Sujit Kumar Roy vs State Of Tripura

[1] In relation to FIR No.106 of 2003 registered at Police Station- Dharmanagar, North Tripura, 10 (ten) persons were arrayed as accused and challan presented for trial. All of them, namely, Raju Ranjan Bhattacharjee, Sachindra Ch. Roy, Jyoti Prakash Chakraborty, Bidhu Bhushan Ghosh, Gopal Dutta, Benulal Roy, Biplab Dhar Chowdhury, Amitabh Adhikari, Sujit Kr. Roy and Sanjib Nath, were charged for having committed an offence, punishable under Sections-406, 109 read with Sections 406 and 418 of the IPC.

[2] In short, it is the case of the prosecution that the Bank officials as also certain individuals, hatched a conspiracy to commit an act of criminal breach of trust and thus illegally misappropriated a sum of Rs.20,63,100/-, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Bank and wrongful gain to themselves. To establish the said charge, prosecution examined as many as 8(eight) witnesses.

[3] Vide judgment dated 07.05.2014 passed by Ld. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in Case No. G.R. 311 of 2003, titled as The State of Tripura versus Sri Raju Ranjan Bhattacharjee & 9 other, trial court convicted all of the ten accused persons in relation to each one of the offences for which they were charged for. Also they were separately sentenced to undergo imprisonment and pay fine.

[4] In an appeal preferred by the convicts, the appellate court [learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar] affirmed the judgment, reasoning and findings with regard to the guilt and sentence. This was save and except in the case of one person, namely, convict Sanjib Nath in whose case the judgment of conviction & sentence was set aside.

[5] It is a matter of record that State has accepted such findings and not preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal.

[6] However, each one of the other convicts, separately preferred revision petitions before this Court assailing the said judgment rendered by the lower appellate court.

[7] It is also a matter of record that out of 9 (nine), 8(eight) convicts, namely, Raju Ranjan Bhattacharjee, Benu Lal Roy, Sachindra Roy, Jyoti Prakash Chakraborty, Bidhu Bhushan Ghosh, Gopal Dutta, Biplab Dhar Chowdhury and Amitabh Adhikari, preferred not to assail the judgment of conviction, but restricted the challenge only to sentence. Their petitions already stand disposed of by passing appropriate orders.

[8] The only petition left is the one filed by convict Sujit Kr. Roy.

[9] While convicting the present petitioner, trial court simply observed as under:

"It is already evident on record that from the account of account holder Sujit Kumar Roy, fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.45,000/- was made and from the account of the account holder Sanjib Nath, fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.3,55,500/- was made over a considerable period of time. Normally, a person who maintains an account in a Bank is expected to know all the debit and credit transactions which are being made in his account. There is no evidence present before the Court that these two accused account holders did not have any knowledge about the fraudulent credits being made to their accounts and for that the contention made on their behalf that they were innocent does not find any footing in the context of the whole factual matrix of the case."

[10] Perusal of the judgment indicates that these are the only findings returned by the trial court qua the present convict. [11] Findings returned by the lower appellate court qua him are recorded in Pragraphs-54 & 55 of the judgment which read as under:

"54. Similarly in the case of accused Sujit Kr. Roy it proved in the Ld. Trial court that the following loose cheques were issued to the accused without even keeping any record of the issuance of such cheques to the accused.

Cheque numbers

Date of issue

473440

13.07.1995

473913

09.10.1995

507921

09.04.1996

The prosecution has submitted two deposit slips which go to show that the accused deposited Rs. 1,500/- on 13.07.1995 and Rs.3,500/- on 06.10.1995. But in his personal ledger against his account false deposit entries of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.35,000/- were made on those dates instead of Rs. 1,500/- and Rs.3,500/- with a view to facilitate fraudulent withdrawal of an amount of Rs.45,000/-from his account by issuing cheque. The prosecution has proved the impugned cheque No.473913 and 473440. Both of the cheques contained the signature of the accused and there is no denial that the accused did not sign and present the cheques to the bank. It is proved that by cheque no.473913 dated 09.10.1995 the accused had withdrawn Rs.35,000/- from the bank and by cheque no.473440 date 15.07.1995 (Exhibit-P/13) the accused had withdrawn Rs.14,700/- from the bank. It is thus established that by issuing those cheques the accused had withdrawn Rs.49,700/- from the bank out of which Rs.45,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn by him which was not actually credited in his account by the accused. Having gone through the record of the Ld. Trial court, I am of the firm view that the following circumstances have been proved against the accused.

[a] The accused deposited Rs.1,500/- on 13.07.1995 and only after two days of depositing the amount he had issued cheque no.473440 dated 15.07.1995 and withdrawn Rs. 14,700/- from the bank knowing it fully well that he had deposited only Rs.1,500/- in his account two days back which has clearly proved his involvement in the offence.

[b] Similarly the accused deposited Rs.3,500/- on 06.10.1995 and only after three days of depositing the amount he had issued cheque no.473913 dated 09.10.1995 and withdrawn Rs.35,000/- from the bank knowing it fully well that he had deposited only Rs.3,500/- in his account three days back which has clearly proved his involvement in the offence.

[c] Signature of the accused on the impugned cheques is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[d] It was thus clearly established in the Ld. Trial court that the accused was aware that Rs.45,000/-was not actually credited by him in his account and inspite of having such knowledge he had withdrawn the money from the bank by issuing cheques with a clear intention to do defraud the bank.

[e] His involvement in the offence was thus proved in the Ld. Trial court beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and the Ld. Trial court had rightly convicted him and sentenced him for the offence."

[12] Having perused the same, this Court is of the considered view that both the courts below returned such findings with two presumptions; (a) that prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and (b) that the accused had admitted his guilt, which incidentally is not the case in hand and the reasons assigned do not emanate from the record.

[13] It is an undisputed fact as has emerged from the testimony of PW-2 namely, Sri Pratap Lal Debbarma that no cheque book was ever issued in the name of or in favour of Sujit Kr. Roy. According to the prosecution, three loose cheques were issued in his name by the Bank officials, which were used for withdrawing the amount of Rs.35,000/- & Rs.15,000/- whereas, the amount should have been Rs.3,500/-and Rs.1,500/- respectively.

[14] To establish the said fact, prosecution has placed on record the ledger of the Cheque Issuance Register (P-11).

[15] However, for some strange reason, P.W-8 namely, Sri Sanjoy Bhowmik did not take specimen signature of this accused and accused Sanjib Nath, who stands acquitted by the lower appellate court, whereas, signatures of all other accused persons were taken and sent for scientific analysis. Hence, there is no signature, evidence establishing that the signatures qua any paper placed on record during trial are that of Sujit Kr. Roy.

[16] Not only that, P.W-2 namely, Sri Pratap Lal Debbarma and P.W-3 namely, Sri Rabi Mohan Kalai do admit that signature of Sri Sujit Kr. Roy was not there on the Cheque Issuing Register. Undisputedly, the present petitioner is not a Bank official. Not only that, these witnesses further admit that the account holder has no access to the ledger folio or any other record of the Bank account. Then how could he get the loose cheques, for it is not the case of the prosecution that such cheques were stolen.

[17] Further, the Inquiry Officer (P.W-4) namely, Md. Abdul Sukkur does admit in his cross-examination that in the enquiry report it is not mentioned "whether any loose cheques were issued in the name of the accused Sujit Kr. Roy".

[18] Still further, prosecution wants the Court to believe that three cheques were issued in favour of present petitioner. Noticeably, only two cheques were purportedly used by him being [Exhibits P-13(A) and P-13 (B)]. If the intent was to commit fraud in conspiring, then all of them would have been used. Not only that, even these cheques were not sent for scientific analysis, for ascertaining as to whether they contained signature of the accused or not and none of the witnesses have deposed that they saw the accused withdrew the amount from the Bank.

[19] The trial court, as already observed, presumed the guilt of the accused and returned findings by applying the principle of preponderance of probability, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. It has not come on record that the accused was regularly using the Bank account and/or regularly updating his passbook. Also there is nothing else to link the present accused, in any manner, with any one of the other accused persons.

[20] Hence, case of Sri Sujit Kr. Roy is clearly distinguishable from that of the other accused persons, who stand convicted in relation to the charged offences.

[21] Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, findings returned by the courts below cannot be said to have been returned on correct and complete appreciation of evidence led by the parties. Findings of conviction, which are perverse, have resulted into miscarriage of justice, causing severe prejudice to the petitioner. As such, correctness, legality and propriety of such findings needs to be examined and interfered with. Ordered accordingly.

[22] Therefore, the judgment passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Case No. GR.311 of 2003 dated 07-05-2014, titled as The State of Tripura versus Sri Raju Ranjan Bhattacharjee & 9 others, as affirmed by the appellate court [learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar] in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2014 and other connected matters, titled as Sri Sujit Kr. Roy & Others versus The State of Tripura, to the extent that it holds Sujit Kr. Roy guilty of the charged offence stands interfered with and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Consequentially, the judgment of sentence is also interfered with and set aside. The convict accused is, accordingly acquitted.

[23] In view of above, the present petition stands allowed and disposed of. Bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. Registry to take all consequential action in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

Record be sent back immediately.