Naresh Choubey vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

The Appellant was convicted under Sections 420, 471, read

with Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC)

and Sections 13(1)(c), (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 (for short “the PC Act). The Appellant was sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years for the offences

punishable under the IPC and two years for the offences punishable

under the PC Act. The conviction and sentence of the Appellant was

affirmed by the High Court, aggrieved by which the above appeal is

filed.

1/Page

2. The Animal Husbandry Officer, Gohan-Go-Vikas-Prakhand,

Muzaffarpur, received information that wrongful withdrawal of

treasury bills was being made. He constituted a Committee for

scrutinizing the suspected bills. The Committee found that an

amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was embezzled. On the basis of the

report submitted by the Animal Husbandry Officer, P.S. case

no.200/ 95 was registered under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 409

of the IPC. Pursuant to orders passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Patna and this Court, all cases pertaining to

misappropriation of funds in the Animal Husbandry Department

were directed to be investigated by the Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI). The CBI registered a case No.30/A/96- Pat

under Sections 120(b), 467, 468, 420 read with 409 and Section

13(1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act. On completion of the

investigation, a charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken

by the Court on 19th February, 1997. Charges were framed

against the Appellant and two others for wrongful withdrawal and

misappropriation of money from the treasury on the basis of the

forged bills.

3. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses and several documents

were filed to prove the charges against the Appellant and other

2/Page accused. The Appellant who was working as Dealing Assistant in

the Treasury received three bills Exhibit 3/5 - 3/7 and

recommended them for payment, though, he was not authorised

to deal with the bills of Animal Husbandry Department. These

bills were not brought to the treasury through messenger book.

The evidence of PWs 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 18 was relied upon

by the prosecution to prove that the Appellant was guilty of the

charge.

4. On thorough examination of the entire evidence on record and

after considering the submissions made by the prosecution and

the defence, the trial court convicted the Appellant and the other

two accused under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the

IPC and Sections 13 (1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act. The Appellant

was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for

the offences punishable under the IPC and two years

imprisonment for the offences punishable under the PC Act to

run concurrently by taking note of the fact that the Appellant had

already retired from service. The trial court further took notice of

the age of the Petitioner and his ill-health while imposing the

sentence. The Appellant along with the other two accused filed

an Appeal in the High Court. The High Court scrutinised the

entire evidence on record. After examining the submissions

3/Page made by the counsel of both sides, the High Court found no fault

with the judgment of the trial court and affirmed the same.

5. This court issued notice in the SLP filed by the Appellant on 4 th

September, 2015. On 6th September, 2016, the Appellant was

granted bail by this Court on the ground that he had already

undergone 20 months out of the maximum sentence of three

years imposed on him.

6. We have examined the judgments of the courts below and we are

of the opinion that there is no error committed in holding the

Appellant guilty of the offences alleged. Both the courts below

have thoroughly examined the oral as well as documentary

evidence on record and dealt with the submissions made on

behalf of the defence in a detailed manner. It is settled law that

this Court need not re-appreciate evidence while affirming the

judgments of the courts below in criminal cases. 1 To satisfy our

conscience, we have examined the judgments and found that

there is sufficient material on record to show that the Appellant

had indulged in acts of misappropriation and embezzlement of

public funds by unauthorizedly processing bills which he received

not through proper channel. We do not consider it necessary to

repeat the reasons that have been assigned by the courts below

1 Ramaniklal Gokaldas v. State of Gujarat (1976) 1 SCC 6, para 3; relied upon in Dharam Pal v. The State of Haryana, Crl. Appeal no. 1878/2009, para 7

4/Page while convicting and sentencing the Appellant. We, accordingly,

confirm the conviction of the Appellant.

7. While considering the question of sentence, the trial court in the

year 2002 observed that the Appellant was 60 years old and was

suffering from ill-health. We are informed that the Appellant has

undergone 20 months out of the sentence of 36 months, that he

is 75 years old now and is suffering from several ailments.

Considering the aforementioned, we are of the view that the

sentence imposed on the Appellant by the trial court and

affirmed by the High Court be modified to the period already

undergone by the Appellant. The Appellant is on bail. His bail

bonds stand discharged.

8. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

........................................J. [ARUN MISHRA]

..……................................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO] New Delhi, November 16, 2017.

5/Page