Ram Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 819 of 1995
(From the judgment and Order dated 10.12.90 of the Patna High Court in Crl. A. No. 3 of 1984)
(From the judgment and Order dated 10.12.90 of the Patna High Court in Crl. A. No. 3 of 1984)
Petitioner: Ram Prakash Singh
Respondent: State of Bihar
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 819 of 1995
(From the judgment and Order dated 10.12.90 of the Patna High Court in Crl. A. No. 3 of 1984)
(From the judgment and Order dated 10.12.90 of the Patna High Court in Crl. A. No. 3 of 1984)
Judges: M.M. PUNCHHI & S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 24, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. U.R. Lalit, Senior Advocate, Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocates with him for the appellant;
Mr. H.L. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate (Mr. Kunwar Rajesh Singh) Advocate for Mr. B.B. Singh, Advocate with him for the Respond-ent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code
Indian Penal Code
Sections 120 B and 420, 511- Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 5(1)(d), 5(3A)/5(2) – Insurance Act Section 104 – Devel-opment officer of L.I.C. submitting fake insurance proposals on the lives of non existent persons to earn promotion – Held Courts below justified in their view about deliberate attempts made by appellant and as a part of conspiracy to introduce fake proposals to inflate insurance business – Conviction up
Held:
However considering that the offence related to 1974 and the appellant was likely to lose his retiring benefits, the sentence is reduced to six months simple imprisonments to meet ends of justice.
HELD –
JUDGEMENT:
S.P. KURDUKAR, J.:
1. This Criminal appeal by Special Leave is filed by the ap-pellant (accused) challenging the judgment and order of his conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna, and on appeal confirmed by the High Court of Patna for offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 420 IPC read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act: 420/511 IPC, 468, 477-A IPC; 5(3A)/5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act punishable under Section 5(2) of the said Act and under Section 104 of the Insurance Act. The appellant was sentenced for vari-ous terms of RI on all these counts and the maximum sentence was being two years. All sentences were ordered to run concur-rently. The offences in question were alleged to have been committed by the appellant in 1974.
2. The appellant at the relevant time was working as Develop-ment Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short ‘LIC’). Dip Narain Singh who was co-accused was also working with LIC as Assistant Branch Manager, Patna. It was alleged by the prosecution that both these accused batched a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance thereof introduced some false and fake insurance proposals to the Corporation in the name of non-existing person as also without the knowledge and consent of the insurance in order to earn undue credit and promotions in the LIC on the basis of their inflated business.
3. The three proposals introduced by the appellant were the subject matter of criminal trial. (1) The proposal No. 107913/518 (Ex. 6) on the life of Sanjay Prasad son of Ganesh Prasad for a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs, (2) the proposal No. 107705/518 (Ex. 6/1) on the life of Suresh Chandra Bajaj, a non-existent and fictitious person for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs and (3) proposal No. 109417/518 (marked Ex. 3) on the life of Sanjay Kumar son of Gulzarbagh for a sum of Rs. one lac. In this appeal, we are however concerned with the proposal Nos. 1 and 2. It was alleged by the prosecution that proposal No. 107913/518 (Ex.60) on the life of Sanjay Prasad under guardianship of Father Ganesh Prasad (PW 10) was for a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs. The said proposal was introduced without the knowledge and consent of Ganesh Prasad and a signature on the proposal form was forged one. This proposal was faked one. The proposal form (Ex. 8/1), the Moral Hazard Report (Ex. 7), the personal statement regarding the health were forged by the appellant. Ganesh Prasad (PW 10) disowned the proposal and signature thereon. The first premium cheque of Rs. 4575/- drawn on account No. 20/3 on Allahabad Bank was disho-noured for want of sufficient funds. The second cheque of Rs. 4100/- on Punjab National Bank was also dishonoured. Since both the cheques towards the First premium were dishonoured, the insurance policy was not issued.
4. The second proposal No. 107705/518 (Ex. 6/1) was in the name of a fictitious person Suresh Chandra Bajaj for Rs. 2 lacs. This proposal was written by the appellant and the signature of a fictitious person purported to be of Bhagwandin Bajaj was also forged. Chinta Kumari was the agent of this proposal. The cheques towards the first premium were dishonoured and according-ly the insurance policy was not issued. It was averred by the prosecution that the dishonoured cheques were issued by the appellant. the introduction of the proposals and Moral Hazard Reports were prepared by the appellant and Dip Narain Singh knowingly that both these proposals were fake. This was done by them with a view to show the inflated business and earn promo-tions. The LIC after coming to know about these proposals, lodged the FIR against the appellant and Dip Narain Singh. After completing the investigation, the appellant and Dip Narain Singh were put up for trial for the aforesaid offences.
5. The appellant denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he did not commit any offence of cheating, forgery or prepared the fraudulent documents. He was falsely implicated in the present crime at the behest of Mr. J.P.Shah, the superior officer in the LIC at Patna who was not having good equation with him. While imparting training to the insurance Agents, he was required to fill in the forms and while doing so, he had filled in the proposal forms which were rough work. Somebody without his knowledge submitted these proposals to implicate him in the present crime. He further stated that there was neither any loss to the Corporation nor any pecuniary gain to him from these proposals. He pleaded that he was innocent and he be acquitted.
6. The prosecution in support of its case examined 24 witnesses including the hand writing expert and produced on record the original proposal forms in respect of these two proposals. The appellant examined five witnesses in support of his defence.
7. The Special Judge, Patna, after scrutinizing the oral and other documentary evidence on record by his judgment and order dated December 10, 1990, convicted the appellant for the charged offences and sentenced him on each count for various terms of sentences maximum being three years. All substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The criminal appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court of Patna was dismissed but, however, the High Court substituted the sentence of three years RI to two years RI. Subject to this modification, the appeal was dismissed. It is against these two concurrent judgments, the appellant has filed this appeal in this Court.
8. We have gone through the judgments of the courts below very carefully and other materials on record. The High Court in its exhaustive judgment has discussed threadbare all the points very carefully and concluded that the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge did not call for any interference subject to reduc-tion of sentence as indicated above. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
9. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the prose-cution had failed to prove that the appellant had forged the signatures on these two proposals. The hand writing expert had also opined that the signatures on both these two proposals could not be conclusively said to be that of the appellant. In this view of the matter, it was urged that the appellant could not have been convicted either under Section 420 or under Sections 468, 4/1 or 477 A simplicitor or with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. This submission is without any substance because the propo-sal No. 107705/518 (Ex. 6/1) was admittedly in the name of a non-existent person. It was not seriously challenged before us on the basis of the opinion of the hand writing expert that the contents of this proposals were in the hand writing of the ap-pellant, although the signature could not proved to be in the hand writing of the appellant. This proposal was introduced by Chinta Kumari the agent. Admittedly, the appellant had submitted a Moral Hazard Report under his own signature. It is true that Chinta Kumari, the agent who sponsored this proposal was not examined. This factor was also taken into account by the courts below. The defence of the appellant was that he was then impart-ing training to the newly recruited agents and in that process, he had filled in the proposal forms. It was a rough work which was not to be used for any purpose much less for sponsoring the proposal. As regards the defence plea of training to be given by Development Officer (the appellant) to the newly recruited agents, both the courts below have concurrently held that it was never the practice nor it was obligatory upon the appellant to give such training nor fill in the proposal forms. The High Court in its judgment has extensively dealt with this issue and after discussing the evidence of K.S.S.Sinha (PW4) and other materials on record held that the claim of appellant that he was giving training to the newly recruited insurance agents could not be accepted. We are in agreement with this finding. There was no denial on behalf of the appellant that he had submitted the Moral Hazard Report. The said report did mention the fact that insurer Suresh Chandra Bajaj was a living person at the time of proposal. It could not be accepted that the appellant had made no inquiries about the existence of the insurer. It was, there-fore, rightly held that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant and also a part of conspiracy to introduce such fake proposal with a view to inflate the insurance business and earn the promotion.
10. As regards proposal No. 107913/518 (Ex. 6) on Sanjay Prasad son of Ganesh Prasad, it was found by the courts below that Ganesh Prasad (PW 10) had never consented to such proposal. He, however, admitted that he had issued the cheque for the premium but according to him, he was told by the appellant that this premium was in respect of his own policy. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that Ganesh Prasad (PW10) had given his evidence in the departmental enquiry stating that he consented to the said policy and on the basis of this evidence, the appellant was exenerated. As against this, in the present trial, Ganesh Prasad (PW10) had given a contrary statement. Taking clue therefrom, it was urged that the evidence of Ganesh Prasad be rejected. We have gone through the evidence of Ganesh Prasad (PW 10). We find that the explanation given by him was acceptable and the courts below have committed no error in accepting his evidence as credible one.
11. It was then contended in support of this appeal that there was no loss to the Corporation since the insurance policies were not issued. It was also urged that the appellant also did not gain any benefit out of these proposals. It is true that the policies were not issued and, therefore, no benefit as such was accrued to the appellant but the LIC had led evidence before the court to show that the Corporation had to spend money on station-ery as well as the clearance charges etc. It was in these cir-cumstances, the High Court had held that there was a loss, might be negligible, to the Corporation but the fact remains that the appellant sought to take advantage of his inflated business for the year 1974. We are in agreement with this finding.
12. It was then contended for the appellant that there was no valid sanction to prosecute the appellant. To be more precise, the contention was that the letter of sanction produced on record suffers from non-application of mind to the materials placed before the sanctioning authority. We see no substance in this contention also because sanctioning authority after considering the materials on record accorded the sanction to prosecute the appellant.
13. It needs to be emphasised that the appellant being a Devel-opment Officer owed a greater responsibility to the LIC as well as to the clients and any such faked or forged proposals bound to harm the reputation of the LIC. It is an these circumstances, in our opinion, the courts below were right in convicting the ap-pellant for the offences for which he was tried.
14. Coming to the question of sentence, it needs to be noted that the occurrence took place some time in 1974 and the charge sheet was filed in the year 1977. More than twenty years have passed. Besides this, by reason of conviction, the appellant may loose his job and other retiral benefits, if any. From the judgment of the Trial Court, it appears that the appellant was then 44 years old. By now, he might have been superannuated or likely to be superannuated. Bearing in mind the passage of time, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellant is altered to simple imprisonment for six months on each count for which he was found guilty by the courts below.
15. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we maintain the con-viction of the appellant on each count but altered the sentence to six months simple imprisonment on each count. All sentences to run concurrently. Subject to this modification in the sen-tence, the appeal to stand dismissed. Appellant to surrender to his bailbonds to serve out the remaining part of the sentence, if any.
1. This Criminal appeal by Special Leave is filed by the ap-pellant (accused) challenging the judgment and order of his conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna, and on appeal confirmed by the High Court of Patna for offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 420 IPC read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act: 420/511 IPC, 468, 477-A IPC; 5(3A)/5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act punishable under Section 5(2) of the said Act and under Section 104 of the Insurance Act. The appellant was sentenced for vari-ous terms of RI on all these counts and the maximum sentence was being two years. All sentences were ordered to run concur-rently. The offences in question were alleged to have been committed by the appellant in 1974.
2. The appellant at the relevant time was working as Develop-ment Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short ‘LIC’). Dip Narain Singh who was co-accused was also working with LIC as Assistant Branch Manager, Patna. It was alleged by the prosecution that both these accused batched a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance thereof introduced some false and fake insurance proposals to the Corporation in the name of non-existing person as also without the knowledge and consent of the insurance in order to earn undue credit and promotions in the LIC on the basis of their inflated business.
3. The three proposals introduced by the appellant were the subject matter of criminal trial. (1) The proposal No. 107913/518 (Ex. 6) on the life of Sanjay Prasad son of Ganesh Prasad for a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs, (2) the proposal No. 107705/518 (Ex. 6/1) on the life of Suresh Chandra Bajaj, a non-existent and fictitious person for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs and (3) proposal No. 109417/518 (marked Ex. 3) on the life of Sanjay Kumar son of Gulzarbagh for a sum of Rs. one lac. In this appeal, we are however concerned with the proposal Nos. 1 and 2. It was alleged by the prosecution that proposal No. 107913/518 (Ex.60) on the life of Sanjay Prasad under guardianship of Father Ganesh Prasad (PW 10) was for a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs. The said proposal was introduced without the knowledge and consent of Ganesh Prasad and a signature on the proposal form was forged one. This proposal was faked one. The proposal form (Ex. 8/1), the Moral Hazard Report (Ex. 7), the personal statement regarding the health were forged by the appellant. Ganesh Prasad (PW 10) disowned the proposal and signature thereon. The first premium cheque of Rs. 4575/- drawn on account No. 20/3 on Allahabad Bank was disho-noured for want of sufficient funds. The second cheque of Rs. 4100/- on Punjab National Bank was also dishonoured. Since both the cheques towards the First premium were dishonoured, the insurance policy was not issued.
4. The second proposal No. 107705/518 (Ex. 6/1) was in the name of a fictitious person Suresh Chandra Bajaj for Rs. 2 lacs. This proposal was written by the appellant and the signature of a fictitious person purported to be of Bhagwandin Bajaj was also forged. Chinta Kumari was the agent of this proposal. The cheques towards the first premium were dishonoured and according-ly the insurance policy was not issued. It was averred by the prosecution that the dishonoured cheques were issued by the appellant. the introduction of the proposals and Moral Hazard Reports were prepared by the appellant and Dip Narain Singh knowingly that both these proposals were fake. This was done by them with a view to show the inflated business and earn promo-tions. The LIC after coming to know about these proposals, lodged the FIR against the appellant and Dip Narain Singh. After completing the investigation, the appellant and Dip Narain Singh were put up for trial for the aforesaid offences.
5. The appellant denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he did not commit any offence of cheating, forgery or prepared the fraudulent documents. He was falsely implicated in the present crime at the behest of Mr. J.P.Shah, the superior officer in the LIC at Patna who was not having good equation with him. While imparting training to the insurance Agents, he was required to fill in the forms and while doing so, he had filled in the proposal forms which were rough work. Somebody without his knowledge submitted these proposals to implicate him in the present crime. He further stated that there was neither any loss to the Corporation nor any pecuniary gain to him from these proposals. He pleaded that he was innocent and he be acquitted.
6. The prosecution in support of its case examined 24 witnesses including the hand writing expert and produced on record the original proposal forms in respect of these two proposals. The appellant examined five witnesses in support of his defence.
7. The Special Judge, Patna, after scrutinizing the oral and other documentary evidence on record by his judgment and order dated December 10, 1990, convicted the appellant for the charged offences and sentenced him on each count for various terms of sentences maximum being three years. All substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The criminal appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court of Patna was dismissed but, however, the High Court substituted the sentence of three years RI to two years RI. Subject to this modification, the appeal was dismissed. It is against these two concurrent judgments, the appellant has filed this appeal in this Court.
8. We have gone through the judgments of the courts below very carefully and other materials on record. The High Court in its exhaustive judgment has discussed threadbare all the points very carefully and concluded that the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge did not call for any interference subject to reduc-tion of sentence as indicated above. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
9. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the prose-cution had failed to prove that the appellant had forged the signatures on these two proposals. The hand writing expert had also opined that the signatures on both these two proposals could not be conclusively said to be that of the appellant. In this view of the matter, it was urged that the appellant could not have been convicted either under Section 420 or under Sections 468, 4/1 or 477 A simplicitor or with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. This submission is without any substance because the propo-sal No. 107705/518 (Ex. 6/1) was admittedly in the name of a non-existent person. It was not seriously challenged before us on the basis of the opinion of the hand writing expert that the contents of this proposals were in the hand writing of the ap-pellant, although the signature could not proved to be in the hand writing of the appellant. This proposal was introduced by Chinta Kumari the agent. Admittedly, the appellant had submitted a Moral Hazard Report under his own signature. It is true that Chinta Kumari, the agent who sponsored this proposal was not examined. This factor was also taken into account by the courts below. The defence of the appellant was that he was then impart-ing training to the newly recruited agents and in that process, he had filled in the proposal forms. It was a rough work which was not to be used for any purpose much less for sponsoring the proposal. As regards the defence plea of training to be given by Development Officer (the appellant) to the newly recruited agents, both the courts below have concurrently held that it was never the practice nor it was obligatory upon the appellant to give such training nor fill in the proposal forms. The High Court in its judgment has extensively dealt with this issue and after discussing the evidence of K.S.S.Sinha (PW4) and other materials on record held that the claim of appellant that he was giving training to the newly recruited insurance agents could not be accepted. We are in agreement with this finding. There was no denial on behalf of the appellant that he had submitted the Moral Hazard Report. The said report did mention the fact that insurer Suresh Chandra Bajaj was a living person at the time of proposal. It could not be accepted that the appellant had made no inquiries about the existence of the insurer. It was, there-fore, rightly held that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant and also a part of conspiracy to introduce such fake proposal with a view to inflate the insurance business and earn the promotion.
10. As regards proposal No. 107913/518 (Ex. 6) on Sanjay Prasad son of Ganesh Prasad, it was found by the courts below that Ganesh Prasad (PW 10) had never consented to such proposal. He, however, admitted that he had issued the cheque for the premium but according to him, he was told by the appellant that this premium was in respect of his own policy. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that Ganesh Prasad (PW10) had given his evidence in the departmental enquiry stating that he consented to the said policy and on the basis of this evidence, the appellant was exenerated. As against this, in the present trial, Ganesh Prasad (PW10) had given a contrary statement. Taking clue therefrom, it was urged that the evidence of Ganesh Prasad be rejected. We have gone through the evidence of Ganesh Prasad (PW 10). We find that the explanation given by him was acceptable and the courts below have committed no error in accepting his evidence as credible one.
11. It was then contended in support of this appeal that there was no loss to the Corporation since the insurance policies were not issued. It was also urged that the appellant also did not gain any benefit out of these proposals. It is true that the policies were not issued and, therefore, no benefit as such was accrued to the appellant but the LIC had led evidence before the court to show that the Corporation had to spend money on station-ery as well as the clearance charges etc. It was in these cir-cumstances, the High Court had held that there was a loss, might be negligible, to the Corporation but the fact remains that the appellant sought to take advantage of his inflated business for the year 1974. We are in agreement with this finding.
12. It was then contended for the appellant that there was no valid sanction to prosecute the appellant. To be more precise, the contention was that the letter of sanction produced on record suffers from non-application of mind to the materials placed before the sanctioning authority. We see no substance in this contention also because sanctioning authority after considering the materials on record accorded the sanction to prosecute the appellant.
13. It needs to be emphasised that the appellant being a Devel-opment Officer owed a greater responsibility to the LIC as well as to the clients and any such faked or forged proposals bound to harm the reputation of the LIC. It is an these circumstances, in our opinion, the courts below were right in convicting the ap-pellant for the offences for which he was tried.
14. Coming to the question of sentence, it needs to be noted that the occurrence took place some time in 1974 and the charge sheet was filed in the year 1977. More than twenty years have passed. Besides this, by reason of conviction, the appellant may loose his job and other retiral benefits, if any. From the judgment of the Trial Court, it appears that the appellant was then 44 years old. By now, he might have been superannuated or likely to be superannuated. Bearing in mind the passage of time, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellant is altered to simple imprisonment for six months on each count for which he was found guilty by the courts below.
15. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we maintain the con-viction of the appellant on each count but altered the sentence to six months simple imprisonment on each count. All sentences to run concurrently. Subject to this modification in the sen-tence, the appeal to stand dismissed. Appellant to surrender to his bailbonds to serve out the remaining part of the sentence, if any.
