(COMMON)
1. Both these appeals arise out of one and the same common judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.6 at Ahmedabad dated 10.9.1984 in Special Case No.5 of 1980 whereby the learned Special Judge convicted both the appellants for offences punishable under section 5(1)(d) read with section 471 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, 3 months' Rigorous Imprisonment.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
2. Original-accused No.1-Mr R K Sachdev, Brijendra Kumar Arrawati, original accused No.2 and Kanchanbhai J Patel, original accused No.3 were tried for commission of offence under section 120-B read with section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by the learned Special Judge, Court No.10, at Ahmedabad in Special Case No. 5 of 1980. Original accused No.1 was working as Assistant Manager in the Cotton Corporation of India, Bodeli in the year 1977. Accused No.2 was also working as Cotton Selector and accused No.3 was serving as peon. It is alleged that accused No.1 , in the year 1977, conspired with accused No.2 and 3 got prepared a false purchase bill on 27.4.1977 by accused No.3 for an amount of Rs. 24,800.18 falsely showing that 49.65 quintals of cotton was purchased from one Suleman Malangbhai, a cotton grower of village Kora and sent a telegram to the Accounts Officer, Cotton Corporation of India (for short, (?SCCI??), Ahmedabad for issuing Demand Draft and also to the Divisional Manager, CCI for information. It is alleged that accused no.2 signed the aforesaid false bill in token of having checked and found it in order. He also got prepared a false bill and 'daily purchase return' incorporating the above mentioned purchase. They forged the signatures of one R.G. Shastri, who was working as Apprentice Cotton Selector in the branch on the purchase bill and purchase return to show the genuineness of the purchase. Consequently, on receipt of the telegram and purchase bill etc., the Accounts Officer, CCI, Ahmedabad issued a Demand Draft bearing No.PP/73 AOO 31451 for Rs.24,800.18 on 28.4.2007 and sent it by post to the office of the accused no.1. Accused No.3, in collusion with accused no.2 opened a fictitious bank account in the name of Suleman Malangbhai and obtained the payment from Bank of Baroda, Mandvi Branch. It is alleged that in fact the purchase of 49.65 quintals of cotton were not made at all, nor the amount of Rs.24,800.18 was paid to the party and the amount was misappropriated by the accused persons.
3. When Mr R G Shastri, Apprentice Cotton Selector came to know that his signature was forged on the daily purchase return, he sent a telegram to the CCI, Ahmedabad to the effect that his signatures were forged on the bill dated 27.4.1977 though by that time the payment had already been made. When accused No.1 came to know the above disclosure by R G Shastri, he immediately terminated his services on the ground that he was found absent from duty. Accused No.1 also got deposited the aforesaid amount by two drafts namely, D/D No. A 04008 dated 21.5.1977 for Rs.18,500/- and D/D No. A 133104 dated 25.5.1977 for Rs.6,300.18 and falsely intimated the branch office that the cotton purchased on 27.4.1977 was of inferior quality and therefore, it was returned to the party who then returned the amount. It is also alleged that no cotton was purchased and, therefore, no amount was returned.
4. PW 27, M.E. Munshi, Police Inspector, CBI, Ahmedabad received information regarding commission of the crime by an informant and, he, therefore, lodged a complaint on 31.7.1979 (Exh.302) before the Delhi Special Police Establishment, Ahmedabad and offence was registered. The CBI, after completing the investigation, submitted charge sheet in the court of Special Judge, Ahmedabad against the appellants and two others as stated above. During the investigation, he recovered documents of Bank of Baroda from one Mr M K Patel of Bank of Baroda, Ahmedabad Bhadra Branch, by preparing seizure memo (Exh.29). Thereupon he handed over investigation of this case on 8.8.1979 to the Police Inspector Shri S K Pande, CBI. During the investigation, he recorded statements of witnesses. He also collected specimen handwriting of the accused No.3 by preparing panchnama which is at Exh.258. He also recorded statement of Sulemanbai Malangbhai, B.S. Gordhanbhai, R G Shastri and other witnesses. He also collected specimen handwriting of R G Shastri in pursuance of panchnama Exh.45. The said specimen handwritings were sent to the FSL and he received report of handwritng Experts at Exh.294 on 9.12.1980. Sanction was granted by the M.D. of CCI, by his order dated 6.9.1980 and thereupon during the investigation he received the report from FSL. Thereupon, at the end of the investigation, on 30.9.1980, charge sheet Exh.34 was filed for the aforesaid offences. As mentioned above, after framing of the charges, accused No.1 submitted application vide Exh.35 contending that under section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, no legal and valid sanction was obtained and therefore, he should be discharged. Preliminary issue was raised from the evidence on record on the point of sanction and the learned Special Judge, by order dated 30.3.1982, rejected the application Exh.35 and held that the sanction order Exh.43 is legal and valid. The said order is challenged before this court and this court also upheld the order of the learned Special Judge.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined in all 28 Prosecution witnesses. Evidence of the following witnesses are very important in this case:
PW 9, S D Mehta, Manager, Bank of Baroda, Exh.206, PW 11, Hajibhai Valibhai Dema, Exh.218, PW 16, Suleman Malangbhai Mansuri, Exh.250, PW 20, Natversinh Ramsinh, Talati-cum-Mantri, Exh.272, PW 26, Madhusudan Sharma, Handwriting Expert, Exh.289 and PW 27, Mohamad E. Munshi, Exh.301.
6. The prosecution has also relied upon documentary evidence Exh. 73, printed purchase bill of CCI dated 27.4.1977, Exh.74-bill No. NBR/I 76-77 dated 27.4.1977, Exh. 75, forwarding letter in English which had specimen of handwriting of R G Shastri, Exh.196, copy of the telegram, Exhs 200 t0 202, carbon copies of daily purchase return, Exhs. 203, Documents of Bank of Baroda, Exh.204, Pay-in-slip of Bank of Baroda, Exh.280, printed receipt of Haldhar Vibhag Coop. Ginning Pressing & Cotton Sale Society, Nabipur, Exh.293, printed advice of Soceity, Exh.291, payment voucher of CCI, Ahmedabad Branch, Exh.252, discount voucher with alleged signature of Suleman Malangbhai, Exh. 247, specimen signature of accused No.3 which were made in the name of Suleman Malangbhai and Exh.157 to 162, purchase bill of CCI, Exh.181 is details regarding specimen handwriting, signature and figures, Exhs 78 and 244 are specimen signatures of R G Shastri. From Exhs. 128 to 133, 182 to 185, 187 to 192, 212, 214 to 217, 258 to 260, 285, 286, 288, 313 and 213 are official correspondence of CCI. Exh.66 is letter of sanction of the alleged bill of Rs. 26103.88. Exh.67 is a copy of statement of the payment slip. Exhs.68 to 71 are vouchers for drawing Demand Draft of Rs.24,800-18. Exh.70 is the Demand Draft which was issued by Navipur Branch of Bank of Baroda in favour of Bank of Baroda, Mandvi Branch in the name of Suleman Malangbhai for Rs. 24,800-18 dated 6.5.1977. Other relevant documents were also produced by the prosecution.
7. After leading oral as well as documentary evidence by the prosecution, further statement of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code was recorded in which accused no.1 submitted that as R G Shastri was removed from the service, accused no.1 was falsely implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that cotton purchased from Suleman Malangbhai was of inferior quality and yellow in colour, it was not found in order for ginning process and as accused no.1 was responsible, he checked the order and found that the said purchase bill and other papers were signed by R G Shastri and accused No.1 sought explanation from RG Shastri as well as accused no.2, and as the explanations were not found satisfactory, they made allegations on each other. It is also stated by accused no.1 that he had intimated the Branch Manager of Ahmedabad branch of CCI Mr Tripathi and thereupon Mr Tripathi came to Bodali. It is further stated by him that Mr Tripathi told him that he had checked the record and he also discussed the same with Mr M L Singh, and that he had also asked accused No.2 and Shri Shastri to resign and if they would not resign, they would be removed from service. He also stated that Mr Shastri, thereafter came with his resignation and the amount involved in the above purchase of cotton and that their action proved that they had committed the crime and were involved in the crime. It is also stated by accused no.1 that he has not played any role in committing the crime but only due to vengeance of R G Shastri, he was involved in the crime.
8. Accused No.2 in his further statement stated that he was also falsely involved in the present case because of strained and inimical relations with RG Shastri. Accused no.2 also stated that under threat, coercion and pressure of Investigating Officer, S K Pande, accused no.2 was ready to remain as witness of Government (approver) and Investigating Officer, Mr Pande obtained some signature of accused no.2 and one Suleman Malangbhai. It is also stated by this accused that though he was produced on 24.9.1980 before the Magistrate of Narol Court, on making inquiry by the Magistrate, he became witness of the Government. Thereafter he was released from judicial custody. It is also stated by him that as he has refused to be a Government witness, he was falsely implicated in this crime. Accused No.2, in his statement further stated that he was a peon and his work was only collecting and delivering envelopes/letters. As per his submission, he went to Ahmedabad office with mail and also brought Demand Draft. He has not played any role in committing the crime. Thus, he was falsely involved in this case.
9. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP for the prosecution and the learned advocate for the accused and after examining the witnesses and after appreciating and scrutinising the documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Judge acquitted original accused No.1, and convicted original accused No.2 & 3 as aforesaid. Hence the present appeals challenging the said judgment and order. No acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State of Gujarat.
10. Heard Mr K J Panchal, learned advocate for Brijendrakumar Arrawatia, appellant-original accused No.2, in Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 1984, Mr Y N Ravani, learned counsel for the CBI and Mr K P Rawal, learned APP for the State of Gujarat.
11. It is argued by Mr K J Panchal that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and not appreciated the defence of accused no.2 and by that, committed serious error in convicting the accused no.2. It is also submitted by the learned advocate that as accused no.2 was ill during the period, alleged purchase of cotton and all other exercises had been carried out by R G Shastri. It is submitted by him that RG Shastri was serving as Apprentice Cotton Selector and he has grudge against accused no.2 as he used to make complaint against him to accused no.1. It is also submitted by him that during the period from 16.4.1977 to 17.4.1977, accused no.2 had serious stomach pain and so he went to Bharuch for taking treatment from Dr. Taylor and medical bill of Rs.65/- was also sent to CCI and also on 20.4.1977 at about 8 am, accused no.2 had gone to Bharuch and returned at about 5 to 6 pm to Nabipur. Before that the alleged work of cotton purchase was completed and RG Shastri has sent all the papers to branch office at Ahmedabad. On 28.4.1977, this accused was asked by the Divisional Manager to submit the report regarding the details of stock of Kapas (cotton) upto 28.4.1977. So accused no.2 went to Palej and submitted the statement of stock and in the said statement, purchase of 2.61 quintals of cotton was shown. Again, the Ahmedabad branch, by sending telegram, asked accused no.2 for submitting fortnightly and monthly reports and while preparing the report, accused no.2 came to know that 49.65 quintals of cotton was purchased on 17.4.1977 from one Sulemanbhai Malangbhai. It is also submitted by him that as no one was present, accused no.2 prepared a report and he informed accused no.1 on telephone and he was alone at that time and as RG Shastri was absent on 17.4.1977, one M. L. Singh was sent to Nabipur Centre. Thereafter on 16.5.1977, RG Shastri, for the purpose of giving orders for Cotton, along with one Singla, went to the factory where inferior quality of cotton was found lying in heap which could not be given for ginning and pressing. Accused no.2 immediately told Singla that the said cotton was not purchased by him but it was purchased by RG Shastri. It is also submitted by learned advocate Mr Panchal that when accused no.2 went to Bharuch for treatment during that period, RG Shastri purchased the said inferior quality of cotton and Mr Shastri did not speak anything regarding the same. It is submitted by Mr Panchal that Ahmedabad Branch Manager Mr Tripathi asked accused no.2 and RG Shastri to resign and further directed RG Shastri to deliver back the said inferior quality of cotton and to get back the money. Mr Tripathi also threatened them that if they did not return the said cotton, they will be removed from service. Thereafter, RG Shastri gave a demand draft of Rs. 18,500/- to accused no.2 and told him that he would arrange and bring the remaining amount from a business man. After two or three days, RG Shastri came with a cash amount of Rs.6300/- but accused no.2 told Mr Shastri that it could not be accepted by CCI and so asked him to bring a Demand Draft. It is submitted by Mr Panchal that when insisted by RG Shastri, accused no.2 obtained a demand draft for Rs.6300/- from Bank of Baroda Mandvi Branch and along with the forwarding letter and resignation the draft was sent IT is submitted by him that under the threat from CBI office, the accused no.2 agreed to become approver and on 24.9.1980 when he was produced before the learned Magistrate the accused no.2 did not agree to be an approver and thus he became a scapegoat and was falsely involved in the crime. It is also submitted by Mr Panchal that there is no direct evidence connecting accused no.2 and so benefit of doubt be given to accused no.2. It is further submitted by him that the trial court has not considered the important circumstances before passing the order of sentence that this was the first offence alleged to have committed by the appellants and accused no.2 has no past antecedents and he was aged 42 years and he has lost his job, he has four daughters and there is no loss to the CCI and full amount was repaid within one month before launching prosecution and so the appellant had already undergone sufficient mental torture and agony due to losing the job and facing the consequences. Alternatively before this court also Mr Panchal, by filing affidavit, narrated the said facts and also submitted that the offences were committed in April, 1997 and at least more than 30 years have been passed and if this court also upholds the findings of the trial court, then considering the above facts and circumstances, he requested reduction of the sentence awarded to accused no.2.
12. So far as accused No.3 is concerned, it appears that he, under the instructions of the superior officer, carried out the work and it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that he has made false signature of Suleman Malangbhai in opening fictitious bank account and also in the withdrawal slip he forged the signature of 'Suleman Malangbhai and there is discrepancy in the evidence by the handwriting expert and so accused no.3 also is entitled to benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the case against accused no.3.
13. Mr Y N Ravani, learned Counsel for the CBI submitted that the judgment and order passed by the trial court is legal, proper and valid and it does not call for any interference by this court and the appeals deserve to be dismissed.
14. This court has gone through the entire evidence on record and the judgment and order passed by the trial court. Learned trial Judge has minutely went through the evidence and appreciated the evidence in its true perspectives and thereafter rightly came to the conclusion that both the accused are guilty.
15. In light of these arguments, let us discuss the evidence. Evidence of PW 20-Exh.272 is very important. As per the evidence of this witness, he was working as Talati-cum-Mantri in village Vachh, Vagara Taluka. During the period from 5.8.1974 to 15.7.1981 he was Talati-cum-Mantri in village Kora. As per the evidence of this witness, the said village has population of 1200 and most of the persons are farmers. According to his evidence, out of this 1200, 35 persons are muslims and he knows each and every one of the said village. He has stated before the court on oath that no person named Suleman Malangbhai Mansuri is residing at Kora village. Nothing has come out in the cross examination which led this court not to believe the evidence of this witness. From the evidence of this witness, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that during the period from 5.8.1974 to 15.7.1981 in village Kora, no person having name of Suleman Malangbhai was on record or in existence. It is rightly held by the trial court that there is no possibility of committing error in writing name in the bill of purchase of 49.65 quintals cotton. To prove whether Nabipur Centre of CCI has in fact purchased 49.65 quintals Digvijay cotton or not, the prosecution has produced documentary evidence as well as oral evidence and from these evidence, particularly from the weighment register of the society produced on record, the entries and notes are proved by the prosecution. It is rightly held by the trial court that the notes and the entries in this register are duplicate or are wrong. On page No.113 to 126, weighment register, the entries and notes are produced. As per these entires, one Hajiwali Valibhai Ibrahim sold cotton to the Nabipur Centre of CCI. As per this document, total of 167 bullock carts of cotton were shown as income and previous income was shown as 166 bullock carts. Before purchasing cotton from Hajivali, income of cotton was shown as 3939/86 quintals. After purchasing cotton from Hajivali, the income of cotton was shown as 3942/47 quintals. The entry/notes which are produced at Exh.276 shows the summary of the income of cotton including the bullock carts. In this document there is no entry of alleged cotton which was purchased from Suleman Malangbhai and there is no entry of income of cotton in the weighment register also. If such a transaction has taken place on 27.4.1977, then definitely clear notes/entries would have been made. The prosecution has also examined PW 16-Suleman Malangbhai Mansuri of Baroda. As per the evidence of this witness, he is resident of Baroda and he studied upto 4th standard but because of his experience he is working as Additional Asstt.Engineer, Municipal Corporation and he worked as Foreman in Baroda Municipal Corporation. As per evidence of this witness, till 1980 he was serving in Baroda Municipal Corporation. This witness has stated on oath before the court that in District Baroda, he is not having any agricultural land and no relative of him is residing at Nabipur. As far as evidence of this witness is concerned, no incident of purchasing or selling of cotton has ever taken place. So from the evidence of this witness also it is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that in village Kora, no person in the name of Suleman Malangbhai was residing or no such person in the name of Suleman Malangbhai ever had come to the centre of Nabipur village of CCI for selling cotton and no person sold 49.65 quintals of cotton at Nabipur Centre of CCI.
16. As discussed above, if such cotton is purchased by the Nabipur Centre of CCI, then certainly there should have been entries and notes in the relevant register and advice note of purchase also would have been there on record. It is pertinent to note that on 27.4.1977 at Nabipur centre of CCI, one RG Shastri, Apprentice Cotton Selector, accused No.2-Brijendrakumar Arrwatia, Incharge Cotton Selector were working and accused No.3-Kanchanbhai J Patel, peon was working on daily wage basis. All these three persons were working and sitting in one room of the Nabipur centre of CCI. It is not in dispute that on 27.4.1977, accused no.3-Kanchanbhai Patel and one RG Shastri were present at Nabipur centre. As per the defence of accused no.2, on 25.4.177 and on 27.4.1977, because of stomach pain, he went to Bharuch for taking treatment from Dr.Taylor. It is specifically stated in his defence that on 27.4.1977 in the morning he left for Bharuch and returned to Nabipur in the evening which shows that he was not consulted regarding the alleged purchase of cotton and no transaction or any writing has taken place in his presence and he was not knowing anything regarding any such transaction. In view of the above, it is rightly held by the trial court that his defence is neither plausible nor believable. The trial court has held that on 27.4.1977, accused no.2 has not sent any leave note before leaving the place of his work or thereafter he had put in any leave note. Even later on he has not informed about his leave or about his absence on 27.4.1977 in the Nabipur centre. In support of his defence, bare words of accused no.2 is not sufficient but some reliable documents or evidence is required to be produced by accused no.2. Accused no.2 has not examined Dr. Taylor nor produced any evidence which suggests that he was not present on 27.4.1977 at the centre. The trial court has rightly held that when the accused should take plea of alibi, then under the provisions of Evidence Act, the burden to prove the alibi, is on the accused. It is true that in the documents which are produced in connection with the transactions or correspondence which took place on 27.4.1977, handwriting of accused no.2 was not proved by the complainant and no expert opinion is also there against accused no.2. But merely because the prosecution is not able to establish that these handwritings were of accused No.2 or handwriting expert's opinion is not obtained, then it could not be said that accused No.2 was not present on the day of the alleged transaction at the Nabipur centre of CCI. There is substance in the argument of the defence that the alleged transaction which took place on 27.4.1977 and during the period of interval, the documents were made. It is rightly held by the trial court that all the documents and the telegram were sent/written on the same day and thus, there are all possibilities to come to the conclusion that accused no.2 was present on that particular day and that he was very much involved in the crime of alleged purchase of cotton.
17. Exh.86 is a letter written by accused no.2 on 25.5.1977 to the Asstt.Manager, CCI, Nabipur. With this letter he returned Rs. 24,800-18 by way of two demand drafts. In this letter it is specifically stated by accused no.2 that since the kapas supplied by Suleman Mohanbhai was found to be of inferior quality, later on the party was asked to take it back and they have now taken it back and refunded the amount. In this letter he has also expressed his sincere apology for the mistake due to negligence. It is rightly held by the trial court that as per the defence of accused no.2, if RG Shastri took money and handed it over to accused no.2 for obtaining Demand Draft, then, accused no.2 certainly would have mentioned name of RG Shastri in draft voucher but in the letter Exh.86, he has not mentioned that he received money through RG Shastri. In natural course, he has narrated the facts in this letter. The learned Judge has rightly held that Exhs. 86,87 and 88 itself speak so many things regarding the guilt of the accused. When no person having name of Suleman Mohanbhai, the question of returning the alleged cotton to the seller and getting back the money from the seller does not arise. Thus, there is prima facie case against accused no.2 and it is proved that accused no.2 is very much connected with the crime.
18. A contention is raised by the appellant-accused no.3, Kanchanbhai Patel in Criminal Appeal No.1371 of 1984 that when the charge of criminal conspiracy of the offence under section 120B of IPC is not proved, this accused cannot be held guilty for the other charges levelled against him and thus the trial court has committed error in convicting him. It is also contended that the evidence of witness Hajivali Ibrahim is highly improbable and it does not inspire confidence and the trial court has committed error in relying upon evidence of this witness and convicting the accused. It is also contended that the witness Hajivali did not introduce the appellant-accused at the time of opening the Bank account in Nabipur branch but he introduced Suleman or some other person and the prosecution has, thus failed to prove the connection of accused no.3 in opening the bank account in the Bank of Baroda. It is also contended that the learned Judge has erred in believing the evidence of handwriting expert in drawing opinion against accused no.3.
19. In light of these arguments, let us discuss the evidence against accused no.3. First of all, if the evidence of PW 26-Madhusudanlal K Sharma, Asstt.Government Examiner of the questioned documents at Exh.289 is seen, it is stated by him that he was performing his duty as handwriting expert at Hyderabad during the period from 1976 to 30.4.1984 On going through the evidence of this witness and considering his report which is at Exh.294 (in support of his report, reasons are mentioned by him which is at Exh.295), the trial court has rightly held that evidence of this witness is trustworthy and it can be totally accepted. Through the evidence of this witness, it is proved by the prosecution that the handwritings at Exhs. 73,74, 197 and 20 (daily purchase return), are of accused no.3. As per the evidence of this witness Exh.203 which is the back portion of the card of Bank of Baroda, Nabipur Branch, in which in capital letters it is written that 'Suleman Malangbhai' are handwritings of accused no.3. Exh.205 is the withdrawal form in which the handwriting of forged signature of Suleman Malangbhai is also of accused no.3. In Exh.280, receipt of cotton in which the handwriting of accused no.3 is found. Exh.292 which is a voucher for obtaining Demand Draft from Bank of Baroda, is also found to be handwriting of accused No.3. As per the evidence of this witness, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that the forged documents were prepared by accused no.3 in the crime. The trial court has also discussed the evidence of PW 1-Haji Valibhai Ibrahim and through the evidence of this witness it is also proved that accused no.3 has played a vital role in opening account with Bank of Baroda Nabipur branch in fictitious name by forging signature of Suleman.
20. This court has gone through the entire judgment and order passed by the Special Judge as well as the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the trial court has minutely discussed the entire evidence on record and thereafter came to the conclusion that the accused No.1 is required to be acquitted and accused no.2 and 3 are involved in the crime. In the opinion of this court, when the evidence of the witnesses was appreciated by the trial court in its true perspectives, this court should not interfere with the findings arrived at by the trial court and the appeals deserve to be dismissed.
21. At this juncture, accused No.2-Brijendrakumar Arrawatia, requested the court for imposing lesser punishment by filing affidavit before this court in which also he has stated that he is aged 68 years and the offences alleged in the present offences were of 1997 i.e. 31 years back, that the appeal challenging the conviction is filed in 1984 and so practically 24 years have passed. He also stated that the alleged amount is also deposited and paid to the department and in fact no loss was caused to the department and so also a lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that his wife is of 62 years old and he has six daughters out of which one is still unmarried and during all these 31 years, his financial, social and economic condition is ruined and deteriorated and so also requested the court to reduce the sentence.
22. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances and as the amount is totally repaid to the department and as this accused had resigned at the time of launching prosecution, in the opinion of this court, in the interest of justice, the sentence is required to be reduced.
23. So far as accused no. 3 is concerned, in the opinion of this court, taking into consideration the mental agony which he suffered during these years and as he was a peon at the relevant time in the department and the amount also was repaid, in the opinion of this court, the sentence awarded to accused no.3 also is required to be reduced.
24. In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed. So far as the sentence part is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, while upholding the conviction, this court reduces the sentences of six months imposed on each of the accused by the learned Special Judge by order dated 10.9.1984 in Special Case No.5 of 1980 to four months, for each offence. Rest of the judgment and order of the trial court stands confirmed. Direct service is permitted to the CBI.
[M.D.
SHAH, J.] msp Top