is liable to be set aside; Since both the revision applications are directed against same judgement and order and mainly on same grounds, both of them are disposed of by the following common judgement. The point for decision is whether the judgement impugned is sustainable in law.
(2.) A short reference to the factual matrix is given below :
(3.) The petitioner Bhabesh Chowdhury was Senior Estate Supervisor of the Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta. During the period May, 1981 to November, 1982 he was attached to Unit 9A of the I.S.I. The petitioner Mrinal Kanti Ghosh (co-accused) was Senior Assistant (Accounts) of the Institute. They together entered into a criminal conspiracy during that period and committed breach of trust to the tune of Rs. 41,000/- of the institute by showing false disbursement of salary to the employees of Unit 9A. In doing so, they also forged and manipulated documents of the institute. One FIR was lodged with Superintendent of Police, C.B.L, A.C.E, Calcutta on 30.7.1983 against four persons including the petitioner. The case was investigated into and ended in a charge-sheet against them under section 408/467/468/471/477A and 120B of IPC. The learned Trial Court framed charges under section 120B/408/471/477A IPC against both of them to which they pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, the trial commenced. The learned Magistrate upon consideration of evidence on record, oral and documentary found both the accused persons guilty of offences charged with and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for one year for the offence 471 IPC, R.I. for two years for offence under section 477A IPC and R.I. for two years for the offence under section 120B of IPC. It was directed that all the sentences so imposed should run concurrently. The judgement of conviction and order of sentence was challenged by the present petitioners Bhabesh Chowdhury and Mrinal Kanti Ghosh in Criminal appeal No. 1 of 1996. The learned 1st Appellate Court, upon hearing of both the parties was pleased to dismiss the appeal on contest and affirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. The convicts have come up with this application praying for revision of the judgement on the grounds already mentioned.;