Tripura High Court
Dr. Mrinmoy Barman vs The State Of Tripura on 23 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. A(J) No.04 of 2022
Dr. Mrinmoy Barman,
Son of Lt. Upendra Chandra Barman, resident of Lalchara Hospital,
Khowai, PS Khowai, P.O Khowai Court, Dist Khowai, Tripura.
......... Appellant(s)
-Versus-
The State of Tripura,
......... Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Senior Advocate.
Mr. K. Nath, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
Crl. A(J) No.06 of 2022
Mrs. Rasmani Biswas, legal heirs of deceased Dr.
Krishnadhan Biswas,
Wife of Lt. Krishnadhan Biswas, resident of Amtali (near Cold
Storage), P.S. Amtali, District West Tripura, presently residing at
Ramnagar Road No.8, P.O. Ramnagar, P.S. West Agartala, District
West Tripura.
......... Appellant(s)
-Versus-
The State of Tripura,
......... Respondent(s)
Crl. A(J) No.07 of 2022
Sri Shiba Prasad Sengupta,
Son of Late Sachindra Sengupta, resident of Abhoynagar, P.S. East
Agartala, District West Tripura.
......... Appellant(s)
-Versus-
The State of Tripura,
......... Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Biswas, Senior Advocate.
[Crl. A(J) 06/2022 & Crl.A(J) 07/2022] Mr. P. Majumder, Advocate.
Mr. R. Nath, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
Date of hearing : 20th March, 2025.
Page 2 of 100
Date of delivery
of Judgment & Order : 23rd April, 2025.
Whether fit for reporting : YES NO
√
Index to the Judgment
Sl. No. Contents Page numbers
1. Introduction 2-9
2. Arguments on behalf of Shiba Prasad Sengupta and 9-13
K.D. Biswas
3. Arguments on behalf of Dr. Mrinmoy Barman 13-19
4. Arguments on behalf of the State 19-28
5. Procedure of disbursement of different grants to the 28-29
beneficiaries
6. Evidence against Shiba Prasad Sengupta 29-39
7. Evidence against Lt. Krishnadhan Biswas 39-50
8. Evidence against Mrinmoy Barman 50-57
9. Evidence of Beneficiaries 57-66
10. Proof of cash books 66-68
11. Evidence against S.P. Sengupta in respect of 68-69
offences under Section 409 IPC and Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
12. Evidence against K.D. Biswas and Mrinmoy Barman 70-75
in respect of charges under Section 409 IPC and
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988
13. Faulty and biased investigation 75-81
14. Evidences in respect of charges under Section 477A, 81-95
IPC
15. Challenge as to the framing of charges 95-96
16. Bar of Section 306 of Cr.P.C. 96-98
17. Absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. 98-99
18. Conclusion 99-100
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Introduction:
All the three appeals arise out of the judgment dated
23.02.2022 and sentence passed thereupon by learned Special Judge,
West Tripura, Agartala in Special (PC) No.22 of 2004 whereby
Shibaprasad Sengupta, Krishnadhan Biswas and Mrinmoy Barman
were convicted under Sections 409 and 477A of Indian Penal Code
Page 3 of 100
(for short IPC) read with Section 34 IPC and also under Section 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Other two charge-sheeted
persons namely, Sankar Dey and Dr. Tushar Kanti Sengupta died
during pendency of the case before the learned Trial Court. All the
three convicted persons were sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each under
Section 409 read with Section 34 IPC and also to suffer RI for 5 years
and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each under Section 477A read with
Section 34 IPC. They were further sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each under
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. All the sentences
were directed to run concurrently. Krishnadhan Biswas later on
expired and the connected appeal has been preferred by his legal
representative-wife.
[2] The FIR was lodged by one Banamali Sinha (PW-31), the
then Director of Animal Resource Development Department,
Government of Tripura, Agartala on 11.12.1996 (FIR signed by him
on 06.12.1996) to the O/C, East Agartala police station alleging, inter
alia, that S.P. Sengupta worked as Deputy Director (West) of Animal
Husbandry Department from 07.07.1989 till 24.05.1993 and
thereafter, Dr. Paritosh Majumder worked in that post from
24.05.1993 to 11.01.1995 and during that period both of them also
discharged the function of the DDO and Head of Offices and Sankar
Dey was the cashier of the said office from 17.12.1979 to
26.08.1994. It was also stated in the FIR that there were many
Implementing Officers/staff under said Deputy Director during the
Page 4 of 100
period from 1988-89 to 1993-94 for implementation of different
beneficiary schemes. It was further stated that K.D. Biswas was the
Assistant Director, Sonamura from 24.05.1988 to 19.07.1995 and
during his said tenure, Mrinmoy Barman and Tushar Kanti Sengupta
were also the Implementing Officers of Sonamura Sub-Division and
during the period from 1988-89 to 1993-94, an amount of
Rs.88,98,109.40/- was disbursed by Sankar Dey, cashier to the
Implementing Officers of Animal Husbandry Department against
various beneficiary schemes for distribution to the beneficiaries out of
total amount of Rs.89,56,191/- drawn during said period against
grant-in-aid bills during the tenure of Dr. Sengupta. It was also
alleged that out of said amount, a sum of Rs.46,23,998/- was
sanctioned to Dr. K.D. Biswas for implementation of various
beneficiary scheme and actually Dr. Biswas received only
Rs.16,75,862/- and said Sankar Dey, cashier failed to show in
support of receipt of rest amount of Rs.29,48,136/- by Dr. K.D.
Biswas. Further allegation was that huge amount of money shown to
be disbursed to the beneficiaries by the Implementing Officers,
appeared to be defalcated by the Implementing Officers and fictitious
adjustment vouchers submitted by them were also accepted by Dr.
Sengupta. In most of the cases, the adjustment vouchers were
without complete address of the beneficiaries and in majority cases of
Sonamura Sub-Division, either only the name or the thumb
impression of the beneficiaries were available and moreover, Dr. K.D.
Biswas submitted excess adjustment amount of Rs.9,972/- which
created doubt about the veracity of the adjustment vouchers. It has
been also alleged that only in Sonamura Sub-Division, 50% of the
Page 5 of 100
adjustment vouchers appeared to be fictitious and in Sadar and
Khowai Sub-Division, the payment to the beneficiaries were made in
partial manner in many cases.
[3] As stated in the FIR, an internal inspection team thereafter
made physical verification on 09.04.1994 while Dr. Paritosh
Majumder was the Deputy Director and Sankar Dey was the cashier
and a shortage of Rs.1,31,210.93/- in liquid cash in the office of
Deputy Director was found. Said inspection team also found
discrepancy of Rs.1,79,741.40/- for the period of 1988-89 to 1993-94
between the cash book and the PL account required to be shown and
actually shown. Said inspection team also found that the sale
proceeds of cow growth milk received from different sub-centres on
different dates were not deposited to the treasury and was kept in
cash without assigning any reason. Thereafter, Sankar Dey, cashier
showed adjustment of Rs.1,44,024/- by producing 6(six) nos. of
vouchers on 04.08.1994 containing the signatures of Dr. Mrinmoy
Barman, Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr. T.K. Sengupta and others for which no
money was drawn from the treasury against grant-in-aid bills but the
money was handed over to Dr. Biswas from the cash. Dr. Biswas
denied the receipt of the money and on verification, the vouchers
were also found fictitious. It was also alleged that said Sankar Dey
had also disbursed an amount of Rs.4,83,587/- directly to the
beneficiaries and an amount of Rs.35,625/- to the APS to the
Ministers against various beneficiary schemes beyond the norms.
Discrepancies were also found in the PL account of the office of
Page 6 of 100
Deputy Director and consequently, the FIR was lodged against
aforesaid officers, employees and other Implementing Officers.
[4] The East Agartala Police Station registered the FIR as East
Agartala PS case No.200 of 1996 under Section 409,468,477 IPC and
Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Initially, the case
was endorsed to Sub-Inspector Kajal Ghosh for investigation but later
on, some other officers of the rank of DSP continued the investigation
and ultimately PW-54, Sri Tapan Goswami, DSP, CID submitted
charge-sheet against Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
Mrinmoy Barman, said T.K. Sengupta and Sankar Dey under Section
409,468 and 471 of IPC and Section 5 and 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
[5] The following charges were, thereafter, framed against all
the accused persons by learned Special Judge, West Tripura,
Agartala:
"Firstly, that in between April, 1990 to March, 1991
on different dates and time all of you in a conspiracy in
furtherance of common intention of you all being
Public Servants of the office of the Deputy Director,
West Tripura of Animal Husbandry Department,
subsequently renamed as Animal Resource
Development Department, being entrusted with and
having dominion over Government Money of
Rs.15,56,743/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs fifty six thousand
seven hundred forty three) in different beneficiary
schemes in your respective capacity of as such Public
Servant committed Criminal breach of trust in respect
of that property and for that all of you thereby
committed an offence punishable U/s 409 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within my
cognizance;
Secondly, that within the said period of April, 1990
to March, 1991 on different dates and time all of you in
a conspiracy in furtherance of common intention of
you all being Deputy Director, Assistant Director,
Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (VAS), Dairy Officer and
Cashier respectively of the office of the Deputy
Director, West Tripura, Animal Husbandry Department
subsequently renamed as Animal Resource
Development Department acting in your respective
official capacity with intent to defraud, falsified
vouchers and book of accounts of the said office which
Page 7 of 100
documents were under your custody being such Public
servants and for that all of you thereby committed an
offence punishable U/s 477A read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance;
Thirdly, that during the said period from April, 1990
to March, 1991 on different dates and time all of you in
a conspiracy being public servants as Deputy Director,
Assistant Directory, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon
(VAS) Dairy Officer and Cashier, respectively of the
Office of the Deputy Director, West Tripura, Animal
Husbandry Department subsequently renamed as
Animal Resource Development Department dishonestly
and fraudulently misappropriated Government fund of
Rs.15,56,743/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs fifty six thousand
seven hundred forty three) by creating false vouchers
and documents, which amount was under your control
and dominion as such Public servants and for that all
of you have committed an offence punishable U/s
13(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
within my cognizance;
And I hereby direct that all of you be tried on the
said charges by this Court."
...................................................
"Firstly, that in between April, 1988 to March, 1989
on different dates and time all of you in a conspiracy in
furtherance of common intention of you all being
Public Servants of the office of the Deputy Director,
West Tripura of Animal Husbandry Department,
subsequently renamed as Animal Resource
Development Department, being entrusted with and
having dominion over Government Money of
Rs.2,25,050/-(Rupees two lakhs twenty five thousand
and fifty) in different beneficiary schemes in your
respective capacity of as such Public Servant
committed Criminal breach of trust in respect of that
property and for that all of you thereby committed an
offence punishable U/s 409 read with Section 34 of the
India Penal Code and within my cognizance;
Secondly, that within the said period of April, 1988
to March, 1989 on different dates and time all of you in
a conspiracy in furtherance of common intention of
you all being Deputy Director, Assistant Director, and
Cashier, respectively, of the office of the Deputy
Director, West Tripura, Animal Husbandry Department
subsequently renamed as Animal Resource
Development Department acting in your respective
official capacity with intent to defraud, falsified
vouchers and book of accounts of the said office, which
documents were under your custody being such Public
servants and for that all of you thereby committed an
offence punishable U/s 477A read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance;
Thirdly, that during the said period from April,1988
to March,1989 on different dates and time all of you in
a conspiracy being public servants as Deputy Director,
Assistant Director, and Cashier, respectively of the
office of the Deputy Director, West Tripura, Animal
Husbandry Department, subsequently renamed as
Animal Resource Development Department dishonestly
and fraudulently misappropriated Government fund of
Rs.2,25,050/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty five thousand
and fifty) by creating false vouchers and documents,
which amount was under your control and dominion as
such Public servants and for that all of you have
committed an offence punishable U/s 13(c) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my
cognizance;
And I hereby direct that all of you be tried on the
said charges by this Court."
...................................................
"Firstly, that in between April, 1991 to March, 1992
on different dates and time all of you in a conspiracy in
furtherance of common intention of you all being
Public Servants of the office of the Deputy Director,
West Tripura of Animal Husbandry Department,
subsequently renamed as Animal Resource
Development Department, being entrusted with and
having dominion over Government Money of
Rs.13,82,376/- (Rupees thirteen lakh eighty two
thousand three hundred seventy six) in different
beneficiary schemes in your respective capacity of as
such Public Servant committed Criminal breach of trust
in respect of that property and for that all of you
thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 409 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within
my cognizance:
Secondly, that within the said period of April, 1991
to March, 1992 on different dates and time all of you in
a conspiracy in furtherance of common intention of
you all being Deputy Director, Assistant Director,
Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (VAS), Dairy Officer and
Cashier, respectively of the office of the Deputy
Director, West Tripura, Animal Husbandry Department
subsequently renamed as Animal Resource
Development Department acting in your respective
official capacity with intent to defraud, falsified
vouchers and book of accounts of the said office, which
documents were under your custody being such Public
servants and for that all of you thereby committed an
offence punishable U/s 477A read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance:
Thirdly, that during the said period from April, 1991
to March, 1992 on different dates and time all of you in
a conspiracy being public servants as Deputy Director,
Assistant Director, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (VAS)
Diary Officer and Cashier, respectively of the Office of
the Deputy Director, West Tripura, Animal Husbandry
Department, subsequently renamed as Animal
Resource Development Department dishonestly and
fraudulently misappropriated Government fund of
Rs.13,82,376/-(Rupees thirteen lakh eighty two
thousand three hundred seventy six) by creating false
vouchers and documents, which amount was under
your control and dominion as such Public servants and
for that all of you have committed an offence
punishable U/s 13(c) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and within my cognizance;
And I hereby direct that all of you be tried on the
said charges by this Court."
[6] The prosecution examined total 54 (fifty four) nos. of
witnesses and also proved several documents including vouchers,
cash books etc. to substantiate the charges and finally decision of the
learned Trial Court came in the form of conviction as stated above.
[7] Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel representing the
appellants S.P. Sengupta and Lt. Krishnadhan Biswas and Mr. P. Roy
Barman, learned senior counsel representing Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
raise different points challenging the impugned judgment which are
reflected hereunder:
Arguments on behalf of Shiba Prasad Sengupta and K.D. Biswas:
[8] Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel submits that S.P.
Sengupta was the Dy. Director of the institution and actual
disbursements were made by the Implementing Officers to the
beneficiaries wherein the appellant S.P. Sengupta had no role to play.
He only acted as DDO and the sanctioning authority was the Director
of Animal Husbandry Department who would sanction the money and
based on such sanction order, sanctioned amount would be handed
over by the cashier to the Implementing Officers. Referring to the
evidence of PW-48 and PW-49, learned senior counsel contends that
list of beneficiaries were prepared by said two witnesses under
pressure from two Ministers of that period, hence there was no
justified reason to implicate the appellants in criminal trial. Mr.
Biswas, learned senior counsel also argues that preparation of fake
lists of beneficiaries, if any, was done at Block level and not by the
Dy. Director or the Assistant Director and the list would be sent to the
Director for final approval and the cashier would disburse the money
based on such sanction memos to the Implementing Officers for
disbursement to the beneficiaries on their identification and the
Assistant Director or the Dy. Director were mainly file despatching
officers who would process the file as a matter of routine work.
[9] The next point as argued by Mr. Biswas, learned senior
counsel is that Paritosh Majumder (PW-1) is the key witness of the
case who was an FIR named accused and as such without complying
the provision of Section 306 Cr.P.C, he could not be made a witness
in the case. If the evidence of PW-1 is rendered inadmissible, Mr.
Biswas, learned senior counsel submits, the entire foundation of the
case would fall. Learned senior counsel also submits that 6 (six) nos.
of unauthenticated APRs/money receipts (Ext.15 series) based on
which the enquiry was started at the very initial stage, are simply
photocopies of documents having no evidential value. Learned senior
counsel further contends that as per PW-1, all the entries were made
by Sankar Dey in the cash book and therefore, the present appellants
had no responsibility in respect of any fake entry made in any such
cash book. Next point of his argument is that there was charge of
conspiracy against the appellant whereas no such evidence of
conspiracy was established.
[10] Learned senior counsel also contends that in all the
money receipts identification of beneficiaries were made by Chairmen
of Development Committees and based on such identification, money
was disbursed to the beneficiaries but they were not impleaded as
accused in the case. To support his submission learned senior counsel
also refers to the money receipts marked under Ext.34 series which
contain signature of Chairman, Block Development Committee,
Bejimara Gaon Sabha as identifier of the beneficiaries. Learned senior
counsel also refers to a sanction memo for Rs.33,300/- (Ext.38)
signed by Addl. Director, Animal Husbandry along with attached list of
beneficiaries (Ext.39) signed by said Addl. Director and the related
money receipts under Ext.40 series wherein also similarly all the
beneficiaries were identified by the Chairman, Block Development
Committee of concerned Gram Panchayat. Learned senior counsel
submits that not a single money receipt was signed by Shiba Prasad
Sengupta. Learned senior counsel further refers to one sanction
memo of Rs.17,734/- (Ext.30) signed by Shiba Prasad Sengupta for
sanctioning said amount for disbursement to ten beneficiaries of
Melaghar Block for poultry development along with one list of
beneficiaries under Ext.31 containing names and addresses of said
ten nos. of beneficiaries (signed by only Shiba Prasad Sengupta) and
related grant-in-aid bill for said amount signed by Shiba Prasad
Sengupta (Ext.29) and submits that the role of Shiba Prasad
Sengupta was only to sign the grant-in-aid bills and sanction memo
and he had nothing to do with the disbursement phase.
[11] Learned senior counsel also raises the plea that all the
money receipts under Ext.72 series regarding disbursement of
money to the beneficiaries @Rs.666/- each, one Assistant Veterinary
Surgeon also signed the vouchers and the beneficiaries were
identified by Chairman, Development Committee, Boxanagar Gram
Panchayet and Putia Gram Panchayet but said Assistant Veterinary
Surgeon or the Chairman of the Development Committee were not
charge-sheeted in the case and there was also no explanation from
the prosecution as to why they were not made accused in the case.
[12] Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel further submits that the
report of fingerprint expert was not proved into evidence and
therefore, adverse inference is required to be taken against the
prosecution. Learned senior counsel gave much stress on his
submission that the real culprits were not booked in the case and the
appellants fell prey of biased investigation and therefore, benefit of
doubt ought to have been given to the present appellants. Learned
senior counsel also contends that separate charges were framed
against the accused persons and the first three counts of charges
were covering the period April, 1988 to March, 1989 against S.P.
Sengupta, K.D. Biswas and Sankar Dey. Further three counts of
charges were framed against 5 accused persons covering period 1990
to 1991 and then three counts of charges were further framed
covering from the period of 1991 to 1992, i.e. for the period much
more than 12 months in violation of provision of Section 219 Cr.P.C.
Finally learned senior counsel prays for acquittal of both the above
said two convicted persons.
[13] Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel also relies on a decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Narbada Devi Gupta vs.
Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and another; (2003) 8 SCC 745,
wherein the principle that mere production and marking of a
document as exhibit by the Court cannot be held to be due proof of
its contents, was reiterated. The relevant paragraph no. 16 is
extracted thus:
"16. Reliance is heavily placed on behalf of the
appellant on the case of Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P)
Ltd. (1981) 1 SCC 80. The legal position is not in
dispute that mere production and marking of a
document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be
a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be
proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the
"evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the
truth of the fats in issue". The situation is, however,
different where the documents are produced, they are
admitted by the opposite party, signatures on them are
also admitted and they are marked thereafter as
exhibits by the court. We find no force in the argument
advanced on behalf of the appellant that as the mark
of exhibits has been put on the back portions of the
rent receipts near the place where the admitted
signatures of the plaintiff appear, the rent receipts as
a whole cannot be treated to have been exhibited as
admitted documents."
Arguments on behalf of Dr. Mrinmoy Barman:
[14] Both Mr. P.K.Biswas and Mr. P. Roy Barman argue that the
above said three accused persons were gazetted officer holding the
post of Veterinary Surgeon or above and acted in discharge of their
official duties and therefore, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was
required to be obtained which was not done in this case. Further Mr.
Roy Barman, learned senior counsel adds that the beneficiaries of
6(six) disputed vouchers based on which the intra-departmental
inquiry was conducted and finally FIR was lodged, were very vital
witnesses in the case, but they were not examined. He also submits
that Mrinmoy Barman was the implementing officer only for the
period from 1990-91 and not beyond that and therefore, he had no
responsibility beyond such period. Learned senior counsel also refers
to the cross-examination of the investigation officer (PW-54) wherein
said witness admitted that he did not receive any letter that any
cheque was disbursed to Mrinmoy Barman by the DDO or that Mr.
Barman withdrew any amount or disbursed the same to any
beneficiary. Therefore, according to learned senior counsel, no
criminal liability can be attached to Mr. Barman.
[15] Learned senior counsel also refers to the cross-
examination of Sri Banamali Sinha (PW-31) (informant of the case)
wherein Mr. Sinha stated that there must have been some guidelines
by way of circular as to how the schemes were to be implemented
but he did not personally enquire whether any such circular was
communicated to the officers or not. Said witness also admitted that
in the vigilance report, name of Dr. Mrinmoy Barman was not
transpired and said report was submitted by SP(Vigilance) namely,
Dr. Rakesh Ranjan. As submitted by Mr. Roy Barman, PW-31 also
admitted that in the letter dated 31.03.1993 issued by Asst. Director
addressed to Dy. Director with a copy to Dr. Mrinmoy Barman, said
Asstt. Director mentioned that good numbers of prescribed formats
which were under the stage of preparation in connection with such
beneficiary scheme and out of which few were signed by the member
of purchase committee without mentioning the date and seal and
same were either lost or missing. Said witness also admitted that in
the article of charge of Departmental enquiry, it was mentioned that
no money was drawn from cash or treasury by Dr. Mrinmoy Barman.
[16] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel further contends
that Sultan Miah (PW-17), Muslem Miah (PW-18), Mostafa Miah (PW-
22) and Billal Miah (PW-23) were never examined by investigating
officer and first time they were produced before the Court, but
learned Trial Court missed that aspect. Learned senior counsel also
argues that learned Trial Court granted clean chit to PW-1 though as
per the vigilance report (Ext.223), he was the main culprit. Mr. Roy
Barman, learned senior counsel also submits that if the memorandum
of examination of Dr. Mrinmoy Barman under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is
seen, it will be found that there was no incriminating materials
against him and in Departmental proceeding also no charge of any
defalcation was framed against him. Learned senior counsel argues
that no entrustment or dominion over the property was proved
against Mrinmoy Barman and no evidence was also there against him
regarding misappropriation of any property by him or falsification of
any record made by him. Learned senior counsel further submits that
there was un-explained delay in lodging the FIR.
[17] Like Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel, Mr. Roy
Barman, learned senior counsel also argues that the contents of the
documents as relied on by the prosecution were also not proved in
accordance with law. Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel further
submits that learned Trial Court heavily relied on evidence of PW-44
namely, Mantaj Miah but he did not say anything against Mrinmoy
Barman.
[18] In the matter of entrustment, learned senior counsel also
refers a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of N.
Raghavender vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI;
MANU/SC/1242/2021, and the relevant paragraphs of the said
decisions are excerpted below for reference:
"42. The entrustment of public property and dishonest
misappropriation or use thereof in the manner
illustrated Under Section 405 are a sine qua non for
making an offence punishable Under Section 409
Indian Penal Code. The expression „criminal breach of
trust‟ is defined Under Section 405 Indian Penal Code
which provides, inter alia, that whoever being in any
manner entrusted with property or with any dominion
over a property, dishonestly misappropriates or
converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly
uses or disposes of that property contrary to law, or in
violation of any law prescribing the mode in which
such trust is to be discharged, or contravenes any legal
contract, express or implied, etc. shall be held to have
committed criminal breach of trust. Hence, to attract
Section 405 Indian Penal Code, the following
ingredients must be satisfied:
(i) Entrusting any person with property or with any
dominion over property;
(ii) That person has dishonestly mis-appropriated or
converted that property to his own use;
(iii) Or that person dishonestly using or disposing of
that property or wilfully suffering any other person so
to do in violation of any direction of law or a legal
contract.
.....................................................
45. Accordingly, unless it is proved that the Accused, a
public servant or a banker etc. was „entrusted‟ with
the property which he is duty bound to account for and
that such a person has committed criminal breach of
trust, Section 409 Indian Penal Code may not be
attracted. „Entrustment of property‟ is a wide and
generic expression. While the initial onus lies on the
prosecution to show that the property in question was
„entrusted‟ to the Accused, it is not necessary to prove
further, the actual mode of entrustment of the
property or misappropriation thereof. Where the
„entrustment‟ is admitted by the Accused or has been
established by the prosecution, the burden then shifts
on the Accused to prove that the obligation vis-à-vis
the entrusted property was carried out in a legally and
contractually acceptable manner.
....................................................
Ingredients necessary to prove a charge Under Section
477-A Indian Penal Code:
49. The last provision of Indian Penal Code with which
we are concerned in this appeal, is Section 477A,
which defines and punishes the offence of „falsification
of accounts‟. According to the provision, whoever,
being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting
in that capacity, wilfully and with intent to defraud,
destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book,
electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or
account which belongs to or is in possession of his
employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf
of his employer, or wilfully and with intent to defraud,
or if he abets to do so, shall be liable to be punished
with imprisonment which may extend to seven years.
This Section through its marginal note indicates the
legislative intention that it only applies where there is
falsification of accounts, namely, book keeping or
written accounts.
50. In an accusation Under Section 477A Indian Penal
Code, the prosecution must, therefore, prove--(a) that
the Accused destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified
the books, electronic records, papers, writing, valuable
security or account in question; (b) the Accused did so
in his capacity as a clerk, officer or servant of the
employer; (c) the books, papers, etc. belong to or are
in possession of his employer or had been received by
him for or on behalf of his employer; (d) the Accused
did it wilfully and with intent to defraud."
[19] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel in the matter of
sanction under section 197, Cr.P.C. also relies on another decision of
the Apex Court in the case of A. Srinivasulu vs. The State Rep. by
the Inspector of Police; MANU/SC/0723/2023, and the relevant
paragraphs of the decision as relied on are as follows:
"38. In Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari
MANU/SC/0071/1955 : (1955) 2 SCR 925 a
Constitution Bench of this Court was concerned with
the interpretation to be given to the words, "any
offence alleged to have been committed by him while
acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his
official duty" in Section 197 of the Code. After
referring to the decision in Dr. Hori Ram Singh, the
Constitution Bench summed up the result of the
discussion, in paragraph 19 by holding: "There must be
a reasonable connection between the act and the
discharge of official duty; the act must bear such
relation to the duty that the Accused could lay a
reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that
he did it in the course of the performance of his duty."
39. In State of Orissa through Kumar Raghvendra
Singh v. Ganesh Chandra Jew MANU/SC/0264/2004 :
(2004) 8 SCC 40, a two Member Bench of this Court
explained that the protection Under Section 197 has
certain limits and that it is available only when the
alleged act is reasonably connected with the discharge
of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing
the objectionable act. The Court also explained that if
in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his
duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the
act and the performance of the official duty, the excess
will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public
servant of the protection.
40. The above decision in State of Orissa (supra) was
followed (incidentally by the very same author) in K.
Kalimuthu v. State by DSP MANU/SC/0248/2005 :
(2005) 4 SCC 512 and Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of
Bihar MANU/SC/0200/2006 : (2006) 1 SCC 557.
41. In Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab through CBI
MANU/SC/0450/2016 : (2016) 12 SCC 87, this Court
took note of almost all the decisions on the point and
summarized the principles emerging therefrom, in
paragraph 39 as follows:
"39. The principles emerging from the aforesaid
decisions are summarised hereunder:
39.1. Protection of sanction is an assurance to an
honest and sincere officer to perform his duty honestly
and to the best of his ability to further public duty.
However, authority cannot be camouflaged to commit
crime.
39.2. Once act or omission has been found to have
been committed by public servant in discharging his
duty it must be given liberal and wide construction so
far its official nature is concerned. Public servant is not
entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent
Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be
construed narrowly and in a restricted manner.
39.3. Even in facts of a case when public servant has
exceeded in his duty, if there is reasonable connection
it will not deprive him of protection Under Section 197
Code of Criminal Procedure. There cannot be a
universal Rule to determine whether there is
reasonable nexus between the act done and official
duty nor is it possible to lay down such rule.
39.4. In case the assault made is intrinsically
connected with or related to performance of official
duties, sanction would be necessary Under Section 197
Code of Criminal Procedure, but such relation to duty
should not be pretended or fanciful claim. The offence
must be directly and reasonably connected with official
duty to require sanction. It is no part of official duty to
commit offence. In case offence was incomplete
without proving, the official act, ordinarily the
provisions of Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure
would apply.
................................
42. In D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain
MANU/SC/0490/2020 : (2020) 7 SCC 695, this Court
explained that sanction is required not only for acts
done in the discharge of official duty but also required
for any act purported to be done in the discharge of
official duty and/or act done under colour of or in
excess of such duty or authority. This Court also held
that to decide whether sanction is necessary, the test
is whether the act is totally unconnected with official
duty or whether there is a reasonable connection with
the official duty."
[20] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel regarding
examination of witness for the first time in the Court, further relies on
another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurdeep
Singh vs. State of Punjab and others; (2011) 12 SCC 408,
wherein at Para 15, the followings were observed:
"15. In the alternative, even assuming that no
statements of PWs 2 and 3 had been recorded under
Section 161 CrPC, this factor destroys the substratum
of the prosecution story in a far greater measure as it
must then be taken that their statements were being
recorded for the first time in court which would rob
them of much of their evidentiary value. In this case,
we find that the two witnesses are none other than the
brother and the father of the deceased."
Arguments on behalf of State:
[21] Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P., contends that all the accused
persons signed all the related vouchers collectively to embezzle the
money and therefore, each of them was responsible for commission
of crime. Regarding the plea of defect in the charge as raised by Mr.
P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel, learned P.P. submits that even if
charges were irregular, the defence has not been prejudiced thereby
and therefore, they cannot raise the question now as the said issue
ought to have been raised before the learned Trial Court, and even in
the memo of appeal also no such plea was raised. To show complicity
of S.P. Sengupta in the alleged crime, learned P.P. submits that if
any public officer allows his subordinate to misappropriate the
money, he is also liable to be convicted under Section 13 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and in the instant case, the sanction
under the Prevention of Corruption Act was also obtained and proved
into evidence. Against one issue as raised by Mr. Roy Barman,
learned senior counsel that entire happening took place at Sonamura
and trial was conducted in Agartala beyond jurisdiction, learned P.P.
relies on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nasiruddin
Khan vs. State of Bihar; (1973) 3 SCC 99 (Para 11) wherein it
was observed that such objection is required to be raised either in the
committing court or in the Trial Court. Learned P.P. also relies on the
vigilance report and submitted that the judgment passed by learned
Trial Court was exhaustive and well reasoned which requires no
interference. Learned P.P. to bolster the prosecution case relies on
the following comparative chart as prepared and placed by learned
Trial Court in the impugned judgment. As it appears, said chart was
prepared by learned Trial Court on comparative study of the
evidences of PW-1 and PW-54 (the last investigating officer) who
deposed taking note of all the documents as seized during
investigation.
Sl. GIA Bill No. F/Y Name of Sanction No. of Amount Exbt. C.B Ref D.F. Imple. Off.
No. Scheme Date BEF. No. No.
1. 686/89 1989-90 Poultry Nil 15 Rs.21,375/- 44/1 3/166 1 No sanction
memo and
money
receipt
available
2. 706/89 1989-90 Pig Production 26-10-1989 5 Rs.18,500/- 100 3/166 1 No money
receipt
available
3. 688/89 1989-90 Pig Production 26-10-1989 05 Rs.18,500/- 97 03/166 1 No money
receipt
available
4. 690/89 1989-90 Pig Production 26-10-1989 05 Rs.18,500/- 103 03/166 1 No money
receipt
available
5. 705/89 1989-90 Pig Production 26-10-1989 05 Rs.18,500/- 94 03/166 1 No money
receipt
available
6. 718/89 1989-90 Unemployed Nil 07 Rs.9,975/- 92 3/167 1 No sanction
Youth memo and
money
receipt
available
7. 717/89 1989-90 Duckery Nil 14 Rs.19,950/- 165 3/167 4 K.D. Biswas
Development
8. 716/89 1989-90 Unemployed 08-11-1989 14 Rs.19,950/- 166 3/167 4 K.D. Biswas
Youth
9. 715/89 1989-90 Duckery 25-10-1989 12 Rs.17,100/- 167 3/167 4 K.D. Biswas
Development
10. 711/89 1989-90 Poultry 26-10-1989 14 Rs.19,950/- 168 3/167 4 K.D. Biswas
Production
11. 704/89 1989-90 Poultry 26-10-1989 12 Rs.17,100/- 169 3/166 4 K.D. Biswas
Development
12. 702/89 1989-90 Poultry 26-10-1989 14 Rs.19,950/- 170 3/166 4 K.D. Biswas
Development
13. 703/89 1989-90 Unemployed 26-10-1989 10 Rs.14,250/- 106 3/166 1 No money
Youth receipt
available
14. 700/89 1989-90 Duckery 25-10-1989 14 Rs.19,950/- 171 3/166 4 K.D. Biswas
Development
15. 699/89 1989-90 Piggery 26-10-1989 5 Rs.18,500/- 172 3/166 4 K.D. Biswas
Development
16. 697/89 1989-90 Piggery 26-10-1989 6 Rs.22,200/- 173 3/166 4 K.D. Biswas
Development
17. 695/89 1989-90 Piggery 26-10-1989 5 Rs.18,500/- 174 3/166 4 K.D. Biswas
Development
18. 694/89 1989-90 Piggery 26-10-1989 5 Rs.18,500/- 175 3/166 4 K.D. Biswas
Development
19. 714/89 1989-90 Duckery 25-10-1989 14 Rs.19,950/- 176 3/167 4 K.D. Biswas
Development
20. 773/89 1989-90 Piggery 06-11-1989 5 Rs.18,500/- 177 3/176 4 APS to
Development Minister
21. 1233/90 1990-91 Poultry 27-03-1991 20 Rs.7,500/- 50 1/55/156 1 No money
Production receipt
available but
payment
entered in
C.B.
22. 1114/1990 1990-91 Duck 15-03-1991 50 Rs.33,300/- 69 1/45/184 1 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
23. 1178/90 1990-91 Duck 20-03-1991 10 Rs.6,660/- 53 1/53/156 1 K.D. Biswas
Production
24. 1121/90 1990-91 Poultry 15-03-1991 25 Rs.35,300/- 61 1/45/159 1 K.D. Biswas
Production T.K.
Sengupta
25. 1115/90 1990-91 Duck 15-03-1991 50 Rs.33,300/- 65 1/53/202 1 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
26. 1084/90 1990-91 Poultry Nil 20 Rs.28,240/- 73 1/43/173 1 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
27. 1098/90 1990-91 Pig Production 15-03-1991 08 Rs.36,400/- 46 1/43/160 1 K.D. Biswas
M. Barman
28. 1131/90 1990-91 Pig Production 15-03-1991 10 Rs.45,500/- 41 1/46/143 1 No money
receipt
available
29. 1122/90 1990-91 Poultry 28-03-1991 27 Rs.38,831/- - 1/53/174 1 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
30. 1119/90 1990-91 Duck 15-03-1991 50 Rs.33,300/- 37 1/52/202 1 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
31. 1167/90 1990-91 Pig Production 20-03-1991 10 Rs.45,500/- 115 1/52/151 2 K.D. Biswas
T.K.
Sengupta
32. 1123/90 1990-91 Poultry 15-03-1991 25 Rs.35,300/- 116 1/52/159 2 K.D. Biswas
Production T.K.
Sengupta
33. 1238/90 1990-91 Poultry 27-03-1991 28 Rs.39,536/- 112 1/53/159 2 K.D. Biswas
Production
34. 1237/90 1990-91 Poultry 27-03-1991 28 Rs.39,536/- 113 1/53/159 2 K.D. Biswas
Production
35. 1175/90 1990-91 Poultry 20-03-1991 10 Rs.15,534/- 114 1/52/159 2 K.D. Biswas
Production
36. 1166/90 1990-91 Poultry 27-03-1991 12 Rs.21,765/- 158 1/53/156 3 Related to
Production Khowai
37. 1088/90 1990-91 Poultry 15-03-1991 20 Rs.32,240/- 157 1/43/178 3 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
38. 1086/90 1990-91 Poultry 15-03-1991 20 Rs.32,240/- 156 1/55/202 3 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
39. 1112/90 1990-91 Unemployed 15-03-1991 15 Rs.36,285/- 138 1/45/178 3 K.D. Biswas
Youth M. Barman
40. 1110/90 1990-91 Unemployed 15-03-1991 18 Rs.43,542/- 137 1/45/178 3 K.D. Biswas
Youth M. Barman
41. 1107/90 1990-91 Unemployed 15-03-1991 20 Rs.48,380/- 136 1/55/178 3 K.D. Biswas
Youth M. Barman
42. 1108/90 1990-91 Unemployed Nil 07 Rs.11,284/- 130 1/45/182 3 K.D. Biswas
Youth M. Barman
43. 1085/90 1990-91 Unemployed 15-03-1991 20 Rs.32,240/- 131 1/43/182 3 K.D. Biswas
Youth M. Barman
44. 1089/90 1990-91 Unemployed 15-03-1991 20 Rs.32,240/- 132 1/45/178 3 K.D. Biswas
Youth M. Barman
45. 1100/90 1990-91 Unemployed 15-03-1991 20 Rs.48,380/- 133 1/45/178 3 K.D. Biswas
Youth M. Barman
46. 1105/90 1990-91 Unemployed 15-03-1991 20 Rs.48,380/- 134 1/45/178 3 K.D. Biswas
Youth M. Barman
47. 1106/90 1990-91 Unemployed 18-03-1991 20 Rs.48,380/- 135 1/45/178 3 K.D. Biswas
Youth M. Barman
48. 1174/90 1990-91 Unemployed 27-03-1991 15 Rs.24,180/- 142 1/55/156 3 K.D. Biswas
Youth M. Barman
49. 1095/90 1990-91 Piggery 15-03-1991 8 Rs.36,400/- 25/2 1/43/165 4 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
50. 1125/90 1990-91 Piggery 20-03-1991 10 Rs.45,500/- 25/8 1/55/151 4 K.D. Biswas
Development
51. 1093/90 1990-91 Piggery 15-03-1991 8 Rs.36,400/- 25/12 1/45/160 4 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
52. 1133/90 1990-91 Piggery 15-03-1991 10 Rs.45,500/- 25/18 1/46/160 4 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
53. 1118/90 1990-91 Duckery 15-03-1991 30 Rs.30,000/- 164 1/45/184 4 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
54. 1140/90 1990-91 Piggery 20-03-1991 10 Rs.45,500/- 163 1/55/151 4 K.D. Biswas
Production
55. 1142/90 1990-91 Piggery 20-03-1991 10 Rs.45,500/- 162 1/55/160 4 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
56. 1143/90 1990-91 Piggery 20-03-1991 10 Rs.45,500/- 161 1/55 4 K.D. Biswas
Production
57. 1116/90 1990-91 Duckery 15-03-1991 21 Rs.21,000/- 160 1/45/184 4 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
58. 1139/90 1990-91 Piggery 15-03-1991 10 Rs.45,500/- 159 1/55/151 4 K.D. Biswas
Production
59. 1132/90 1990-91 Duckery 18-03-1991 36 Rs.23,976/- 215 1/46/184 5 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
60. 1130/90 1990-91 Piggery 15-03-1991 10 Rs.45,500/- 214 1/46/143 5 M. Barman
Production
61. 1120/90 1990-91 Poultry 15-03-1991 16 Rs.33,904/- 213 1/52/173 5 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
62. 939/91 1991-92 Unemployed 25-03-1992 10 Rs.17,734/- 29 2/55/209 1 K.D. Biswas
Youth T.K.
Sengupta
63. 1023/91 1991-92 Piggery 28-03-1992 6 Rs.22,740/- 57 2/63 1 K.D. Biswas
64. 946/91 1991-92 Pig Production 25-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 80 2/56/218 1 K.D. Biswas
M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
65. 952/91 1991-92 Pig Production 25-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 76 2/56/218 1 K.D. Biswas
M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
66. 929/91 1991-92 Duck 25-03-1992 10 Rs.10,000/- 84 2/55/218 1 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
67. 942/91 1991-92 Poultry 25-03-1992 10 Rs.21,190/- 88 2/55/218 1 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
68. 992/91 1991-92 Poultry 27-03-1992 5 Rs.7,060/- 128 2/59/219 2 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
69. 1019/91 1991-92 Poultry 30-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 124 2/62/193 2 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
70. 1050/91 1991-92 Poultry 28-03-1992 15 Rs.21,180/- 118 2/61/191 2 K.D. Biswas
Production T.K.
Sengupta
71. 1048/91 1991-92 Poultry 31-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 119 2/63/219 2 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
72 1047/91 1991-92 Poultry 30-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 120 2/63/218 2 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
73 1033/91 1991-92 Poultry 30-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 121 2/63/219 2 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
74. 1022/91 1991-92 Poultry 28-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 122 2/62/193 2 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
75. 1020/91 1991-92 Poultry 30-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 123 2/62/193 2 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
76. 1017/91 1991-92 Poultry 30-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 109 2/62/193 2 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
77. 1030/91 1991-92 Poultry 30-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 125 2/63/193 2 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
78. 1016/91 1991-92 Poultry 30-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 126 2/62/218 2 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
79. 1014/91 1991-92 Poultry 30-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 127 2/62/218 2 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
80. 1006/91 1991-92 Poultry 30-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 129 2/62/218 2 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
81. 988/91 1991-92 Poultry 27-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 111 2/59/219 2 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
82. 1001/91 1991-92 Poultry 27-03-1992 16 Rs.22,592/- 110 2/59/221 2 P. Deb
Production
83. 1075/91 1991-92 Poultry 28-03-1992 10 Rs.14,120/- 152 2/62/218 3 K.D. Biswas
Production T.K.
Sengupta
84. 999/91 1991-92 Poultry 27-03-1992 16(onl Rs.22,592/- 144 2/59/221 3 K.D. Biswas
Production y1 M. Barman
money
receipt
availa
ble)
85. 1062/91 1991-92 Poultry 28-03-1992 10 Rs.14,120/- 147 2/61/191 3 K.D. Biswas
Production T.K.
Sengupta
86. 1061/91 1991-92 Poultry 28-03-1992 10 Rs.14,120/- 146 2/61/191 3 K.D. Biswas
Production T.K.
Sengupta
87. 997/91 1991-92 Poultry 27-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 143 2/59/221 3 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
88. 1078/91 1991-92 Poultry 28-03-1992 15 Rs.21,180/- 155 2/62/191 3 K.D. Biswas
Production T.K.
Sengupta
89. 1077/91 1991-92 Poultry 28-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 154 2/62/218 3 K.D. Biswas
Production T.K.
Sengupta
90. 1076/91 1991-92 Poultry 28-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 153 2/62/218 3 K.D. Biswas
Production T.K.
Sengupta
91. 1073/91 1991-92 Poultry 28-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 151 2/62/219 3 K.D. Biswas
Production T.K.
Sengupta
92. 1067/91 1991-92 Poultry 28-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 150 2/61/224 3 K.D. Biswas
Production T.K.
Sengupta
93. 1064/91 1991-92 Poultry 28-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 149 2/61/219 3 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
94. 1063/91 1991-92 Poultry 28-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 148 2/61/218 3 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
95. 1055/91 1991-92 Poultry 28-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 145 2/61/219 3 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
96. 995/91 1991-92 Poultry 27-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 141 2/59/221 3 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
97. 993/91 1991-92 Poultry 27-03-1992 15 Rs.21,180/- 140 2/59/179 3 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
98. 989/91 1991-92 Poultry 27-03-1992 17 Rs.24,004/- 139 2/59/225 3 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
99. 954/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 179 2/56/212 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
100. 982/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 3 Rs.13,650/- 204 2/57/217 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
101. 983/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 203 2/57/217 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
102. 984/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 202 2/57 5 K.D. Biswas
Development T.K.
Sengupta
103. 991/91 1991-92 Poultry 27-03-1992 15 Rs.21,180/- 200 2/59/221 5 No money
Development receipt
available
104. 981/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 205 2/57/217 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
105. 979/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 207 2/57/217 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
106. 978/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 208 2/57/217 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
107. 977/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 209 2/57/217 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
108. 976/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 210 2/57/217 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
109. 975/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 211 2/57/217 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
110. 974/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 198 2/57/217 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
111. 973/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 197 2/57/218 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
112. 972/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 196 2/57/218 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
113. 971/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 195 2/57/218 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
114. 970/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 194 2/57/218 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
115. 969/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 193 2/57/218 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
116. 968/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 192 2/57/218 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
117. 967/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 191 2/57/218 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
118. 966/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 190 2/57/218 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
119. 965/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 189 2/57/218 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
120. 964/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 188 2/57/218 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
121. 963/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 187 2/57/218 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
T.K.
Sengupta
122. 962/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 186 2/57 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
123. 961/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 185 2/57/212 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
124. 960/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 184 2/57/212 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
125. 959/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 183 2/57/212 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
126. 958/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 199 2/57/212 5 No money
Development receipt
available
127. 957/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 182 2/57/212 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
128. 956/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 181 2/57/212 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
129. 955/91 1991-92 Piggery 27-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 180 2/57/212 5 K.D. Biswas
Development M. Barman
130. 1031/91 1991-92 Piggery 28-03-1992 5 Rs.22,750/- 201 2/57 5 No money
Development receipt
available
131. 1024/91 1991-92 Piggery 28-03-1992 6 Rs.24,260/- 212 2/63 5 K.D. Biswas
Production M. Barman
[22] Regarding the challenge as to the absence of sanction
under section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, learned P.P. also
relies on a decision of Apex Court in case of Shambhoo Nath Misra
vs. State of U.P. and others; (1997) 5 SCC 326, and relevant
paragraphs as relied on are extracted hereunder:
"4. Section 197 (1) postulates that "when any person
who is ... a public Servant not removable from his
office, save by or with the sanction of the Government,
is accused of any offence alleged to have been
committed by him, while acting or purporting to act in
the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take
cognizance of such offence except with the previous
sanction" of the appropriate Government/authority.
The essential requirement postulated for the sanction
to prosecute the public servant is that the offence
alleged against the public servant must have been
done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge
of his official duties. In such a situation, it postulates
that the public servant's act is in furtherance of the
performance of his official duties. If the act/omission
is integral to the performance of public duty, the public
servant is entitled to the protection under Section
197(1) of CrPC. Without the previous sanction, the
complaint/charge against him for the alleged offence
cannot be proceeded with in the trial. The sanction of
the appropriate Government or competent authority
would be necessary to protect a public servant from
needless harassment or prosecution. The protection of
sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere
officer to perform his public duty honestly and to the
best of his ability. The threat of prosecution
demoralises the honest officer. The requirement of the
sanction by competent authority or appropriate
Government is an assurance and protection to the
honest officer who does his official duty to further
public interest. However, performance of official duty
under colour of public authority cannot be
camouflaged to commit crime. Public duty may provide
him an opportunity to commit crime. The Court to
proceed further in the trial or the enquiry, as the case
may be, applies its mind and records a finding that the
crime and the official duty are not integrally
connected.
5. The question is when the public servant is alleged to
have committed the offence of fabrication of record or
misappropriation of public fund etc. can he be said to
have acted in discharge of his official duties. It is not
the official duty of the public servant to fabricate the
false records and misappropriate the public funds etc.
in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official
duties. The official capacity only enables him to
fabricate the record or misappropriate the public fund
etc. It does not mean that it is integrally connected or
inseparably interlinked with the crime committed in
the course of same transaction, as was believed by the
learned Judge. Under these circumstances, we are of
the opinion that the view expressed by the High Court
as well as by the trial court on the question of sanction
is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained."
On same issue, he also relies on another decision of the
Apex Court (3-Judge Bench) in Shadakshari vs. State of
Karnataka and another; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 48 wherein the
principle laid in Shambhoo Nath Misra (Supra) was reiterated and
was further observed that Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not extend its
protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in
service and it is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are
done by public servant in discharge of official duty.
[23] Learned P.P. further refers another decision of Apex Court
in case of State of H.P. vs. Karanvir; (2006) 5 SCC 381 wherein it
was observed that the actual manner of misappropriation, it is well
settled, was not required to be proved by prosecution. Once
entrustment is proved, it is for the accused to prove as to how the
property entrusted to him was dealt with in view of Section 405 IPC.
[24] Learned P.P. also tries to mitigate the challenges of the
appellants about the alleged error in the matter of framing of
charges, by referring to a decision of Kerala High Court in the case of
XXX vs. State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Kerala; 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 5550, which was a
case of commission of offences under the provision of POCSO Act
upon two sisters on two different occasions but by a single accused
person and separate cases were registered. The accused prayed for
joint trial of both the cases which was turned down by the trial court.
In that backdrop, when matter was challenged before the High Court,
such challenges of the accused person was not entertained. This case
is however distinguishable with the facts of the present case in hand.
[25] On the same issue of alleged error in framing of charge,
Learned P.P. further relies on another decision of the Apex Court in
case of Soundarajan vs. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police
Vigilance Anticorruption Dindigul; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 424,
wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that under
Section 464 of Cr.P.C., omission to frame a charge or any error in
charge is never fatal unless, in the opinion of the Court, a failure in
justice has been occasioned thereby. Learned P.P. also tries to gain
support of another decision of the Apex Court on the same issue in
case of Mohan Singh vs. State of Bihar; (2011) 9 SCC 272,
wherein it was held that due to defect in the framing of charge
whether there is failure of justice or not, has to be proved by the
accused. Learned P.P. further refers another decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Harivadan Babubhai Patel vs. State of
Gujarat; (2013) 7 SCC 45, wherein the principle that non-
examination of material witness cannot be a ground for discarding the
weight of the testimonies available on record howsoever natural,
trustworthy and convincing it may be, was re-stated.
[26] Finally, Learned P.P relies on another decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Nasib Singh vs. State of Punjab and
another; (2022) 2 SCC 89 and the relevant paragraph no.41 which
deals with joint trial of different accused persons are extracted
hereunder:
"41. Section 223 begins with the expression "persons
accused" meaning thereby that the provision is applied
when more than one person is involved in the
commission of an offence or offences. Section 223
stipulates - in clauses (a) to (g) - situations where
persons may be charged and tried together. Clause (a)
envisages a situation where persons are accused of
the same offence committed in the course of the same
transaction. Clause (b) envisages a situation where
persons accused of an offence and persons accused of
abetment or attempt to commit the offence may be
charged and tried together. Clause (c) applies to a
situation where persons are accused of more than one
offence of the same kind within the meaning of Section
219 committed by them jointly within twelve months.
Clause (d) envisages that persons accused of different
offences committed in the course of the same
transaction may be charged and tried together.
Clauses (e), (f) and (g) deal with specific situations
envisaged therein. The proviso to Section 223
stipulates that where a number of persons are charged
with separate offences and such persons do not fall
within the ambit of the categories specified in clauses
(a) to (g), the Magistrate may, if such persons so
desire, in writing, and if he is satisfied that they would
not be prejudicially affected, and it is expedient to do
so, try all such persons together."
[27] Before entering into the chapter of consideration of rival
contentions vis a vis issues raised thereby and the material placed
against the appellants or predecessor of one appellant, the prevailing
practice or system of disbursement of the fund under different
schemes under Animal Husbandry Department of Tripura, as
gathered from the evidences of PW-1, is required to be looked into
first.
Procedure of disbursement of different grants to the beneficiaries:
[28] Paritosh Majumder (PW-1) stated that their Department
from time to time would receive amount under grant-in-aid under
different beneficiary schemes like Poultry production, piggery, duckery
etc. and said amount would be distributed from the office of the
Directorate to the District level offices. Thereafter, said amount
would be disbursed to the beneficiaries through their Sub-Divisional
and Block level offices. The list of beneficiaries would also be sent to
the Directorate for final approval. After final approval of the Director,
the amount would be distributed to the beneficiaries from said Sub-
Divisional and Block Level Offices through Implementing Officers. PW-
1 also stated that as per norms and practice, the Implementing
Officers used to collect the amount under different schemes from the
cashier of the office of Dy. Director as sanctioned by the D.D.O. of the
office for distribution of the same to the beneficiaries. The
implementing officer would draw the amount from the cashier after
giving receipt and thereafter, he would submit the adjustment report
to the cashier with actual pay receipts (APR). Said APR would be
attested by the implementing officer. After submission of APR, the
implementing officer would take back the original receipts from the
cashier which was initially issued by him and was submitted to the
cashier. Thereafter, the adjustment report would be placed before the
concerned DDO by the cashier for acceptance.
[29] Therefore, as per above said evidences and procedure, the
DDO would have some responsibility at the initial stage for handing
over the amount to the Sub-Divisional or Block-level offices and again
at the last phase of the process i.e. at the time of acceptance of
adjustment report which would be submitted to his office by the
concerned Implementing Officers after distribution of the money to
the beneficiaries. But in between that two phases i.e. during the
phase of distribution of the grant to the beneficiaries, the DDO did not
have any duty. However, at the time of acceptance of adjustment
report of implementing officer(s), it was the duty of the cashier and
thereafter of the DDO to see that disbursement had been made in
proper manner. Keeping in mind above said procedure as would be
followed in Animal Husbandry Department, the evidence as led by the
prosecution against Shiba Prasad Sengupta, K.D. Biswas and Mrinmoy
Barman are required to be appreciated.
[30] This Court has made an attempt to separate the evidences
led by the prosecution against said three persons from each other for
better understanding and convenient appreciation. Firstly, the
evidences as led against Shiba Prasad Sengupta is given a glimpse
and then against Lt. Krishnadhan Biswas and Mrinmoy Barman.
Evidence against Shiba Prasad Sengupta:
[31] According to Paritosh Majumder (PW-1), S.P. Sengupta
was his predecessor from whom he took over the charge of Deputy
Director, Animal Resource Department on 24.05.1993 by signing GFR
33 (Ext.2). Dr. S.P Sengupta took over the charge of that post on
07.07.1989 by GFR 33 (Ext.1) from Dr. N.C. Roy. PW-1 also
identified the transfer order dated 19.05.1989 (Ext.12) of Dr. S.P.
Sengupta from Kailashahar to Agartala as Dy. Director, Animal
Resource Department. Said witness also identified one office order
dated 18.05.1993 (Ext.13) by which Dr. S.P Sengupta was posted in
the office of Project officer, ICDP-1, Astabal, Agartala.
[32] The prosecution through PW-1 got indentified several
grant-in-aid bills, related sanction memos and list of beneficiaries to
implicate S.P. Sengupta in respect of the charges framed against him.
Said documents are given a pictorial reference herein below.
Sl. No. Date and amount Grant in aid bill Date and name of the Date and Name of the
of Grant in aid bill signed by sanctioning authority authority signing the
with related of the related List of beneficiaries,
Exhibit number Sanction memo, with with related date
related exhibit and exhibit number
number
1. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 25.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
13.03.1992 for (Ext.30) signed by Dr. dated 25.03.1992
Rs.17,734/-(Ext.29) S.P. Sengupta (Ext.31) signed by Dr.
S.P. Sengupta
2. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
06.03.1991 for (Ext.38) signed by dated 20.03.1991
Rs.33,300/-(Ext.37) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.39) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
3. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
06.03.1991 for Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.42) signed by dated 15.03.1991
Rs.45,500/-(Ext.41) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.43) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
4. GIA bill dated Nil for Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Nil List of Beneficiaries
Rs.21,375/-(Ext.44) Director of A.H. dated Nil (Ext.45)
signed by Director of
A.H.
5. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
18.02.1991 for Director of A.H. (Ext.42) signed by dated 15.03.1991
Rs.36,400/- Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.48) signed by
(Ext.46) Addl. Director of A.H.
6. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 27.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
06.03.1991 for Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.51) signed by dated 27.03.1991
Rs.7,500/- (Ext.50) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.52) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
7. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 20.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
19.03.1991 for Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.54) signed by dated 20.03.1991
Rs.6,600/- (Ext.53) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.55) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
8. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
17.02.1992 for (Ext.58) signed by Dy. dated 28.03.1992
Rs.22,740/- (Ext.57) Director of A.H. (Ext.59) signed by Dy.
Director of A.H.
9. GIA bill dated Nil for Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
Rs.35,300/- (Ext.61) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.62) signed by dated 15.03.1991
Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.63) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
10. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
06.03.1991 for Director of A.H. (Ext.66) signed by dated Nil (Ext.67)
Rs.33,300/- (Ext.65) Addl. Director of A.H. signed by Addl. Director
of A.H.
11. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
15.03.1991 for Director of A.H. (Ext.70) signed by dated 15.03.1991
Rs.33,300/- (Ext.69) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.71) without
Signature.
12. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
18.02.1991 for Director of A.H. (Ext.74) signed by dated 15.03.1991
Rs.28,240/- (Ext.73) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.75) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
13. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Memo dated 25.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
13.02.1992 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.77) signed by Dr. dated 25.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.76) S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.78) signed by Dr.
Director of A.H. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
14. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. Memo dated 25.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
03.03.1991 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.81) signed by Dr. dated 25.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.80) S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.82) signed by Dr.
Director of A.H. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
15. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. Memo dated 25.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
13.03.1992 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.85) signed by Dr. dated 25.03.1992
10,000/- (Ext.84) S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.86) signed by Dr.
Director of A.H. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
16. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. Memo dated 25.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.89) signed by Dr. dated 25.03.1992
21,190/- (Ext.88) S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.90) signed by Dr.
Director of A.H. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
17. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & No sanction memo List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. issued. dated Nil (Ext.93)
9,975/- (Ext.92) signed by Director of
A.H.
18. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 26.10.1989 List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.95) signed by dated 26.10.1989
18,500/- (Ext.94) Director of A.H. (Ext.96) signed by
Director of A.H.
19. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 26.10.1989 List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.98) signed by dated 26.10.1989
18,500/- (Ext.97) Director of A.H. (Ext.99) signed by
Director of A.H.
20. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 26.10.1989 List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.101) signed by dated 26.10.1989
18,500/- (Ext.100) Director of A.H. (Ext.102) signed by
Director of A.H.
21. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 26.10.1989 List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.104) signed by dated 26.10.1989
18,500/- (Ext.103) Director of A.H. (Ext.105) signed by
Director of A.H.
22. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 26.10.1989 List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.107) signed by dated 26.10.1989
14,250/- (Ext.106) Director of A.H. (Ext.108) signed by
Director of A.H.
23. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. Memo dated 30.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
30.03.1992 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.109/1) signed by dated 30.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.109) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.109/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
24. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
17.02.1992 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.110/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,592/- (Ext.110) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.110/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
25. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
17.02.1992 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.111/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.111) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.111/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
26. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 27.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
06.03.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.112/1) signed by dated 27.03.1991
39,536/- (Ext.112) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.112/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
27. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 27.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
06.03.1990 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.113/1) signed by dated 27.03.1991
39,536/- (Ext.113) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.113/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
28. GIA bill dated Nil for Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 20.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
Rs. 15,534/- Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.114/1) signed by dated 20.03.1991
(Ext.114) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.114/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
29. GIA bill dated Nil for Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 20.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
Rs. 45,500/- Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.115/1) signed by dated 20.03.1991
(Ext.115) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.115/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
30. GIA bill dated Nil for Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
Rs. 35,300/- Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.116/1) signed by dated 15.03.1991
(Ext.116) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.116/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
31. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
13.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.117/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
21,180/- (Ext.117) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.117/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
32. GIA bill dated Nil for Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
Rs. 21,180/- (Ext.118/1) signed by dated 28.03.1992
(Ext.118) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.118/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
33. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 30.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
30.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.119/1) signed by dated 30.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.119) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.119/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
34. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 30.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
30.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.120/1) signed by dated 30.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.120) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.120/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
35. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 30.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
30.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.121/1) signed by dated 30.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.121) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.121/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
36. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 30.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
30.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.122/1) signed by dated 30.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.122) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.122/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
37. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 30.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
30.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.123/1) signed by dated 30.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.123) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.123/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
38. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 30.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
13.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.124/1) signed by dated 30.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.124) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.124/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
39. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 30.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
30.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.125/1) signed by dated 30.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.125) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.125/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
40. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 30.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
30.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.126/1) signed by dated 30.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.126) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.126/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
41. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 30.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
30.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.127/1) signed by dated 30.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.127) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.127/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
42. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.128/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
7,060/- (Ext.128) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.128/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
43. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 30.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
30.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.129/1) signed by dated 30.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.129) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.129/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
44. GIA bill dated Memo dated 15.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
06.03.1991 for Rs. (Ext.130/1) signed by dated 15.03.1991
11,284/- (Ext.130) - Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.130/1) signed by
Director of A.H. Addl. Director of A.H.
45. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
18.02.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.131/1) signed by dated 15.03.1991
32,240/- (Ext.131) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.131/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
46. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
18.02.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.132/1) signed by dated 15.03.1991
32,240/- (Ext.132) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.132/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
47. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
06.03.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.133/1) signed by dated 15.03.1991
48,380/- (Ext.133) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.133/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
48. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
06.03.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.134/1) signed by dated 15.03.1991
48,380/- (Ext.134) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.134/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
49. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
06.03.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.135/1) signed by dated 15.03.1991
48,380/- (Ext.135) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.135/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
50. GIA bill dated Nil for Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
Rs. 48,380/- Addl. Director of A.H. for Rs.11,284/- dated 15.03.1991 for
(Ext.136) (Ext.136/1) signed by Rs.48,380/-
Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.136/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
[Remark- PW-1 is
silent as to what
happen about the
sanction of rest
amount Rs.48,380/-
].
51. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
06.03.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.137/1) signed by dated 15.03.1991
43,542/- (Ext.137) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.137/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
52. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
06.03.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.138/1) signed by dated 15.03.1991
36,285/- (Ext.138) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.138/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
53. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
17.02.1992 for Rs. (Ext.139/6) signed by dated 27.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.139) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.139/1) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
54. GIA bill dated Nil for Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
Rs. 21,180/- (Ext.140/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
(Ext.140) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.140/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
55. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.141/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.141) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.141/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
56. GIA bill dated Nil for Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 27.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
Rs. 24,180/- Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.142/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
(Ext.142) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.142/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
57. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.143/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.143) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.143/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
58. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.144/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,592/- (Ext.144) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.144/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
59. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
28.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.145/1) signed by dated 28.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.145) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.145/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
60. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
28.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.146/1) signed by dated 28.03.1992
14,120/- (Ext.146) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.146/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
61. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
23.08.1991 for Rs. (Ext.147/1) signed by dated 28.03.1992
14,120/- (Ext.147) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.146/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
62. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
28.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.148/1) signed by dated 28.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.148) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.148/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
63. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
28.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.149/1) signed by dated 28.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.149) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.149/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
64. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
28.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.150/1) signed by dated 28.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.150) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.150/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
65. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
28.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.151/1) signed by dated 28.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.151) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.151/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
66. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
28.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.152/1) signed by dated 28.03.1992
14,120/- (Ext.152) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.152/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
67. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
28.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.153/1) signed by dated 28.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.153) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.153/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
68. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
28.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.154/1) signed by dated 28.03.1992
24,004/- (Ext.154) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.154/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
69. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
28.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.155/1) signed by dated 28.03.1992
21,180/- (Ext.155) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.155/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
70. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
14.03.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.156/1) signed by dated 15.03.1992
32,240/- (Ext.156) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.156/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
71. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
14.03.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.157/1) signed by dated 15.03.1991
32,240/- (Ext.157) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.157/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
72. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 27.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
18.03.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.158/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
21,765/- (Ext.158) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.158/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
73. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
18.03.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.159/1) signed by dated 15.03.1991
45,500/- (Ext.159) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.158/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
74. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
15.03.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.160/1) signed by dated 15.03.1991
21,000/- (Ext.160) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.160/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
75. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 20.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
18.03.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.161/1) signed by dated 20.03.1991
45,500/- (Ext.161) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.161/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
76. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 20.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
18.03.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.162/1) signed by dated 20.03.1991
45,500/- (Ext.162) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.162/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
77. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 20.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
18.03.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.163/1) signed by dated 20.03.1991
45,500/- (Ext.163) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.163/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
78. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
18.03.1991 for Rs. Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.164/1) signed by dated 15.03.1991
30,000/- (Ext.164) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.164/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
79. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & No sanction memo List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. issued. dated 20.10.1989
19,950/- (Ext.165) (Ext.165/1) signed by
Director of A.H.
80. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 08.11.1989 List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.166/1) signed by dated 08.11.1989
19,950/- (Ext.166) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.166/2) signed by
Director of A.H.
81. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 25.10.1989 List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.167/1) signed by dated 25.10.1989
17,100/- (Ext.167) Director of A.H. (Ext.167/2) signed by
Director of A.H.
82. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 26.10.1989 List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.168/1) signed by dated 26.10.1989
19,950/- (Ext.168) Director of A.H. (Ext.168/2) signed by
Director of A.H.
83. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 26.10.1989 List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.169/1) signed by dated 26.10.1989
17,100/- (Ext.169) Director of A.H. (Ext.169/2) signed by
Director of A.H.
84. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 26.10.1989 List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.170/1) signed by dated 26.10.1989
19,950/- (Ext.170) Director of A.H. (Ext.170/2) signed by
Director of A.H.
85. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 25.10.1989 List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.171/1) signed by dated 20.10.1989
19,950/- (Ext.171) Director of A.H. (Ext.171/2) signed by
Director of A.H.
86. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 26.10.1989 List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.172/1) signed by dated 26.10.1989
18,500/- (Ext.172) Director of A.H. (Ext.172/2) signed by
Director of A.H.
87. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 26.10.1989 List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.173/1) signed by dated 22.10.1989
18,500/- (Ext.173) Director of A.H. (Ext.173/2) signed by
Director of A.H.
88. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 26.10.1989 List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.174/1) signed by dated 26.10.1989
18,500/- (Ext.174) Director of A.H. (Ext.174/2) signed by
Director of A.H.
89. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 26.10.1989 List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.175/1) signed by dated 22.10.1989
18,500/- (Ext.175) Director of A.H. (Ext.175/2) signed by
Director of A.H.
90. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 25.10.1989 List of Beneficiaries
20.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.176/1) signed by dated 25.10.1989
17,100/- (Ext.176) Director of A.H. (Ext.176/2) signed by
Director of A.H.
91. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 06.11.1989 List of Beneficiaries
25.10.1989 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.177/1) signed by dated 27.10.1989
18,500/- (Ext.177) Director of A.H. (Ext.177/2) signed by
Director of A.H.
92. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1989 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1991 for Rs. (Ext.179/1) signed by dated 27.03.1989
22,750/- (Ext.179) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.179/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
93. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.180/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.180) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.180/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
94. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.181/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.181) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.181/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
95. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
28.03.1991 for Rs. (Ext.182/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.182) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.182/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
96. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.183/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.183) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.183/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
97. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.184/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.184) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.184/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
98. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.185/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.185) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.185/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
99. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.186/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.186) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.186/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
100. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.187/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.187) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.187/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
101. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.188/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.188) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.188/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
102. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.189/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.189) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.189/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
103. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.190/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.190) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.190/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
104. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.191/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.191) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.191/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
105. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.192/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.192) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.192/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
106. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.193/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.193) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.193/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
107. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.194/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.194) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.194/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
108. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.195/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.195) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.195/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
109. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.196/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.196) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.196/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
110. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.197/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.197) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.197/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
111. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.198/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.198) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.198/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
112. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.199/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.199) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.199/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
113. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.200/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
21,180/- (Ext.200) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.200/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
114. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
28.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.201/1) signed by dated 28.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.201) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.201/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
115. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
28.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.202/1) signed by dated 28.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.202) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.202/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
116. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.203/1) signed by dated 28.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.203) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.203/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
117. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.204/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
13,650/- (Ext.204) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.204/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
118. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 28.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
28.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.205/1) signed by dated 28.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.205) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.205/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
119. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.206/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.206) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.206/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
120. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
28.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.207/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.207) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.205/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
121. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.208/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.208) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.208/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
122. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.209/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.209) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.209/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
123. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.210/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.210) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.210/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
124. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
27.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.211/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
22,750/- (Ext.211) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.211/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
125. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta Memo dated 27.03.1992 List of Beneficiaries
28.03.1992 for Rs. (Ext.212/1) signed by dated 27.03.1992
24,260/- (Ext.212) Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy. (Ext.212/2) signed by
Director of A.H. Dr. S.P. Sengupta, Dy.
Director of A.H.
126. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
15.03.1991 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.213/1) signed by dated 15.03.1991
33,904/- (Ext.213) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.213/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
127. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & No sanction memo List of Beneficiaries
15.03.1991 for Rs. Director of A.H. issued. dated 15.03.1991
45,500/- (Ext.214) (Ext.214/1) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
128. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
15.03.1991 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.215/1) signed by dated 15.03.1991
23,976/- (Ext.215) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.215/2) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
129. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
14.03.1991 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.25/3) signed by dated 15.03.1991
36,400/- (Ext.25/2) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.25/4) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
130. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 20.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
15.03.1991 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.25/9) signed by dated 20.03.1991
45,500/- (Ext.25/8) Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.25/10) signed by
Addl. Director of A.H.
131. GIA bill dated Dr. S.P. Sengupta & Memo dated 15.03.1991 List of Beneficiaries
14.03.1991 for Rs. Director of A.H. (Ext.25/13) signed by dated 15.03.1991
36,400/- Addl. Director of A.H. (Ext.25/14) signed by
(Ext.25/12) Addl. Director of A.H.
[33] PW-1 in his cross-examination stated that the list of
beneficiaries would be prepared by the Panchayet and Block
Development Committee and thereafter, it would be sent to the Office
of the Director, Animal Husbandry through the office of concerned
Deputy Director for approval and Deputy Director had no right to alter
or modify the list. He also stated that the final list of beneficiaries
would be prepared by the Director considering the fund position and
then it would be sent to the office of the Deputy Director and the
Deputy Director thereafter would prepare the sanction memo and list
of beneficiaries as per said approved list. He also admitted that the
grant-in-aid bills prepared by Dr. S.P Sengupta were as per the
approved list issued by their Director and after issuance of sanction
memo, the transaction would be done by the implementing officer and
cashier and the DDO had no role to play in disbursement of the
amount. He also stated that so far the documents perused by him in
connection with this case, there was no allegation that Dr. S.P.
Sengupta had deviated from the approved list of beneficiaries.
However, the fact that he had disclosed the name of Dr. S.P.
Sengupta to investigating officers was omitted in his statement
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
[34] PW-54 i.e. the last investigating officer deposed that he
found Phani Bhushan Debnath and Manindra Debnath were granted
an amount of Rs.1,612/- each vide memorandum bearing no.F.2-
253/DDAH(W)/1991 dated 27.03.1991 and Dr. S.P. Sengupta drew
the amount vide bill no. Grant-in-Aid/DDAH/1174/90 dated
18.03.1991. The amount of Rs.24,180/- was granted by Addl.
Director on 27.03.1991 but the amount was drawn on 18.03.1991 by
Dr. S.P. Sengupta earlier and after that memo was issued for paper
regularization. According PW-54, accused Sankar Dey gave in
writing to the Dy. Director, Animal Husbandry to the effect that he
had paid Rs.1,44,024/- to the Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry,
Sonamura against 6 vouchers as per dictation of Dy. Director, Animal
Husbandry, West on 19.12.1992 for which no grant-in-aid bill was
drawn from treasury. However, if such evidence is taken to be true, it
appears to be of the nature of exculpatory statement made by the co-
accused to save himself.
[35] Evidence against Lt. Krishnadhan Biswas:
(i) PW-1 stated that K.D. Biswas was Assistant Director of
Animal Resource Department, Sonamura Sub-Division of West Tripura
District. He took over charge by GFR 33 (Ext.3). Transfer order of Mr.
K.D Biswas. in said post was marked as Ext.4. PW-1 also identified
one memorandum dated 29.07.1991 (Ext.10) and another
memorandum dated 11.12.1992 (Ext.11) issued by Dr. K. D. Biswas
as Asstt. Director of Animal Resource Department of Sonamura.
(ii) PW-1 further stated that at the time of taking charge, in
GFR 33 there was no mention of any shortfall in the cash in his office
or there was any unadjusted voucher. But at the time of charge, there
was unadjusted vouchers of about Rs.1 lakh and there was about
Rs.99,000/- in the cash. He also stated that on 04.08.1994, he
conducted physical verification of the cash of his office and found that
there was no signature/approval of DDO in 06 nos. of actual pay
receipt (Ext.15 series) of Rs.24,004/- only for the period 1991-92.
PW-1 stated that said 6 nos. of unadjusted vouchers contained
signatures of Dr. Mrinmoy Barman and on his identification, said
signatures were marked as Ext.15/1 series. He also identified
signatures of Dr. Krishnadhan Biswas in those 6 vouchers which were
marked as Ext.15/2 series.
(iii) PW-1 also identified one money receipt issued by one
Gopal Majumder for Rs.1,612/- counter-signed by Dr. T.K. Sengupta
and Dr. K.D. Biswas and their signatures were marked as Ext.32
series. He also identified another money receipt issued by Dipak
Sarkar for Rs.1,612/- countersigned by Dr. T.K. Sengupta and Dr.
K.D. Biswas and their signatures were marked as Ext.33 series.
(iv) PW-1 further identified money receipts in the name of
Nagendra Sarkar, Bajlu Miah, Rang Miah, Abdul Rashid, Ashu Miah,
Mamata Begam, Ali Miah (PW-28), Smti Laxmi Rani Das, Smti
Jyotsna Begum and Abdul Sattar, signed by Dr. K.D. Biswas and his
signatures therein were marked as Ext.34 series. None of the above
said persons except Ali Miah (PW-28) was examined in this case.
(v) PW-1 also identified money receipts in the names of
Shakun Miah, Raj Kr. Debbarma, Samsul Haque Choudhury, Smti
Ambia Khatoon, Smti Selina Begam, Ramesh Debbarma, Shahindra
Debbarma, Abdul Razzak, Badir Miah, Nitai Das, Siraj Miah
Choudhury, Lal Miah, Smti Rahela Khatoon, Smti Rupban Bibi, Smti
Gulura Khatoon, Farid Miah, Fazlul Karim, Smti Shania Bibi, Smti
Jahera Khatoon, Smti Trinayani Debbarma, Adhin Debbarma, Chikan
Debbarma, Gourchand Debbarma, Indrajit Debbarma, Smti
Shamkanya Debbarma, Raj Kr. Debbarma, Anna Debbarma, Rabindra
Debbarma, Smti Bakul Begam, Smti Kusanti Debbarma, Ramendra
Debbarma, Abid Miah, Tarachand Debbarma, Amalendu Debbarma,
Shambhu Debbarma, Nagendra Sarkar, Manik Das and Nibaran
Debbarma containing signatures of Dr. T.K. Sengupta and Dr. K.D.
Biswas and their signatures therein were marked as Ext.35 series.
But none of the above said persons were examined in this case.
[36] On identification by PW-1, the following grant-in-aid bills,
related sanction memo, related list of beneficiaries and money
receipts were also proved into evidence having the signature of K.D.
Biswas in the money receipts:
Description of Related sanction Related list of Description of related Remarks, if
Grant in aid bill memo beneficiaries money receipts any
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 08 money receipts (Ext.49)
dated 18.02.1991 dated 15.03.1991 in respect of containing signatures of Dr.
for Rs.36,400/- (Ext.47) disbursement of K D. Biswas and Dr.
(Ext.46) said amount Mrinmoy Barman (Ext.49/1
(Ext.48) series)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 50 money receipts
dated 6.3.1991 for dated 15.3.1991 (Ext.39) regarding disbursement of
Rs.33,300/- (Ext.38) said Rs.33,300/- (Ext.40
(Ext.37) series) countersigned by
Dr. K.D. Biswas and Dr.
Mrinmoy Barman
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 10 money receipts in
dated nil for dated 20.3.1991 for (Ext.55) respect of disbursement of
Rs.6,660/- (Ext.53) (Ext.54), said amount signed by Dr.
K.D. Biswas and another
officer (name not disclosed)
and same was marked as
Ext.56 series.
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 03 money receipts in
dated 17.2.1992 for (Ext.58) in respect of respect of part
Rs.22,740/- disbursement of disbursement (Ext.60
(Ext.57) said amount series) signed by Dr. K.D.
(Ext.59) Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
Barman (their signatures
marked as Ext.60/1 series
and 60/2 series).
Grant in aid bill Related sanction List of beneficiaries Money receipt in respect of
dated nil for memo (Ext.62) of said amount part payment of the said
Rs.35,300/- (Ext.63) amount signed by Dr. T.K.
(Ext.61) Sengupta and Dr. K.D.
Biswas. (Ext.64)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 25 nos. of money receipts
dated 06.03.1991 (Ext.66) regarding part in respect of disbursement
for Rs.33,300/- payment of said of the amount (Ext.68)
(Ext.65) amount (Ext.67) containing signatures of Dr.
Mrinmoy Barman and Dr.
K.D. Biswas.
Grant in aid bill for Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 25 nos. of money receipts
Rs.33,300/- (Ext.70) without signature of in respect of disbursement
(Ext.69) issuing authority of the amount (Ext.72)
(Ext.71) containing signatures of Dr.
Mrinmoy Barman and Dr.
K.D. Biswas.
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 nos. of money receipts
dated 13.02.1992 (Ext.77) in respect of (Ext.79) signed by Dr.
for Rs.22,750/- disbursement of Mrinmoy Barman, Mr. T. K.
(Ext.76) said amount Sengupta and Dr. K.D.
(Ext.78) Biswas.
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 nos. of money receipts in
dated 03.03.1991 (Ext.81) (Ext.82) respect of disbursement of
for Rs.22,750/- said amount containing
(Ext.80) signatures of Dr. Mrinmoy
Barman, Mr. T.K. Sengupta
and Dr. K.D. Biswas (Ext.83
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 nos. of money receipts in
dated 13.03.1992 (Ext.85) (Ext.86) respect of disbursement of
for Rs.10,000/- said amount containing
(Ext.84) signatures of Dr. Mrinmoy
Barman, Mr. T.K. Sengupta
and Dr. K.D. Biswas (Ext.87
series).
Grant in aid bill for Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 10 nos. of money receipts
Rs.21,190/- (Ext.89) (Ext.90) in respect of disbursement
(Ext.88) of said amount containing
signatures of Dr. Mrinmoy
Barman, Mr. T.K. Sengupta
and Dr. K.D. Biswas (Ext.91
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 nos. of money receipts
dated 30.03.1992 dated 30.03.1992 (Ext.109/2) in respect of disbursement
(Ext.109) (Ext.109/1) containing signature of Dr.
Mrinmoy Barman, Mr. T.K.
Sengupta in some receipts
and Dr. K.D Biswas in some
receipts (109/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 24 nos. of relevant money
dated 06.03.1991 (Ext.112/1) signed by Dr. M.K. receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.39,536/- Debbarma Biswas (Ext.112/3 series).
(Ext.112) (Ext.112/2)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 22 nos. of relevant money
dated 06.03.1990 (Ext.113/1) (Ext.113/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.39,536/- Biswas and Dr. T.K.
(Ext.113) Sengupta (in one of the
series).
Grant in aid bill for Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 9 nos. of relevant money
Rs.15,534/- (Ext.114/1) (Ext.114/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
(Ext.114) Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
Barman (in some of the
series).
Grant in aid bill for Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 9 nos. of relevant money
Rs.45,500/- (Ext.115/1) (Ext.115/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
(Ext.115) Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
Barman (in some of the
receipts) and Dr. T.K.
Sengupta (in some of the
series).
Grant in aid bill for Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 15 nos. of relevant money
Rs.21,180/- (Ext.117/1) (Ext.117/2) receipts signed by Dr. T.K.
(Ext.117) Sengupta, Dr. K.D. Biswas
and Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(in one of the receipts)
(Ext.117/3 series).
Grant in aid bill for Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 14 nos. of relevant money
Rs.21,180/- (Ext.118/1) (Ext.118/2) receipts signed by Dr. T.K.
(Ext.118) Sengupta and Dr. K.D.
Biswas (Ext.118/3 series).
Grant in aid bill for Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 Nos. of relevant money
Rs.24,004/- (Ext.119/1) (Ext.119/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
(Ext.119) Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 nos. of relevant money
dated 30.03.1992 (Ext.120/1) (Ext.120/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.120) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 nos. of relevant money
dated 30.03.1992 (Ext.121/1) (Ext.121/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.121) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 nos. of relevant money
dated 30.03.1992 (Ext.122/1) (Ext.122/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.122) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 10 nos. of relevant money
dated 30.03.1992 (Ext.123/1) (Ext.123/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.123) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 14 nos. of relevant money
dated 13.03.1992 (Ext.124/1) (Ext.124/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.124) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 17 nos. of relevant money
dated 30.03.1992 (Ext.125/1) (Ext.125/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.125) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 nos. of relevant money
dated 30.03.1992 (Ext.126/1) (Ext.126/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.126) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 nos. of relevant money
dated 30.03.1991 (Ext.127/1) (Ext.127/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.127) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill for Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 nos. of relevant money
Rs.7,060/- issued (Ext.128/1) (Ext.128/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
(Ext.128) Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill for Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 13 nos. of relevant money
Rs.24,004/- (Ext.129/1) (Ext.129/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
(Ext.129) Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Nil List of beneficiaries 7 nos. of relevant money
dated 06.03.1991 signed by Dr. M.K. receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.11,284/- Debbarma Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.130) (Ext.130/1) Barman (Ext.130/2 series).
Grant in aid bill for Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 20 nos. of relevant money
Rs.32,240/- (Ext.131/1) (Ext.131/2) receipt signed by Dr. K.D.
(Ext.131) Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
Barman (Ext.131/3 series)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 20 nos. of relevant money
dated 18.02.1991 (Ext.132/1) (Ext.132/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.32,240/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.132) Barman (Ext.132/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 18 nos. of relevant money
dated 06.03.1991 (Ext.133/1) (Ext.133/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.48,380/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.133) Barman (Ext.133/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 20 nos. of relevant money
dated 06.03.1991 (Ext.134/1) (Ext.134/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.48,380/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.134) Barman (Ext.134/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 20 nos. of relevant money
dated 06.03.1991 (Ext.135/1) (Ext.135/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.48,380/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.135) Barman (Ext.135/3 series).
Grant in aid bill for Sanction memo for List of beneficiaries 20 nos. of relevant money PW-1 is
Rs.48,380/- Rs.11,284/- for Rs.48,380/- receipts signed by Dr. K.D. silent as to
(Ext.136) (Ext.136/1) (Ext.136/2) Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy what happen
Barman (Ext.136/3 series). about the
sanction of
rest amount
Rs.48,380/-.
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 18 nos. of relevant money
dated 06.03.1991 (Ext.137/1) (Ext.137/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.43,542/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.137) Barman (Ext.137/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 15 nos. of relevant money
dated 06.03.1991 issued (Ext.138/1) (Ext.138/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.36,285/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.138) Barman (Ext.138/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 3 nos. of relevant money
dated 17.02.1992 (Ext.139/6) (Ext.139/1) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.139) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 3 nos. of relevant money
dated Nil for (Ext.140/1) (Ext.140/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
Rs.21,180/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.140) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 nos. of relevant money
dated Nil for (Ext.141/1) (Ext.141/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
Rs.24,004/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.141) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 8 nos. of relevant money
dated Nil for (Ext.142/1) (Ext.142/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
Rs.24,180/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.142) Barman (Ext.142/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 1 no. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.143/1) (Ext.143/2) receipt signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.143) Barman (Ext.143/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 1 no. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.144/1) (Ext.144/2) receipt signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,592/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.144) Barman (Ext.144/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 nos. of relevant money
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.145/1) (Ext.145/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.145) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 8 nos. of relevant money
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.146/1) (Ext.146/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.14,120/- Biswas and Dr. T.K.
(Ext.146) Sengupta (Ext.146/3
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 10 nos. of relevant money
dated 23.08.1991 (Ext.147/1) (Ext.147/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.14,120/- Biswas and Dr. T.K.
(Ext.147) Sengupta (Ext.147/3
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 15 nos. of relevant money
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.148/1) (Ext.148/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.148) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 nos. of relevant money
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.149/1) (Ext.149/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.149) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 17 nos. of relevant money
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.150/1) (Ext.150/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.150) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 17 nos. of relevant money
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.151/1) (Ext.151/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas and Dr. T.K.
(Ext.151) Sengupta (Ext.151/3
series).
grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 3 nos. of relevant money
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.152/1) (Ext.152/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.14,120/- Biswas and Dr. T.K.
(Ext.152) Sengupta (Ext.152/3
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 14 nos. of relevant money
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.153/1) (Ext.153/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas and Dr. T.K.
(Ext.153) Sengupta (Ext.153/3
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 15 Nos. of relevant money
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.154/1) (Ext.154/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,004/- Biswas and Dr. T.K.
(Ext.154) Sengupta (Ext.154/3
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 15 Nos. of relevant money
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.155/1) (Ext.155/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.21,180/- Biswas and Dr. T.K.
(Ext.155) Sengupta (Ext.155/3
series).
Another grant in aid Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 20 Nos. of relevant money
bill dated (Ext.156/1) (Ext.156/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
14.03.1991 for Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
Rs.32,240/- Barman (Ext.156/3 series).
(Ext.156)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 20 Nos. of relevant money
dated 14.03.1991 (Ext.157/1) (Ext.157/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.32,240/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.157) Barman (Ext.157/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 6 Nos. of relevant money
dated 14.03.1991 (Ext.25/3) (Ext.25/4) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.36,400/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.25/2) Barman (Ext.25/5 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 10 Nos. of relevant money
dated 15.03.1991 (Ext.25/9) (Ext.25/10) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.45,500/- Biswas (Ext.25/11 series).
(Ext.25/8)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 8 Nos. of relevant money
dated 14.03.1991 (Ext.25/13) (Ext.25/14) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.36,400/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.25/12) Barman (Ext.25/15 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 10 Nos. of relevant money
dated 15.03.1991 (Ext.25/19) (Ext.25/20) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.45,500/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.25/18) Barman (Ext.25/21 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 10 Nos. of relevant money
dated 18.03.1991 (Ext.159/1) (Ext.159/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.45,500/- Biswas (Ext.159/3 series).
(Ext.159)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo Relevant list of 21 Nos. of relevant money
dated 15.03.1991 (Ext.160/1), beneficiaries receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.21,000/- (Ext.160/2) Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.160) Barman (Ext.160/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 10 Nos. of relevant money
dated 18.03.1991 (Ext.161/1) (Ext.161/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.45,500/- Biswas (Ext.161/3 series).
(Ext.161)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 10 Nos. of relevant money
dated 18.03.1991 (Ext.162/1) (Ext.162/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.45,500/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.162) Barman (Ext.162/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 10 Nos. of relevant money
dated 18.03.1991 (Ext.163/1) (Ext.163/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.45,500/- Biswas (Ext.163/3 series).
(Ext.163)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 15 Nos. of relevant money
dated 15.03.1991 (Ext.164/1) (Ext.164/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.30,000/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.164) Barman (Ext.164/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Nil List of beneficiaries 7 Nos. of relevant money
dated 20.10.1989 (Ext.165/1) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.19,950/- Biswas(Ext.165/2 series).
(Ext.165)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 14 Nos. of relevant money
dated 20.10.1989 (Ext.166/1) without any receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.19,950/- signature of any Biswas and another
(Ext.166) officer (Ext.166/2) (Ext.166/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 8 Nos. of relevant money
dated 20.10.1989 (Ext.167/1) (Ext.167/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.17,100/- Biswas and others
(Ext.167) (Ext.167/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 14 Nos. of relevant money
dated 20.10.1989 issued (Ext.168/1) (Ext.168/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.19,950/- Biswas and others
(Ext.168) (Ext.168/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 12 Nos. of relevant money
dated 20.10.1989 (Ext.169/1) (Ext.169/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.17,100/- Biswas and others
(Ext.169) (Ext.169/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 14 Nos. of relevant money
dated 20.10.1989 (Ext.170/1) (Ext.170/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.19,950/- Biswas and others
(Ext.170) (Ext.170/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 12 Nos. of relevant money
dated 20.10.1989 (Ext.171/1) (Ext.171/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.19,950/- Biswas (Ext.171/3 series).
(Ext.171)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 20.10.1989 issued by Director, (Ext.172/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.18,500/- Animal Husbandry Biswas (Ext.172/3 series).
(Ext.172) (Ext.172/1)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 20.10.1989 (Ext.173/1) (Ext.173/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.18,500/- Biswas (Ext.173/3 series).
(Ext.173)
grant in aid bill sanction memo list of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 20.10.1989 (Ext.174/1) (Ext.174/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.18,500/- Biswas (Ext.174/3 series).
(Ext.174)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 20.10.1989 (Ext.175/1) (Ext.175/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.18,500/- Biswas (Ext.175/3 series).
(Ext.175)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 12 Nos. of relevant money
dated 20.10.1989 (Ext.176/1) (Ext.176/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.17,100/- Biswas (Ext.176/3 series).
(Ext.176)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1991 (Ext.179/1) (Ext.179/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.179) Barman (Ext.179/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.180/1) (Ext.180/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.180) Barman (Ext.180/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 3 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.181/1) (Ext.181/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.181) Barman (Ext.181/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 28.03.1991 (Ext.182/1) (Ext.182/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.182) Barman (Ext.182/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 3 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.183/1) (Ext.183/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.183) Barman (Ext.183/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.184/1) (Ext.184/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.184) Barman (Ext.184/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 2 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.185/1) (Ext.185/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.185) Barman (Ext.185/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.186/1) (Ext.186/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.186) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.187/1) (Ext.187/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.187) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.188/1) (Ext.188/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.188) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.189/1) (Ext.189/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.189) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.190/1) (Ext.190/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.190) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.191/1) (Ext.191/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.191) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.192/1) (Ext.192/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.192) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.193/1) (Ext.193/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
issued (Ext.193) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.194/1) (Ext.194/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.194) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1991 (Ext.195/1) (Ext.195/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.195) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.196/1) (Ext.196/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.196) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.197/1) (Ext.197/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.197) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.198/1) (Ext.198/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.198) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.202/1) (Ext.202/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas and Dr. T.K.
(Ext.202) Sengupta (Ext.202/3
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 3 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.203/1) (Ext.203/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.203) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 2 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.204/1) (Ext.204/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.13,650/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.204) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant money
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.205/1) (Ext.205/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.205) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.206/1) (Ext.206/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.206) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 3 Nos. of relevant money
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.207/1) (Ext.207/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.207) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.208/1) (Ext.208/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.208) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.209/1) (Ext.209/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.209) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.210/1) (Ext.210/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.210) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.211/1) (Ext.211/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.22,750/- Biswas, Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.211) Barman and Dr. T.K.
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant money
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.212/1) (Ext.212/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.24,260/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.212) Barman (Ext.212/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 Nos. of relevant money
dated 15.03.1991 (Ext.213/1) (Ext.213/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.33,904/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.213) Barman (Ext.213/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 36 Nos. of relevant money
dated 15.03.1991 (Ext.215/1) (Ext.215/2) receipts signed by Dr. K.D.
for Rs.23,976/- Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.215) Barman (Ext.215/3 series).
One money receipt of Rs.1,402/- signed by Dr. K.D. Biswas
and Dr. T.K. Sengupta has been proved by PW-1 marked as Ext.217
and signatures of Dr. T.K. Sengupta and Dr. K.D. Biswas are marked
as Exbts.217/1 and 217/2 respectively.
[37] PW-1 in his cross-examination on behalf of accused Sankar
Dey stated that during the year 1988-1992 Dr. K.D. Biswas was the
implementing officer of beneficiary schemes of Sonamura Sub-
Division and after implementation of the scheme, the implementing
officer was supposed to submit actual payment receipts to the cashier
and the cashier was supposed to retain the same for audit purpose.
It is also stated by him that the implementing officer used to receive
the money by signing the acquittance roll or by receiving bank draft
or by signing vouchers. The witness also admitted that Dr. K.D.
Biswas did not identify any one of the beneficiaries.
[38] PW-10, Samir Kanti Das stated that in the year 1988 he
was posted at Kamalnagar Veterinary Dispensary as Animal
Husbandry Assistant and at that time, Dr. K.D. Biswas was the
Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry Department of Sonamura
Sub-Division in Block Level office. He further stated that during the
year 1992 K.D. Biswas issued order directing him to assist the
implementing officer in respect of implementation of some beneficiary
scheme and most probably T.K. Sengupta was the implementing
officer at that time. He further stated that during the year 1992 he
gave signatures in some blank money receipts as per instruction of
K.D. Biswas. On being shown 6 money receipts, the witness stated
that he gave his signatures in these money receipts as Animal
Husbandry Assistant and his signatures therein were marked as
Ext.27 series and signatures of Dr. K.D. Biswas therein on his
identification, were marked as Ext.27/1 series. The related order
dated 29.12.1992 issued by said Dr. K.D. Biswas asking him to assist
the implementing officer was marked as Ext.28 along with signatures
of Dr. K.D. Biswas therein as Ext.28/1. In his cross-examination, he
admitted that the said 6 money receipts were also signed by the
Chairman of Gram Panchayet. In his cross-examination, he also
stated that those money receipts were having the signatures of
respective beneficiaries therein. He also admitted that he never report
to their Director or any other higher authority about signing in the
blank receipts at the instance of Dr. K.D. Biswas. He also admitted
that as per said order dated 29.12.1992 he along with one Idu Miah
were asked to assist the implementing officer.
[39] The witness PW-48, namely, Milan Kr. Deb, PA to the then
Minister Surajit Datta deposed that under threat of said PW-49 and
under instruction of Ministers, he put his signatures in blank APRs. He
also stated that officers of Animal Husbandry Department namely,
K.D. Biswas and Deputy Director, Dr. S.P. Sengupta used to visit their
office and Prabir Kr. Deb (PW-49) told him that the APRs were given
to him by the officers namely Sengupta Saheb and Biswas Saheb. The
details of the testimony of this witness will be discussed lateron.
Prabir Kr. Deb (PW-49) also said that those APRs were given by the
officers, namely Biswas Saheb and Sengupta Saheb etc. In his cross-
examination, he has stated that he did not specifically name Dr. K.D.
Biswas before the investigating officers.
Evidence against Mrinmoy Barman:
[40] PW-1 stated that the Mrinmoy Barman was in-charge of
Kathalia Dispensary of Sonamura Sub-Division as per office order
dated 06.08.1990 (Ext.5).He further stated that on 04.08.1994, he
conducted physical verification of the cash of his office and found that
there was no signature/approval of DDO in 06 nos. of actual pay
receipt (Ext.15 series) of Rs.24,004/- only for the period 1991-1992
and said 6 nos. of unadjusted vouchers contained signature of Dr.
Mrinmoy Barman and on his identification, said signatures were
marked as Ext.15/1 series.
[41] On identification by PW-1, the following grant-in-aid bills,
related sanction memo, related list of beneficiaries and money
receipts containing signatures of Mrinmoy Barman were proved into
evidence:
Description of Related Related list of Description of related Remarks, if
Grant in aid bill sanction memo beneficiaries money receipts any
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 08 money receipts
dated 18.02.1991 dated in respect of (Ext.49) containing
for Rs.36,400/- 15.03.1991 disbursement of signatures of Dr. K D.
(Ext.46) (Ext.47) said amount Biswas and Dr. Mrinmoy
series)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 50 money receipts
dated 6.3.1991 dated 15.3.1991 (Ext.39) regarding disbursement
for Rs.33,300/- (Ext.38) of said Rs.33,300/-
(Ext.37) (Ext.40 series)
countersigned by Dr.
K.D. Biswas and Dr.
Mrinmoy Barman
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 03 money receipts in
dated 17.2.1992 (Ext.58) in respect of respect of part
for Rs.22,740/- disbursement of disbursement (Ext.60
(Ext.57) said amount series) signed by Dr.
(Ext.59) K.D. Biswas and Dr.
Mrinmoy Barman (their
signatures marked as
Ext.60/1 series and
60/2 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 25 nos. of money
dated 06.03.1991 (Ext.66) regarding part receipts in respect of
for Rs.33,300/- payment of said disbursement of the
(Ext.65) amount (Ext.67) amount (Ext.68)
containing signatures of
Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
and Dr. K.D. Biswas.
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 25 nos. of money
for Rs.33,300/- (Ext.70) without signature of receipts in respect of
(Ext.69) issuing authority disbursement of the
(Ext.71) amount (Ext.72)
containing signatures of
Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
and Dr. K.D. Biswas.
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 nos. of money
dated 13.02.1992 (Ext.77) in respect of receipts (Ext.79) signed
for Rs.22,750/- disbursement of by Dr. Mrinmoy
(Ext.76) said amount Barman, Mr. T. K.
(Ext.78) Sengupta and Dr. K.D.
Biswas.
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 nos. of money
dated 03.03.1991 (Ext.81) (Ext.82) receipts in respect of
for Rs.22,750/- disbursement of said
(Ext.80) amount containing
signatures of Dr.
Mrinmoy Barman, Mr.
T.K. Sengupta and Dr.
K.D. Biswas (Ext.83
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 nos. of money
dated 13.03.1992 (Ext.85) (Ext.86) receipts in respect of
for Rs.10,000/- disbursement of said
(Ext.84) amount containing
signatures of Dr.
Mrinmoy Barman, Mr.
T.K. Sengupta and Dr.
K.D. Biswas (Ext.87
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 10 nos. of money
for Rs.21,190/- (Ext.89) (Ext.90) receipts in respect of
(Ext.88) disbursement of said
amount containing
signatures of Dr.
Mrinmoy Barman, Mr.
T.K. Sengupta and Dr.
K.D. Biswas (Ext.91
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 nos. of money
dated 30.03.1992 dated 30.03.1992 (Ext.109/2) receipts in respect of
(Ext.109) (Ext.109/1) disbursement
containing signature of
Dr. Mrinmoy Barman,
Mr. T.K. Sengupta in
some receipts and Dr.
K.D Biswas in some
receipts (109/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 Nos. of money
dated 17.02.1992 (Ext.111/1) (Ext.111/2) receipts signed by Dr.
of Rs.24,004/- Mrinmoy Barman and
(Ext.111) Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.111/3 series)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 9 nos. of relevant
for Rs.15,534/- (Ext.114/1) (Ext.114/2) money receipts signed
(Ext.114) by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
Dr. Mrinmoy Barman (in
some of the receipts)
(Ext.114/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 9 nos. of relevant
for Rs.45,500/- (Ext.115/1) (Ext.115/2) money receipts signed
(Ext.115) by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
Dr. Mrinmoy Barman (in
some of the receipts)
and Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(in some of the
series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 15 nos. of relevant
for Rs.21,180/- (Ext.117/1) (Ext.117/2) money receipts signed
(Ext.117) by Dr. T.K. Sengupta,
Dr. K.D. Biswas and Dr.
Mrinmoy Barman (in
one of the receipts)
(Ext.117/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 Nos. of relevant
for Rs.24,004/- (Ext.119/1) (Ext.119/2) money receipts signed
(Ext.119) by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.119/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 nos. of relevant
dated 30.03.1992 (Ext.120/1) (Ext.120/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.24,004/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.120) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.120/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 nos. of relevant
dated 30.03.1992 (Ext.121/1) (Ext.121/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.24,004/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.121) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.121/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 nos. of relevant
dated 30.03.1992 (Ext.122/1) (Ext.122/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.24,004/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.122) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.122/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 10 nos. of relevant
dated 30.03.1992 (Ext.123/1) (Ext.123/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.24,004/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.123) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.123/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 14 nos. of relevant
dated 13.03.1992 (Ext.124/1) (Ext.124/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.24,004/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.124) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.124/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 17 nos. of relevant
dated 30.03.1992 (Ext.125/1) (Ext.125/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.24,004/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.125) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.125/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 nos. of relevant
dated 30.03.1992 (Ext.126/1) (Ext.126/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.24,004/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.126) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.126/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 nos. of relevant
dated 30.03.1991 (Ext.127/1) (Ext.127/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.24,004/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.127) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.127/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 nos. of relevant
for Rs.7,060/- issued (Ext.128/2) money receipts signed
(Ext.128) (Ext.128/1) by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.128/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 13 nos. of relevant
for Rs.24,004/- (Ext.129/1) (Ext.129/2) money receipts signed
(Ext.129) by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.129/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Nil List of beneficiaries 7 nos. of relevant
dated 06.03.1991 signed by Dr. M.K. money receipts signed
for Rs.11,284/- Debbarma by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.130) (Ext.130/1) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.130/2 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 20 nos. of relevant
for Rs.32,240/- (Ext.131/1) (Ext.131/2) money receipt signed
(Ext.131) by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.131/3 series)
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 20 nos. of relevant
dated 18.02.1991 (Ext.132/1) (Ext.132/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.32,240/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.132) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.132/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 18 nos. of relevant
dated 06.03.1991 (Ext.133/1) (Ext.133/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.48,380/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.133) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.133/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 20 nos. of relevant
dated 06.03.1991 (Ext.134/1) (Ext.134/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.48,380/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.134) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.134/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 20 nos. of relevant
dated 06.03.1991 (Ext.135/1) (Ext.135/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.48,380/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.135) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.135/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 20 nos. of relevant PW-1 is silent
for Rs.48,380/- for Rs.11,284/- for Rs.48,380/- money receipts signed as to what
(Ext.136) (Ext.136/1) (Ext.136/2) by Dr. K.D. Biswas and happen about
Dr. Mrinmoy Barman the sanction of
(Ext.136/3 series). rest amount
Rs.48,380/-.
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 18 nos. of relevant
dated 06.03.1991 (Ext.137/1) (Ext.137/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.43,542/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.137) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.137/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 15 nos. of relevant
dated 06.03.1991 issued (Ext.138/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.36,285/- (Ext.138/1) by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.138) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.138/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 3 nos. of relevant
dated 17.02.1992 (Ext.139/6) (Ext.139/1) money receipts signed
for Rs.24,004/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.139) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.139/2 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 3 nos. of relevant
dated Nil for (Ext.140/1) (Ext.140/2) money receipts signed
Rs.21,180/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.140) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.140/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 nos. of relevant
dated Nil for (Ext.141/1) (Ext.141/2) money receipts signed
Rs.24,004/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.141) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.141/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 8 nos. of relevant
dated Nil for (Ext.142/1) (Ext.142/2) money receipts signed
Rs.24,180/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.142) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.142/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 1 no. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.143/1) (Ext.143/2) receipt signed by Dr.
for Rs.24,004/- K.D. Biswas and Dr.
(Ext.143) Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.143/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 1 no. of relevant money
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.144/1) (Ext.144/2) receipt signed by Dr.
for Rs.22,592/- K.D. Biswas and Dr.
(Ext.144) Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.144/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 nos. of relevant
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.145/1) (Ext.145/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.24,004/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.145) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.145/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 15 nos. of relevant
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.148/1) (Ext.148/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.24,004/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.148) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.148/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 nos. of relevant
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.149/1) (Ext.149/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.24,004/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.149) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.149/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 17 nos. of relevant
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.150/1) (Ext.150/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.24,004/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.150) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.150/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 20 Nos. of relevant
dated 14.03.1991 (Ext.156/1) (Ext.156/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.32,240/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.156) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.156/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 20 Nos. of relevant
dated 14.03.1991 (Ext.157/1) (Ext.157/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.32,240/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.157) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.157/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 6 Nos. of relevant
dated 14.03.1991 (Ext.25/3) (Ext.25/4) money receipts signed
for Rs.36,400/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.25/2) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.25/5 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 8 Nos. of relevant
dated 14.03.1991 (Ext.25/13) (Ext.25/14) money receipts signed
for Rs.36,400/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.25/12) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.25/15 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 10 Nos. of relevant
dated 15.03.1991 (Ext.25/19) (Ext.25/20) money receipts signed
for Rs.45,500/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.25/18) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.25/21 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo Relevant list of 21 Nos. of relevant
dated 15.03.1991 (Ext.160/1), beneficiaries money receipts signed
for Rs.21,000/- (Ext.160/2) by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.160) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.160/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 10 Nos. of relevant
dated 18.03.1991 (Ext.162/1) (Ext.162/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.45,500/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.162) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.162/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 15 Nos. of relevant
dated 15.03.1991 (Ext.164/1) (Ext.164/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.30,000/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.164) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.164/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1991 (Ext.179/1) (Ext.179/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.179) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.179/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.180/1) (Ext.180/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.180) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.180/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 3 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.181/1) (Ext.181/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.181) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.181/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant
dated 28.03.1991 (Ext.182/1) (Ext.182/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.182) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.182/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 3 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.183/1) (Ext.183/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.183) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.183/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.184/1) (Ext.184/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.184) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.184/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 2 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.185/1) (Ext.185/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.185) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.185/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.186/1) (Ext.186/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.186) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.186/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.187/1) (Ext.187/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.187) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.187/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.188/1) (Ext.188/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.188) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.188/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.189/1) (Ext.189/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.189) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.189/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.190/1) (Ext.190/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.190) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.190/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.191/1) (Ext.191/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.191) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.191/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.192/1) (Ext.192/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.192) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.192/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.193/1) (Ext.193/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
issued (Ext.193) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.193/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.194/1) (Ext.194/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.194) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.194/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1991 (Ext.195/1) (Ext.195/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.195) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.195/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.196/1) (Ext.196/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.196) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.196/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.197/1) (Ext.197/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.197) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.197/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.198/1) (Ext.198/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.198) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.198/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 3 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.203/1) (Ext.203/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.203) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.203/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 2 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.204/1) (Ext.204/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.13,650/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.204) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.204/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.205/1) (Ext.205/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.205) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.205/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.206/1) (Ext.206/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.206) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.206/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 3 Nos. of relevant
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.207/1) (Ext.207/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.207) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.207/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.208/1) (Ext.208/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.208) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.208/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.209/1) (Ext.209/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.209) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.209/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.210/1) (Ext.210/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.210) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.210/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 5 Nos. of relevant
dated 27.03.1992 (Ext.211/1) (Ext.211/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.22,750/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas, Dr.
(Ext.211) Mrinmoy Barman and
Dr. T.K. Sengupta
(Ext.211/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 4 Nos. of relevant
dated 28.03.1992 (Ext.212/1) (Ext.212/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.24,260/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.212) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.212/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 16 Nos. of relevant
dated 15.03.1991 (Ext.213/1) (Ext.213/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.33,904/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.213) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.213/3 series).
Grant in aid bill Nil List of beneficiaries 26 Nos. of relevant One sanction
dated 15.03.1991 (Ext.214/1) money receipts signed memo dated
for Rs.45,500/- by Dr. Mrinmoy Barman 15.03.1991 in
(Ext.214) (Ext.214/2 series). respect of
Rs.45,500/-
signed by Addl.
Director,
Animal
Husbandry is
marked as
Ext.216]
Grant in aid bill Sanction memo List of beneficiaries 36 Nos. of relevant
dated 15.03.1991 (Ext.215/1) (Ext.215/2) money receipts signed
for Rs.23,976/- by Dr. K.D. Biswas and
(Ext.215) Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
(Ext.215/3 series).
[42] PW-1 during cross-examination stated that he could not
say whether Dr. Mrinmoy Barman was appointed as implementing
officer under the beneficiary schemes. He also could not say whether
Dr. Mrinmoy Barman drew any bill from the cash section of their office
for implementation of the beneficiary schemes. He also stated that he
could not say whether Mrinmoy Dr. Barman had received any amount
on the basis of money receipts under Ext.109/3 series. He could not
say whether any amount was received/drawn by Dr. Mrinmoy Barman
in connection with any exhibited sanction memo and it was also not
possible on his part to say by seeing the exhibited money receipts as
to who was the implementing officer in respect of said disbursement
and as per the rules, Implementing Officers were supposed to submit
money receipt with their signatures to the office of Dy. Director,
Agartala for adjustment purpose.
[43] PW-54, the Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination,
admitted that he did not receive any letter that any cheque was
disbursed to Mrinmoy Barman by the DDO and also could not collect
any document to show that Mr. Barman had withdrew any amount or
disbursed the same to any beneficiary. He also stated that against
said 6(six) vouchers, no APR was found. He further stated that they
did not send the fingerprints or signatures of the beneficiaries to the
fingerprint expert through the court.
Evidence of Beneficiaries:
[44] Though the last Investigating Officer (PW-54) stated
before the Court that as number of alleged beneficiaries were more
than thousand it was not possible for him to examine all of them and
therefore, he examined 1/2 beneficiaries from all the list of
beneficiaries and none of the beneficiaries he examined actually
received the money. However, in the Court only 30(thirty) Nos. of
such beneficiaries were examined and all of them categorically stated
that they did not receive any such grant by putting their thumb
impression or signature in any paper. The gist of their testimonies is
reproduced hereunder village-wise.
[44.1] Village-Urmai (Under Sonamura Sub-Division):
PW-13, Shah Alam of Urmai stated that he was an
illiterate person and he never received any grant from Animal
Husbandry Department. He also put his thumb impression in the
deposition sheet. In his cross-examination, he stated that the
beneficiaries were selected from their locality time to time and grants
were given from Animal Husbandry Department.
PW-14, Jahangir Hossain, son of late Manu Miah of
Urmai deposed that no grant was ever sanctioned in his name from
Animal Husbandry Department and he was literate and therefore,
there was no question of putting any thumb impression instead of
giving his signature. Both his thumb impression and signatures were
taken in the deposition sheet. He stated that in the year 1991-1992
one Malek Miah was Panchayet Pradhan of Urmai and after the change
of the ruling political party in the Government, some grants were
sanctioned in favour of his villagers. In his cross-examination on
behalf of T.K. Sengupta he also stated that he could not say whether
there was any other person in the name of the Jahangir Hossain, son
of Manu Miah in their locality, or not.
PW-15, Sultan Miah, son of Abdul Rahim of Urmai
deposed that he could not say whether there was any other person in
his name in his village and he never drew any amount from Animal
Husbandry by putting thumb impression. In his cross-examination on
behalf of Mrinmoy Barman he deposed that there was no Chairman in
their village namely, Abdul Hossen rather Abdul Malek was the
Chairman for some years. In his cross-examination, he further stated
that he was residing in village-Urmai for last 16 years and prior to
that he would reside at village- Paharpur which means that he was
residing at village-Urmai since 1993/1994. He further stated that he
was not a resident of village-Putia. He put his thumb impression in his
deposition sheet.
PW-16, Ali Ashwab of Urmai also similarly deposed that
he was illiterate and he could only sign and he was a resident of
Urmai since his birth. He stated that he never received any grant from
Animal Husbandry being introduced by their Pradhan. In his cross-
examination, he stated that there was another Ali Asshab in his
village. He put both his thumb impression and signature both in the
deposition sheet.
PW-17, Sultan Miah of Urmai also deposed in the similar
line like PW-16 but in his cross-examination, he stated that he was
not a resident of village-Urmai in the year 1990-1991 rather at that
time his name was enrolled in the village register of Sonapur.
PW-18, Muslem Miah of Urmai also stated that he never
received any grant from Animal Husbandry Department and never put
his thumb impression on any paper of Animal Husbandry Department.
In his cross-examination, once he stated that there was no other
person in his name except him in his village and again he stated that
he was not sure of that fact. He put his thumb impression in the
deposition sheet.
PW-22, Mostafa Miah, son of Lt. Siru Miah of Urmai also
stated that he never received any grant from Animal Husbandry
Department in year 1990-1991 and no amount was received by him
being introduced by local Pradhan. In his cross-examination, he
stated that there was also another Mostafa Miah in their village with
different fathers' name. He also put both his signature and thumb
impression in the deposition sheet.
PW-23, Billal Miah, son of Lal Miah of Urmai stated that
for last 5/6 years he was putting his signature and prior to that he
would put his thumb impression and he was never sanctioned with
any grant from Animal Husbandry Department. In his cross-
examination, he stated that there was another person in his name like
Billal Miah in his village.
PW-24, Muklesh Miah of Urmai stated similarly that he
was never sanctioned with any grant from Animal Husbandry
Department and he could read and write and always would put his
signature. In his cross-examination, he stated that during the year
1990-1991 they got two Panchayet Pradhans in their village namely,
Ismail Miah and Abdul Malek.
PW-25, Abu Khayer of Urmai also deposed that he never
received any such grant from Animal Husbandry Department by
putting his signature or thumb impression in any paper. He also put
both his signature and thumb impression in the deposition sheet.
PW-26, Mohan Miah of Urmai also deposed similarly like
PW-25 and he also put both his signature and thumb impression in
the deposition sheet.
PW-27, Khalek Hossain of Urmai also deposed similarly
like PWs-25 & 26 and in his cross-examination, he stated that during
the period 1991-1992 their village had got three Pradhans namely, Ali
Miah, Ismail Miah and Malek Miah. He also put both his signature and
thumb impression in the deposition sheet.
PW-29, Abul Kalam of Urmai in his evidence also stated
that he did not receive any grant from Animal Husbandry Department
on any point of time and also did not put his thumb impression on any
paper in this regard. In the deposition, he put his thumb impression.
PW-30, Bhulu Miah of Urmai also stated that he was
never favoured with any grant from Animal Husbandry Department
and was never introduced by their Panchayet Pradhan to the Animal
Husbandry Department for that purpose and also did not put his
thumb impression or signature in any paper for this purpose. In his
cross-examination, he stated that there was another Bhulu Miah in
their village. Both PWs-29 & 30 stated that they were never examined
by any police officer.
PW-31, Smt. Hirana Khatun of Urmai also deposed that
she never received any such grant from Animal Husbandry
Department and did not sign in any paper for that purpose. She also
admitted that she never met any police officer in connection with this
case. Both her signature and thumb impression were taken in the
deposition sheet.
PW-39, Md. Alok Hossain of Urmai also deposed that he
did not receive any grant from Animal Husbandry Department. He
further stated that the distance between Urmai GP and Bejimara GP
was about 6 km. and both the said GP were having separate
Pradhans. According to him, Ali Miah, Ismail Miah and Malek Miah
were the respective Chairman of Development Committee of Urmai
during the period of 1988-1993 and no tribal person was Chairman of
Development Committee of Urmai during the said period from 1998-
1993. In his cross-examination, he confirmed that for last 35 years he
was residing in Urmai village. He also stated further that he did not
know whether any Village Development Committee was constituted
during the period 1988-1993 and that no investigating officer visited
him.
[44.2] Village-Putia (Under Sonamura Sub-Division):
PW-35, Md. Sultan Ahmed of Putia, Kalamcherra also
stated that he never received any government grant in the year 1991-
1992 or at any time and never put his thumb impression as he always
put his signature.
PW-36 Safiqul Islam of Putia also stated that he did not
receive any such government grant in 1991-1992. He put his thumb
impression in the deposition sheet.
PW-37, Abdul Matin of Putia also similarly stated that he
did not receive any grant from Animal Husbandry Department in the
year 1991-1992. He is a literate person capable of signing.
[44.3] Village-Kanchanmala (Under Sadar Sub-Division):
PW-41, Kusum Debbarma of Amtali deposed that Dulal
Shib was the Chairman of their Gram Panchayet in the year 1991-
1992 and they did not get any loan or grant from Animal Husbandry
Department at that time.
PW-42, Tarit Debbarma of Kanchanmala deposed that
he never put his thumb impression in any document and he knows
reading and writing. However, from his signature given in the
deposition sheet it appears that somehow he put his signature
therein. He also deposed that 1991-1992 Dulal Shib was the
Chairman of their Kanchanmala GP and during said period, he did not
receive any monetary help or grant from Animal Husbandry
Department after putting his thumb impression in any paper. In his
cross-examination, he stated that about 7/10 years ago he learnt how
to sign and Kanchamala was under Bishalgarh Block at that time.
[44.4] Village-Kulubari (Under Sonamura Sub-Division):
PW-43, Sadhan Nama of Kulubari, Sonamura deposed
that in year 1989-1990, Mr. Alam was Pradhan of their Kulubari Gram
Panchayet and during said period, he never received any grant or loan
from the Government putting any signature or thumb impression. He
also stated that he knew reading and writing. On being shown a
money receipt (Ext.171/3 series) he stated that he did not execute
said money receipt putting his LTI.
[44.5] Village-Kalsimura (Under Sonamura Sub-Division):
PW-45, Tapan Biswas of Kalsimura, Kalamchoura stated
that from 1988-1993 he did not receive any subsidy or grant from
Animal Husbandry Department. He could only sign his name in
Bengali and could not read English. On being shown a money receipt
under Ext.169/3 he stated that it did not bear his signature. In his
cross-examination, he stated that he did not know who was the
Pradhan and Panchayet Secretary of their Gram Panchayet at that
time and whether there was any other person namely Tapan Biswas
there or not.
[44.6] Village-Indranagar Horijon Colonoy (Under Sadar Sub-
Division):
PW-11, Smt. Saraswati Bajpar of Indranagar Horijon
Colony deposed that she had been residing in that colony for last 30
years and she never received any grant from Animal Husbandry and
as such, there was no question of putting any thumb impression on
any paper of that department.
PW-12, Gopal Banik of Indranagar Horijon Colony also
stated that he never received any grant from Animal Husbandry and
as such, there was no question of putting any thumb impression in
any paper.
[44.7] Village-Durga Chowmuhani (Under Sadar Sub-Division):
PW-19, Haripada Deb of Durga Chowmuhani also stated
that he never received any grant from Animal Husbandry Department.
He also put his thumb impression in the deposition sheet.
[44.8] Village-Ramnagar (Under Sadar Sub-Division):
PW-20, Md. Abdul Habiz of Ramnagar, Gangail Road
stated that he was never sanctioned with any grant from Animal
Husbandry Department and never put his thumb impression or
signature in any paper of that department. He also put both his
signature and thumb impression in the deposition sheet.
[44.9] Village-Indranagar (Under Sadar Sub-Division):
PW-21, Dulal Das of Indranagar deposed that he was
also never sanctioned with any grant from Animal Husbandry
Department. In his cross-examination, he stated that he could not
recollect whether his residence was within Gram Panchayet or within
Municipal area during the year 1991-1992. He also put both his
signature and thumb impression both in the deposition sheet.
[44.10] Village-Anandanagar (Under Sonamura Sub-Division):
PW-28, Ali Miah of Anandanagar also similarly stated that
neither in 1990-1991 or at any point of time he never received any
grant from Animal Husbandry Department by putting his thumb
impression in any paper. He also put both his signature and thumb
impression in the deposition sheet.
[44.11] Village-Aralia (Under Sonamura Sub-Division):
PW-44, Mantaj Miah of Aralia Gram Panchayet stated
that in the year 1991-1992 he did not receive any loan or grant from
Animal Husbandry Department by putting LTI in money receipt. On
being shown a money receipt (Ext.124/4 series) written in English,
he stated that he could not read and write English.
[45] Proof of cash books:
PW-1, out of 7(seven) nos. of seized cash books, proved
4(four) nos. of such cash books in the following manner:
PW-1 identified the cash book of the office of Dy. Director,
West Tripura w.e.f. 31.01.1994 containing certificate of Dr. S.P.
Sengupta and said certificate with signature of Mr. Sengupta was
marked as Ext.16. Signature of cashier Sankar Dey therein was
marked as Ext.16/1 and entire cashbook was marked as Ext.16/2.
Similarly cash book opened on 31.12.1991 containing signatures of
Mr. Sengupta and Mr. Sankar Dey was marked as Ext.17. PW-1 also
identified cash book opened on 12.04.1989 containing signature of
Sankar Dey and Dr. N.C. Roy and was marked as Ext.18. After taking
charge from Dr. N.C. Roy, Dr. S.P. Sengupta signed the cash book at
page 72 and said signature was marked as Ext.18/3. Signature and
Entries made by Sankar Dey in page No.73 of that cashbook was
marked as Ext.18/5 and 18/6 respectively. PW-1 also identified the
cash book opened on 24.02.1990 signed by Dr. S.P. Sengupta
beneath his certificate and cash book was marked as Ext.19 and his
signature as Ext.19/1.
[46] Learned Trial Court took into consideration the entries
made in such cash books more particularly cash book No.1 and cash
book No.2 to trace out complicity of S.P. Sengupta in the matter of
alleged defalcation by comparing the related vouchers proved by the
prosecution, the evidence of concerned Panchayet Secretary/Gram
Pradhan and related GIA bills and observed that based on such
alleged fake vouchers necessary entries in the payment part of the
concerned pages of the cash book were made by the cashier and
countersigned by S.P. Sengupta. However, on consultation of the
4(four) cash books, it is found that only the opening certificate,
signatures of cashier Sankar Dey and signature of S.P. Sengupta on
such opening pages were proved and marked as Exhibits, but no any
specific entry in the cash book or signature of the cashier or of said
S.P. Sengupta beneath such entry was proved and marked as
Exhibits. An omnibus statement was given by PW-1 that all the
entries in the cash book were given by cashier Sankar Dey. As it is
found, only the signature of S.P. Sengupta beneath one entry of date
13.07.1989 of cash book opened on 12.04.1989 was marked as
Ext.18/7 to show that he endorsed the closing balance of that date to
be Rs.5,10,956.20/- paisa but same is not sufficient enough to
implicate him with alleged crime.
[47] No doubt, it was incumbent on the prosecution to comply
the provision of Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act and to prove
the relevant entries of the cash books along with signatures of both
Sankar Dey and S.P. Sengupta put against those relevant entries in
accordance with law. It is no longer res integra that mere marking of
document does not dispense with the proof thereof unless contents of
the same are duly proved. Said view has also been reiterated by the
Apex Court in above said Narbada Devi Gupta (Supra) as relied on
by Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel and at para 16 it was
observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere production and
marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot held to be a
due proof of it's contents and its execution has to be proved by
admissible evidence.
Evidence against S.P. Sengupta in respect of offences under Section
409 IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
[48] In view of above, it appears that learned Trial Court
committed error in taking into consideration the relevant entries made
in the cash books comparing the same with the related vouchers,
sanction memo of the related GIA bill etc. to hold S.P. Sengupta guilty
of the offences as charged upon. In fact, the contents of the entries of
cash books, more particularly the signature of S.P. Sengupta beneath
any such entries being not duly proved, Court is not in a position to
consider and use the same against him. The oral evidences as are
adduced in respect of S.P. Sengupta speak of only issuance of
sanction memo, signing of the list of beneficiaries and related GIA
bills by him like the Director himself and also another Additional
Director of Animal Husbandry. PW-1 also in his cross-examination
admitted that the grant-in-aid bills prepared by Dr. S.P. Sengupta
were as per the approved list issued by their Director and that so far
the documents perused by him in connection with this case was
concerned, there was no allegation that Dr. S.P. Sengupta had
deviated from the approved list of beneficiaries.
[49] As per procedure of disbursement of grant-in-aid to the
beneficiaries as stated by PW-1, the initial work was collection of list
of beneficiaries, sanctioning of amount and handing over such amount
to the concerned Implementing Officers to process the disbursement
but the prosecution case is that the alleged incident of defalcation
took place after such amounts were handed over to the concerned
Implementing Officers and on acceptance of adjustments submitted
by the Implementing Officers based on alleged fake or spurious
money receipts. Therefore, criminal responsibility in the light of
evidence as led by the prosecution, cannot be imputed for functioning
the initial task of such sanctioning of amount, signing of list of
beneficiaries and disbursement of amount, if any, by said S.P.
Sengupta to the Implementing Officers. This was the reason for which
despite N.C. Roy, Deputy Director and even the concerned Director
and Addl. Director of the relevant period, having signed several
sanction memos and list of beneficiaries, were not charge-sheeted as
accused persons in the case. Thus, if the entries in the cash books are
kept out of consideration in respect of Mr. S.P. Sengupta, there is no
evidence against him in respect of charges framed under section 409
IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
he is entitled to get acquittal on benefit of doubt from the above said
two charges. The matter of complicity of Mr. S.P. Sengupta in respect
of charge under Section 477A IPC will be discussed lateron.
Evidence against K.D.Biswas and Mrinmoy Barman in respect of
charges under Section 409, IPC and under Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
[50] Now, coming to the point of complicity of Mrinmoy Barman
and K.D. Biswas with reference to the related charges framed against
them, it may be taken note that as per provision of section 405 IPC or
section 409 IPC, entrustment of property is an essential element to
prove charge under Section 409 IPC. In N. Raghavender (supra),
as relied on by Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court categorically observed that the entrustment of public
property and dishonest misappropriation or use thereof in the manner
illustrated under section 405 are a sine qua non for making an offence
punishable under section 409 IPC. It has also further been observed
that mere retention of property entrusted to a person without any
misappropriation cannot fall within the ambit of criminal breach of
trust.
[51] In the case in hand, the PW-1 in his cross-examination
stated that the implementing officer used to receive the money by
signing the acquittance roll or by receiving bank draft or by signing
vouchers. Therefore, to prove entrustment, production and proof of
such documents were necessary. Prosecution proved one
memorandum dated 29.07.1991 issued by K.D. Biswas (Ext.10)
engaging Mrinmoy Barman, Veterinary Asstt. Surgeon to act as
implementing officer for 1990-91 in respect of 4 nos. of scheme under
the Department. Vide another memorandum dated 11.12.1992, said
K.D. Biswas also declared Tusher Kanti Sengupta as implementing
officer for the year 1991-92 to implement all schemes of Animal
Husbandry Department for Melaghar block. However, mere
declaration as implementing officer does not ipso facto prove the
entrustment unless by cogent evidence regarding delivery or
entrustment of money is established. On query by this Court, learned
P.P. submits that no such specific document(s) was proved, however
according to learned P.P. in the instant case, the entrustment is
proved otherwise. Learned P.P. in this regard also relies on the oral
evidences of Mr. Banamali Sinha (PW-31), the informant of the case
and of one Mr. Ranjit Sarkar (PW-47) who being a Sub-Inspector of
Vigilance Department was a part of vigilance enquiry, but such oral
evidences are not sufficient enough to establish entrustment of any
amount to convict a person under section 409, IPC.
[52] Learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment at Para
no.97 observed that the presence of signatures of the Implementing
Officers on the money receipts was direct proof that they were
entrusted with the fund to implement the scheme and as a proof
thereof they prepared the money receipts and took thumb impression
of the beneficiaries on those receipts. However, learned Trial Court
did not discuss as to how much amount was entrusted to each of the
accused person. When the charge under section 409 IPC with specific
mentioning of amount of Rs.15,56,743/- (for the period April, 1990 to
March, 1991) and Rs.13,82,376/- (for the period April, 1991 to March,
1992) against S.P. Sengupta, K.D. Biswas and Mrinmoy Barman and
further for Rs.2,25,050/- (for the period April, 1988 to March,1989)
against S.P. Sengupta and K.D. Biswas, were framed, the prosecution
was under legal liability to establish entrustment of such specific
amounts to above said persons which they failed. Therefore,
conviction of K.D. Biswas and Mrinmoy Barman under section 409 IPC
cannot sustain.
[53] Now, coming to the matter of conviction under section 13
(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 it also similarly appears that
charges were framed for defalcation of specific mentioning of amount
of Rs.15,56,743/- (for the period April, 1990 to March, 1991) and
Rs.13,82,376/- (for the period April, 1991 to March, 1992) against
S.P. Sengupta, K.D. Biswas and Mrinmoy Barman and further for
Rs.2,25,050/- (for the period April, 1988 to March,1989) against S.P.
Sengupta and K.D. Biswas, all being public servant. However, if we
consider the money receipts proved against K.D. Biswas and Mrinmoy
Barman as described in foregoing paragraphs, it would appear that
number of money receipts where K.D. Biswas signed are not same to
the number of such receipts as signed by Mrinmoy Barman. For
example, nine numbers of money receipts under Ext.56 series (each
receipt is of Rs.666/-) has been proved by prosecution wherein K.D.
Biswas alone signed but Mrinmoy Barman did not. So, he cannot be
answerable for the disbursement of amount involved in those
receipts. As a corollary, it can be presumed that the quantum of
amount allegedly defalcated by K.D. Biswas cannot be the same as
allegedly defalcated by Mrinmoy Barman, for, the prosecution has
tried to establish involvement of these two persons in such defalcation
based only on said money receipts. But, in the charges, imputation
has been made that both of them defalcated similar amount of
money. It was the duty of the prosecution to find out and separately
show as to who was responsible for how much amount, otherwise
prosecution is under legal obligation to establish by satisfactory
evidence that each one of the accused was responsible for said
common amount which they could not establish here.
[54] Another vital fact as noticed by the Court that the
investigating officer (PW-54) in his evidence stated that he collected
the fingerprint expert report from the office of Forensic Laboratory at
Kolkata but said report was not proved into evidence by the
prosecution for the reason best known to them. By producing only the
oral evidence of the beneficiaries that they did not receive any grant
was not sufficient enough to establish that their thumb impressions
found in the relevant vouchers were forged. When the investigating
officer had felt the necessity of collection of opinion of fingerprint
expert, he sent the same to the office of forensic expert of
fingerprints and also collected the report, though he admitted in his
cross-examination that such specimens were not sent through the
Court, but the prosecution has withhold said document and therefore,
the Court is not in a position to examine whether the thumb
impressions found in all the related vouchers were sent for such
forensic examination or not, and if same were sent, then what was
the result of such examination. In such circumstances, adverse
inference in required to be drawn against the prosecution.
[55] Next point as stuck to the notice of the Court is that some
beneficiaries such as PW-11, PW-12, PW-19, PW-20, PW-21 and PW-
41 of Sadar Sub-Division were examined in this case to show that
they did not receive any amount under any scheme but their
testimonies are not relevant with reference to complicity of Mrinmoy
Barman and K.D. Biswas who were then posted at Sonamura Sub-
Division.
[56] As discussed earlier, total 30 nos. of beneficiaries were
examined in this case but despite scrutiny of the records, no list of
beneficiaries or money receipts containing the names of nine
beneficiaries i.e. PW-11, PW-12, PW-19, PW-20, PW-21, PW-25, PW-
27, PW-28 and PW-37 are found therein. Therefore, there is no basis
to show them as beneficiaries in connection with this case and their
testimonies also do not deserve any consideration. Out of rest 21
beneficiaries, no money receipts in respect of three beneficiaries are
also found.
[57] Learned Trial Court considering some distinguishable
features in the money receipts, also arrived at the conclusion that
money receipts as proved, except those which are discussed herein
below, were forged and such distinguishable features were that the
money receipts contained thumb impressions of the beneficiaries
though some of those beneficiaries put their signatures in the
deposition sheets in the Court, the persons who took such thumb
impression in the money receipt, did not put their signature and date
in the money receipts and maximum rows in the printed receipts
which were supposed to contain some information were left blank.
However, all these features and irregularity may create grave
suspicion that those receipts might be forged, but conclusive opinion
cannot be given about such forgery.
[58] The investigating officer, Mr. Tapan Goswami (PW-54)
stated that as number of beneficiaries were more than thousand, it
was not possible for him to examine all of them and therefore, he
examined one or two beneficiaries from all the list of beneficiaries.
When, he did not examine all the beneficiaries, it was very unsafe
approach on his part and also on the part of learned Trial Court to
hold that none of the beneficiaries received any amount. On the basis
of mere speculation, it was held that such huge amount was
defalcated by the above said accused persons. Moreover, when in the
charges both under section 409, IPC and section 13(2) of P.C. Act,
1988, specific amounts are mentioned allegedly defalcated, it is
incumbent upon the prosecution to prove satisfactorily that such
amounts are actually defalcated. But, learned Trial Court did not
arrive at any such specific finding that prosecution had successfully
proved such amounts to be defalcated amount.
Considering all these aspects, the principle of benefit of
doubt leans in favour of the above said two convicts and therefore
finding of learned Trial Court against them holding them guilty under
section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requires
interference.
[59] Faulty and biased Investigation:
[i] One very vital lacuna in the investigation is, as discussed
above, non examination of said all the beneficiaries and in surmise,
the investigating officer came to the conclusion that the entire
amount of the sanction list was defalcated.
[ii] On scrutiny of the money receipts relating to the Poultry
Production Programme under Melaghar Block, it appears that in the
money receipts under Ext.118/3 series, in respect of beneficiaries of
Urmai village, one In-Charge Veterinary, First Aid Centre, Urmai also
signed in those receipts along with T.K. Sengupta and K.D. Biswas,
but the investigating officer did not arrayed him as an accused. No
reason has also been assigned as to why investigating officer also
chose to relieve the concerned persons who signed as Chairman of
Development Committee of the concerned Gram Panchayet as
identifier of the concerned beneficiaries. Even, in case of so called
money receipt (Ext.171/3 series) issued in favour of Sadhan Nama
(PW-43), he was shown to be identified by one APS to the then
Minster of Agriculture of Fisheries Department and said APS to
Minister was also not arrayed as accused in the case.
[iii] Interestingly, two witnesses viz PW-48 and PW-49 were
examined in this case. PW-48, Milan Kr. Deb stated that during the
period February, 1988 to December, 1992 he was P.A to the then
Minister, Surajit Datta, Department of PWD and Jail and Prabir Kr.
Deb, one advocate of Sonamura Court was CA to the then Minister
Billal Miah, Minister for Animal Husbandry. He stated that said Prabir
Kr. Deb used to place APRs before them for signature and in case of
refusal, he used to threaten them and under instruction of their
minister, said person used to put signatures in those APRs. The APRs
were simply in printed form without any handwriting in appropriate
columns. He also stated that he himself had signed some of the APRs
and Prabir Kr. Deb also put his signatures on several APRs and he
used to put signature and seal of many others also. The witness
confirmed signatures of Prabir Kr. Deb in Ext.166/3 series
documents and signatures of Prabir Kr. Deb was marked as 166/4
series. He further stated that seal of PA to minister was put but
subsequently by hand the seal was changed as APS to Minster of
State. The witness further identifies the signatures of Prabir Kr. Deb
(Exts.167/4 series, 168/4 series, 169/4 series, 170/4 series, 170/4
series, 171/4 series, 172/4 series, 173/4 series, 174/4 series, 176/4
series, 177/4 series, 178/2 series, 178/3 series, 178/4 series) with
similar seal in the documents like APRs and money receipt marked
under Exts.167/3 series, Ext.168/3 series, 169/3 series, 170/3 series,
170/3 series, 171/3 series, 172/3 series, 173/3 series, 174/3 series,
176/3 series, 177/3 series etc. The witness also identifies own
signatures in APRs and the signatures in APRs were marked as
Ext.178/1 series. He also deposed that there was no post with
designation APS to Minister and said Prabir Kr. Deb put his signature
and seal in his presence. This PW-48, namely, Milan Kr. Deb further
deposed that officers of Animal Husbandry Department namely, K.D.
Biswas and Deputy Director, Sengupta used to visit the office of PW-
48 and said Prabir Kr. Deb also told that those APRs were given by
the officers, namely Biswas Saheb and Sengupta Saheb etc. In his
cross-examination, he stated that he signed the APRs on
apprehension that his life would be in danger if he would not sign the
same as was instructed by the Ministers, Surajit Datta and Billal Miah.
He also confirmed that after his signatures he did not put the date as
the officers (no name mentioned) impressed upon the Ministers to
direct them not to put the date as they would do the needful taking
the APRs to their office.
[iv] PW-49, Prabir Kr. Deb deposed that he was Confidential
Assistant to the then Minister, Billal Miah of Animal Husbandry
Department during the period from 1988 to April, 1990 and he had no
involvement regarding payment of any grant to any beneficiary under
the Scheme of Animal Husbandry Department but he signed some of
the APRs relating to payment of grant to the beneficiaries. He also
stated that he did not see any beneficiary to receive any payment
before him. He further stated that he signed some of the printed
forms on the request of Panchayet Chairman, namely Siraj Miah, Ali
Hossain and Khalek Maisan. He also stated no beneficiary put his
thumb impression in his presence. He also confirms his signatures
under Ext.178/2 series but denies his signatures under Ext.178/3
series, Ext.178/4 series, Ext.166/4 series, Ext.167/4 series, Ext.168/4
series, Ext.169/4 series, Ext.170/4 series, Ext.171/4 series, Ext.172/4
series, Ext.173/4 series, Ext.174/4 series, Ext.176/4 series, Ext.224
series and Ext.177/4 series and further stated that he had also signed
some blank papers on the request of Panchayet Chairman and some
blank forms on the request of Panchayet Chairman, Assistant Director
and Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry Department. The witness,
thereafter declared hostile by prosecution. Some portion of his
statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that the money was
disbursed by people of Animal Husbandry Department and that on the
direction of the Minister he signed the money receipt as identifier and
other formalities were observed by the Animal Husbandry Department
and that the seal below his signature was also put by them and that
some of the officers such as Assistant Director and Deputy Director
would made fictitious allegations to the Ministers and the Ministers
would abuse them and that in the event they would refuse to put the
signature, Minister would threaten them, were put to him but he
denied to have made any such statement to the investigating officer
and such portion of previous statements was marked as Ext.225
subject to prove by I.O. He in his cross-examination by learned
Prosecutor also stated that he did not see any actual disbursement
made by the officers or staff of Animal Husbandry Department. He
further stated that he did not know whether there was any direction
from the Animal Husbandry Department that the identification of the
beneficiaries should be done by the Chairman, Development
Committee and respectable person of the locality. Again he admitted
during his cross-examination on behalf of Dr. Mrinmoy Barman that
the Chairmen were authorized person to identify the beneficiaries.
The witness also volunteered that during the period from 1988 to
April, 1990 he was a student of Silchar Law College and he would
himself keep busy with his study at home and on rare occasion, he
used to visit the Minister's office. However, he admitted that he would
draw salary of Rs.900/- per month from such assignment.
[v] On consideration of the evidences of these two witnesses,
it appears that both of them were involved in the alleged racket but
there is no explanation either from the side of investigating officer or
from the prosecution as to why they were set free without launching
any criminal prosecution against them. The investigating officer also
did not try to ascertain whether these two witnesses viz. PW-48 and
PW-49 were truthful or not and whether those two Ministers were
actually involved in the alleged defalcation or not.
[vi] If the version of PW-49 is accepted to be true, then some
Panchayet Chairmen, namely Siraj Miah, Ali Hossain and Khaleq
Maisan were also prima facie involved in the matter, but the
investigating officer also did not proceed against them. Above said
circumstances indicates that investigation proceeded in a biased
manner targeting only some of the Government employees, more
particularly, the 5 (five) accused persons.
[60] In Surajit Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal, reported in
2013 AIR SCW 648, as relied on by Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior
counsel it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that whether faulty
investigation will lead to acquittal or not, would depend upon the
defects pointed out. The relevant paragraph no.54 of the judgment is
extracted hereunder:
"54. We are not prepared to accept as a broad
proposition of law that in no case can defective or
shoddy investigations lead to an acquittal. It would
eventually depend on the defects pointed out. If the
investigation results in the real culprit of an offence
not being identified, then acquittal of the accused must
follow. It would not be permissible to ignore the
defects in an investigation and hold an innocent
person guilty of an offence which he has not
committed. The investigation must be precise and
focused and must lead to the inevitable conclusion that
the accused has committed the crime. If the
investigating officer leaves glaring loopholes in the
investigation, the defence would be fully entitled to
exploit the lacunae. In such a situation, it would not be
correct for the prosecution to argue that the Court
should gloss over the gaps and find the accused person
guilty. If this were permitted in law, the prosecution
could have an innocent person put behind bars on
trumped up charges. Clearly, this is impermissible and
this is not what this Court has said."
Position of law is therefore that Court should not ignore
and gloss over the defects in the investigation to allow conviction of
any innocent person. If lacuna in the investigation leads to non-
identification or non-implication of real culprit, rather implication of
any innocent person, Court should not overlook such defects.
However, situation may be otherwise, if due to such defective or
biased investigation, one or some of the real culprits is/are set free by
investigating officer and some of them are inculpated. Mr. Biswas,
learned senior counsel also refers to another decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Wasif
Haider and others; (2019) 2 SCC 303, however no ratio on
defective investigation has been laid down in said decision by the
Apex Court. In said case, some lacunas in the investigation such as
long delay in holding T.I. Parade, no document produced to show that
identity of the accused was kept concealed before such parade, post
mortem report and forensic report were incompatible etc. were
noticed by the Court and therefore it was observed that cumulative
effect of the investigative lapses fortified the presumption of the
innocence of the accused and benefit of doubt arising from such
faulty investigation accrued in favour of the accused. However, this
decision is not of much help to the present appellants.
Evidences in respect of charges under section 477A, IPC:
[61] Learned Trial Court observed that in a bunch of money
receipts marked under Ext.171/3 only thumb impression of the
beneficiary was taken and even the address of the beneficiary was not
mentioned. Said receipts were signed by Dr. K.D. Biswas and one of
such beneficiary was Sudhan Nama [PW-43] and according to him, he
did not receive such benefit. On perusal of that bunch, it appears that
there are total 11 nos. of money receipts in that bunch which were
marked as Ext.171/3 series. In all the receipts, thumb impression of
all the beneficiaries were taken. Learned Trial Court also observed
that even address of the beneficiaries were not mentioned therein.
Learned Trial Court further took exception of the fact that the person
who took the LTI of those beneficiaries did not sign those money
receipts nor his name was mentioned therein. However, on perusal of
those receipts, it appears that there is no column or row in those
money receipts for writing down the address of the beneficiaries. It is
a fact that the person who took the LTI of the beneficiaries did not put
his signature therein but all the beneficiaries were identified by one
APS to the minister of State for A.R. and Fisheries Department. There
are some marking in these documents such as Ext.D1, Ext.D2,
Ext.D3, Ext.D5, Ext.A, Ext.B and Ext.D4 which give the impression
that those documents were sent to the fingerprint expert for
examination but as already indicated above, said report was not taken
into evidence. According to the prosecution, APS to any minister was
not supposed to sign such receipts. According to Milan Kr. Deb (PW-
48), the signature as APS to minister was the signature of Prabir Kr.
Deb (PW-49). However, when Prabir Kr. Deb was examined as PW-49
and confronted with said signature, he denied the same to be his
signature. But no step was taken by the investigating officer to
ascertain as to whether those were his signatures or not. All these
money receipts are countersigned by K.D. Biswas. Though PW-49
stated that he signed on the money receipts at the request of
Panchayet Chairman and again said on the request of Panchayet
Chairman, Assistant Director and Deputy Director of Animal
Husbandry Department, but, as he denied his signatures in above said
Ext.171/4 series, his such evidence cannot be tagged with all those
money receipts. Even if, on perusal of such money receipts a serious
suspicion arises that those money receipts can be fake money
receipts but due to gross lapses in the investigation as indicated
above, it cannot be conclusively said that these money receipts were
forged.
[62] Learned Trial Court also took exception of the fact that said
Sudhan Nama [PW-43] signed on the deposition sheet without putting
his thumb impression which, according to learned Court below, clearly
established that he could write his name but on the money receipt his
thumb impression was there and thereby the Court formed a
conclusive opinion that the money receipt was fake without further
material available as to whether said thumb impression in the money
receipt was actually of him or not. Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior
counsel argues that the contents of the money receipts were not
proved in accordance with law. However, on perusal of evidence of
PW-1, it appears that the contents of the money receipts along with
signatures of K.D. Biswas and those money receipts under Ext.171/3
series were proved.
[63] On similar ground, learned Trial Court also disbelieved 14
nos. of money receipts relating to village-Aralia under Boxanagar,
Sonamura which were marked as Ext.124/3 series. Said money
receipts were countersigned by T.K. Sengupta, Mrinmoy Barman and
K.D. Biswas and the beneficiaries were identified by Chairman of
Development Committee whose signature was not identified but it
appears that he may be one Sushil Debbarma. But said Chairman
was neither examined as a witness nor he has been made accused in
this case rather based on oral evidence of one of the beneficiary
namely, Mantaj Miah [PW-44], on a general statement given by him
that he did not receive any money/grant by putting his LTI in any
money receipt, learned Trial Court held that the money receipt was a
fake one. When the related money receipt was confronted to him
under Ext.124/3 series, he stated that he could not read and write
and the money receipt was typed in English. In this case also, the
investigating officer did not try to ascertain whether said thumb
impression of Mantaj Miah was genuine or not. In the deposition
sheet, he signed in such a style which creates the impression that in
the year 2011, he was not able to write his name properly and clearly,
rather he signed in the deposition sheet in a line of zigzag and
obscure manner. As already stated earlier, these money receipts
under Ext.124/3 series also gives the impression that same may be
fake but based on suspicion, same cannot be held to be fake or false.
[64] In fact, the investigation proceeded in such a defective and
biased manner that left some fatal defects in the investigation itself.
Learned Trial Court also took exception of the fact that this witness
was not cross-examined by the defence and therefore, his evidence
was taken to be true but missed the basic principle of law that even if
the accused remains mum, it is the prosecution who is to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt. In case of above said Ext.124/3
series, other beneficiaries, whose names are reflected in money
receipts were also not examined. In similar manner, learned Trial
Court also appreciated the evidence of Tapan Biswas [PW-45].
[65] Learned Trial Court observed that the related money
receipts in respect of GIA bill Nos.1116/1990, 1118/1990, 1140/1990,
1142/1990 and 1143/1990 contained thumb impressions of
beneficiaries but nobody identified the thumb impression of such
beneficiaries. However, on perusal of the money receipts under
Ext.160/3 series (GIA bill No.1116/1990), the money receipts under
Ext.164/3 series (GIA bill No.1118/1990), the money receipts under
Ext.162/3 series (GIA bill No.1142/1990), the money receipts in
relation to GIA bill No.1143/1990 (entire money receipts are not
exhibited except the signature of K.D. Biswas therein) contain
signatures of Chairman of Development Committee of some Gaon
Panchayats. Therefore, such observation of learned Trial Court was
not correct. But interesting features in respect of money receipts of
164/3 series is that beneficiaries of Kulubari Panchayet was identified
by Chairman of Putia Gaon Panchayet and in money receipts of
Ext.162/3 series, beneficiaries of Dhanirampur were identified by
Chairman of Kulubari Gaon Panchayat.
[66] Learned Trial Court based on evidence of PW-4, one
Panchayet Secretary hold that the signatures of one Sushil Debbarma
in some money receipts under Ext.15 series as Chairman,
Development Committee, Bijoynagar Gram Panchayet was forged as
said PW-4 while being confronted with those money receipts stated
that he could not say whether those were signatures of Sushil
Debbarma or not. He even did not directly say that those were not
genuine signature of said Sushil Debbarma, but despite the same and
in absence of any report of forensic expert in this regard, learned Trial
Court erroneously held that those signatures were forged signatures
of said Sushil Debbarma and consequently held that money receipts
were fake.
[67] Similarly, there is another list of beneficiaries of 17
persons under Ext.109/2 of Boxanagar, each of whom were shown to
be paid Rs.1412/-. Said list of beneficiaries is approved by one
Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry. PW-5, Naba Kumar Roy, the
Panchayet Secretary of Aralia Panchayet for the period 2000-2004,
prepared similar list of beneficiaries and beneath it, he certified that
names of those persons were not recorded in the record of Aralia
Gram Panchayat. His such certificate along with the said list were
marked as Ext.23/1 and Ext.23 respectively. He also stated said facts
in the Court. Certain cross-examination were also done to him but no
significant fact came out to discredit him on that evidence. The
related money receipts in respect of said beneficiaries were marked as
Ext.109/3 series and it appears that in some of the money receipts
the Chairman, Development Committee of Bijoynagar Gram
Panchayet identified the beneficiary and in some money receipts
beneficiaries were identified by Chairman, Development Committee of
Putia Gram Panchayat. No identification was made by the concerned
Chairman of Aralia Gram Panchayat. The money receipts are
countersigned by Mrinmoy Barman and T.K. Sengupta. In the money
receipts where identifier is of Bijoynagar Gram Panchayat, K.D.
Biswas has also countersigned the receipts. As it appears from the
above said facts of non-availablity of names of beneficiaries in the
Panchayet record and identifiers of them being of two other different
Panchayats that these money receipts are false documents. These
money receipts relates to the year 1992 and list of beneficiaries were
signed by the Deputy Director on 30.03.1992 which indicates that so
called disbursements/ preparation of money receipts were made after
March, 1992. No charge has been framed beyond the period of March,
1992 and therefore, these documents or evidence cannot also be
looked into.
[68] However, one list of beneficiaries of the period 1990-91 of
Boxanagar, Sonamura relating SLPP Scheme was taken into evidence
as Ext.25/4. Said list was approved by one Additional Director of
Animal Husbandry Department. As per the said list, names of 8
persons of scheduled tribe community were reflected as the
beneficiaries who were to be paid Rs.4550/- each. 7 nos. of money
receipts from that list were proved into evidence as Ext.25/5 series
and said persons were identified by some other person(s) who
sometimes used the seal of Chairman, Development Committee,
Kulubari Gaon Panchayet and also sometime used the seal as
Chairman, Development Committee of Boxanagar Gram Panchayat.
Use of such different seals by same person of two different Gaon
Panchayats in respect of beneficiaries of one Gram Panchayet is
seriously suspicious. All the money receipts were countersigned by
Mrinmoy Barman and K.D. Biswas. Even if, they may not be directly
involved in the matter of identification of the beneficiaries, however, it
must be within their knowledge as to who was the Chairman of the
concerned Development Committee. When during investigation said
beneficiary list was shown to one Bhaskar Chakraborty, Panchayet
Secretary of Boxanagar Gram Panchayet during investigation in the
year 2002, he certified that said persons were not inhabitant of
Boxanagar Gram Panchayat. Said Bhaskar Chakraborty was examined
as PW-6. He also repeated the said fact in his evidence. He also
further stated that the distance between Kulubari Gram Panchayet
and Boxanagar Gram Panchayet would be 15 km. According to him,
he gave such certificate after perusing the record of Tehsil and those
names were not available in the record of Boxanagar Gram
Panchayat. Though in his cross-examination, he stated that in case of
issuing any certificate from their Panchayet office, counter signature
of concerned BDO is necessary and that concerned officer did not
make any application to him for giving such certificate. However,
these facts cannot mitigate the situation as to how the same person
can sign as Chairman of Village Committee of two different
Panchayats. Even in one such money receipt, seal beneath the person
identifying the beneficiary was also not mentioned.
[69] Similarly, another list of beneficiaries of SLPP scheme for
the year 1990-91 of Boxanagar, Sonamura containing the names of 8
beneficiaries of scheduled tribe community were proved as Ext.25/14
and as per said list each beneficiary was supposed to get Rs.4550/-
and on perusal of the 8 money receipts under Ext.25/15 series, it
appears that in all the money receipts, the same person who
identified other beneficiaries as noted above also identified above said
beneficiaries as Chairman of Development Committee of Kulubari
Gaon Panchayat. In all the money receipts thumb impression of the
beneficiaries were taken. Both Mrinmoy Barman and K.D. Biswas
countersigned those money receipts and certainly it was their duty to
notice as to whether proper identifier was identifying those persons or
not. They cannot evade their responsibility in this regard. In respect
of this money receipts also, said PW-6 gave certificate that those
persons were not resident of Boxanagar Gram Panchayat.
[70] Similar is the position in respect of 7 money receipts
(Ext.130/2 series) prepared in connection with a list of beneficiaries
(Ext.130/1) wherein Rs.1612/- was supposed to be distributed to
each of the beneficiaries under the assistance to unemployed youth
scheme for the year 1990-91. In case of these money receipts also, it
has been stated by PW-6 that they were not residents of Boxanagar
Gram Panchayet whereas all the beneficiaries were identified by the
Chairman, Development Committee of Bejimara Gaon Sabha. In all
these receipts, both Mrinmoy Barman and K.D. Biswas had
countersigned. All the columns in the money receipts except the
column of the amount were kept blank. The list of beneficiaries were
signed by Addl. Director of Animal Husbandry. In the list of
beneficiaries and also in the money receipts, name of the village of
the beneficiaries are not mentioned and therefore, it is not clear as to
how said PW-6 traced out that the list of beneficiaries was relating to
village Boxanagar and therefore some sort of benefit of doubt may be
given to said two accused person. But, if we go by another list of
beneficiaries containing names of 20 beneficiaries of Boxanagar
wherein Rs.1612/- was supposed to be paid to each of the beneficiary
for the year 1990-91 under unemployed youth scheme (Ext.131/2), it
is found that there are also 20 nos. of money receipts under
Ext.131/3 series in the name of said beneficiaries wherein each
beneficiary was identified by Chairman, Development Committee,
Anandangar Goan Sabha and not of Chairman of Boxanagar. In this
case also, PW-6 stated that no such beneficiary were there at
Boxanagar Gram Panchayet and all the money receipts contained
thumb impression of the beneficiaries and countersigned by both
Mrinmoy Barman and K.D. Biswas. Therefore, in the light of available
evidences discussed above, it appears that these money receipts were
also fake money receipts.
[71] Prosecution has also proved another list of beneficiaries
under Ext.132/2 series containing names of 20 beneficiaries of
Boxanagar Goan Panchayet for providing assistance under special
youth programme for the year 1990-91. In relation to said list of
beneficiaries, 20 nos. of money receipts under Ext.132/3 series were
also proved wherein LTI of all the beneficiaries were taken and the
beneficiaries were identified by one Ali Miah, Chairman of
Development Committee, Anandanagar Gaon Sabha and not of
Boxanagar Panchayet showing payment of Rs.1612/- to each of the
beneficiaries. In this case also, said PW-6 stated that no such person
was resident of Boxanagar Gaon Panchayat. All these money receipts
were also countersigned by both Mrinmoy Barman and K.D. Biswas.
These money receipts also bears similar features that except the
column of amount all other column were left blank and even the
person who took the thumb impression was also not mentioned in
these receipts. In the light of above discussions, it is apparent that
these money receipts were also false receipts.
[72] Another list of beneficiaries containing 10 names of
beneficiaries of Boxanagar under SLPP scheme of the year 1990-91
was also proved (Ext.25/20) wherein each beneficiary ought to have
been paid Rs.4550/-. Similarly 10 money receipts were proved into
evidence in relation to said list of beneficiaries under Ext.25/21 series
wherein Rs.4550/- was distributed to each of the beneficiaries. Here
also similarly thumb impression of each beneficiary was taken and
identifier of these beneficiaries here is the Chairman of Development
Committee, Kulubari Gram Panchayat. These money receipts also
contained countersignature of Mrinmoy Barman and K.D. Biswas and
said PW-6 stated that these beneficiaries were not residents of
Boxanangar Gram Panchayat. These money receipts also bears similar
feature where all the relevant columns are left blank except the
quantum of amount. Thus, it appears that for the same village
Boxanagar, Chairmen of Development Committees of other Gram
Panchayats acted as identifier. All these features as indicated above
leads to the conclusion that all these money receipts were false
money receipts. In these cases, the investigating officer certainly had
no opportunity to verify the thumb impression of the beneficiaries by
sending the same to fingerprint expert as they were not residents of
the concerned village.
[73] The prosecution also proved one list of beneficiaries
containing names of 50 persons of Veluarchar Gram Panchayet under
Ext.39 and each person was supposed to get Rs.666/- under rural
duck production programme. The Gram Pradhan of said Panchayet
namely, Sita Rani Das [PW-7] deposed that on asking by few officers
of Animal Husbandry Department on 22.04.2002, she through her
Panchayet Secretary verified the records of Panchayet and found that
names of those beneficiaries were not there in the Register and
thereafter she gave certificate on the backside of two sheets of list of
beneficiaries to that effect. On perusal of those money receipts under
Ext.40 series, it appears similarly that the identifier of the
beneficiaries were Chairman, Development Committee of Bijoynagar
Gram Panchayet and not Chairman of Veluarchar Gram Panchayat.
Said money receipts were countersigned by K.D. Biswas and Mrinmoy
Barman. From above said facts, it appears similarly that said money
receipts were false documents.
[74] PW-10, Samir Kanti Das stated that in the year 1980 he
joined Urmai veterinary first aid centre of Sonamura Sub-Division and
probably in the last part of 1988 of first part of 1989, he was released
from Urmai veterinary first aid centre and in the year 1998 he was
posted at Kamalnagar veterinary dispensary as Animal Husbandry
Assistant and at that time, K.D. Biswas was the Assistant Director of
Animal Husbandry Department of Sonamura Sub-Division. He also
stated that in the year 1992, at any time, K.D. Biswas issued direction
to him to assist the implementing officer in respect of some
beneficiary schemes and probably Tushar Kanti Sengupta was the
implementing officer. He also stated that during the year 1992, he
gave his signature in some blank money receipts as per instruction of
K.D. Biswas and the signature on those money receipts were proved
as Ext.27 series. In his cross-examination, on behalf of K.D. Biswas,
he stated that those money receipts contained signature of
beneficiaries but simultaneously confirmed that he gave his signature
in blank condition. This is a strong circumstance which goes against
said K.D. Biswas.
[75] Form the discussions made above, it is established that
both K.D. Biswas and Mrinmoy Barman were responsible for the
commission of offence under Section 477A IPC read with Section 34
IPC for the period April 1990-March 1991, for preparation of such
false documents for the purpose of defalcation of Govt. money.
However, there is no evidence that accused S.P. Sengupta had his
participation, directly or indirectly in preparation of such false
documents. Learned Trial Court tried to connect him with reference to
the entries made in the cash book and countersigned by him by
accepting those false documents but as already discussed above,
neither such entries nor his signature beneath any such disputed
entries were proved into evidence in accordance with law and
therefore, he is entitled to get benefit of doubt in respect of this
charge also.
[76] Though PW-54 i.e. the last investigating officer deposed
that he found Phani Bhusan Debnath and Manindra Debnath were
granted an amount of Rs.1,615/- each vide memorandum bearing
No.F.2-253/DDAH(W)/1991 dated 27.03.1991 and Dr. S.P. Sengupta
drew the amount vide bill No. Grant in Aid/DDAH/1174/90 dated
18.03.1991 and the amount of Rs.24,180/- was granted by Addl.
Director on 27.03.1991 i.e. the amount was drawn on 18.03.1991 by
Dr. S.P. Sengupta earlier thereto and after that memo was issued for
paper regularization, but on perusal of the related GIA bill (Ext.142),
it appears that though S.P. Sengupta signed the same on 18.03.1991
and Addl. Director signed the same on 27.03.1991 alongwith list of
beneficiaries but there is also probability that Mr. Sengupta signed the
same while forwarding the document to Addl. Director inasmuch as
the relevant money receipts of above said two persons (Ext.142/3
series) shows that money was disbursed long thereafter i.e. on
30.01.1992. There is no concrete evidence of anti-dating the
document by S.P. Sengupta and therefore benefit of doubt goes in his
favour.
[77] One question may come up that when this Court has
already observed the charges under Section 409/34 IPC and Section
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are not proved against all
the accused persons under appeal beyond reasonable doubt, whether
the conviction under Section 477A IPC can sustain. In this regard, it is
the view of the Court that Section 477A IPC is completely an
independent Section and ingredient of Section 477A and Section 409
IPC or section 13(2) of P.C. Act are not same or similar. In case of
Section 477A IPC, such falsification of record is done only with
fraudulent intention but in case of Section 409 IPC commission of
breach of trust by way of misappropriation or conversion of any
property for own use or dishonest use or disposition of that property
are sine qua non. Similarly, in case of section 13(2) of P.C. Act,
existence of criminal misconduct by way of fraudulent
misappropriation or otherwise conversion of any property entrusted to
the offender or illicit enrichment of himself during the period of
holding the office are essential. Moreover, here mainly on some
technical grounds and lapses in the investigation, the Court has
observed that they are entitled to get benefit of doubt.
Challenge as to the framing of Charges:
[78] Now, another point is raised by Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned
senior counsel referring to Section 219 Cr.P.C. that charges were
framed against the accused persons going beyond the period of 12
months and therefore, framing of charge was itself illegal but nothing
could be shown that at the time of framing of charge, any objection
was raised from the side of defence and except such argument,
nothing also could be shown that such framing of charges beyond 12
months has caused prejudice to the present appellants. Mr. Biswas,
learned senior counsel argues that framing of charge beyond 12
months has affected the very inherent jurisdiction of the Court leading
the entire trial perverse and illegal, however, this Court is not in
agreement with the learned senior counsel that framing of charge
covering such period of more than 12 months without going for
separate trial has taken away the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to
try the case.
[79] In Nasib Singh vs. State of Punjab and another;
(2022) 2 SCC 89, as relied on by learned P.P., the followings have
been held by the Apex Court :
"51.1. Section 218 provides that separate trials shall
be conducted for distinct offences alleged to be
committed by a person. Sections 219-221 provide
exceptions to this general rule. If a person falls under
these exceptions, then a joint trial for the offences
which a person is charged with may be conducted.
Similarly, under Section 223, a joint trial may be held
for persons charged with different offences if any of
the clauses in the provision are separately or on a
combination satisfied.
51.2. While applying the principles enunciated in
Sections 218-223 on conducting joint and separate
trials, the trial court should apply a two-pronged test,
namely, (i) whether conducting a joint/separate trial
will prejudice the defence of the accused; and/or (ii)
whether conducting a joint/separate trial would cause
judicial delay.
51.3. The possibility of conducting a joint trial will
have to be determined at the beginning of the trial and
not after the trial based on the result of the trial. The
appellate court may determine the validity of the
argument that there ought to have been a
separate/joint trial only based on whether the trial
had prejudiced the right of accused or the prosecutrix.
51.4. Since the provisions which engraft an exception
use the phrase "may" with reference to conducting a
joint trial, a separate trial is usually not contrary to
law even if a joint trial could be conducted, unless
proven to cause a miscarriage of justice.
51.5. A conviction or acquittal of the accused cannot
be set aside on the mere ground that there was a
possibility of a joint or a separate trial. To set aside
the order of conviction or acquittal, it must be proved
that the rights of the parties were prejudiced because
of the joint or separate trial, as the case may be."
Bar of Section 306 of Cr.P.C.:
[80] Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel referring to Section
306 Cr.P.C. argues that PW-1, the key witness being named as
accused in the FIR was illegally made witness in the case and
therefore, his entire evidence is liable to be rejected. Mr. Biswas,
learned senior counsel submits that the provision of Section 306
Cr.P.C. is the only provision by which an FIR named accused person
may be made a witness in the case but here said provision was not
resorted to. This issue as raised by Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel
may be mitigated following a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
rendered in Girish Sharma & Ors. vs. The State of Chhattisgarh
& Ors.; [Criminal Appeal No(s).939-940 of 2017 decided on
23.08.2017] wherein the FIR was registered by Anti-Corruption
Bureau and Economic Offences Wing under the provisions of Indian
Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against 27 persons
but after investigation charge sheet was filed against 16 persons and
three of such FIR named accused persons were later on cited as
witness in the charge sheet. After the Trial Court took cognizance,
some of the accused person submitted application under Section
193/319 Cr.P.C. to summon the above said three witnesses as
accused person in the case. The Trial Court rejected the application
but in revision, High Court allowed such summoning with the
observation that provision of Section 306 Cr.P.C. was not followed
which was the only procedure available under the Criminal Procedure
Code to make an accused a witness, after grant of pardon with
Court's permission. Matter was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex
Court and finally, the Apex Court upset the order of the High Court
and remand the matter to the High Court for fresh decision in
accordance with law and relevant observation of the Apex Court in
Para 6 is extracted below:
"6. The submission made on behalf of the appellants
that the prosecution was entitled to cite the three
original accused as witnesses, in the given fact
situation, having regard to larger interest of justice to
strengthen the prosecution case against more serious
accused cannot be held to be without substance. This
could be done even without recourse to Section 306
Cr.P.C. It is certainly open to the Court to finally decide
whether cognizance ought to be taken or not after
balancing all the relevant considerations. The decision
of the prosecutor to cite them as witnesses does not
bind the Court and such decision can be interfered
with if interest of justice so requires."
In the light of above said observations, there is no
embargo for the investigating officer or the prosecution to cite any
FIR named accused person as witness in the charge sheet without
recourse to Section 306 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the decision of the
prosecution to cite them witnesses is not binding on the Court and it
can be interfered by the Court whenever requires. Moreover, provision
of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. always authorizes the Trial Court to implead
any person as accused in the case during trial. Therefore, the
contention as raised by Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel on that
point is not convincing.
Absence of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.:
[81] Both the learned senior counsel Mr. P.K. Biswas and Mr. P.
Roy Barman strenuously argue that absence of sanction under Section
197 Cr.P.C barred the prosecution against the present appellants in
this case. On that point several decisions are cited by both the parties
as indicated earlier. Law is fairly explained in this regard in
Shambhoo Nath Misra (Supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court that
fabrication of record or misappropriation of public fund are not the
official duty of a public servant or public function in the discharge of
his official duties. Rather the official capacity only enables him to
fabricate the record or misappropriate the public fund etc. and
therefore, protection of section 197 Cr.P.C. is not available in such
cases. Earlier thereto, in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari, (1955) 28
ITR 941 : 1955 SCC OnLine SC 44, the Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there must be a reasonable
connection between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act
must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a
reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the
course of the performance of his duty. Said decision is also relied on
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in A. Srinivasulu v. the State,
MANU/SC/0723/2023, as referred by Mr. Roy Barman. In the case
in hand also, it was not at all connected with the official duties of the
accused persons to fabricate the record by creating false documents
and therefore, provision of section 197, Cr.P.C. cannot act as a shield
to them to protect them from prosecution without sanction. In view of
above, the challenge on the ground of absence of sanction is rejected.
Conclusion:
[82] In view of above discussions, all the three appeals are
allowed to the following extent:
(i) The conviction and sentence of Shiba Prasad Sengupta
are set aside. He is acquitted on benefit of doubt from all the charges
framed against him;
(ii) The conviction and sentences of Krishnadhan Biswas
and Mrinmoy Barman under Section 409 read with Section 34 IPC
and under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act are set
aside, however, their conviction under Section 477A read with
Section 34 IPC for the period April, 1990 to March, 1991 is affirmed
but their conviction under section under Section 477A IPC for the
other periods are set aside.
(iii) So far the sentence passed under Section 477A IPC by
the learned Trial Court against Krishnadhan Biswas and Mrinmoy
Barman are concerned, no order is being passed in respect of
sentence of Krishnadhan Biswas as he is no more and consequently,
the sentence has become infructuous. However, it appears that the
FIR was lodged in the year 1996, so the appellant Mrinmoy Barman
have been in sufferance for about 29 years for pendency of the
matter and as per the charge sheet, his date of birth is 21.09.1964
which means he has meanwhile crossed his 60 years of age. Thus,
keeping in mind above said factors and also taking note that it is an
economic offence touching the public exchequer of the State, the
sentenced passed against Mrinmoy Barman by learned Trial Court
under Section 477A IPC for rigorous imprisonment for 5 years is
modified and is reduced to 02 (two) years. Mrinmoy Barman will now
suffer rigorous imprisonment for 02 (two) years and will pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay the fine he will suffer further simple
imprisonment for 01(one) month under section 477A, IPC. The period
of detention already undergone by him meanwhile shall be set off
from above said substantive period of imprisonment.
With such observations and directions, the appeal is
disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Reconsign the Trial Court records with copy of this
judgment.
JUDGE
Rudradeep RUDRADEEP BANERJEE Digitally signed by RUDRADEEP BANERJEE
Date: 2025.04.24 17:33:24 +05'30'
