- (1.) BOTH the above appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment dated 25.9.1998, passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.9 of 1980 whereby the appellants Naresh Himmat Lal Joshi @ Narendra Joshi, appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 304/98 and Gokul Das, appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 305/98, were convicted for the offence under Sections 120B IPC read with Sections 420 and 468 IPC as also under Sections 5(2), 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 420, 511, 471, IPC. The appellant Naresh Himmat Lal Joshi was further convicted for the offence under Section 468 IPC and the appellant Gokul Das was further convicted for the offence under Section 5(3 -A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Both the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years each for each of the offences, for which they were found guilty.
(2.) AFTER arguing for a while on the merit of both the appeals, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants confined their arguments with regard to the question of sentence only by stating the fact that the alleged occurrence said to have been taken place in July 1980, i.e. about 26 years ago and the allegations against the appellants are not of very serious in nature and, therefore, after such a long lapse of time when they have already undergone 15 days and one months imprisonment respectively during trial, the sentences of imprisonment may suitable be modified and they may not be sent to jail again after such a long lapse of time. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is not necessary to go into the detail of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Suffice is to say that the prosecution the case in short is that it was reliably learnt that Nil Ratan Chakravarty and Gokul Das, while functioning as the Office Superintendent and the Assistant respectively in the B.C.C.L., Calcutta during the year 1980, entered into criminal conspiracy with one firm M/s Subhash and Company at Fatehpur Lane, Jharia, Dhanbad and in pursuance to the said conspiracy they attempted to defraud both the railway administration and the B.C.C.L. by issuing forged and fabricated order booking memos in favour of five fictitious firm of Gujarat for steam coal. The order booking memos were issued in the name of five unknown non -existing firms of Gujarat by the accused without any sponsorship from the competent authority and the State of Gujrat. The five order booking memos referred to above are detailed as hereunder:(i) Memo No. Karmatand/1/80/18 dt. 17.7.80 in favour of M/s Bijay Shopping Company, Asarva for 30 (thirty) wagons of steam coal at the rate of five wagons P.M. from July to December. (ii) Memo No. Karmatand/1/80/19 dated 17.7.80 in favour of M/s Ajay Traders for 30 wagons of steam coal at the rate of five wagons P.M. from July to December. (iii) Memo No. Karmatand/1/80/20 dated 17.7.80 in favour of M/s Kirti Traders for 30 wagons of steam coal at the rate of five wagons P.M. from July to December. (iv) Memo No. Karmatand/1/80/21 dated 17.7.80 in favour of M/s R.K. Trading Company for 36 wagons of steam coal at the rate of six wagons P.M. from July to December. (v) Memo No. Karmatand/1/80/22 dated 17.7.80 in favour of M/s Krishna Trading Company for 24 wagons of steam coal at the rate of four wagons P.M. from July to December. The further case of the prosecution is that on 18.7.90 accused Nil Ratan Chakravarty and Gokul Das dispatched the five forged order booking memos in favour of the firms mentioned against each to Sri A.S. Bhogal, Sr. Sale Officer, B.C.C.L., Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad. Sri Bhogal on sending them to Karmatand Colliery of the B.C.C.L., Dhanbad for supply of 150 wagons of steam coal but at that time he was not knowing that those order booking memos were forged ones. That for sending the said order booking memos to the Karmatand Colliery referred to above accused Narendra Joshi had put Rs. 50 in his pocket.
(3.) ON the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated in part I of his judgment. Since the learned counsel for the appellants are not challenging the findings of the trial court holding them guilty for the offences and, as such, conviction of the appellants passed by the trial court is affirmed.;