Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.346 OF 2004

VINAYAK NARAYAN DEOSTHALI                    …APPELLANT

VERSUS

C.B.I.                               …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 10 of the  

Special  Court  (Trial  of  Offences  relating  to  Transactions  in  

Securities)  Act,  1992 (for short “the Special Court”)  against  

the  Judgment  and  Order  dated   

20th January,  2004 passed by the Special  Court  constituted  

under the said Act in Special Case No.1 of 1997 in R.C. No.9  

(BSC)/94/BOM.

2. In the wake of report of enquiry committee constituted  

by the Reserve Bank of India under the Chairmanship of Shri  

Janki  Raman to  enquire  into  the  allegation  of  unauthorized

Page 2

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

diversion of  public  funds  belonging to  certain  public  sector  

banks and financial institutions by employees of such banks  

and institutions in collusion with some brokers,  the Act was  

enacted for constitution of a Special Court for trial of criminal  

offences in respect of transactions during the period 1st April,  

1991   to   

6th June, 1992  as provided under the Act.  The object of the  

Act was speedy recovery of public money allegedly diverted in  

security transactions and to punish the guilty and to restore  

confidence  and  credibility  of  the  banks  and  the  financial  

institutions.   

3. The Special Court was to try notified persons jointly with  

other connected persons.  One of such named persons was  

the   

broker-  Harshad  S.  Mehta  who  died  during  the  trial.   The  

appellant was Assistant Manager of the UCO Bank, Hamam  

Street  Branch  who  was  jointly  tried  with  Mehta  on  the  

allegation  that  during  the  period   

12th March, 1991 to 24th April, 1991, he diverted funds of the  

Engineering  Export  Promotion  Council  (for  short  “EEPC”)  

amounting to Rs.7.75 crores to the private account of Harshad  

2

Page 3

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

S. Mehta.  Though the said funds were transferred back to the  

EEPC, conduct of the appellant amounted to offences under  

Sections 120-B, 409, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and  

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

1988.    

4. The charge has been held proved by the Special Court.  

It may be noted that the appellant’s conviction by the Special  

Court for abusing his official position in relation to five other  

transactions involving diversion of funds to the account of late  

Mehta,  has  been  earlier  upheld  by  this  Court  in  Criminal  

Appeal  No.1141  of  1999  decided  on  14th January,  2003  

reported  in  Ram Narayan  Popli vs.  Central  Bureau  of  

Investigation1  We also find reference to the conviction of  

the appellant by the Special Court in two other cases giving  

rise  to  the  filing  of  Criminal  Appeal  No.687  of  2006  and  

Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2005 in this Court.

5. In  the present  case,  charges  against  the appellant  as  

framed by the Special Court are as follows :

“FIRSTLY:      That  during  the  period  from  August, 1990 to April  1991, you the accused  abovenamed,  working  as  Assistant  Manager,   UCO Bank, Hamam Street Branch, Mumbai did   enter into a criminal conspiracy with Harshad  Shantilal  Mehta,  original  accused No.1 (since   

1  (2003) 3 SCC 641

3

Page 4

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

deceased),  a  Share,  Stock  and  Securities   Broker,  Mumbai,  the  object  whereof  was  to  illegally divert the funds of Engineering Export   Promotion  Council  (EEPC)  to  the  extent  of   Rs.7.75 crores to the Current Account No.1028  of  the  aforesaid  Harshad  Shantilal  Mehta   (since deceased), maintained with UCO Bank,   Hamam Street Branch, Mumbai, in the name  of  M/s  Harshad  S.  Mehta,  and  thereby  to  obtain undue pecuniary advantage to the said  Harshad Shantilal Mehta (since deceased), by  you the accused abovenamed misusing your   official position as a Public Servant by corrupt   or illegal means, under the garb of Securities   transactions, camouflaging the same as if the  transactions were of UCO Bank, while knowing  or  having  reason  to  believe  that  the  transactions were in fact of the said Harshad  Shantilal  Mehta  and  that  you  thereby  committed  an  offence  punishable  under  Section  120-B of  the  Indian  Penal  Code and   within my cognizance.

SECONDLY:    That  in  pursuance  of  the  said   criminal  conspiracy and in the course of  the  same transaction, on or about 123, 1991, the   said  Harshad  Shantilal  Mehta  (since  deceased), while purporting to act as a Broker   of UCO Bank, dishonestly issued two contract   notes to EEPC, Mumbai, showing purchase of   692  lakh  units  of  UNITS  1964  Scheme  at   Rs.14.4585 per unit on ready forward basis for   the sale of the same securities on 22.03.1991  on their behalf at Rs.14.50628 per unit as also   issued  false  Delivery  Orders  to  the  EEPC  instructing them to receive the delivery of the   aforesaid securities from UCO Bank and also   issued another Delivery Order of even date to   UCO  Bank  to  deliver  the  said  securities  to  EEPC knowing or having reason to believe that  UCO Bank could not deliver the said securities   to  EEPC  in  the  absence  of  the  UCO  Bank   holding any such securities on account of the  said Harshad Shantilal Mehta (since deceased)   and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, and  during the course of the same transaction, you  

4

Page 5

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

the  accused  abovenamed,  being  a  Public   Servant, and having been entrusted with the  funds or dominion over the funds of or under  the  control  of  UCO  Bank,  Hamam  Street  Branch,  Mumbai,  dishonestly  issued  a  Cost   Memo  dated  12.03.1991  in  respect  of  the   aforesaid sale of the said securities for a total   sum of  Rs.99,99,988.20,  knowing  or  having   reason to believe that UCO Bank had no such   transaction with EEPC and also committed the  offence of forgery by issuing BR NO.111/91 of   UCO  Bank  on  the  instructions  of  the  said   Harshad  Shantilal  Mehta  (since  deceased)   knowing or having reason to believe the same  to be false document, by fraudulently signing  and  issuing  the  said  BR,  knowing  or  having  reason  to  believe  that  the  said  BR  was  not   backed  by  securities,  and  in  consideration   thereof  having  received  Bankers  Cheque  No.054053 dated 12.03.1991 drawn on State  Bank of India, Cuffe Parade Branch, Mumbai,   from EEPC for Rs.1 crore issued in favour of   UCO  Bank,  obtained  undue  pecuniary   advantage  in  favour  of  the  said  Harshad  Shantilal Mehta (since deceased), without any  public  interest  and  committed  Criminal   Misconduct  by  crediting  the proceeds of  the   said Cheque directly into the Current Account   No.1028  maintained  by  the  said  Harshad  Shantilal Mehta (since deceased) in the name  of  M/s  Harshad  S.  Mehta  with  UCO  Bank,   Hamam  Street  Branch,  Mumbai  without  any  instructions  in  that  behalf  from  the  issuing  Bank, and in furtherance of the said criminal   conspiracy and during the course of the same  transaction  you  the  accused  abovenamed  dishonestly  received  the  credit  of  the  said   amount knowing or having reason to believe   the  same  to  be  stolen  property  viz,  the  property  in  respect  of  which  an  offence  of   Criminal breach, of Trust had been committed  and  that  you  thereby  committed  offences   punishable under Section 120B of the Indian  Penal Code read with Sections 409, 411, 467,   471 of the I.P.C. and sections 13(2) read with  

5

Page 6

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

13(1)(c)  and  13(1)(d)  of  the  Corruption  Act,   1988 and within my cognizance.

THIRDLY:    That  in  pursuance  of  the  said  criminal conspiracy – and during the course of   the same transaction, on or about 12.03.1991   you the accused abovenamed, acting in your   official  capacity  as  Assistant  Manager,  UCO  Bank,  Hamam  Street  Branch  Mumbai,   dishonestly  and  fraudulently  issued  a  UCO  Bank Cost Memo dated 12.03.1991 in respect   of  the  aforesaid  ostensible  sale  of  the  said   securities for a total sum of Rs.99,99,980.20,   knowing or having reason to believe that UCO  Bank had no such transaction with EEPC and  further,  dishonestly  issued  UCO  Bank  BR  No.111/91 favouring EEPC knowing or having  reason  to  believe  that  the  same  was  not   backed  with  securities  and  that  you  the  accused  abovenamed thereby  committed  an  offence punishable under Section 120-B read   with Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and  within my cognizance.

FOURTHLY:    That  in  pursuance  of  the  said  criminal  conspiracy and during the course of   the same transaction, on or about 12.03.1991   you  the  accused  abovenamed  used  the  abovesaid forged BR No.111/91 a genuine by  forwarding  the  same  to  EEPC  and  that  you   thereby  committed  an  offence  punishable   under  Section  120-B  read  with  Section  467  read with 471 of  the Indian Penal  Code and  within my cognizance.     

FIFTHLY:    That  in  pursuance  of  the  said   criminal  conspiracy and during the course of   the same transaction, on or about 12.03.1991,   you the accused abovenamed, being a Public   Servant  and  working  your  capacity  as  Assistant Manager, UCO Bank, Hamam Street   Branch, Mumbai, and in such capacity having  been  entrusted  with  the  funds  or  dominion   over the funds of or under the control of UCO  Bank, Hamam Street Branch, Mumbai, having  received an Account  Payee Banker’s  Cheque  

6

Page 7

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

No.054053 payable  to  UCO Bank and drawn  on  the  State  Bank  of  India,  Cuffe  Parade  Branch, Mumbai, for an amount of Rs.1 crore,   in  violation  of  express  or  implied  contract   touching the mode of discharge of such trust,   credited  the  same  directly  into  the  Current  Account  No.1028  maintained  by  the  said   Harshad  Shantilal  Mehta  (since  deceased)  in   the name of M/s Harshad S. Mehta, with UCO  Bank, Hamam Street Branch, Mumbai, without   any instructions in that behalf from the issuing  Bank,  and  that  you  thereby  committed  an  offence punishable under Section 120-B read   with Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and  within my cognizance.

SIXTHLY:    That  in  pursuance  of  the  said  criminal  conspiracy and during the course of   the same transaction, on or about 12.03.1991,   you the accused abovenamed, being a Public   Servant,  by  abusing  your  official  position  as   Assistant Manager, UCO Bank, Hamam Street   Branch,  Mumbai  and  by  corrupt  or  illegal   means,  having  received  an  Account  Payee  Banker’s  cheque  No.054053  for  Rs.1  crore,   payable to UCO Bank drawn on State Bank of   India, obtained for the said Harshad Shantilal   Mehta  (since  deceased)  obtained  undue  pecuniary  advantage  without  any  public   interest,  and committed  criminal  misconduct   by illegally crediting the proceeds of the said  cheque  directly  into  the  Current  Account   No.1028  maintained  by  the  said  Harshad  Shantilal  Mehta  (since  deceased)  with  UCO  Bank, Hamam Street Branch, Mumbai, in the  name of  M/s  Harshad  S.  Mehta  without  any  instructions  in  that  behalf  from  the  issuing  Bank,  and  that  you  thereby  committed  an  offence punishable under Section 120-B of the   Indian  Penal  Code  read  with  Section  13(2)   read with Sectin 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of   Corruption Act, and within my cognizance.

SEVENTHLY:      That in pursuance of the said   criminal  conspiracy and during the course of   the same transaction, on or about 12.03.1991,   

7

Page 8

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

you the accused abovenamed, being a Public   Servant,  by  abusing  your  official  position  as   Assistant Manager, UCO Bank, Hamam Street   Branch,  Mumbai having received an Account   Payee  Bankers  Cheque  No.054053  for  Rs.1   crore,  payable  to  UCO Bank drawn on State  Bank of India, dishonestly misappropriated the  said  funds  by  crediting  the  proceeds  of  the   said cheque directly into the Current No.1028  maintained  by  the  said  Harshad  Shantilal   Mehta  (since  deceased),  with  UCO  Bank,   Hamam Street Branch, Mumbai, in the name  of  M/s  Harshad  S.  Mehta,  without  any  instructions  in  that  behalf  from  the  issuing  Bank,  and  that  you  thereby  committed  and  offence punishable under Section 120-B of the   Indian  Penal  Code  read  with  Section  13(2)   read  with  13(1)(c)  of  the  Prevention  of   Corruption Act, and within my cognizance.

EIGHTHLY:     That in pursuance of the said   criminal  conspiracy and during the course of   the same transaction, on or about 23.04.1991,   the  said  Harshad  Shantilal  Mehta  (since  deceased), while purporting to act as Broker   for UCO Bank, dishonestly issued two Contract   Notes to EEPC, Mumbai, showing, purchase of   35  lakh  units  of  UNITS  1964  Scheme  at   Rs.1500 per  unit  on  ready forward  basis  for   the sale of the same securities on 08.05.1991  on their behalf at Rs. 15.11096 per unit and   also issued false Delivery Orders to the EEPC  instructing them to receive the delivery of the   aforesaid securities from UCO Bank and also   issued another Delivery Order of even date to   UCO  Bank  to  deliver  the  said  securities  to  EEPC knowing or having reason to believe that  UCO Bank could not deliver the said securities   to  EEPC  in  the  absence  of  the  UCO  Bank   holding any such securities on account of the  said  Harshad  Shantilal  Mehta  (since  deceased),  and  in  furtherance  of  the  said   conspiracy, and during the course of the same  transaction,  you  the  accused  abovenamed  being  a  Public  Servant,  and  having  been  entrusted with the funds or dominion over the  

8

Page 9

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

funds  of  or  under  the  control  of  UCO Bank,   Hamam  Street  Branch,  Mumbai,  dishonestly   issued  A  Cost  Memo  dated  23.04.1991  in   respect  of  the  aforesaid  sale  of  the  said  securities  for  a  total  sum of  Rs.5.25  crores,   knowing or having reason to believe that UCO  Bank had no such transaction with EEPC and  also  committed  the  offence  of  Forgery  by  issung  BR  No.153/91  of  UCO  Bank  on  the  instructions  of  the  said  Harshad  Shantilal   Mehta  (since  deceased)  knowing  or  having   reason  to  believe  the  same  to  be  false  document by fraudulently signing and issuing   the  said  BR  knowing  or  having  reason  to  believe that  the said BR was not  backed by   securities, and in consideration thereof having   received  Banker’s  Cheque  No.054337  dated  23.04.1991  drawn  on  State  Bank  of  India,   Cuffe Parade Branch, Mumbai, from EEPC for   Rs.5.25 crores in favour of UCO Bank obtained  undue pecuniary  advantage in  favour  of  the  said Harshad Shantilal Mehta (since deceased)   without  any  public  interest  and  committed   criminal misconduct by crediting the proceeds   of  the said Cheque directly  into  the  Current   Account  No.1028  maintained  by  the  said   Harshad  Shantilal  Mehta  (since  deceased)  in   the name of M/s Harshad S. Mehta with UCO  Bank, Hamam Street Branch, Mumbai, without   any instructions in that behalf from the issuing  Bank, and that you thereby committed offence  punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian   Penal Code read with Sections 409, 471 of the  Indian  Penal  Code  and  Sections  13(2)  read  with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of   Corruption Act, and within my cognizance.

NINTHLY:     That  in  pursuance  of  the  said  criminal  conspiracy and during the course of   the same transaction, on or about 23.04.1991,   you the accused abovenamed acting in yours   official  capacity  as  Assistant  Manager,  UCO  Bank,  Hamam  Street  Branch,  Mumbai,   dishonestly  and  fraudulently  issued  a  UCO  Bank Cost Memo dated 23.04.1991 in respect   of  the  aforesaid  ostensible  sale  of  the  said   

9

Page 10

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

securities  for  a  total  sum of  Rs.5.25  crores,   knowing or having reason to believe that UCO  Bank had no such transaction with EEPC and  further  dishonestly  issued  UCO  Bank  BR  No.153/91 favouring EEPC or having reason to   believe  that  the  same  was  not  backed  with  securities  and  that  you  the  accused  abovenamed  thereby  committed  an  offence   punishable  under  Section  120-B  read  with  Section  467  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  and   within my cognizance.

TENTHLY:     That  in  pursuance  of  the  said   criminal  conspiracy and during the course of   the same transaction, on or about 23.04.1991,   you  the  accused  abovenamed  used  the  abovesaid forged BR No.153/91 as genuine by  forwarding  the  same  to  EEPC  and  that  you   thereby  committed  an  offence  punishable   under  Section  120-B  read  with  Section  467  read with Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code  and within my cognizance.

ELEVENTHLY:      That in pursuance of the said   criminal  conspiracy and during the course of   the same transaction, on or about 23.04.1991   you the accused abovenamed, being a Public   Servant  and  working  in  your  capacity  as  Assistant Manager, UCO Bank, Hamam Street   Branch, Mumbai, and in such capacity having  been  entrusted  with  the  funds  or  dominion   over the funds of or under the control of UCO  Bank, Hamam Street Branch, Mumbai, having  received an Account  Payee Banker’s  Cheque  No.054337 payable UCO Bank and drawn on  the State Bank of India, Cuffe Parade Branch,   Mumbai,  for an amount of  Rs.5.25 crores, in   violation  of  express  or  implied  contract   touching the mode of discharge of such trust,   credited  the  same  directly  into  the  Current  Account  No.1028  maintained  by  the  said   Harshad  Shantilal  Mehta  (since  deceased)  in   the name of M/s Harshad S. Mehta, with UCO  Bank, Hamam Street Branch, Mumbai, without   any instructions in that behalf from the issuing  Bank,  and  that  you  thereby  committed  an  

1

Page 11

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

offence punishable under Section 120-B read   with Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and  within my cognizance.

TWELTHLY:     That in pursuance of the said   criminal  conspiracy and during the course of   the same transaction, on or about 23.04.1991   you that accused abovenamed, being a Public   Servant, by abusing your official position as an  Assistant Manager, UCO Bank, Hamam Street   Branch, Mumbai, having received an Account   Payee Banker’s Cheque No.054337 for Rs.5.25   crores  payable  to  UCO  Bank  drawn  on  the  State  Bank  of  India,  dishonestly   misappropriated  the  said  funds  by  crediting   the proceeds of the said cheque directly into   the  Current  Account  No.1028  maintained  by  the  said  Harshad  Shantilal  Mehta  (since  deceased)  in  the  name  of  M/s  Harshad  S.   Mehta, with UCO Bank, Hamam Street Branch,   Mumbai,  without  any  instructions  in  that   behalf  from  the  issuing  Bank,  and  that  you   thereby  committed  an  offence  punishable   under Section 120-B read with Section 13(2)   read with 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption   Act, and within my cognizance.

THIRTEENTHLY:        That in pursuance of   the  said  criminal  conspiracy  and  during  the   course of  the same transaction,  on or  about   23.04.1991  you  the  accused  abovenamed,   being a Public Servant, by abusing your official   positional as an Assistant Manager, UCO Bank,   Hamam  Street  Branch,  Mumbai,  having  received an Account  Payee Banker’s  Cheque  No. 054337 for Rs.5.25 crores, payable to UCO  Bank and drawn on the State Bank of  India,   Cuffe  Parade  Branch,  Mumbai,  dishonestly  misappropriated the said funds crediting  the   proceeds of the said cheque directly into the  Current  Account  No.1028  maintained  by  the  said Harshad Shantilal Mehta (since deceased)   in  the  name of  M/s  Harshad  S.  Mehta,  with   UCO  Bank,  Hamam  Street  Branch,  Mumbai,   without  any  instructions  in  that  behalf  from  the  issuing  Bank,  and  that  you  thereby  

1

Page 12

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

committed  an  offence  punishable  under  Section  120-B  read  with  Section  13(2)  read  with 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption   Act, and within my cognizance.

FOURTENTHLY:       That in pursuance of   the  said  criminal  conspiracy  and  during  the   course of  the same transaction,  on or  about   24.04.1991 the said Harshad Shantilal Mehta   (since deceased), while purporting to act as a   Broker  of  UCO  Bank,  dishonestly  issued  to   Contract  Notes  to  EEPC,  Mumbai,  showing   purchase  of  10  lakh  units  of  UNITS  1964  Scheme at Rs.15.00 per unit on ready forward   basis  for  the sale  of  the  same securities  on   29.04.1991 on their behalf at Rs.15.04110 per  unit as also issued false Delivery Orders to the  EEPC instructing them to receive the delivery  of the aforesaid securities from UCO Bank and  also  issued  another  Delivery  Order  of  even  date to UCO bank to deliver the said securities   to EEPC knowing or having reason to believe  that  UCO  Bank  could  not  deliver  the  said   securities to EEPC in the absence of the UCO  bank holding any such securities on account of   the  said  Harshad  Shantilal  Mehta  (since  deceased),  and  in  furtherance  of  the  said   conspiracy, and during the course of the same  transaction,  you  the  accused  abovenamed,   being  a  Public  Servant,  and  having  been  entrusted with the funds or dominion over the  funds  of  or  under  the  Control  of  UCO Bank,   Hamam  Street  Branch,  Mumbai,  dishonestly   issued  a  Cost  Memo  dated  24.04.1991  in   respect  of  the  aforesaid  sale  of  the  said  securities  for  a  total  sum of  Rs.1.50  crores,   knowing or having reason to believe that UCO  Bank had no such transaction with EEPC and  also committed the offence of Forgery issuing  BR No.16B/91 of UCO Bank on the instructions   of  the  said  Harshad  Shantilal  Mehta  (since  deceased)  knowing  or  having  reason  to   believe  the  same  to  be  false  document  by  fraudulently  signing  and issuing  the  said  BR  knowing or having reason to believe that the   said BR was not backed by securities and in   

1

Page 13

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

consideration  thereof  having  received  Banker’s Cheuqe No.054353 dated 24.04.1991  drawn on the State Bank of India, Cuffe Parade  Branch,  Mumbai,  from  EEPC  for  Rs.1  crore   issued  in  favour  of  the  UCO Bank,  obtained  undue pecuniary advantage without any public   interest for the said Harshad Shantilal Mehta   (since  deceased)  and  committed  Criminal   Misconduct  by  crediting  the proceeds of  the   said Cheque directly into the Current Account   No.1028  maintained  by  the  said  Harshad  Shantilal Mehta (since deceased) in the name  of  M/s  Harshad  S.  Mehta  with  UCO  Bank,   Hamam Street  Branch,  Mumbai,  without  any   instructions  in  that  behalf  from  the  issuing  Bank and that you thereby committed offence  punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian   Penal Code read with Sections 409, 467, 471  of  the Indian Penal  Code and Sections 13(2)   read  with  13(1)(c)  and  13(1)(d)  of  the  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and within   my cognizance.

FIFTEENTHLY:       That in pursuance of the   said criminal conspiracy and during the course  of  the  same  transaction,  on  or  about  24.04.1991,  you  the  accused  abovenamed,   acting  your  official  capacity  as  Assistant   Manager,  UCO Bank,  Hamam Street  Branch,   Mumbai, dishonestly and fraudulently issued a   UCO  Bank  Cost  Memo  dated  24.04.1991  in   respect of the aforesaid ostensible sale of the  said  securities  for  a  total  sum  of  Rs.1.50  crores,  knowing  or  having  reason  to  believe  that UCO Bank had no such transaction with   EEPC and further dishonestly issued UCO Bank   BR  No.168791  favouring  EEPC  knowing  or   having reason to believe that the same was  not  backed with  securities  and that  you the  accused  abovenamed thereby  committed  an  offence punishable under Section 120-B of the   Indian Penal Code read with Section 467 of the  Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.

SIXTEENTHLY:       That in pursuance of the   said criminal conspiracy and during the course  

1

Page 14

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

of  the  same  transaction,  on  or  about  24.04.1991  you  the  accused  abovenamed  used the  abovesaid  forged  BR No.168/91  as  genuine by forwarding the same to EEPC and   that  you  thereby  committed  an  offence   punishable  under  Section  120-B  read  with  Section 467 read with 471 of the Indian Penal   Code and within my cognizance.

SEVENTEENTHLY:   That in pursuance of the  said  criminal  conspiracy  24.04.1991  you  the  accused abovenamed, being a Public Servant   and  working  in  your  capacity  as  Assistant   Manager,  UCO Bank,  Hamam Street  Branch,   Mumbai,  and  in  such  capacity  having  been  entrusted with the funds or dominion over the  funds  of  or  under  the  control  of  UCO Bank,   Hamam  Street  Branch,  Mumbai,  having  received  an  Account  Payee  Bankers  Cheque  No.054353 payable  to  UCO Bank and drawn  on  the  State  Bank  of  India,  Cuffe  Parade  Branch,  Mumbai,  for  an  amount  of  Rs.1.50  crores,  in  violation  of  express  or  implied  contract  touching  the  mode  of  discharge  of   such trust, credited the same directly into the  Current  Account  No.1028  maintained  by  the  said Harshad Shantilal Mehta (since deceased)   in  the  name of  M/s  Harshad  S.  Mehta,  with   UCO  Bank,  Hamam  Street  Branch,  Mumbai,   without  any  instructions  in  that  behalf  from  the  issuing  Bank,  and  that  you  thereby  committed  an  offence  punishable  under  Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read  with Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and  within my cognizance.

EIGHTEENTHLY:        That in pursuance of   the said criminal  conspiracy 24.04.1991,  you   that  accused  abovenamed,  being  a  Public   Servant,  by  abusing  your  official  position  as   Assistant Manager, UCO Bank, Hamam Street   Branch,  Mumbai,  and  by  corrupt  or  illegal   means  having  received  an  Account  Payee   Banker’s  Cheque  No.054353  for  Rs.1.50  crores, payable to UCO Bank and drawn on the   State Bank of India, obtained undue pecuniary   

1

Page 15

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

advantage without any public interest for the  said Harshad Shantilal Mehta (since deceased)   and  committed  criminal  misconduct  by  illegally  crediting  the  proceeds  of  the  said  cheque  directly  into  the  Current  Account   No.1028  maintained  by  the  said  Harshad  Shantilal  Mehta  (since  deceased)  with  UCO  Bank, Hamam Street Branch, Mumbai, in the  name of  M/s  Harshad S.  Mehta,  without  any  instructions  in  that  behalf  from  the  issuing  Bank,  and  that  you  thereby  committed  an  offence punishable under Section 120-B of the   Indian  Penal  Code  read  with  Sections  13(2)   read  with  13(1)(d)  of  the  Prevention  of   Corruption Act, and within my cognizance.

NINETENTHLY:       That in pursuance of the  said  criminal  conspiracy  24.04.1991  you  the  accused abovenamed, being a Public Servant,   by abusing your official  position as Assistant   Manager,  UCO Bank,  Hamam Street  Branch,   Mumbai,  having  received  an  Account  Payee   Banker’s cheque No.054353 of Rs.1.50 crores,   payable to UCO Bank drawn on State Bank of   India,  dishonestly  misappropriated  the  said  funds  by  crediting  the  proceeds  of  the  said   cheque  directly  into  the  Current  Account   No.1028  maintained  by  the  said  Harshad  Shantilal  Mehta  (since  deceased)  with  UCO  Bank, Hamam Street Branch, Mumbai, in the  name of  M/s  Harshad S.  Mehta,  without  any  instructions  in  that  behalf  from  the  issuing  Bank  and  that  you  thereby  committed  an  offence punishable under Section-120B of the   Indian  Penal  Code  read  with  Section  13(2)   read  with  13(1)(c)  of  the  Prevention  of   Corruption Act, and within my cognizance.”

6. The EEPC was set up to promote export of engineering  

goods and services under the Ministry of Commerce.  It was  

operating  a  scheme  called  the  International  Price  

1

Page 16

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

Reimbursement Scheme (for short “IPRS”) with the object of  

neutralizing price of steel for domestic exports at par with the  

international market where prices were lesser.  The scheme  

envisaged  compensating  the  exporters  by  way  of  

reimbursement of the price difference.  The funds received by  

the EEPC through Joint Plan Committee (“JPC”) were kept with  

the State Bank of India at Calcutta.  PW-3, Girish Chandra an  

officer of EEPC was running the scheme.  Apart from the said  

funds, other source of available funds with the EEPC was sale  

of premises at Tardey, Mumbai to shift the office to rented  

premises in World Trade Centre which was considered to be  

more suitable.  Sale proceeds were kept with the State Bank  

of India, Cuffe Parade Branch.  During the period between 12th  

March, 1991 and 24th April, 1991, PW-3 issued three cheques  

in favour of the UCO bank where the appellant was posted.  

Without  instructions  from  EEPC,  the  said  amount  was  

transferred to the private account of late Mehta.  Though the  

EEPC received contract notes and delivery orders in respect of  

the three transactions and the documents were signed by PW-

3, but this was under a mistaken thought that he was merely  

signing a format prescribed by the Bank.  Thus, the appellant  

1

Page 17

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

abused  his  position  in  collusion  with  Mehta  resulting  in  

transfer  of  public  funds  to  private  account  of  an individual  

unauthorisedly.  Forged Bank Receipts (BRs) were issued by  

the  Bank  to  EEPC in  lieu  of  physical  delivery  of  securities,  

without such securities being in existence.  PW-4, Arup Mohan  

Patnaik, an officer of CBI, after investigation, lodged the FIR  

on 30th November, 1994.  Investigation was further conducted  

by  PW-13,  Mr.  S.K.  Sareen,  Inspector  CBI,  who  collected  

documents from EEPC, UCO Bank and State Bank of India and  

also recorded statements of witnesses.  He filed charge sheet  

against late Mehta and the appellant.    

7. Apart  from producing  the  documents,  the  prosecution  

relied upon the oral  evidence of  Mr.  Chhadisingh-PW-1,  Mr.  

Maitra-PW-2,   

Mr. Girish Chandra-PW-3, Mrs. Sudha Kubal-PW-4, Mr. Ankur   

Gupta-PW-5 and Mr.  Babaji  Firoz-PW-6,  all  of  them working  

with  EEPC  in  the  Regional  Office  at  Mumbai  in  different  

capacities;  Mr.  B.D.   

Raut-PW-7;  Mr.  Aarsiwala-PW-8  working  with  State  Bank  of  

India;   

Mr.  Anjaria-PW-9;  Mr.  Pinjani-PW-10  and  Nilam  Keni-PW-12  

1

Page 18

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

working with UCO Bank, Hamam Street Branch,  Mumbai,  in  

different capacities.  Rest of the witnesses are Mr. Jain-PW-11,  

the  Hand  Writing  Expert;   

Mr. Patnaik-PW-14, who lodged the FIR and Mr. S.K. Sareen-

PW-13 is the Investigating Officer and had filed charge sheet  

against the accused.

The accused led defence evidence and examined DW-1-

Mr. Atul Manubhai Parekh, who was working in the office of  

Harshad Mehta at the relevant time and Mr. Pradeep Anant  

Karkhanis-DW-2,  who  was  working  in  the  UCO  Bank  as  a  

Senior Manager at the relevant time.

8. Stand of the appellant is that the deposit in the account  

of late Mehta was not on account of dishonest intention of the  

appellant.  The Bank had been offering facility to brokers for  

security transactions by charging commission.  Transactions  

were  between  brokers  and  the  counter  party.   All  the  

documents were prepared in normal course of banking.

9. The Special Court rejected the defence of the accused  

and  held  that  transfer  of  funds  to  private  account  of  late  

Mehta  was without  any authorization  by the EEPC.   It  was  

observed:-

1

Page 19

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

“The entire evidence in this regard has gone  unchallenged.    The defence of the accused is,   however,  that Hamam Street  Branch of  UCO  Bank was having such securities transactions   on behalf of the clients and they were going   on since 1987, much before he joined the said   branch in 1989.  According to him there were  eighteen brokers getting such routine facility.   This  facility  was temporarily  stopped for  the  period  between May,  1991 and March,  1992  and  in  March,  1992,  similar  facility  was  continued  to  be  given  to  the  brokers.   His   defence  is  that  the  aforesaid  three  transactions  were  between  EEPC  and  HSM.  No  contract  notes  were  ever  sent  to  UCO  Bank.   The  Head  Office  was  aware  of  such   transactions.    While  admitting  that  all  the  vouchers, cost memos and BRs related to the  aforesaid three transactions were prepared at   his instance in his branch.  His defence is that   those  were  performed  in  normal  course  of   banking  business.   He  states  that  he  is   innocent  and  acting  as  per  the  procedure   adopted by the bank.

The charge against the accused is that he had  conspired with HSM for diverting the funds of   the  EEPC,  the  public  money,  to  HSM  with   dishonest and fraudulent intention, the object   of which was to give benefit of such diverted  money to HSM.   It is also the charge against   the accused that  he had no authority  either   from the EEPC or from the Bank Authorities to   credit  the  amount  of  the  aforesaid  three  bankers’  cheques issued by SBI  in  favour of   the UCO Bank, to the HSM’s account No.1028   and, therefore,  the accused had misused his   official  position  as  a  public  servant,  namely,   the  Manager  in  Securities  Department  of   Hamam  Street  Branch  of  UCO  Bank,  at  Mumbai.

The accused is also charged for having issued  BR’s in respect of these transactions without   there being any backing of physical securities   for  issuing  such  BRs  and,  therefore,  it  is   

1

Page 20

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

alleged  that  the  accused  had  prepared  the  documents  like  cost  memos  and  BRs  by  forging them and by  using them as genuine.

Since  all  the  three  transactions  have  been  proved  having  taken  place  in  the  manner   aforesaid, it is clear that EEPC had transferred   their funds from their account in SBI to UCO  Bank  for  the  purpose  of  their  short  term  investments.  The evidence of Girish Chandra- PW 3 clearly shows that as per the instructions   and  circulars  issued  by  the  Central   Government,  he  had  authority  to  make  investments  of  the  surplus  funds  of  EEPC,  either in nationalized banks or in Government  Securities or Government approved securities   and he had no authority to transfer the funds  of the EEPC for the benefit of any individual,   including  HSM.   From  the  aforesaid  transactions,  it  is  clear  that  all  the  three  bankers’ cheques issued in favour of the UCO  Bank were credited into the account of HSM,  being Account No.1028.  The transactions also   show that the accused had issued cost memos  against  EEPC  for  the  transactions  of  sale  of   securities shown therein.  When the cheques  were  received  the  amount  were  credited  to   the account of HSM.   There were instructions   under the delivery notes issued by HSM to the  UCO Bank  that  UCO  Bank  should  deliver  to   EEPC certain number of units 1964 scheme, as   shown in the delivery orders, at the indicated  rates to UCO Bank.  The accused, therefore,   had  acted  as  pr  the  instructions  of  HSM.   However,  this  was   contrary  to  the  contract   notes  issued by HSM to  EEPC,  which  clearly   indicated  that  in  all  the  three  transactions   HSM was acting as broker.  Indication in the  contract  notes  is  that  HSM  had  purchased   certain  number  of  units  of  1964 scheme for   and on  behalf  of  the  EEPC and the  delivery   orders  issued to EEPC as also to UCO Bank,   indicated  that  EEPC has  to  receive  the  said  Units  from UCO Bank and UCO Bank had to   hand over those units  to EEPC.  This  clearly   indicates that HSM was acting as a Broker and  

2

Page 21

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

he was not the principal nor the counter party   to those transactions.  Even then, UCO Bank  had treated HSM as principal i.e. counter party   having direct contact with EEPC.  The accused,   therefore, credited the amount received from  SBI  on behalf  of  the EEPC to the account of   HSM.    In  any  event,  the  bankers’  cheques   drawn on SBI,  Account EEPC, were in fact in  favour of the UCO Bank only and not in favour   of  any  other  party.   Therefore,  the  accused  could only have credited those amounts under   those three cheques only in UCO Bank account   and  nobody  else’s  account.   There  were  apparently no instructions from EEPC in that   behalf.   It,  therefore,  clearly  shows  the  meeting of mind of the accused and HSM in   illegally  diverting the EEPC’s  funds to HSM’s  account  and  giving  undue  pecuniary   advantage  to  HSM.    Therefore,  the  prosecution  has  established  that  it  is  a  criminal  conspiracy  between  the  two,  the  object of which was to illegally divert the funds   of EEPC, totally amounting to Rs.7.75 crores to   the  current  account  of  HSM  in  Account  No.1028,  enabling  the  HSM to  obtain  undue  pecuniary advantage of the same and that the   accused  had  misused  his  official  position  as   public  servant  by  camouflaging  the  transaction as securities transaction.

It is also established that the accused issued  BRs  in  lieu  of  the  physical  delivery  of   securities,  when  the  securities  were  not  available with the Bank at all.  The burden to  prove  that  the  BRs  were not  backed by the   physical  securities  is  on  the  prosecution.   However,  it  is  a  negative  burden  to  be  discharged and it is therefore lighter burden to  discharge.   The  witnesses  namely,  PW  10  Pinjani and Mrs. Kini-PW 12 have stated that   they  used  to  maintain  register  for  sale  and  purchase of the securities.  But they did not   state  that  there  were  securities  physically   available with the bank when cost memos and  BRS  were  issued  by  the  accused.   Investigating  Officer  has  spoken  about  no   

2

Page 22

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

securities  being physically  available  with the  bank.   The  evidence  of  Anjaria-PW  9  also  indicates  that  no  register  of  Units  1964   Scheme was  maintained  either  security-wise  or  broker  clientwise.   This  established  non  existence of  securities where accused issued  BRs  to  back  them.   Above  evidence  is   sufficient  to  discharge  the  burden.   It  is   pertinent  to  note  that  even  it  is  not  the  defence that physical securities were available   to back the BRs.  Therefore, it is established  that BRs  were issued without the backing of   physical  securities  and  in  lieu  of  physical   securities.

It is undisputed position that HSM was dealing   in  securities.   DW 1 Atul  Parekh has spoken  about the delivery orders having been issued  from the office  of  HSM in  respect  of  all  the   three  transactions  and  that  those  were  the  transactions of HSM.  He has also stated that   the   letter  at  Exhibit  A-2(3)  was  written  by  Girish  Chandra-PW  3  to  Pankaj  Shah,  along  with  this  letter  he  had  also  sent  bankers’   cheques drawn in favour of the UCO Bank for   Rs.1 crore.  Girish Chandra - PW3 has admitted  to have written this letter.  He however, states  that the cheque was issued in  favour of  the  UCO Bank and not in favour of HSM.  The letter   mentions  about  discussion  with  Pankaj  Shah  and  Girish  Chandra-PW3  on  11.3.1991  regarding  investment  of  Rs.1  crore,  for  the  period  between  12.3.1991  and  22.3.1991  @  14%.  The letter also mentions about reversal   of  the transaction on 22.3.1991 and sending   back the bankers cheque along with accrued  interest.   It  is  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  accused  that  this  indicated  that  the  transaction  was  between  EEPC  and  HSM  as  counter party.  However, the fact remains that   the  cheque  of  Rs.1  crore  was  not  issued  in   favour  of  HSM but  it  was  in  favour  of  UCO  Bank only.  It is further to be noted that EEPC   had not issued any instructions to UCO Bank  for  debiting the amount of  Rs.1 crore in the   account of HSM. In absence of these details, it   

2

Page 23

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

cannot be said that HSM was the counter party   or  principal  with  whom  EEPC  had  direct   transactions.  On the contrary it indicated that   the payment of the cheque of Rs.1 crore was   to be made to UCO Bank.  If this; is so, at the  most HSM can be said to be only broker and   nothing  else.   Even  then  the  accused,  on   receiving  the  cheques  in  respect  of  these   three transactions, credited the amount to the  account of HSM, was totally illegal.

Under these circumstances, the accused could   have  credited  the  amount  of  three  cheques   into the account of UCO Bank only and not in   the account of HSM.  In this regard it is also   vehemently  submitted  on  behalf  of  the   accused that there is an indication from letter   dated  12th March,  1991  written  by  Girish  Chandra to Pankaj Shah, who was working in   the office of HSM that there were some talks   between Girish Chandra- PW 3 and HSM with  regard to their short term investment and in  respect of the said two transactions also there   appears to have been some talk between the   two.  Even so, there is no evidence to indicate  that  EEPC  or  Girish  Chandra-PW  3  for  that   matter,  had  direct  dealing  with  HSM  as  a  counter  party  or  principal.   All  the  bankers’   cheques issued by EEPC through SBI were in   favour  of  the  UCO Bank  alone,  without  any  further instruction to UCO Bank for depositing  those amounts in the account of HSM.  There   is  no  evidence  to  show  that  the  EEPC  had  direct  transactions  with  HSM,  as  a  counter   party.  This being so, the accused did not have  any  authority  to  divert  EEPC’s  funds  to  the  account  of  HSM  and  in  doing  so  he  had  committed illegality.  The accused similarly did   not have any authority to act for or on account   of HSM with the EEPC as counter party.  The   contract  note  and  delivery  orders  issued  by  HSM, on the contract note and delivery orders   issued by HSM, on the contrary indicate that  UCO Bank was principal.  The cheques issued  by  EEPC  were  also  in  favour  of  UCO  Bank.   Under the circumstances, it was clear that the  

2

Page 24

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

cheques issued by EEPC in favour of the UCO  Bank were in  favour of  the UCO Bank alone  and  were  not  to  be  transferred  to  anybody  else’s account, including HSM.  Therefore, the  accused had no authority to transfer or divert   EEPC’s  funds  to  the  account  of  HSM  and,   therefore,  he  had  committed  illegality,   obviously with an intention to give HSM undue  pecuniary  advantage of  those funds.   These  circumstances, therefore, clearly establish the   criminal conspiracy between the accused and   HSM as also.  The object of illegally diverting   the  EEPC’s  funds  to  the  account  of  HSM  enabling  HSM  to  obtain  undue  pecuniary   advantage  by  the  accused  by  misusing  his   position as public servant by corrupt or illegal   means,  showing  the  transactions  to  be  the  securities  transactions  of  HSM  camouflaging  the same as if the transactions were of UCO  Bank.”  

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

11. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant is that  

the documents in question were prepared by Mehta and the  

money was handed over by the EEPC to Mehta.  No loss was  

suffered by the EEPC nor any gain was made by the appellant.  

The appellant had no dishonest intention and acted as officer  

of the Bank in routine.   

12. Learned  counsel  for  the  CBI  supported  the  impugned  

order.   

13. The question for consideration is whether conviction of  

the  appellant  is  sustainable  on  the  basis  of  evidence  on  

record.    

2

Page 25

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

14. We  find  that  the  following  facts  are  undisputed  and  

clearly stand established on the record :

“(i)  The EEPC is functioning under the control   of  Ministry  of  Commerce  to  help  export  of   engineering  goods  and  services.   It  was   operating International  Price Reimbursement  Scheme with a view to neutralize the price of   Steel for domestic exporters.  It had funds for   disbursement.  Further it had funds on account   of sale of office. IPRS was being operated by   PW 3, Girish Chandra.  He made a deposit of a   sum of Rs.7.75 crores with the UCO Bank by   way  of  three  cheques  in  favour  of  the  UCO  Bank.

(ii)    The  appellant  acting  as  Assistant   Manager  of  the  UCO  Bank  transferred  the  amount  to  the  account  of  Mehta  which  was   apparently in collusion with Mehta without any  authority by EEPC.  He issued Bank Receipts in   lieu of physical  delivery of  securities without   such securities being in existence.   

(iii)  The  EEPC  never  instructed  purchase  of   securities  through  Mehta  nor  allowed  the  transfer of  the amount in question to Mehta  but  the  EEPC  was  made  to  sign  documents   under a mistaken belief at the instance of the  appellant.”

15. PW-3,  Girish  Chandra  who  represented  the  EEPC  fully  

supported  the  prosecution  version  of  having  made  deposit  

with the Bank and having not authorized the diversion of the  

said amount in favour of any private party.  The said evidence  

has been duly accepted by the Special Court.  The appellant  

unauthorisedly  credited  the  amount  to  Mehta’s  account  by  

2

Page 26

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

abusing his position in conspiracy with Mehta.  The accused  

also  issued  bank  receipts  for  security  transactions  without  

physical existence of securities which amounted to forgery.  It  

is  thus,  safe to infer the abuse of position by the accused-

appellant  in  conspiracy  with  and  to  the  benefit  of  Mehta.  

Diversion of public funds by the accused amounted to criminal  

breach  of  trust  by  committing  forgery/use  of  forged  

documents  as  well  as  offence  under  the  provisions  of  the  

Corruption Act.  PW-10, Pinjani and PW-12, Mrs. Kini who were  

maintaining register for sale and purchase of securities could  

not  show  that  the  securities  in  question  were  physically  

available with the Bank when the bank receipts were issued  

by the accused which could be done only if securities were  

available.  The Special Court thus rightly held the charge to be  

proved.  It was not necessary to prove that the accused had  

derived any benefit or caused any loss to the Bank.  The fact  

remains  that  action  of  the  appellant  involved  unauthorized  

conversion of public funds to private funds of an individual.  

Issuing  of  Bank  receipts  for  securities  without  existence  of  

securities could not be justified except for illegal benefit to a  

private individual.  Patent illegality cannot be defended in the  

2

Page 27

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

name of practice or direction of higher authorities.  Mens rea  

is  established  from the  fact  that  false  Bank  Receipts  were  

issued for non-existent securities.

16. Thus,  the  offences  of  conspiracy,  forgery,  

misappropriation and corruption stand established.  It is not  

necessary to discuss the ingredients of the said offences in  

detail as the matter has been gone into earlier by this Court in  

respect of the appellant himself in the reported judgment in  

Ram Narayan Popli  (supra).    We may only  quote  the  

conclusions arrived at in the said case:

“About the offence of conspiracy :

356. After referring to some judgments of the  United States Supreme Court and of this Court   in Yash Pal Mittal v.  State of Punjab [(1977) 4  SCC 540]  and Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India  [(1993)  3  SCC  609] the  Court  in  State  of  Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [(1996) 4 SCC  659]  summarized the position of law and the  requirements  to  establish  the  charge  of   conspiracy, as under: (SCC p. 668, para 24)

“24. The aforesaid decisions, weighty as   they are, lead us to conclude that to establish   a  charge  of  conspiracy  knowledge about  indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act   by illegal means is necessary. In some cases,   intent of  unlawful  use  being  made  of  the  goods or services in question may be inferred   from  the  knowledge  itself.  This  apart,  the  prosecution  has  not  to  establish  that  a  particular unlawful use was intended, so long  as the goods or service in question could not   

2

Page 28

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

be  put  to  any  lawful  use.  Finally,  when  the  ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions,   it would not be necessary for the prosecution   to  establish,  to  bring  home  the  charge  of   conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had  the knowledge of what the collaborator would   do, so long as it is known that the collaborator   would put the goods or service to an unlawful   use.”  [See  State  of  Kerala v.  P.  Sugathan  [(2000) 8 SCC 203]  (SCC p. 212, para 14)]

358. Much  has  also  been  submitted  that   repayment has been made. That itself  is not   an  indication  of  lack  of  dishonest  intention.   Sometimes, it so happens that with a view to   create confidence the repayments  are made  so that for the future transactions the money  can be dishonestly misappropriated. This is a   part  of  the  scheme  and  the  factum  of   repayment cannot be considered in isolation.   The repayment as has been rightly contended  by the Solicitor-General can be a factor to be   considered  while  awarding  sentence,  but  cannot be a ground for proving innocence of   the accused.

xxxxxxxxxx

About the offence of criminal  breach of   trust :

361. To  constitute  an  offence  of  criminal   breach of trust, there must be an entrustment,   there must be misappropriation or conversion   to one’s own use, or use in violation of a legal   direction  or  of  any  legal  contract;  and  the  misappropriation  or  conversion  or  disposal   must  be  with  a  dishonest  intention.  When a  person  allows  others  to  misappropriate  the  money  entrusted to  him,  that  amounts  to  a  criminal breach of trust as defined by Section   405. The section is relatable to property in a   positive part and a negative part. The positive   part  deals  with  criminal  misappropriation  or   conversion  of  the property  and the negative  

2

Page 29

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

part consists of dishonestly using or disposing  of  the  property  in  violation  of  any  direction   and  of  law  or  any  contract  touching  the  discharge of trust.

xxxxxxxxxx

About the offence of forgery :

374. In  order  to  constitute  an  offence  of   forgery  the  documents  must  be  made  dishonestly  or  fraudulently.  But  dishonest  or   fraudulent  are  not  tautological.  Fraudulent   does not imply the deprivation of property or   an element of injury. In order to be fraudulent,   there  must  be  some  advantage  on  the  one  side with a corresponding loss on the other.   Every  forgery  postulates  a  false  document   either in whole or in part, however small.

xxxxxxxxx

377. The accused persons have tried to take  shelter  behind  what  they have described  as   “market  practices”.  Such  practices  even  if   existing,  cannot  take  the  place  of  statutory   and  regulatory  functions.  There  is  no  public   interest  involved  in  such  practices  and  they  cannot be a substitute for compliance with the   regulatory  or  statutory  prescriptions.  An  attempt  was  made  to  show  that  there  was  subsequent  disapproval  of  the  market   practices;  at  the  point  of  time  when  the  transactions took place there was no embargo.   It is their stand that the practices were a part   of  accepted norms. We do not find anything  plausible  in  these  explanations.  A  practice  even if was prevailing, if wrong, is not to be  approved. The subsequent clarifications do not   in  any  way  put  seal  of  approval  on  the   practices  adopted  in  the  past,  on  the  other   hand it condemns it.

xxxxxxxxxxx

About the Corruption Act :  

2

Page 30

Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2004

379. Section 13(2) of the PC Act is intended to  deal  with  aberrations  of  public  servants.  In   view of the finding that A-1, in furtherance of   criminal conspiracy, in his capacity as a public   servant abused his position by causing and/or   allowing  MUL’s  funds  to  be  utilized  for  the  wrongful  gain  of  A-5,  provisions  of  Section  13(1)(c)  read  with  Section  13(2)  are  clearly   applicable.  Similar  is  the  position   vis-à-vis A-3.”

17. In  view of  above,  we are unable to  interfere  with the  

conviction of the appellant.  The same is affirmed.  However,  

having regard to totality of circumstances, we are of the view  

that ends of justice will be met if sentence of imprisonment is  

reduced  to  the  period  already  undergone.   We  order  

accordingly.

18. The appeal is disposed of.

….……………………………………………………J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

…. ……………………………………………………J.

    (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

NEW DELHI DECEMBER 2, 2014

3