Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. - (1.) All these three appeals, arising out of the judgment dated 24.5.69 rendered by the learned Judge, Special Court, Burdwan in Special Court Case No. 3 of 1963, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) At all material times Netai Hari Roy, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 350/69 was the contractor of Bijoy Chand Hospital, commonly known as B. C. Hospital, Burdwan for supplying dietary and other articles, Nilkanta Chatterjee, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 351 of 1969 was one of his employees looking after the said contract job. Of the various articles that were to be supplied to the Hospital, some were tendered articles and some were non-tendered. For payment of the price of non-tendered articles to the contractor Netai Hari, the Hospital authorities used to obtain the prevailing market rates of those articles from the Sub-divisional Agricultural Marketing Officer, Burdwan (hereinafter referred to as the Marketing Officer) through correspondences. On receiving communication about the market rates from the Marketing Officer the Hospital authorities used to pass the bills of the contractor in accordance with the rates furnished by the Marketing Officer.
(3.) The prosecution case is that during the period from March, 1959 to February, 1960 the accused Netai Hari and his employee Nilkanta entered into a criminal conspiracy with Satya Mullick, an employee of the Burdwan Collectorate and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 1969, one Hareprosad Chatterjee, another employee of the said Collectorate and Makhan Chowdhury, head clerk of the Office of the District Medical Officer, Burdwan and collected letters and correspondences addressed to the Marketing Officer by the B. C. Hospital and replied to those letters themselves under the signature of either Satya or Haraprasad designating themselves as the Marketing Officer and through those letters inflated rates in respect of ice were supplied to the B. C. Hospital on the basis of which inflated bills were prepared and passed for payments and subsequently en-cashed by the contractor. Sri Dwijendra Chandra Chakraborty (P. W. 30), an Inspector of Police attached to the District Enforcement Branch Burdwan got an information and in pursuance of that information he searched the house of the accused Netai Hari at Ranigunge Bazar, Burdwan on 17.7.60 after obtaining the requisite search warrant from the Magistrate. A number of documents including a draft of a letter in the hand writing of the accused Netai Hari.purportedly addressed by the Marketing Officer to the Resident Medical Officer. B. C. Hospital, a typed letter dated 5.3.60 regarding quotation of ice addressed to the Resident Medical Officer, B.C. Hospital by the Marketing Officer and a typed writer machine were seized therefrom. On the self same day Sub-Inspector S.N. Chatterjee searched the house of one Satya Prasad Burman and seized some documents. After the above two searches and seizures Sri Chakraborty lodged a complaint with the Burdwan Police Station and on the basis thereof. Burdwan Police Station Case No. 39 dated 17.7.60 was started against Netai Hari, Nilkanta, Satya Prasad and others under Sections 420/409/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Sri Chakraborty took up investigation of the case and seized various documents from the Office of the Marketing Officer and the B.C. Hospital. He also searched the house of Satya Mullick on 28.7.60 and seized various documents including typed letters bearing the .signatures of Satya Mullick or Haraprosad Chatterjee describing themselves as the Marketing Officer and addressed to the Resident Medical Officer. B.C. Hospital. In course of investigation he arrested some other persons including Biswanath Roy, Dharani Dhar Malakar and Haraprosad Chatterjee. He took the specimen writing of Makhan and Dharani Dhar before the Magistrate. He could not, however, take the specimen hand writing of Netai, Nilkanta or Satya as they refused to give the same. The Investigating Officer, then seized some petitions for casual leave made by Satya and Haraprosad together with other documents bearing their signatures from the Burdwan Collectorate on 20.8.60. He sent some of the documents seized during investigation including the typed letters bearing the signatures of Satya Mullick and Haraprosad and the issue register maintained at the B.C. Hospital to the hand writing expart. After examination of witnesses and obtaining necessary sanction for prosecution against some of .the persons arrested in connection with the case, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against eight accused persons including the three appellants. He thereafter, made a prayer for allotment of the case and on receipt of the order of allotment, the learned Judge, Special Court, Burdwan took cognisance of the case and issued process against the eight accused persons. After thirty four witnesses were examined by the prosecution and a number of documents were exhibited at its instance, the learned Judge by an order dated November 10,1965 framed charges against five of the accused persons while discharging the three others, namely, Biswanath Roy. Satya Barman and Dharani Dhar Malakar as there was no prima facie case against them. A common charge under Section 20B/420 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against all the five accused persons, namely, Netai Hari Roy, Nilkanta Chatterjee, Makhanlal Chowdhury, Haraprosad Chatterjee and Satya Kunkar Mullick. Charges under Sections 474 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against accused Netai Hari Roy. A common charge under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against Netai Hari Roy and Nilkanta. Separate charges under Sections 419, 476 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were framed against accused Satya Kinkar Mullick. Separate charges under Section 476 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were framed against Haraprosad Chatterjee. A charge under the above Section of the Prevention of Corruption Act was also framed against accused Makhan. During the pendency of the trial accused Haraprosad Chatterjee died and as such the case proceeded against the three appellants and Makhan.;