NON-REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.    1963       of 2017

(Arising out of Special Leave Petitio (Crl.) No.7132 of 2015)

NARESH CHAUBEY                          .... Appellant

Versus

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH GYANENDRA PD SINGH   ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.  

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