9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating the substantial portion of huge reward of Rupees One Crore. The coda to the story is that their ill-conceived plan goes berserk and they land in the water too deep to stand in. 2. The prosecution narrative bearing on the indictment of the accused runs thus : - The circulars issued by Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India from time to time provided for incentives to the informers for furnishing secret information to the Customs Officers in the matter of smuggling of foreign goods such as gold etc., and contraband articles. Such an effective and salutary measure was conceived of by the Govt. of India to check and prevent smuggling activities across the shore. It is also the case of prosecution that accused took this advantage of such innovative procedure adopted by the Customs Department in the matter of being absolutely secretive regarding the identity of the informer so as to ensure the safety and security of the informer. Accused No. 1 to 3 hatched a conspiracy in pursuance of their conspiratorial agreement, fabricated records purporting to evidence payment of large reward amount of Rs. One Crore to two informers. The case spelt out by the prosecution is that the secret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough there is no prescribed rule to obtain the receipts/acknowledgement separately. As the accused employed machination to show dubious disbursement of the said amount they fabricated documents to create an impression of such documents being genuine. The left thumb impressions of alleged Informer No. 1 on payment vouchers were dishonestly identified by Sri G.B. Joshi (A3) and witnessed by R.J. Manohar (A2). According to the prosecution, a breakthough in the investigation further unfolded the fact that on 1-8-1988 a DD of Rs. 11 Lakshs was encashed at SBI. Mangalore by Sri A. Selvarajan, Executive Officer, Customs and the amount was handed over to Sri R.J. Manohar (A2) in the customs office after obtaining acknowledgement in the disbursement register. Again R.J. Manohar (A2) was entrusted with the said amount of Rs. 11 Lakhs which was disbursed by Sri J.P. Kaushik (A1) to the alleged Informer No. 2, Sri G.N.Z. Pookoya whose left thumb impression was obtained on the back of the information slip and on Annexure B. The left thumb impression of Pookoya was identified by G.B. Joshi (A3) and witnessed by R.J. Manohar (A2). To cover both the disbursements dated 29-7-1988 and 1-8-1988 to I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of Rs. 45 Lakhs at his residence on 17-11-1989 made an entry in the office to that effect in the Disbursement Register at page No. 83. Such entry is dated 17-11-1989. All the three accused thereafter came to Udupi and split the amount of Rs. 45 Lakhs into Rs. 35 Lakhs and Rs. 9 Lakhs and Rs. 36 Lakhs was dishonestly appropriated by the accused. J.P. Kaushik (A1) dishonestly disbursed Rs. 36 Lakhs to Informer No. 1 a fictitious person and a left thumb impression was obtained on the back of information slip as well as in Proforma Annexure-B. The left thumb impression appearing on payment vouchers were dishonestly and falsely identified by G.B. Joshi (A3) and falsely witnessed by Sri R.J. Manohar (A2). All these overts acts were committed by Accused No. 1 to 3 in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy Rs. 9 Lakhs was disbursed by Accused No. 2 to Informer No. 2 Sri Pookoya J.P. Kaushik (A2) dishonestly issued false disbursement certificate in the form of Annexure-A and mentioned therein the words for having made the payment of Rs. 45 Lakhs on 18-11-1989 to the right informer from whom receipt was obtained J.P. Kaushik obtained such disbursement certificate without quantifying the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not plead guilty to the charge and further claimed to be tried. 5. At the trial, prosecution examined as many as 48 witnesses and the documents received in evidence were marked Ex. P. 1. to P142. As against such evidence, six documents were produced on the side of defence as Ex.D1 to D6. The statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr. P.C., was recorded after prosecution adduced evidence on its side. Arguments were canvassed on both sides. 6. The following points admit of being formulated : (1) Does prosecution prove the validity of sanction for prosecution of A2? (2) Does prosecution prove the criminal conspiracy hatched by Accused No. 1 to 3 to defraud the Department of Customs as alleged so as to constitute offences under Section 120-B IPC? (3) Does prosecution prove that accused No. 1 to 3 having dominion over the property in their capacity as public servants committed criminal breach of trust in respect of such property within the contemplation of Section 409 IPC? (4) Does prosecution further prove that Accused No. 1 to 3 in furtherance of the criminal conspir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion order produced at Ex. P122. It is of relevance to notice that there is no independent cross-examination by counsel for A2 and it was submitted that the cross-examination made by learned counsel to Accused No. 1 was being adopted by Accused No. 2. This witness is merely competent to authenticate the sanction order. So what looked into is only the sanction order and not the evidence of this witness bearing on the application of the mind to the sufficiency of the material relating to the allegations against the accused. It is of pertinence to notice that nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of this material witness regarding the doubtful nature of the sanction order produced at Ex.P. 122. No contention is canvassed which qualifies as a legal argument in the context of the sanction order produced at Ex. P. 122. I therefore feel no hesitation to reach my conclusion that the sanction order for prosecution of A2 produced at Ex.P. 122 is valid and proper. Accordingly this point is answered in the affirmative. 8. POINT No. 2 TO 8 : - As the findings on Point No. 1 to 7 depend on the analysis of common evidence, they are tried together. At the trial, prosecution exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble High Court and sought appropriate direction to the Customs Officer to grant reward amount to him on the specious plea that he was the sole informer. The testimony of P.W. 1 to 3 would satisfactorily bear out the fact that the advance reward amount of Rs. 55 Lakhs and the balance of Rs. 45 Lakhs as part of the final reward amount of Rs. One Crore was withdrawn. P.W. 4 who is the Personal Assistant of Accused No. 3 would identify the three accused. The evidence of P.W. 5 who was the Administrative Officer in the office of Additional Collector of Customs at Mangalore during the relevant period 1988-1989 would reveal that he was also designated as Drawing Disbursement officer (DDO). His evidence is reflective of the fact that along with the letter produced at Ex. P. 10, a Demand Draft for Rs. 45 Lakhs as per Ex.P. 9 was received by him. His evidence would further reveal that after encashment of the said DD, the entire amount of Rs. 45 Lakhs was handed to Accused No. 2. He has adverted to local disbursement register of Mangalore Customs produced at Ex.P. 31 and has further referred to the endorsement produced at Ex. P. 131(b) and has identified his signature at Ex. P131(a). His ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of informers is over emphasised and the reward amount is shown to have been disbursed between two informers. Such specific stand of the defence in clearly reflected from material available on record. The Accused No. 1 to 3 who were incharge of the process initiated by the alleged informers and culminating in the reward amount were duty bound to account for the money over which they had dominion. The initial advance reward of Rs. 55 Lakhs was required to be disbursed only after the rewared committee approved the proposal. Mukhopadhyaya (P.W. 10), Sukumar Shankar (P.W. 11) have deposed in a convincing manner that in the relevant meeting which considered the proposal for disbursement of advancing amount of Rs. 55 Lakhs, there was no mention on discussion about the apportionment of the reward amount between two informers. Ex.P. 42, 43 and 47 would offer clinching proof of manipulations resorted to by accused. These material documents coupled with the testimony of P.W. 10, 11 and 12 destroy the main plank of defence theory of plurality of informers. In this context, it may be emphasised that if there was more than one informer as claimed by the defence, the relevant records produced i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rits careful scrutiny is incorporated as hereunder :- As per the DRI-I filed the nature of information given by two informers seems to be identical. As per the endorsement on the envelope containing the original information slip, this was opened by the DPO on 1-2-89 (copy enclosed). As it was opened on behalf of the Committee, the contents must have become known to all the Members. As per this original information slip, both the informers have signed below the information recorded. The text is detailed one and makes it clear that it was not reproduced verbatim completely in the DRI-I filed. The original slip also indicates that the advance reward amount sanctioned was disbursed by the disbursing officer @ Rs. 44 Lacs and Rs. 11 Lacs respectively to two informers. At this stage atleast, the Reward Committee was aware that though the information given by the two informers was identical, yet one informer was given a major part of the reward and the second one was given a smaller portion. This should have been critically examined by the Reward Committee and the earlier mistake should have been rectified. The power to sanction the reward to the informer in this case was with the Commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I has not been despatched from Coondapur, where Shri G.B. Johsi, Inspector was stationed. 4. It is supposed to have been despatched from Mangalore office, which was the Addl. Collector's office. This is highly unusual. 5. The DRI-I was recorded on 4-4-1988 at Coondapur, but sent on 7-4-88, the day of the seizure from Mangalore. This makes it more suspect. 6. The Mangalore file was seen by us at Bangalore office on 28-5-94 and at the very first page, there is a DRI-1. The photocopy of that has been taken by us (ANNEXURE 3B). This DRI-1 does not show any sign of issue. Normally, there will be an indication such as "issued" or some such thing. The fact that there is no such sign of issue anywhere makes it possible that it is a copy later substituted. 7. We have also seen the latter of the Additional Collector, Mangalore (OR No. 3/88 (Pt.), dated 22-2-94, (a photocopy of which is enclosed (ANNEXURE 4) Para 7(i) is reproduced below : "7(ii). However, there is no entry in this Register regarding the receipt of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substitution of DRI-I. The Inward Register bearing No. Nil maintained for the relevant period 1988 by the Personal Assistant to Additional Collector does not show any entry regarding respective DRI-I & DRI-II. Such fact is reflected in Ex.P. 48(a) at Sl. No. 4(ii). Ex.P. 51 is another relevant document which is a joint reply submitted by S. Mukhopadhyay (P.W. 10) and G.S. Tampy (P.W. 12). This joint reply is accompanied by covering letter produced at Ex.P. 50. This material document merits careful scrutiny in the context of the fraudulent overt acts committed by accused. It substantiates in significant measures, the fact that note prepared by the committee members in respect of the proposal was deliberately misplaced. The final reward amount of Rs. 1.10 Crores proposed in the case was restricted to Rs. One Crore and that such decision was taken only after assigning reasons by writing a note and that such note was missing from the file. This material document further reveals the fact that Accused No. 1 did not divulge any information regarding the splitting up of the advance reward in 80:20 proportion between two informers. Had the accused-1 mentioned about such apportionment there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited in the cross-examination of this witnesses to erode his credibility. P.W. 11 would also corroborate the version of P.W. 10 as regards the manipulation of the records by Accused No. 1 in the matter of creating evidence of plurality of informers. His evidence is also reflective of the fact that accused No. 1 had no competence or authority to apportion the reward amount and any apportionment of the reward should have been specifically authorised by the Reward Committee. Some stray and inadvertent statement of this witness in his cross-examination that the committee perused DRI-I, information report and the part played by the informers, cannot do any good to the defence. The testimony of this material witness not only corroborates the testimony of P.W. 10 in material particulars but would also conform to the relevant joint reply produced at Ex.P. 47. 14. The testimony of both P.W. 11 and 12 has substantial bearing on the case of the prosecution. Their evidence would corroborate the testimony of P.W. 10 to establish the various overt acts a attributed to Accused No. 1 and 2 in the matter of fabrication of records and deliberate misplacement of the relevant note restricting th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-1988 and he has also adverted to the endorsement made by Accused No. 2 to the effect 'received information slip'. He would further advert to the work sheet for the calculation of reward amount produced at Ex.P. 39(b) and would make reference to Ex.P. 41(e) which is the minutes of the committee for advance reward to the informers. He would also testify that he had written and put up note by issuing advance reward sanction orders to the informers and he has identified the signature of Mr. Prasanna Kumar who had signed as per Ex.P. 41(b). He would also advert to Ex.P. 52 which is the proposal for sanction of final reward which he received on 11-1-1989. He has identified the initials of Accused No. 1 as per Ex.P. 252(a). He would also advert to Ex.P. 44 which is the final reward proposal. 18. P.W. 16 who worked as Inspector of Customs (Preventives), Kundapur would testify that he was part of the team which kept watch at the church point during the night between 6-4-1988 and 7-4-1988. He would further state that as per the Log Book produced at Ex.P. 65, the Departmental Jeep was used by Accused No. 3 among others on 4-4-1988. He has also adverted to the signature of A3 at Ex.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . P.W. 23 would speak about Outward Register for the period 2-11-1989 to 27-4-1988, marked Ex.P. 77. He has identified the entries in Ex.P. 77(a) as being in his handwriting. He would further assert that as against Sl. No. 5091 after DRI-I, the words 'Joshi Inspector' written inside the bracket were not in his handwriting. The testimony of P.W. 26, 27, 28 and 29 have only little bearing on the prosecution case. Their evidence would only relate to the role of P.W. 25 who is the alleged informer. P.W. 31 is a witness to the search of residence of Accused No. 3. His evidence would have little bearing on the part of the investigation relating to the conduct of search at the residence of Accused No. 3. 24. P.W. 32 would testify about taking of room at Hotel Parag. He would also speak about seizure and carrying reward money. 25. P.W. 34 is a witness who accompanied P.W. 32 to Hotel Parag. The evidence of both P.W. 32 and 34 would substantiate the fact that the reward money was carried in two suit cases and handed over to Accused No. 2. The evidence of this witness would also reveal the presence of accused No. 1 and 3 in the Hotel premises. P.W. 34 would corroborate the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Directorate of Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi would testify regarding the guidelines to the Department in the matter of preparation of Information slip (DRI-I) and disbursement of reward amount. He has adverted to Ex.P. 63 and 64 which are the certified copies of Preventive Manual issued by Govt. of India. His evidence would substantiate the procedure followed by the officers concerned in the Department of Customs. His testimony is also reflective of the fact that the officer who records the secret information received from the informer is know as Recruiting Officer. The information given by the informer will be recorded in DRI-I. He would also admit that the Superior officers are sometimes informed about the Secret Information received. The effect of this statement made in the cross-examination cannot be minimised. It may lead to an inference that the information received by Accused No. 3 was well within the knowledge of his superiors, namely Accused No. 2 and 3. 32. P.W. 47 who was working as Senior Assistant, Lalbagh Branch would testify that the Demand Draft for Rs. 45 Lakhs produced at Ex.P. 9 was presented for encashment in the bank in the name of Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inform that some landing was to take place on that night. The person who received the telephone call asked for some details. He would further assert that on that night some unknown persons had gone to the house of Abdulla. During the night intervening 6th April and 7th April 1988 some officers were waiting in his office for the landing to take place. Mr. Abdulla who had gone to his house did not return. He would further assert that he told the Customs Officers that landing was to take place in the seashore and that they should go there. He would further relate a graphic account of the incident. He would also state that Mr. Dias (P.W. 36), D'Souza (P.W. 16) and Vishwarath (P.W. 17) had waited in the office on that night and they were brought to office of Accused No. 3. His evidence would further reveal that on 7-4-1988 between 10.30 and 11 AM Accused No. 3 along with A3 came to the office of Nageshwara Rao (Accused No. 2) was waiting outside in the car. Subbaiah (CW-2) had already come to his office. His evidence would further reveal that he was asked to affix his LTM on the blank paper and on his refusal he was asked to secure CW-50 Pokoyya. He contacted Pokoyya over phone in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount. The testimony of this material witness assumes pertinence in the context of the fraudulent overt acts of Accused No. 2 and 3 which have substantial bearing on the change. 33. It is of significance to note that there is nothing in the cross-examination of this material witness to deny the payment of Rs. 25,000/- by Accused No. 2 in Hotel Sheron. The witness has testified before this court that the vague impression of the cutlines of the ridges found towards left of thick thumb impression in Ex.P. 21(m) is his thumb mark. He would also assert that the adjacent thick thumb mark is seen by him for the first time and that it does not belong to him. The testimony of this witness is reflective of game plan of accused to deprive him of his legitimate claim or the benefit of reward amount by pacifying him with a paltry sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The conduct of Accused No. 3 in changing his mind in the matter of obtaining the thumb impression of this witness and the subsequent conduct of Accused No. 2 in paying a paltry sum of Rs. 25,000/- in Hotel Sheron at Kundapur would have substantial bearing on the conspiracy hatched by accused to misappropriate the reward amount. It may be hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marked Ex.P. 25(b). It is thus manifestly clear that the left thumb impression of purported first informer are forged ones. As for the left thumb impressions of the purported 2nd informer, the disputed left thumb impressions namely Q7, Q8, Q9 and Q10 have been examined by the Handwriting Expert (P.W. 24) who has clearly opined that out of these five questioned thumb impressions, of the purported 2nd informer, Q6, Q8, Q9 and Q10 tally with the specimen left thumb impressions of CW-50 Pokoyya. However, there is no proof of the other disputed left thumb impression marked Q7 tallying with the specimen left thumb mark of CW-50 Pokoyya. Even if the contents of documents bearing left thumb impressions marked Q6 to Q10 are taken at their face value, they would indicate payment of Rs. 11 Lakhs and Rs. 9 Lakhs to the 2nd informer. In this context, it is of relevance to notice the testimony of P.W. 24 which is reflective of payment of part of reward amount to CW-50 Pokoyya. It may be pointed out at this juncture that prosecution has not examined this material witness (CW-50) for the reason that has been seriously ill having been afflicted by brain tumor. Be that as it may. The testimony of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atal to the prosecution. For prosecution has been able to place satisfactory and convincing material on record to put across its case that Accused No. 1 to 3 who were an instrumental in making recommendations and disbursing of the large reward of One Crore were duty bound to account for proper disbursal of the large sum. The manipulation of records and replacement of original disbursal DRI-I and deliberate misplacement or destruction of relevant nothing put by the members of the committee who examined the proposal for reward are writ large on the face of the record. Accused No. 1 as a sponsoring collector of the customs and member of the committee for considering the reward was in advantageous position to hoodwink the other members of the committee in the matter of disbursement of large reward of Rs. One Crore by engineering the theory of apportionment of the reward between two alleged informers. It may be reemphasised at this juncture that if there was an existence of more than one informer the proposal would have certainly mentioned existence of exact number of informers. Accused No. 1 instead threw all caution to the wind and acted without authority in claiming the disbursal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 stands established. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied on the following decisions in the course of his argument :- (1) AIR 2008 SC 368 (2) AIR 1995 SC 1959 (Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab with Shivakumar v. State of Punjab) (3) 2004 AIR SCW 3006 (AS Krishnan & Others v. State of Kerala) (4) AIR 1957 SC 840 (Evidence Act, u/s 133. Approver Evidence) (5) 2005 Crl. L.J. 1677 (Desraj v. State of J & K) (6) 2005 SC (Crl.) 135 (Alamgir v. State of New Delhi) (7) 1977 (2) SCC 49 (8) AIR 1981 SC 2085 (Ramyi Dayawalar & Sons P. Ltd. v. Invent Import) (9) AIR 2003 SCW 3119 (Ramnarian Poply with Others v. CBI) (10) 1992 (2) SCC 30 (State of A.P. v. Basava Devudu and others) (11) AIR 1978 SC 1183 (12) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) SCC 953 (Paul Verghese v. State of Kerala and Another) 36. Drawing support from the enunciations made in the above decision the learned Special Public Prosecutor canvassed that Accused No. 1 to 3 forged the documents and falsified the accounts for the purpose of cheating and misappropriated the reward amount meant for the informer. The disbursement of 80% of the amount in favour of fictitious informer No. 1, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would emphasise, is established by cogent and satisfactory evidence. The replacement of original DRI-I amounts to creation of false documents, and removal of relevant note would fall within the ambit of offence of destroying evidence under Section 201 IPC. Besides there are several instances of forgery as highlighted in Ex.P. 47. He also submitted that Ex.P. 40 is a fabricated document which has been substituted in place of the original and that Ex.P. 43 has also been substituted by replacing the original. He further highlighted that sealed cover referred to in Ex.P. 41(e) is destroyed by the accused. It was also emphasised by learned Special Public Prosecutor that even if the admitted documents are taken at their face value they w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who preferred the writ petition seeking a direction to the Customs Officer to pay the reward amount to him on the basis that he was the sole informer did not pursue the matter after the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the writ petition with an observation that the claim of P.W. 25 being of civil nature, an appropriate civil proceeding could be instituted for recovery of the reward amount. He highlighted some contradiction in the evidence of P.W. 10 and further convassed that there is no evidence in proof of destruction of minutes of final meeting relating to final reward. 38. The learned defence counsel for Accused-1 has also highlighted in his written arguments that the documents produced at Ex.P. 40. (sic) D2(d), P51(h-1) and Ex.P. 47(e-1) are Photostat copies of the same documents and they were recovered by prosecution in the course of investigation. None of these recoveries have been held by the prosecution to have been tampered with. It is further contended that there is no specific allegation of destruction of DRI-I and the allegations of the prosecution regarding replacement or insertion of documents is without any basis. He has adverted to the testimony of P.W. 13 to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e would satisfactorily establish the fact that there was no disbursement of Rs. 80 Lakhs to the alleged Informer No. 1. At the risk of repetition it may be emphasised that even accepting the contentions of learned counsel Sri Javali that disbursement was made between two informers, prosecution has been successful in establishing the fact that there was no disbursement of 80% of the reward amount of Rs. One Crore to alleged Informer No. 1. 40. As for the written arguments submitted by learned counsel for Accused No. 2, the main thrust of the argument is that the reward was based on the relevant information received by the Recruiting Officer, namely, Accused No. 3 and that recommendation and disbursement of the reward amount between two informers was based on the approval by the committee constituted for consideration of the proposal. It is also highlighted in the written arguments that there is no basis for alleging that DRI-I has been falsified/substituted. It is next contended that there is no effort made by the Investigation Officer to verify the genuineness or otherwise of Ex.P. 40. It is also highlighted that there is sufficient material to bear out the fact that there ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stand cancelled. (Dictated to the Judgment-Writer, transcribed by him corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court this the 15th day of December 2009) ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE : 48. On being heard on the question of sentence. Accused No. 1 submitted that he is 74 and retired from service in the year 1995 and has been attending the court for the last 13 years regularly by travelling all the way from New Delhi. He further submits that he suffered heart attack in the year 1999 and he has been on medication. He would also submit that his wife has breast cancer. 49. Accused No. 2 would submit that he suffered slip disc and is aged 64. Accused further pleads for leniency in the matter of sentence. 50. Accused No. 3 submit that he is 75. He is a heart patient and is diabetic. 51. Having regard to the period of pendency, mitigating circumstances pleaded by accused No. 1 to 3 in the matter of leniency in the sentence, and taking into consideration the gravity of the offences and the magnitude of the fraud, I consider it just and expedient to pass the following : ORDER The punishment of the offence under Section 120B IPC could be similar to the one under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e shall undergo SI for a period of four months. For the offence under Section 467A IPC, Accused No. 2 is convicted and sentenced to udergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-; in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for a period of four months. For the offence under Section 471 IPC, Accused No. 2 is convicted and sentenced to udergo Simple Imprisonment for two years. For the offence under Section 477A IPC, Accused No. 2 is convicted and sentenced to udergo Simple Imprisonment for two years. For the offence under Section 3(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused No. 2 is convicted and sentenced to udergo simple imprisonment for three years and is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 70,000/-; in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for a period of one year. For the offence under Section 120B IPC, Accused No. 3 is convicted and sentenced to udergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-; in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for a period of four months. For the offence under Section 409 IPC, Accused No. 3 is convicte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
