The State v. Shri.Krishna Kumar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY CRR/50/2025 IA No. CRAN/1/2025 The State ...

Petitioner Vs Shri Krishna Kumar and others ...

Respondent Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar :

for the petitioners Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar Mrs. Vinita Devi :

for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind :

for the respondent No. 6 Heard on :

28.10.2025 & 06.11.2025 Judgment on :

06.11.2025 ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.

1.

PS Anti Corruption Case No. 02 of 2015 dated 30.04.2025 under Section 13 (1) (d)/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 420/468/471/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code was instituted against the respondents viz Shri. Krishna Kumar, Smt. P.L. Amutha, Shri. Loknath Bain, Smt. E. Reena, Shri Tejeshwar Rao, Shri Shiju. On completion of investigation charge sheet No. 02 of 2020 dated 10.10.2020 was filed under Sections13 (1) (d)/13 (2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Section 420/468/471/120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. 2.

The respondents had filed an application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for discharge from the Special Case No. 28/2020 instituted against them. Vide order dated 03.03.2025 the Learned Sessions Judge after elaborate discussion taking into consideration the materials on record refrained to frame charge against the respondents for the commission of the offence as stated in the charge sheet as aforesaid and discharged the respondents allowing the application filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. 3.

The State being aggrieved by the such an order of discharge had preferred the instant revisional application stating sufficient materials on record substantiated and justified the criminal intent of the respondents for committing the offences as stated in the charge sheet asserting the order of discharge passed by the learned Sessions Judge had been contrary to law based on presumption passed mechanically against interest of natural justice.

4.

The learned advocate representing the State submitted the respondent Shri. Krishna Kumar serving as Assistant Engineer (PRI) used his own car for commuting on official duty and submitted forged bills against utilizing hired car being Tata Sumo from Teja Tours and Travels Rangat bearing registration No. AN 01 D 3344. Bills were deliberately manufactured to procure the payment through the same for the period extending from September 2014 till November 2014. The

Assistant Secretary (Vig.), Andaman and Nicobar Administration addressed Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Unit along with a copy of inquiry report of Inspector S.K.Sarkar dated 31.03.2015, inter alia, stating to have received the approval of CS/CVO to register a criminal case against the respondents for submitting fabricated bills against hire of vehicle and obtaining approval of the payment to be disbursed through such bills causing financial losses to the government to the tune of Rs. 1,68,347/-. It was further submitted respondent Shri. Krishna Kumar in connivance with the other respondents had wrongfully extracted the aforesaid money from the government department under the deception of hiring a particular vehicle being Tata Sumo bearing registration No.

AN 01 H 3349, however, it was shown to be commuting through a vehicle bearing registration No. AN 01 D 3344. The owner of the Tours and Travels denied to have deployed any such vehicle on hire in favour of the respondent No. 1. The learned advocate representing the State further stated the statement of M.Shiju recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. revealed the same to have given bills for the month of May to August 2014 mentioning the vehicle registration No. AN 01 H 3349 which belonged to his friend Shri. Laxmana Perumal. On the approval of the bills, cheques were received by the said M.Shiju who encashed the same and transferred it to respondent No.1. 5.

The learned advocate representing the State further referred to the statement of one Mr. S Peter recorded under Section 161 of the

Cr.P.C which stated the respondent No. 1 to have approached him to spare his vehicle being Maruti Swift bearing registration No. AN 01 G 7833 to be hired on monthly basis for an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Accordingly Shri S. Peter had given his vehicle to respondent No.1 and received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month for hiring his vehicle which was credited in his SBI account. The vehicle was used by the respondent No.1 for inspection discharging his official work under Panchayat Samiti Rangat. The said vehicle was purchased by S. Peter from Smt. R. Muthamin in the year 2013.

6.

The learned advocate representing the State strenuously objected the order for discharge on the ground that the bills were forged and manufactured by respondent No. 1 for illegally obtaining money from the government office for his own wrongful gain. 7.

The learned advocate representing the respondents submitted the investigation conducted by the Investigating Agency admitted the respondent No.1 to have utilized the vehicle bearing registration No. AN 01 G 7833 for commuting to several places discharging his official duty of inspection. The vehicle was not utilized for personal usage. The bills submitted at the office were checked and reduced in its amount. The learned Sessions Judge after citing reasonable grounds discharged the respondents. There was no criminal intention on the part of the respondents to be implicated in criminal case since the respondent No.1 in performing his official duties did not exceed his limits in using the vehicle in question personally and could not have been inculpated

under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act as well as the necessary ingredients to constitute the offences limited against then under Section 420/468/471/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code could not be established.

8.

The role of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 discharging their official duties in checking the bills in accordance to the rates furnished as per government norms could not have been involved in the incriminating act of connivance with respondent Nos. 1, 5 and 6. It was not possible for the respondent No.2, 3 and 4 to act as Investigating Agency is to check the origin and veracity of documents until and unless the same were challenged by any competent authority. They performed their official duties as required of them and could be stated to be at fault in passing the bills which were apparently correct. The order of discharge of respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 is not interfered with.

9.

The Case Diary revealed the concerned department did not have government vehicles to allot to the officers to commute from one place to another in discharging their official duty. The investigating agency did not file any document in support of its claim that the respondent No.1 was using his own vehicle on the pretext of hiring the same from a travel agent. Though the manner in which the bills were furnished at the office seeking approval of the same for disbursement had been colourable. However, apart from an assertion on the part of the respondent No. 6 to have issued the bills in the name of Tours and

Travels operator he denied to have given any vehicle on hire. The amount of money received by him through cheque against realization of the bills, had been transferred in favour of the respondent No.1. 10.

Respondent No.5 being an agent of Tours and Travels had provided the vehicle being a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. AN 01 D 3344 to the respondent No.1 from 01.09.2014 till 26.09.2014 and from 01.10.2014 to 31.10.2014 and also during the month of November 2014 and received a sum of Rs. 67,751/- from the Executive Engineer (PRI), Mayabunder for providing his vehicle during the month of September, 2014 to October, 2014. Log book of the vehicle provided to the respondent No.1 was maintained by him and the manager of the respondent No.5 raised the payment of bills as per log book maintained by the concerned Assistant Engineer (PRI), Rangat. 11.

The charge sheet inter alia stated as follows:- "The Tour and Travel Operators namely Shri Tejeshwar Rao(35)уrs, S/o Shri K. Sree Ramulu R/o Rangat, Proprietor of M/s Teja Tour and Travels, Rangat, Middle Andaman and Mr Shiju (29) yrs S/o Shri.T.Mohan R/o Mithila, Rangat, also criminally conspired with the AE (PRI) Shri Krishna Kumar and provided him the fake/forged vehicle hiring charges bill to meet the requirements of the then AE(PRI) Shi Krishna Kumar. The Junior Engineers(PRIs) did not performed their duties with due care and attention and so have enabled the malafide intentions of the then AE(PRI) Shri Krishna Kumar in claiming false vehicle hiring charges from the month of January 2014 to October 2014 to the tune of Rs 2,60,312/-causing loss to the Govt. exchequer.

ORIGINAL/DUPLICATE FOIL OF CASE DIARY Station : Anti-Corruption District: S/Andaman Case Diary No. 50/02 First Information Book No. 02/2015 Dated: 30.04.2015 10/10/2020 Date and Place of Occurrence: Office of the Gram Panchayat. Continued...

Offence Date (with hours) on Record of Investigation which action was taken U/s 13 (1) (d)/ 13(2) of POC The documents provided by the incharges of JPP Middle Strait and JPP Jirkatang reveal the fact that during the period of vehicle hiring charge, the said vehicle moved to Port Blair in a convoy carrying the vehicle

Act 1988 r.w.s 468/471 IPC owner Tejeshwar Rao and his wife in the Tata Sumo bearing registration Number AN 01 H-3349. For the other vehicle AN 01 D 3344, it was never driven to Rangat area except for 2-3 times that too plied with local passenger/tourist who are not related to the then AE(PRI) Shri. Krishna Kumar in any way. The details of both the Tata Sumo's bearing registration number AN01 H 3349 and AN01 D 3344 has been obtained from I/c JPP Jirkatang No.2 and I/c JPP Middle Strait and is reproduced below S.No.

Date of Travel Convey from Vehicle No.

04-01-14 0900 hours Jirkatang No. 2 H 3349 04-01-14 1500 hours Middle Strait H 3349 16-01-14 0900 hours Jirkatang No. 2 H 3349 18-01-14 0900 hours Jirkatang No. 2 H 3349 18-01-14 1500 hours Middle Strait H 3349 12-02-14 1230 hours Middle Strait H 3349 16-02-14 1500 hours Middle Strait D 3344 16-02-14 1500 hours Middle Strait H 3349 17-02-14 1500 hours Middle Strait H 3349 21-02-14 0900 hours Jirkatang No. 2 H 3349 21-02-14 1500 hours Middle Strait H 3349 12-03-14 1500 hours Middle Strait H 3349 15-03-14 1500 hours Middle Strait H 3349 19-03-14 0900 hours Jirkatang No. 2 H 3349 19-03-14 1500 hours Middle Strait H 3349 23-03-14 1500 hours Middle Strait H 3349 15-04-14 0900 hours Jirkatang No. 2 H 3349 20-04-14 0600 hours Jirkatang No. 2 H 3349 20-04-14 1230 hours Middle Strait H 3349 03-05-14 1430 hours Jirkatang No.

2 D 3344 20-05-14 0600 hours Jirkatang No. 2 H 3349 20-05-14 0600 hours Jirkatang No. 2 H 3349 04-06-14 1500 hours Middle Strait H 3349 04-06-14 0900 hours Jirkatang No. 2 H 3349 16-06-14 1430 hours Jirkatang No. 2 D 3344 20-06-14 0900 hours Jirkatang No. 2 D 3344 27-06-14 0900 hours Jirkatang No. 2 D 3344 06-07-14 1430 hours Jirkatang No. 2 D 3344 15-07-14 1430 hours Jirkatang No. 2 D 3344 24-07-14 1430 hours Jirkatang No. 2 D 3344 13-08-14 0630 hours Middle Strait D 3344 14-08-14 1430 hours Jirkatang No. 2 D 3344 20-08-14 0630 hours Middle Strait D 3344 27-08-14 1200 hours Jirkatang No.

2 D 3344 02-09-14 1500 hours Middle Strait D 3344 22-11-14 1500 hours Middle Strait D 3344 09-12-14 1500 hours Middle Strait D 3344 30-12-14 1500 hours Middle Strait D 3344 17-02-15 0930 hours Middle Strait D 3344 Time of Travel From the above details of the movements of the two Tata Sumo's it is clearly evident that false bill has been prepared, forged to claim false hiring charges of vehicles which was actually not utilized by the Assistant Engineer Shri Krishna Kumar for official purposes and instead the vehicles were actually driven to carry tourist and the same also corroborates. Further, to ascertain the statement given by Shri S. Peter, the statement of account No.

30292553901 was obtained from State Bank, Raksha Viher, Lambaline, Port Blair which reflects the deposit of cash amount from Rangat on dated 25/04/14 for Rs 15,000/-, dated 13/05/14 for Rs 25,000/-, dated 25/06/14 for an amount of Rs 10,000/-, dated 09/05/15 for an amount of Ra 28,000/- totaling Re 78,000/ and he also stated that he received hard cash from Shri Krishna Kumar, Assistant Engineer on many occasions in favour of letting his car bearing registration No. AN01 G 7833."

12.

The learned Trial judge misinterpreted the definition of fraud as per section 17(B) of the Indian Contract Act. The fraudulent act in a criminal jurisprudence is covered under Section 415 of Indian Penal Code which state as follows:- "415. Cheating - whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat""

13.

The verbal tripartite agreement between the respondent No. 1, 5 and 6 portrayed activities with the motive to deceit the government office. The respondent No. 1 procured bills from the respondent No. 5 and 6 issued against vehicles bearing registration No. AN 01 H 3349 and AN 01 D 3344 which were never utilized by the respondent No. 1 for the purpose of commutation. The respondent No. 1 deliberately submitted the bills raised against usages of the aforesaid vehicle knowing the same to have been falsely and fraudulently procured for the purpose of disbursement of the amount mentioned therein. 14.

Respondent No. 5 and 6 issued the bills with knowledge that the same would be submitted by the respondent No. 1 for realization of the amount mentioned therein from the government office which in reality did not endorse the vehicle number mentioned therein to have been used for discharging the claimed official duties of the respondent No. 1.

The respondent No. 1 himself maintained the logbook without any verification from any agency on record.

15.

Moreover, a vehicle bearing number AN 01 G 7833 was hired on monthly basis from one Mr. S. Peter. The entire alleged series of activities displayed deceit and fraudulent act on the part of the respondent No. 1 in collusion with respondent Nos. 5 and 6, in procuring bills which were apparently forged. 16.

The complaint as well as the charge sheet depicted prima facie, commission of cognizable offence and the same should not be quashed at such a nascent stage.

17.

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lall and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SSC 335. The following ratio is laid down:

"102.

In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions for the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a not-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

18.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and the decision, charge sheet filed against the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 namely, Smt. P.L. Amutha, Shri Loknath Bain and Smt. E. Reena respectively are quashed. However, the proceeding instituted against the respondent No. 1, 5 and 6 as per PS Anti Corruption Case No. 02 of 2015 dated 30.04.2025 under Section 13 (1) (d)/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 420/468/471/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code are not quashed.

19.

CRR/50/2025 is allowed in part.

20.

Accordingly connected application being CRAN/1/2025 is disposed of.

21.

Parties to act in terms of the server copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Hon'ble Court. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)