- (1.) THE appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 7/8.9.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Special (CBI) Court, Calcutta, in Special (CBI) Case No. 2 of 1989, convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ - in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/ - in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under sections 468 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, all the sentences to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect as follows: "On 13.3.1987 at about 18 -50 hours one Subhas Dey, the then CBI officer of Siliguri Unit, lodged a First Information Report against the appellant, inter alia, alleging that reliable source information was received to the effect that the appellant while posted and functioning at State Bank of India, Darjeeling Branch during 1979 and 1984 dishonestly cheated the said bank by making fictitious credit entries in different accounts and subsequently withdrew huge sums of money by forging signatures of account holders. It is further alleged that the appellant withdrew a sum of Rs. 14000/ - on 26.4.1982 fraudulently and received the said amount himself by forging cheque No. 478661 drawn on account No. C/111 maintained at Darjeeling Branch, State Bank of India in the joint name of one Sumitra Sen and S.N. Sen (since deceased). It was also alleged that in similar manner the appellant had withdrawn amount to the tune of Rs. 1200/ - on 3.7.82, Rs. 7500/ - on 2.8.82, Rs. 2000/ - on 6.9.82, Rs. 1000/ - on 18.11.82, Rs. 2500/ - on 25.11.82, Rs. 1200/ - on 1.12.82 and Rs. 750/ - on 14.12.82 from accounts by forging the signature of the account holders. The appellant dishonestly issued 16 false cheques amounting to Rs. 37,396/ - by forging the signature of the account holders. He also dishonestly and fraudulently withdrew a sum of Rs. 10,300/ - from the savings bank account No. 3422 by forging the signature of the account holder and also by making false and fictitious credit entries in the said account which stood in the name of Smt. Sumitra Chowdhury. On the basis of the written complaint, R.C. No. 16/87 was registered against the appellant under sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In the course of investigation, documents were seized from the concerned branch of the State Bank of India, specimen writing, signature and initials of the appellant was also seized in the presence of witnesses, opinion of handwriting expert was obtained and after obtaining sanction from competent authority, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant under section 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Charge was framed under section 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It is pertinent to note that the subject matter of the aforesaid charge related to alleged forgery of cheque No. 478661 drawn on account No. C 111 to the tune of Rs. 14000/ - only. No other charge was framed with regard to other allegations in the First Information Report. The appellant pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried."
(3.) THE prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. Appellant, however, did not examine any witness in support of his defence. In conclusion of trial, the Trial Court by the judgment and order dated 7/8.9.2006 convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ - in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/ - in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under sections 468 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, all the sentences to run concurrently. P.W. 1 was the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Darjeeling Branch. He had issued sanction order against the appellant. He has proved sanction order (Ext. 1).;