Allowed

Hrudananda Sethi v. Republic of India

Orissa HC18 Dec 2023CRLREV/21/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court quashed the conviction of two postal employees accused of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The court held that the trial court erred in comparing disputed signatures without forensic expert opinion and that the prosecution failed to prove illegal withdrawals or an unlawful agreement to defraud.

What did the court decide?

The conviction of the petitioners under sections 420/468/471 IPC read with section 120-B IPC is set aside, and they are acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.

Hrudananda Sethi Vs Republic of India — Cheating and Forgery | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

¶4

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003

¶5

From the judgment and order dated 05.03.2002 passed by Addl. C.J.M. -cum- Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar in S.P.E. Case No.43 of 1994 and the judgment and order dated 21.12.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.II, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Appeal No.16/24 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal No.12/23 of 2002.

¶6

¶7

Hrudananda Sethi ……… Petitioner
-Versus-
Republic of India (C.B.I.) ……… Opp. party
For Petitioner: - Mrs. Madhumita Panda
Advocate
For Opp. party: - Mr. Sarthak Nayak
Special Public Prosecutor
(C.B.I.)
CRLREV No. 17 of 2003
Achyutananda Panda ……… Petitioner

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

Republic of India (C.B.I.) ……… Opp. party

¶10

For Petitioner: -	Mr. Ashok Kumar Sarangi Advocate
For Opp. party: -	Mr. Sarthak Nayak
---------------	Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I.) -------

¶11

Signature Not Verified

¶12

[2]

¶13

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶14

P R E S E N T:

¶15

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

¶16

¶17

Date of Judgment: 18.12.2023

¶18

¶19

S.K. Sahoo, J . The petitioner Hrudananda Sethi in CRLREV No.21 of 2003 and the petitioner Achyutananda Panda in CRLREV No.17 of 2003 faced trial for offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short,

¶20

‘I.P.C.’) in the Court of learned Addl. C.J.M. -cum- Special C.J.M.

¶21

(C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar in S.P.E. Case No.43 of 1994 for

¶22

committing criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery for the purpose of cheating and dishonestly and fraudulently using the

¶23

forged document as genuine one.

¶24

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and

¶25

order dated 05.03.2002 found both the petitioners guilty of the offences charged and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand) each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more on each count for the offences under sections 120B/420/468 of I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence under section 471 of the

¶26

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003 Page 2 of 36

¶27

[3]

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶30

I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to run

¶31

concurrently.

¶32

The petitioner Hrudananda Sethi preferred Criminal Appeal No.16/24 of 2002 and the petitioner Achyutananda Panda preferred Criminal Appeal No.12/23 of 2002 and both the appeals were heard analogously by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Bhubaneswar and vide common impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2002, the

¶33

learned Appellate Court upheld the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court and sentence passed thereunder and dismissed both the criminal appeals.

¶34

Since both the revision petitions arise out of the

¶35

same case, with the consent of the parties, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

¶36

Prosecution Case :

¶37

The prosecution case, in short, is that on the basis of source information, first information report (Ext.56) was registered on 08.02.1994 initially against the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi, Postal Assistant and one Kartika Chandra Mohanty, authorized postal agent of Jajpur Road Railway Station Sub-post office on the accusation that they conspired with each

¶38

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003 Page 3 of 36

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

[4]

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶42

other and in pursuance of such conspiracy, the postal department was cheated to the tune of Rs.32,831/- during the period from 14.06.1993 to 20.10.1993 by forging the signatures of the depositors and they took payment of withdrawals in respect of depositors Arjuna Sethi (P.W.1), Janaki Ballav Pradhan (P.W.2), Ramakanta Sahu (P.W.3) and Gangadhara Nayak (P.W.4).

¶43

P.W.9 Gopabandhu Pati, Inspector of Police, C.B.I.,

¶44

Bhubaneswar during investigation of the case found that there was a withdrawal of Rs.8,500/- (rupees eight thousand five hundred) on 20.10.1993 from S.B. A/c. No.132441 standing in the name of P.W.1 who deposited his pass book on 08.06.1993 with the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi under proper acknowledgement, but the petitioners made payment to one

¶45

Aruna Chandra Sethi through messenger P.K. Sethi after verifying the specimen signature. The A/c. holder P.W.1 denied

¶46

to have received the payment and as such it was concluded that the petitioners are liable under sections 120-B/420/467/468/471 of the I.P.C. It was also found that the petitioners who verified the specimen signature, have fraudulently taken a withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) on 14.06.1993 from R.D. A/c. No.11508 standing in the name of P.W.4. It was also revealed

¶47

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶48

Page 4 of 36

¶49

Signature Not Verified

¶50

[5]

¶51

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶52

that the petitioners made a fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.2,500/(rupees two thousand five hundred) on 26.06.1993 from R.D. A/c. No.11569 without the knowledge of P.W.3, the A/c. holder.

¶53

The petitioners in pursuance of the conspiracy between them also fraudulently withdrawn Rs.6,000/- (rupees six thousand) on 03.07.1993 from R.D. A/c. No.11663 without the knowledge of P.W.2, the A/c. holder. The I.O. came to the conclusion that in all the above instances, the petitioners cheated the postal department by causing a wrongful loss by way of forgery and using forged documents as genuine. The petitioner Hrudananda Sethi, however deposited a sum of Rs.13,000/- (rupees thirteen thousand) towards the defrauded amount vide ACC-67 receipts dated 04.04.1994 for Rs.12,000/- (rupees twelve thousand) and dated 18.04.1994 for Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand). The petitioner Hrudananda Sethi also deposited Rs.2,762.50 (rupees two thousand seven hundred sixty two and fifty paise) towards

¶54

principal and interest on 06.01.1994 in respect of R.D. A/c. No.11569. The documents were seized and witnesses were examined and on completion of investigation, the I.O. found prima facie evidence against the petitioners under sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of the I.P.C. and accordingly, charge sheet was filed on 31.08.1994 against them.

¶55

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶56

Page 5 of 36

¶57

Signature Not Verified

¶58

[6]

¶59

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶60

Prosecution Witnesses And Documents Exhibited By

¶61

Prosecution :

¶62

During course of trial, the prosecution examined nine

¶63

witnesses.

¶64

P.W.1 Arjuna Sethi is one of the depositors who

¶65

stated about withdrawal of a sum of Rs.8,500/- from his S.B. account by forging his signature on the withdrawal slip (Ext.5).

¶66

P.W.2 Janakiballav Pradhan is a depositor who stated

¶67

about withdrawal of a sum of Rs.6,000/- from his R.D. account

¶68

by forging his signature on the withdrawal slip (Ext.8).

¶69

P.W.3 Ramakanta Sahu is a depositor who stated

¶70

that he himself withdrew of a sum of Rs.2,500/- from his R.D. account and further stated that nobody had forged his signature for withdrawal of the said amount and he proved his signatures in the withdrawal form and further stated that he had not submitted any written report (Ext.16) to the Asst.

¶71

Superintendent of Post Office.

¶72

P.W.4 Gangadhara Nayak is a depositor who stated about withdrawal of a sum of Rs.5,000/- from his R.D. account by forging his signature.

¶73

P.W.5 Narayan Chandra Behera was working as Complaint Inspector, Cuttack North Division, Cuttack, who

¶74

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶75

Page 6 of 36

¶76

Signature Not Verified

¶77

[7]

¶78

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶79

proved the entries in different pass books of the depositors and the statements made by them before P.W.8.

¶80

P.W.6 Ashok Kumar Nayak was working as Postal

¶81

Assistant in Head Post Office, Bhadrak and he is a witness to the seizure of documents marked Ext.23. He stated that the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi has deposited the misappropriated amount of Rs.12,000/- from R.D. A/c. No.132441 and also deposited Rs.6,000/- in R.D. A/c. No.11663 standing in Jajpur

¶82

Road Railway Station Sub-post office on 04.04.1994. He further stated that he also received Rs.1,000/- from the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi, which was fraudulently withdrawn from R.D. A/c. No.11663 standing in Jajpur Road Railway Station Sub-post office.

¶83

P.W.7 Muralidhar Satpathy, who was working as

¶84

U.D.C. in Jajpur Road Electrical Division, stated about filling up of the withdrawal slip on behalf of P.W.3 as the latter approached him for such purpose.

¶85

P.W.8 Satyabrata Satpathy, who was working as Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack North Division conducted enquiry into the allegations made by some depositors being directed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack

¶86

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶87

Page 7 of 36

¶88

Signature Not Verified

¶89

[8]

¶90

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶91

North Division, Cuttack and submitted the Enquiry Report to the Chief Post Master General, Odisha vide Ext.53.

¶92

P.W.9 Gopabandhu Pati is the Investigating Officer of

¶93

the case.

¶94

The prosecution exhibited fifty seven documents. Ext.1 is the receipt of pass book, Ext.2 is the application of P.W.1, Ext.3 is the specimen signature of P.W.1, Ext.4 is the deposit slip, Ext.5 is the withdrawal slip dt.20.10.1993, Ext.6 is the statement of P.W.1, Ext.7 is the specimen signature of P.W.2, Ext.8 is the withdrawal slip dt. 03.07.1993, Ext.9 is the statement in two sheets of P.W.2, Ext.10 is the specimen signature in a sheet of P.W.2, Ext.11 is the application of P.W.3 for opening the account, Ext.12 is the specimen signature slip of P.W.3, Ext.13 is the R.D. pass book of P.W.3, Ext.14 is the authorization of cashier to P.W.3, P.W.15 is the withdrawal slip dated 26.06.1993, P.W.16 is the written report given to A.S.P. by P.W.3, P.W.17 is the specimen signature of P.W.3, P.W.18 is the signature of P.W.3 on back of S/R., Ext.19 is the application form for opening the account by P.W.4, Ext.20 is the specimen signature slip of P.W.4, Ext.21 is the statement given by P.W.4 to A.S.P., Ext.22 is the specimen signature of P.W.4, Ext.23 is the seizure list dated 16.08.1994, Ext.24 is the A.C.G. receipt

¶95

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶96

Page 8 of 36

¶97

Signature Not Verified

¶98

[9]

¶99

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶100

book, Ext.25 is the seizure list dt.02.08.1994, Ext.26 is the seizure list dated 10.08.1994, Ext.27 is the seizure list dated 22.08.1994, Ext.28 is the seizure list dated 25.10.1994, Ext.29 to Ext.29/4 are the specimen signatures of the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi in five sheets, Ext.30 is the withdrawal form, Ext.31 is the ledger card of P.W.4, Ext.32 is the ledger card of P.W.3, Ext.33 is the ledger card of P.W.2, Ext.34 is the ledger card of P.W.1, Exts.35 to 40 are the daily lists of transactions dated 14.06.1993, 23.12.1993, 26.06.1993, 03.07.1993, 03.07.1993, 06.01.1993 and 20.10.1993, Ext.41 is the pay inslip form of Rs.2762.50 p., Exts.42 to 47 are the sub-office daily account, Ext.48 is the statement of L.D. Kar, Ext.49 is the statement of S. Mohanty, Ext.50 is the statement of K.C. Mohanty, Ext.51 is the statement of the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi, Ext.52 is the statement of the petitioner Achyutananda Panda, Ext.53 is the enquiry report, Ext.54 is the letter sent to S.E.Q.D., Ext.55 is the report of G.E.Q.D., Ext.56 is the F.I.R. and Ext.57 is the seizure list dt.10.08.1994.

¶101

Defence Plea and Defence Witness :

¶102

The defence plea of the petitioners is one of denial and they pleaded that it is out and out a false case foisted against them.

¶103

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶104

Page 9 of 36

¶105

Signature Not Verified

¶106

[10]

¶107

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶108

D.W.1 Narayan Sethi who was the Sub-Postmaster from Jajpur Road Railway Station post office during the relevant time has been examined on behalf of the defence who stated about the works assigned to the petitioners in their respective capacity and further stated that P.Ws.1 to 4 never complained before him against the petitioners.

¶109

Finding of Trial Court and Appellate Court :

¶110

The learned trial Court in the impugned judgment has been pleased to hold that both the petitioners made an agreement to commit criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of such conspiracy, they forged the signatures of P.Ws.1 to 4 in the withdrawal slips, manufactured forged documents and on the basis of the forged documents, they withdrew the money to the tune of Rs.22,000/- from the accounts of P.Ws.1 to 4 and cheated the postal department to the tune of the said amount intentionally and for the purpose of cheating, they dishonestly and fraudulently utilized forged withdrawal slips as genuine documents. The learned trial Court further held that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses stand unassailable and unimpeachable and thus the prosecution has proved all the charges against both the petitioners beyond the shadow of

¶111

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶112

Page 10 of 36

¶113

Signature Not Verified

¶114

[11]

¶115

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶116

reasonable doubt and accordingly, held both the petitioners guilty of the offences charged and convicted them as aforesaid.

¶117

The learned Appellate Court scanned the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence and has been pleased to uphold the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

¶118

Mrs. Madhumita Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi in CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 emphatically contended that as per the charge sheet, the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi was entrusted with the work of deposit/withdrawal in respect of S.B., R.D., CTD etc. and as per the evidence of P.W.8, the duty to verify and scrutinize the genuineness of the signatures of the depositors was not assigned to the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi, rather it was the duty of the Head Clerk. Learned counsel further argued that the prosecution has failed to establish that final withdrawal was not permissible

¶119

through a bearer and no document to that effect has been filed by the prosecution. She further submitted that the withdrawal slip in case of R.D. deposit is used to be sent to the Head Post Office for clearance and after necessary verification, the Head Office gives permission for withdrawal. She further submitted that the petitioner Achyutananda Panda was the signature

¶120

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶121

Page 11 of 36

¶122

Signature Not Verified

¶123

[12]

¶124

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶125

verifying officer and thus, fixing liability on the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi is erroneous. Learned counsel further submitted that from the evidence of the depositors i.e. P.Ws.1 to 4, it reveals that no one has stated about giving any signature in any blank paper and utilization of the same for cheating and none of the depositors have also stated that the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi made fake signatures of the depositors to withdraw the money and used it for his own purposes. She further argued that as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it could not be established who had forged the signatures of the depositors and thus, if there is no evidence that either the petitioner had forged the signatures of the depositors or at his instance, somebody else had forged the signatures of the depositors. The basic accusation against the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi is that he had asked one K.C. Mohanty (who was originally the accused and not charge sheeted) to expedite

¶126

the process of withdrawal of money and when the petitioner Achyutananda Panda was there, who was authorized to verify the signature and another superior officer was there to verify and to correct the same, therefore, the ingredients of the offences under sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted against the petitioner. Learned counsel further

¶127

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003 Page 12 of 36

¶128

Signature Not Verified

¶129

[13]

¶130

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶131

submitted that the account holders have received their entire money and the prosecution has failed miserably in proving that the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi had misappropriated the amount and utilized the same for his own benefit. With regard to the charge under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, learned counsel argued that the essence of criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and in the present case, the prosecution has not proved any unlawful combination of the petitioner with anyone and that the appellant was entrusted with the work of withdrawal and deposit in respect of Savings Bank, recurring deposit etc. Learned counsel further submitted that though the act of the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi was breach of codal provisions, instructions and procedural safeguard as prescribed under the service code, the same cannot be given a colour of criminal offence and the learned trial Court appears to have drawn inference by placing burden of proving innocence on

¶132

the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi, which is not permissible under law. With regard to the charge under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Mrs. Panda submitted that the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi has not cheated any person or fraudulently used the documents in his favour and he did not deceive the post office nor received the amount dishonestly. In support of such

¶133

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶134

Page 13 of 36

¶135

Signature Not Verified

¶136

[14]

¶137

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶138

submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sudarsan Sahani -Vrs.- State of

¶139

Odisha (Vig.) reported in (2022) SCC Online Ori. 861 .

¶140

Mr. A.K. Sarangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Achyutananda Panda in CRLREV No. 17 of 2003 adopted the arguments advanced by Mrs. Madhumita Panda, Advocate and submitted that out of the nine witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, none has whispered a single word against the petitioner Achyutananda Panda about criminal conspiracy and that the finding of the learned trial Court is not justified regarding the agreement made by both the petitioners to commit criminal conspiracy. He further submitted that P.W.1 to P.W.4 are the depositors whose money was alleged to have been misappropriated and they have not uttered a single word against the petitioner in their evidence and there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner received the money and kept the same. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner Achyutananda Panda had any role in forging the withdrawal slips (Exts.5, 8, 15 & 30). He further submitted that P.W.7, the U.D. Clerk of the post office has not stated anything as to who forged the withdrawal slips. Learned counsel further submitted that the finding of the learned

¶141

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶142

Page 14 of 36

¶143

Signature Not Verified

¶144

[15]

¶145

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶146

trial Court that both the petitioners joined hands in forging the withdrawal forms is also based on no evidence on record. Relying on the evidence of D.W.1, learned counsel further submitted that the duty of P.W.8 was to inspect the post office and during his inspection, he could not detect the alleged fraudulent actions. P.W.3 who is one of the depositors admitted in his evidence that the withdrawal slip Ext.15 is not a forged one, which has been accepted by the learned appellate Court and therefore, the prosecution story with regard to Ext.15 is false. He further submitted that the signatures of the depositors and the signature of the petitioner Achyutananda Panda have not been compared and therefore, the possibility that the signatures appearing on Exts.5, 8 and 30 purporting to be that of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 respectively cannot be ruled out. The disputed signatures have not been examined by the handwriting expert and thus, the petitioner Achyutananda Panda had no criminal liability as he passed the withdrawal slips by putting his initials on it in due course of his official duty when those were put up before him by the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi, the Postal Assistant and thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner Achyutananda Panda took part in making false documents within the meaning of sections 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel further

¶147

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶148

Page 15 of 36

¶149

Signature Not Verified

¶150

[16]

¶151

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶152

submitted that the learned trial Court fell in error in comparing the signatures of P.Ws.1 to 4 with that of the petitioner Achyutananda Panda as the same has not been done in accordance with the provisions made in section 73 of the Evidence Act. He further submitted that except the initial of the petitioner Achyutananda Panda on Exts.5, 8, 15 and 30, no other part of the said exhibits has been proved against the petitioner Achyutananda Panda. Learned counsel further submitted that since the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge under section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, the order of conviction and the sentence passed thereunder is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submitted that in order to bring home the charge under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner Achyutananda Panda, the prosecution was required to prove that the petitioner Achyutananda Panda fraudulently or dishonestly used the withdrawal slips as genuine knowing or having reason to believe that those were forged documents. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not analyzed the evidence properly with reference to each and every ingredients of the offence and have not considered the legal aspects. The findings of the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court suffers from perversity and

¶153

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶154

Page 16 of 36

¶155

Signature Not Verified

¶156

[17]

¶157

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶158

tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice and thus, the impugned judgments of the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court are liable to be set aside.

¶159

Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the C.B.I. submitted that the scope of interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction in view of concurrent finding of fact is limited and reappreciation of evidence is not permissible and in absence of any error of law,

¶160

error of record committed by the courts below, it cannot be said that there is any perversity in the impugned judgments and therefore, the revision petitions should be dismissed. He placed reliance in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill -Vrs.- State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 204 and Murari Lal -Vrs.- State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1980) 1 Supreme Court Cases 704 .

¶161

Scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction :

¶162

In the case of Malkeet Singh Gill (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held where there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two Courts after detailed

¶163

appreciation of the material and evidence brought on

¶164

record , the High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate

¶165

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶166

Page 17 of 36

¶167

Signature Not Verified

¶168

[18]

¶169

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶170

Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Cr.P.C. vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case.

¶171

It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings.

¶172

In the case of State of Kerala -Vrs.- Putthumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri reported in (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 452 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the revisional jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting the miscarriage of justice and the revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor it can be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been

¶173

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶174

Page 18 of 36

¶175

Signature Not Verified

¶176

[19]

¶177

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶178

appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.

¶179

In the case of Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan -Vrs.-

¶180

Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and Ors. reported in (2015) 3

¶181

Supreme Court Cases 123 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶182

“14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is nonconsideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under sections 397 to 401 Code of Criminal Procedure is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on

¶183

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶184

Page 19 of 36

¶185

Signature Not Verified

¶186

[20]

¶187

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶188

no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.”

¶189

Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below are

¶190

correct , legal and proper :

¶191

The prosecution case is that in between 14.06.1993 to 20.10.1993, there was an illegal act of withdrawal of Rs.8,500/- from the account of P.W.1 whose S.B. Account number is 132441. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that on 08.06.1993, he approached the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi for withdrawal of some amount and he was informed by the said petitioner that his account had been made dormant and the same has to be made up-to-date only after deposit of passbook with the petitioner which would be sent to the Jajpur Head Post Office and accordingly, P.W.1 handed over his passbook to the

¶192

petitioner who in token of receipt of the passbook granted one receipt vide Ext.1, wherein the balance the account of P.W.1 was mentioned to be Rs.9,928.87 paise. P.W.1 thereafter approached the petitioner on number of occasions to get back his passbook but since he failed to get the same from the petitioner, he approached Jajpur Head Post Office and reported the matter to

¶193

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶194

Page 20 of 36

¶195

Signature Not Verified

¶196

[21]

¶197

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶198

the higher officials. P.W.1 specifically stated that he had never withdrawn Rs.8,500/- on 20.10.1993 from his S.B. account through messenger Pramod Kumar Sethi and he denied the signature marked as ‘X’ in the withdrawal slip (Ext.5) to be that of him. It further appears from the evidence of P.W.1 that an enquiry was conducted by postal authority during course of which his specimen signatures were taken in one sheet. It was suggested to P.W.1 by the defence that by submitting withdrawal

¶199

slip through his messenger Pramod Kumar Sethi, he had received Rs.8,500/- from his S.B. account and therefore it was not a fake withdrawal, to which P.W.1 has denied.

¶200

P.W.8 Satyabrata Satpathy, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices on being directed by Superintendent of Post Office, Cuttack conducted an enquiry and according to him, it revealed that from the withdrawal slip (Ext.5) that P.W.1 had applied for withdrawal citing one Pramod

¶201

Kumar Sethi as the messenger who had also put his signature in the withdrawal form which was passed by both the petitioners and their signatures are appearing in Ext.5, however the amount of Rs.8,500/- had not been taken payment of by P.W.1 and that P.W.1 also denied to have applied for withdrawal and also denied to have put his signature in Ext.5. P.W.8 in his cross-

¶202

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003 Page 21 of 36

¶203

Signature Not Verified

¶204

[22]

¶205

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶206

examination specifically stated that he was not acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of P.W.1 and that he could not ascertain who had signed the withdrawal form in the name of P.W.1 and he could not ascertain whether those handwriting and signatures in the withdrawal form belonged to the petitioners or not. P.W.8 has specifically stated that in some cases, withdrawal is allowed in respect of S.B. accounts and R.D. accounts through messengers and the procedure is that the depositors should attest the signature of the messenger in the application side of the application for withdrawal and the Postal Assistant who deals with the withdrawal should verify the specimen signature of the depositor in the application for withdrawal and if he is satisfied with the genuineness of the messenger, he may allow withdrawal to the messenger and when an unknown person comes to the post office being deputed as messenger by the depositor, the genuineness of the messenger should be verified by the Postal Assistant before allowing withdrawal.

¶207

If it is the prosecution case that in the withdrawal slip (Ext.5), the signature of P.W.1 was a fake signature and that he had not authorized any messenger namely Pramod Kumar Sethi for withdrawal of Rs.8,500/- from his S.B. account no.132441, when his specimen signatures were obtained by the postal

¶208

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶209

Page 22 of 36

¶210

Signature Not Verified

¶211

[23]

¶212

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶213

authority, it should have been sent to the handwriting expert for its comparison and to opine whether the signature appearing on Ext.5 was that of the P.W.1 or not. Similarly, the petitioners should have been asked to write the name of the petitioner and such samples should have also been sent to the handwriting expert to verify whether both the petitioners made the fake signatures on Ext.5 or not. P.W.9, the I.O. has stated in the cross-examination that during investigation, it could not be established who had forged the signatures of the depositors. When the assistance of the handwriting expert has not been taken and it could not be established as to who had forged the signature of P.W.1 and P.W.8 himself was not acquainted with the handwriting and signature of P.W.1 and there is no evidence that the petitioners had forged the signatures of the depositors or at their instance, somebody else had forged the signatures of the depositors, merely basing on the statement of P.W.1 that Ext.5 did not contain his signature, the same should not have been accepted by both the Courts below as gospel truth.

¶214

Law is well settled that the science of identification of handwriting by comparison is not an infallible one and prudence demands that before acting on such opinion, the Court should be fully satisfied about the authorship of the admitted writings

¶215

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶216

Page 23 of 36

¶217

Signature Not Verified

¶218

[24]

¶219

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶220

which is the sole basis for comparison and the Court should also be fully satisfied about the competence and credibility of the handwriting expert. As a rule of prudence, the Court should look for corroboration before acting on such evidence. The Court should not take upon himself the hazardous task of adjudicating upon the genuineness and authenticity of the signatures even without the assistance of a skilled and trained person. It is not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two tallied with each other and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert. The opinion or a handwriting expert is fallible/liable to error like that of any other witness. There is no legal bar to prevent the Court from comparing signatures or handwriting, by using its own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing and then from applying its own observation to prove the said hand writings to be the same or different, as the case may be, but in doing so, the Court cannot itself become an expert in this regard and must refrain from playing the role of an expert. For the simple reason, the opinion of the Court may not be conclusive. The Court as matter of prudence and caution should hesitate and

¶221

slow on its finding solely on the comparison made by itself.

¶222

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶223

Page 24 of 36

¶224

Signature Not Verified

¶225

[25]

¶226

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶227

However if there is an opinion whether of the expert or any witness, the Court may apply its own observation by comparing the signatures or handwritings for giving a decisive weight or influence [ Ref: State of Maharashtra -Vrs.- Sukhdev Singh : 1992 Criminal Law Journal 3454, O. Bharatan -Vrs.-K. Sudhakaran : A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1140, The State (Delhi Administration) -Vrs.- Pali Ram : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 14 ]. In case of Murari Lal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

¶228

section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a witting is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being unable to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the Court to compare the writings and come to its conclusion. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the Court is no expert. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the Court. Where there is none, the Court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative textbook and the courts own experience and knowledge.

¶229

Therefore, when clinching evidence is not available

¶230

on record that the signature appearing on the withdrawal slip

¶231

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶232

Page 25 of 36

¶233

Signature Not Verified

¶234

[26]

¶235

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶236

(Ext.5) was not that of P.W.1 and it was a fake signature and the assistance of handwriting experts has not been taken, the learned trial Court should not have compared the disputed signature of P.W.1 appearing on such withdrawal slip with the admitted signature of P.W.1 to come to the conclusion that Ext.5 contains the fake signature of P.W.1. Needless to say, that the Court has not sought for any guidance from any authoritative textbook nor anything is available on record regarding Court’s

¶237

own experience and knowledge and ability for making such comparison and therefore, I am of the view that the finding of the learned trial Court on this score which has been confirmed by the learned appellate Court is perverse and illegal and this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction can certainly look into the same as it has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution case regarding illegal withdrawal of Rs.8,500/- (rupees eight thousand five hundred) from the account of P.W.1 is unsatisfactory and cannot be accepted.

¶238

P.W.2 Janaki Ballav Pradhan has stated that he had

¶239

got R.D. account in Jajpur Road Railway Station Post Office bearing no.11663 . He proved his specimen signature which was taken at the time of opening of the account marked as Ext.7/1.

¶240

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶241

Page 26 of 36

¶242

Signature Not Verified

¶243

[27]

¶244

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶245

He stated that on 03.07.1993, he never withdrew Rs.6,000/from his R.D. account and he has stated that the signatures marked as ‘Y’ and ‘Y/1’ appearing on the withdrawal slip dated 03.07.1993 (Ext. B) were not his signatures. He further stated that the postal authority took his specimen signature in a sheet which was marked as Ext.10. In the cross-examination, he has stated that his pass book in respect of the R.D. account always remained with Murali Babu, the Office Cashier and that he had received the matured amount after eight moths of the matured date and he did not complain against the petitioners before any authority. PW.7 Muralidhar Satpathy who was working as U.D.C. in Jajpur Road Electrical Division stated that P.W.2 was working with him in his office and had R.D. account in Jajpur Road Post Office. He further stated that as per the practice adopted for R.D. account, the amount was being deducted from the salary and was accounted to the concerned post office along with the

¶246

amount and passbook account number and after receiving the amount, the post office used to grant stamp receipts. He stated that he had no discussion with the petitioner Hrudananda Sethy about the misappropriation and he had no knowledge about the misappropriation. He further stated that after deposit on the passbook in the post office, after up-to-date entries, the

¶247

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶248

Page 27 of 36

¶249

Signature Not Verified

¶250

[28]

¶251

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶252

passbooks are returned and it sometimes takes about a month or so when there is shortage of hands. The prosecution has not chosen to put any question to P.W.7 as to if the R.D. account passbook of P.W.2 was remaining with him, how a withdrawal of Rs.6,000/-(rupees six thousand) was made from such account. The withdrawal slip and the signatures appearing thereon have also not been confronted to P.W.7. Therefore, there is no clinching evidence that there was illegal withdrawal of Rs.6,000/(rupees six thousand) from the account of P.W.2 and that the petitioners are responsible for the same.

¶253

Coming to the evidence of P.W.3 Ramakanta Sahu, it appears that that he was having a R.D. account in Jajpur Road Post Office where he was depositing Rs.100/- per month in that account and that the cashier of the electricity department of Jajpur Road where he was working as a helper used to deduct Rs.100/- per month from his salary and used to deposit the same on his behalf in the R.D. account which was bearing no.11569. He proved his signatures in the specimen signatures slip which was taken at the time of opening of account and he has also proved the R.D. passbook vide Ext.13. He specifically stated that on 26.06.1993 he withdrew a sum of Rs.2,500/- from the said account. He has also proved his signatures in the

¶254

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶255

Page 28 of 36

¶256

Signature Not Verified

¶257

[29]

¶258

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶259

withdrawal form which has been marked as Exts.15/1 and Ext.15/2 respectively. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined under section 154 of the Evidence Act. In the cross-examination by the defence, he has stated that he never visited the post office and deposited the amount, however, at the time of withdrawal, he used to go in person to the post office and that he had not lost any amount in the said account. P.W.7, who was working as U.D.C. in Jajpur Road Electrical Division, stated about filling up of the withdrawal slip on behalf of P.W.3 as the latter approached him for such purpose. In view of such categorical statement made by P.W.3, the prosecution case that there has been illegal withdrawal of Rs.2,500/- from the R.D. account of P.W.3 on 26.06.1993 is not acceptable.

¶260

Coming to the evidence of P.W.4 Gangadhar Nayak, he has stated that he was working as lineman at Jajpur and his

¶261

cashier used to deduct Rs.200/- per month from his salary and deposit the same in Jajpur Road Post Office where R.D. account has been opened in his name. He has proved his signatures in

¶262

the specimen signature slips, however he has stated that he had never withdrawn Rs.5,000/from the said account on 14.06.1993 and that he had not submitted the withdrawal slip

¶263

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003 Page 29 of 36

¶264

Signature Not Verified

¶265

[30]

¶266

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶267

marked as ‘X1’ and he also disputed his signatures as ‘X2’ and ‘X3’ and further stated that he had lost Rs.5,000/- from his

¶268

account. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the deposits in his account were used to be made through his office only and further stated that after the maturity of the deposit, he went to the post office to withdraw the amount and at that time, he saw the petitioners for the first time. He further stated that initially he had lost Rs.5,000/- but thereafter he had withdrawn

¶269

the amount from his account which he was entitled to. P.W.7 has stated that P.W.4 was working with him in his office. The passbook of P.W.4 was remaining with P.W.7 like the passbook of P.W.2, however no question has been put to P.W.7 by the prosecution as to how a withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- was made from the account of P.W.4 and even the withdrawal slip and the signatures appearing thereon marked ‘X1’, ‘X2’ and ‘X3’ were not confronted to P.W.7 and therefore, there is no clinching evidence

¶270

that there was any illegal withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- on 14.06.1993 from the account of P.W.4 bearing no.11508 and that the petitioners are responsible for the same.

¶271

Section 420 of the I.P.C. deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. In the case of Archana Rana -Vrs.- State of U.P. reported in (2021) 3

¶272

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶273

Page 30 of 36

¶274

Signature Not Verified

¶275

[31]

¶276

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶277

Supreme Court Cases 751 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the principles governing prosecution under section 420 of the I.P.C. and held that cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under section 420 of I.P.C. Cheating is defined under section 415 of I.P.C. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are that there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him. The person who was induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or the person who was induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Thus, a fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence under section 415 of I.P.C. A person who dishonestly induced any person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.

¶278

Section 468 of the I.P.C. deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating. The prosecution must prove that the document is a forged document and the accused forged the document and that he did so intending that the forged document would be used for the purpose of the cheating. If it is proved that the purpose of the accused in committing forgery, is to

¶279

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶280

Page 31 of 36

¶281

Signature Not Verified

¶282

[32]

¶283

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶284

obtain property dishonestly, or if his guilty purpose comes within the definition of cheating, he would be punishable under section 468 of the I.P.C.

¶285

So far as section 471 of the I.P.C. is concerned, it deals with fraudulently or dishonestly using any document as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe it to be a forged document. The prosecution must prove on the basis of material available on record that the accused had knowledge and had reason to believe that the document in question was a forged one and in spite of such knowledge or belief, he used the document as a genuine one. Knowledge is an awareness on the part of the person concerned indicating his state of mind. Reason to believe is another facet of the state of mind. The two requirements i.e. knowledge and reason to believe have to be deduced from various circumstances in the case and even if such circumstances need not necessarily be capable of absolute conviction of inference, it is sufficient, if the circumstances are such creating a cause to believe by chain of probable reasoning leading to the conclusion or inference about the nature of thing.

¶286

Section 120-B of the I.P.C. deal with criminal

¶287

conspiracy and the prosecution must prove that the accused

¶288

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶289

Page 32 of 36

¶290

Signature Not Verified

¶291

[33]

¶292

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶293

agreed to do or caused to be done an act which was an illegal one or was to be done by illegal means and that some overt act was done by one of the accused in pursuance of the agreement. Mere evidence of association is not sufficient to lead an inference of conspiracy. Mere meeting by itself would not be sufficient to infer the existence of criminal conspiracy. In cases of conspiracy, the agreement between the conspirators cannot generally be directly proved, but only inferred from the established facts in the case as conspiracy is a clandestine activity. Mere circumstantial evidence to prove the involvement of the accused persons would not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the criminal conspiracy and meeting of minds to form a criminal conspiracy has to be proved by placing substantive evidence. In the case of Sudarsan Sahani (supra), it is held that the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the sine qua non of criminal conspiracy. The offence can be proved largely from the inferences drawn from the acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design in as much as the conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the common intention of the conspirators. The entire agreement is to be viewed as a

¶294

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003 Page 33 of 36

¶295

Signature Not Verified

¶296

[34]

¶297

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶298

whole and it has to be ascertained as to what in fact the conspirators intended to do or the object they wanted to achieve. The essence of criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed.

¶299

In the case in hand, P.W.9 has stated that during course of investigation, it could not be established who had forged the signature of the depositor. The nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial also not established that the petitioners have committed forgery and that to for the purpose of cheating and that they used the forged documents as genuine and there was any kind of criminal conspiracy between them. Mere deposit of the amount in question by the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi cannot be an admission of guilt.

¶300

In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the humble view that the learned trial Court was not justified in convicting the petitioners under section 420/468/471 read with section 120-B of the I.P.C. and it was also not proper on the part of the learned Appellate Court just to quote the evidence of few witnesses and abruptly coming to the conclusion that it agreed with the conviction judgment passed by the learned trial Court.

¶301

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶302

Page 34 of 36

¶303

Signature Not Verified

¶304

[35]

¶305

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶306

It is well settled that in a criminal appeal, a duty is enjoined upon the appellate Court to reappraise the evidence itself and it cannot proceed to dispose of the appeal upon appraisal of the evidence by the learned trial Court alone especially when the appeal has already been admitted and placed for final hearing. The duty of an appellate Court is to look into evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even if

¶307

it can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution can be said to have been proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence. The presumption of innocence with which the accused starts, continue right through until he is held guilty by the final Court of appeal and that presumption is not weakened by a conviction in the trial Court. In the case in hand, the quality of exercise which was expected of the appellate Court to be undertaken has not been done and that was the reason for which

¶308

this Court in its revisional jurisdiction, in the interest of justice was constrained to have a relook at the evidence and assess the evidence as an exceptional case to set right the patent defect. In the result, the conviction of the petitioners under sections 420/468/471 read with section 120-B of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of all the charges.

¶309

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶310

Page 35 of 36

¶311

Signature Not Verified

¶312

[36]

¶313

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Dec-2023 11:45:23

¶314

Accordingly, both the revision petitions are allowed.

¶315

The petitioners are on bail by virtue of the orders of this Court. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.

¶316

Before parting with the case, I would like to put on record my appreciation to Mrs. Madhumita Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRLREV No.21 of 2003 and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner in

¶317

CRLREV No.17 of 2003 for rendering their assistance in arriving

¶318

at the above decision. I also appreciate Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the C.B.I. for ably and meticulously presenting the case.

¶319

A copy of the judgment along with the case records be sent to the concerned Court. ………………………… S.K. Sahoo, J.

¶320

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 18^th December 2023/PKSahoo/Pravakar/Sipun

¶321

CRLREV No. 21 of 2003 & CRLREV No. 17 of 2003

¶322

Page 36 of 36

Hrudananda Sethi v. Republic of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hrudananda Sethi v. Republic of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indramani Setha @ Indramani Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Jitu @ Kalia @ Jitendra Kumar Patra Vs State of Odisha

Rohit Bariha Vs State of Odisha

Tikelal Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Jayanti Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Mithun Polei Vs State of Odisha