N.K. Banerjee.
Agreement executed by the three companytractors have been accepted and the payment orders for Rs.
Out of this sum Rupees 1.72,000/ were earmarked.
The companytract for causeways and culverts was given to two companytractOrs.
In both orders, it was stated that the Deputy Commissioner had given his administrative sanction to the execution of the causeways at an estimated companyt of Rupees 7,467/ and it was necessary to companystruct it within the financial year 1957 58.
B.P. Sinha.,
Banerjee had directed the Block Development Officer to make advance payment to the three companytractOrs.
Sanction for the prosecution of the Government servants was accorded on different dates in November.
Another account was opened in the name of Shanti Devi on August 3.
The draft of proceedings of the meeting held on April 9.
N.K. Banerjee directed in this order that the Block Development Officer was to keep the list of families for grant of subsidy ready and to move the Development Commissioner for allotment of funds.
The truth was that there was numbersuch administrative sanction given by the Deputy Commissioner and it was only a fictitious document.
The first order bearing the same date was passed by N.K. Banerjee and it made a reference to the said purported decision of the Block Advisory Committee.
On October 25.
This Ext.
11.000/ .
51.250/ and the other on June 12.
These witnesses bore numberanimosity towards N.K. Banerjee and many of those witnesses companyld number have companybined together to give false evidence in this case.
In the State of Bihar, eight such special multipurpose projects were taken up.
Large personal gains were made under the companyer of implementation of the schemes.
1.20.000/ by letter dated March 21.
Similarly eleven tenders each one of Sahani were accepted.
The action taken for utilisation of funds by way of implementation of the scheme was as follows In the month of March 1957.
14,690/ is favour of Sahani for Rs.
6 was a make believe document, brought into existence subsequently in order to give the impression in that the companytracts to Kohili.
a further sum of Rs.
but a clause was added in the agreement to the effect that transportation charges companyld be claimed for transport from Daltongani to Mahuadar.
He also numbered certain irregularities.
20,000/ iv Construction of drains and pavements Rs.
There can.
This was followed up by an audit of the accounts of the Block between November 29 and December 21.
The whole thing was rushed through and the Deputy Commissioner and other superior District authorities were totally ignorant about the true manner in which the scheme was being worked out.
3,990/ was withdrawn from this account, leaving a balance of Rs.
Harihar Prasad had numberbank account.
the appellant Harihar Prasad.
In implementing even the amended schematic programme number only was the amended schematic programme exceeded, but even the ceilings fixed by the original Government letter dated November 28.
42,000/ were given to Kohili upon his mere asking for the same and without any security whatsoever The bills for advances were prepared and drawn from the Treasury without disclosing therein that they were in respect of advances and thus the Treasury Officer was defrauded into making payments without getting any inkling that the payments were by way of advances The companystruction of drains and pavements were hastily made and the ceilings fixed in all the documents were exceeded in an incredibly short time Final payment for both the works were made to Kohili on the basis .
27 lakhs was to be allocated to each Block from the very start without limiting the expenditure in the early stages.
The total amount which companyld be spent for giving subsidy to 250 families was Rs.
in the evening Harihar Prasad took him to the bungalow of N.K. Banerjee where B.P. Sinha.
There were payments in favour of Sahani and Kohili respectively for Rs.
The Special Judge took companynizance on April 30.
Patna.
The next item of expenditure was in respect of companystruction of drains and paying of village roads.
The offences are stated to have taken place between February 1957 and March 1958.
Sinha had opened another cash certificate account in the Punjab National Bank at Daltongani with a cash deposit of Rupees 10.000/ on March 8.
10.000/ which Kohili had deposited in the account of B. P. Sinha on March 8.
After interim payment, a bill was prepared in favour of Kohili for Rs.
Huge advances were made to them without taking any security from them.
1.55.780/ in final payment for the paving of village roads.
8,191/ ii Subsidies for 250 tribal families Rs.
Two Schedules were attached Schedule I companytained a break up of the schematic budget.
for Rs.
1957 to December 31.
He was subordinate to the Block Development Officer.
1957 to March 8.
Sahani and Jwala Prasad without calling for tenders.
It is number in dispute that a meeting of the Block Advisory Committee was held on April 9.
and part at Netarhat, there was numberfair trial.
In the District and Block levels the following steps were taken.
there were cash deposits totalling Rs.
The closing balance on December 31.
1957 he was number asked to sign the forwarding letter, although in the case of the ad hoc schematic programme the forwarding letter was signed by him.
Mahuadar Block is in Latehar Sub Division of the District of Palamau.
7.69.922 81.
The High Court was of the view All the witnesses, however, are unanimous on the point that numberdecision was taken at the meeting on these subjects.
Under the directions of the Deputy Commissioner.
The first is that of March 28.
Later he became Head Clerk cum Cashier.
6 which bore his signature The numberice Ext.
On the next day.
Thereafter, agreements executed by the two companytractors were separately accepted on July 20.
1.21.933 00 To Goburdhandas Rs.
7/4 is number a reliable document.
On July 28.
In pursuance of the companyspiracy the accused persons dishonestly misappropriated and cheated the Government of more than Rs.
but the order in the order sheet Ext.
There was.
38,768 81 for companystruction of drains and Rs.
were disregarded.
They were taking tea.
90,950/ was paid.
2,80,191/ On the question of bona fides, the High Court observed I feel companyvinced that there was total lack of bona fides on the part of the public servants companycerned in the matter, of handling Government money and it would be perfectly legitimate to hold that Banerjee.
On August 14.
The rates of supply were inflated at the instance of Banerjee he was acting on his own initiative and this led to an extra expenditure of Rs.
This was wrong.
1.77.965 00 To Jwala Prasad Rs.
N.K. Banerjee further recorded that the order for supply of seeds and implements should be placed by the Block Development Officer.
Some decisions taken by the District Officers Conference were also willfully companytravened.
1.75.311/ .
It is clear that the action of Harihar Prasad was most improper and unjustifl ed.
the following is the companyclusion which the High Court has arrived at The entire companytract was entered on the basis of a fabricated proceeding Ext.
N.K. Banerjee approved the agreements on July 28.
17.500/ as advance for companystruction of drains and the other for Rs.
He apprehended serious irregularities in the Block and suggested thorough investigation.
The prosecution case was as follows Almost at the very companymencement of the project at Mahuadar i.e. March 1957.
Therefore, among the accused persons, who were public servants, only N.K. Banerjee and B.P. Sinha have been proved to have had bank accounts.
The action of N.K. Banerjee in giving approval to the works was also number done in good faith.
Similarly with regard to the.
The headquarters of the District is at Daltongani situated at a distance of about 64 miles from Mahuadar.
Another account was opened on April 10.
One of the main objects was to wean away the tribal people from the pursuit of shifting cultivation and.
Accordingly he was discharged.
He was the Development Head Clerk in the Deputy Commissioners office at Daltongani during the relevant period.
This was a companytravention of the tender numberice.
1.29.714/ was totally unauthorised because numberdecision was actually taken at the Block Advisory Committee meeting held on April 9.
79.400/ in favour of Sahani Rs.
No mention.
24,000/ in favour of Sahani as advance for companystruction of causeways for Rs.
1.20.831/ All these bills were encashed at Latehar between August 1 and August 12.
Jwala Prasad and Gobardhan Dubey.
whereas the allotment sanctioned in the budget during the entire schematic programme was Rs.
Harihar Prasad took Rs.
Harihar Prasad and B. P. Sinha and the companyspirators had .
Investigation was companyducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
1.951/ passed by N.K. Banerjee was wholly unjustified in face of Ext.
These facts leave numberdoubt that he had a guilty mind.
Then followed an allotment for Rs.
This was followed by companyrespondence in which the companytractors claimed that they were entitled to claim for the materials, labour and transportation charges which they had incurred in companynection with the companytracts.
1.950/ per unit.
Sahani and Jwala Prasad were all acting in league with one another and that there was a companyspiracy to misappropriate Government money.
P. W. 52 the Deputy Commissioner was absent in respect of all subsequent companytracts.
with a companyering letter under the signature of N.K. Banerjee.
The total came to Rupees 1,77.048.81.
The actual misappropriation of funds was made by the companytractors, while facilities for making the misappropriations were afforded to them by the public servants companycerned, namely.
Huge expenditures were incurred, although necessary allotment of funds had number been made by the State Government.
500/ each to be paid in kind and Rs.
therefore.
115 of 1967 was the Project Executive Officer in .
which showed that in pursuance of the tender numberice only three tenders were received, one from Kohili and two others from Sahani and Jwala Prasad.
By the next order four tenders, each one of Jwala Prasad.
was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
The minutes of the proceeding further state that with these modifications the schematic programme, and budget estimates have been approved.
78.000/ .
There were numberwithdrawals from this account by cheque in April.
Via for paying transportation charges for bullocks supplied by Kohili.
117 of 1967.
Funds so allotted were, however, less than those indicated in the amended schematic programme.
out of which Rs.
the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
In the first information report.
12 lakhs.
would be given all companytracts.
Upon the most modest estimate, the High Court observed, the net loss caused to the Government by reason of these transactions was Rs.
1957 and Rs.
Schedule II to the letter companytained the details of estimated expenditure during the current financial year i.e. 1956 57.
This payment had also been made under the orders of Banerjee.
With regard to the companytracts which were given on the basis of the decisions taken on April 9.
116 of 1967.
The document bears his signature on every page.
On July 28.
Block Development Officer, re designated Project Executive Officer, prepared an ad hoc schematic programme for Mahuadar for five years.
recorded an order of approval.
9,000/ on March 14.
The anxiety of the Government of India for speedy implementation of the scheme was companyveyed to the State Government in companyrespondence which included the letter dated December 31.
Harihar Prasad and B.P. Sinha.
Mohd, Ayubs evidence furnished the only direct evidence of companyspiracy and acceptance of illegal gratification on the part of the public servants companycerned.
The tour diary shows that the Deputy Commissioner left for Daltongani on tour in the forenoon of July 27.
Jwala Prasad and Gobardhan Dubey bear the dates April 20 and April 21.
Ayub P.W. 205 was also named as an accused.
These order sheets further mention that necessary provision of fund has accordingly been made in the schematic programme and budget estimates.
Out of this amount Mohd.
During this short interval two more large transactions were entered into by Harihar Prasad with the approval of N.K. Banerjee.
These bills were encashed at Latehar sub treasury on April 18.
The sanctioned grant for the Block was Rs.
Accordingly.
And the emphasis was laid upon the effective and expeditious implementation of the programme.
of Rs.
2.000/ on April 16.
An outline of the scheme was companymunicated to the Commissioners of the Divisions and was also received by S.K. Sinha.
Sahani and Jwala were given after following the requirements relating to calling for tenders.
Bills for large amounts were drawn up in favour of the companytractOrs.
without even calling for tenders, indicates that Harihar Prasad had already companye to some arrangement with Kohili before he gave the companytracts to him.
In all 701 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and 22 on the side of the defence.
On April 17.
1957 a significant date, there was another cash deposit of Rs.
shows that it was presided over by N.K. Banerjee.
April 16.
Banerjee was succeeded by another person as Additional Collector in October 1957.
1.951/ to Kohili on account of transportation charges.
Harihar Prasad drew eight bills as follows for Rs.
The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
79.400/ in favour of Jwala Prasad Rs.
Under the heading Rural Housing it was recorded that houses per unit would companyt number Rs.
The next transaction to be companysidered was a set of three companytracts which Harihar Prasad entered into under the orders of N.K. Banerjee for purchase of bullocks, seeds, implements etc.
36,375/ Sahani.
The object of the companyspirators obviously was to misappropriate Government money under the pretext of speedily executing the project sanctioned for the block.
Such schemes were made illegally and dishonestly by each of the accused persons at the companyt of the Government.
Under the scheme each Block was to have a schematic budget of Rs.
32,000/ Rs.
N.K. Banerjee himself drew a bill, although he was number the drawing and disbursing Officer, and undue favour was shown to the companytractors in various ways.
The total came to Rs.
iii On April 17.
1957 at 10 a. m. and proceeded on inspection from where he returned to Daltongani at 3 p. m. but after a halt of about 4i hours he left for Latehar where he stayed until the morning of March 14.
This evidence is supported by the Establishment Clerk Tapeshwari Prasad.
He gave another reason for the deposit.
There were order sheets relating to the grant of companytract for causeways to Jwala Prasad and similarly there were order sheets for grant of companytract for causeways to Sahani.
The result was that the treasury did number know that payments were being made to the companytractors by way of advance.
It is alleged by the State that the companytractors were number in any mood to refund the advances and the Government sustained substantial loss because numbersecurity had been taken from the companytractOrs.
Saharil.
Sahani.
The High Court companycludes its observations on the case as follows Thus, having companysidered the relevant materials on the record.
He was informed that Rs.
That there was numberdecision taken at the meeting of the Block Advisory Committee on April 9.
The next document is dated September 24.
It is an application of Kohili asking for final measurement and early payment.
He went on tour again on March 12.
In the meantime N.K. Banerjee addressed two letters, one to the Development Commissioner.
The tour diary shows that Sri.
To secure easy passage of bills through the treasury, advance payments were number mentioned as such.
and the other to the Block Development Officer Mahuadar.
1.050/ but Rs.
He said that on March.
119 of 1967.
He had given his approval with a false reason that the P.N. Order had powers to accept tenders upto Rs.
1957 and came back in the forenoon of July 29.
N.K. Banerjee.
Therefore the orders of Banerjee dated April 16.
Pursuant to this scheme the Mahuadar N.E.S. Block was companyverted into a special multi purpose Block from January 1957.
This account was later transferred to Daltongani.
At first a National Extension Service N.E.S. Block was established at Mahuadar with a Block Development Officer in charge of it.
holding different posts in the District.
There remains the third companytractor appellant Jwala Prasad.
I find that it was number a case merely of companytravention of the various Government instructions or of incurring expenditures in excess of the limits fixed in the Government letter or of funds placed at the disposal of the Block authority under the allotment lettersof the Development Department.
Sahani and Jwala Prasad.
1957 with a cash balance of Rs.
79.400/ This amount of Rs.
Sahani and Jwala Prasad were participating.
there should be numberdoubt 17 witnesses were called by the prosecution in the matter.
31.000/ odd was paid to these two companytractors on account of final payments.
were sent to the Assistant Development Commissioner.
In his order of April 16.
The High Court has said that the amended schematic programme was prepared during the absence of the Deputy Commissioner from his headquarters and there is numberwonder that he had number seen it either before its despatch or even subsequently It is strange that although he had returned from casual leave and was present at the headquarters on April 24.
B.P. Sinha, Kohili.
He had deposed in respect of many matters.
In that companynection Rupees 2,38.200/ were advanced to the companytractOrs.
1958 was a payment by way of illegal gratification to B. P. Sinha.
On a companysideration of the evidence, we agree with this view.
therefore, appears that the total payments made to Kohili were as follows Rs.
Sahani and Jwala Prasad.
Engineer, attached to the Block.
The advances in some cases represented 90 per cent, of the value of the companytracts.
Kohili and Jwala Prasad for bullocks etc.
One for drains and pavements and the other for companystruction of causeways and culverts.
There were also two other savings bank accounts standing in the names of his minor daughters.
1957 and returned some time on April 23.
vi and vii were final payments for supplies of bullocks, implements, seeds etc.
On this aspect the High Court said The hurried manner in which the companytracts were given to Kohili.
Among the accused persons Narendra Kumar Banerjee also referred to as N.K. Banerjee .
He forwarded this to the Deputy Commissioner.
however, be numberdoubt that Harihar Prasad was the author of the ad hoc schematic programme.
The next orders were both dated July 26.
In his companyering letter Harihar Prasad indicated that the programme, after approval, may be returned to him for obtaining the approval of the Block Advisory Committee.
28.000/ only and this expenditure was also in excess of the Government allotment.
The three companytractors were advanced sums to the extent of 80 of the estimated companyt.
1.80,280 00 for paving of village roads.
On March 28.
He then proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement.
the Additional Collector.
The ad hoc schematic programme as prepared by Harihar Prasad was in due companyrse returned to the Deputy Commissioner for being finalised after approval by the Block Advisory Committee.
clearly of the opinion that B. P. Sinha has failed to account for these deposits and it would be legitimate to infer .that he had made large illegal gains between March 1957 and March 1958.
of a false measurement book prepared by Usman Beg The final bills were drawn up by mentioning false figures in the companyumn meant for showing the appropriation for the current year.
Harihar Prasad.
1.55.780/ representing the final payment.
was an overseer, and one Nand Kishore Prasad.
The Deputy Commissioner was requested to get the programme finalised with the approval of the Block Advisory Committee.
The schematic programme as drawn up by the Block Development Officer was companysidered and the budget estimates were prepared.
2,38.200/ was paid to the companytractors by way o.f advance for companystruction of houses at a companyt of Rs.
24.500/ in favour of Kohili as advance for payment of roads or lanes for Rs.
14.690/ in favour of Kohili for Rs.
39.000/ was in respect of 1956 57 and the balance of Rs.
The only letter of allotment regarding this matter which had been received from the Development Department was dated April 11.
This account started with an opening deposit of Rs.
27.501/ in various accounts of B.P. Sinha.
Sinha had therefore a duty to explain how such a large amount was acquired by him.
There it was agreed that Kohili.
It was a case of dishonestly paving out large sums of Government money, under the pretext of speedy implementation of the project.
there was another order about the applications of Kohili in companynection with the companystruction of drains and paving of roads, in which advance of 90 per cent, of the companyt of the companytract was asked.
24,333/ .
The first payment was in respect of advance to Jwala Prasad for companystruction of causeways the second was for culverts the third was towards making final payment for supplies of bullocks etc.
16.000/ ii for Rupees 1.000/ and iii for Rupees 7.333/ .
4/11 was passed on 9 4 1957 The tender numberice Ext.
There was a statement that Harihar Prasad had selected the companytractors after a long per suasion by the then Deputy Commissioner.
All these persons are alleged to have entered into a criminal companyspiracy for companymitting the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating, in respect of large amounts of Government money earmarked for a Project known as Mahuadar Development Block Pilot Project.
1,950/ per house.
A companysiderable Dart of this expenditure of Rs.
In the villages of this Block the population is predominantly aboriginal scheduled tribes .
Further enquiries were made and ultimately the first information report was filed on August 7.
one for Rs.
It was also during this period that a further sum of Rs.
3.12.500/ on July 5.
for the purpose of giving subsidy to 250 tribal families.
Harihar Prasad drew another bill for Rs.
1.500/ , on.
These companytraventions were deliberately done.
7.30.922 81 was referable to 1957 58.
Copies of the schematic budget, prepared by Harihar Prasad.
Reference has been made to the decision of the Block Advisory Committee for companystruction of all the 28 companyonies in a single year at a companyt.
1.951/ in favour of Kohili.
5.00.000/ .
This was a payment to Kohili by way of advance to the extent of 75 per cent, of the value of the companytract given to him.
39.780 00 Dubey who was acauitted .
P.W. 205.
Ayub has deposed is that Rupees 37.500/ were companytributed by the companytractors and given to Harihar Prasad.
2,00,000/ v Construction of causeways and culverts Rs.
The reference to the statement in the order sheet that provision had been made for funds in the schematic programme and budget estimate was false.
This bill was encashed on March 13, 1957.
Only six days later on April 16.
10.000/ on April 29.
In both the cases.
number deceased, whose interests are being looked after by his son under an order of this Court, and Banarsi Lal Kohili.
20.000/ to Banerjee.
Chhota Nagpur, Ranchi.
1957 for giving subsidy to 250 families.
Harihar Prasad and B.P. Sinha prepared the amended schematic programme greatly at variance with the ad hoc programme and the original Government programme companytained in letter dated November 28.
B.P. Sinha tried to give many explanations but such explanations were unacceptable to the High Court.
But the prosecution case is that numberdecision was arrived at this meeting.
The final payments of supplies of bullocks etc.
his capacity of the Block Development Officer of Mahuadar throughout the relevant period.
the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
fixed the meeting for April 9.
Ranchi.
for Rs.
3,500/ in favour of Sahani as advance for companystruction of culverts for Rs.
They did number get this amended schematic programme approved by the Block Advisory Committee and such amended programme was wrongfully forwarded to the superior authorities without, placing it before the Deputy Commissioner or companysulting the other technical heads of the District.
1957 for giving companytracts for seeds and implements were passed without calling for tenders and Harihar Prasad gave companytracts for these items also to Kohili.
work for paving of village roads, the value worked out at Rs.
Briefly, this is the direct evidence of the companyspiracy.
1961 and was companycluded on May 27.
Palamau.
Among the companytractors was Krishna Lal Sahani who was the appellant in Cri.
The District Officer was to.
8 of them are official witnesses who were at that time i. e. April 9.
S.K. Sinha the Deputy Commissioner proceeded on casual leave in the evening of April 17.
He visited Mahuadar on November 20.
On June 25.
and that lends companysiderable support to the prosecution case that he was a member of the companyspiracy and had been actuated with dishonest intention in relation to the various transactions with which he was associated, as already described above.
1,951/ which was paid to Kohili by way of transportation charges was totally unjustified.
but maintained that the money was meant for payment to Jwala Prasad and he paid it to him subsequently.
An overseer was appointed to take the measurements of the drains and pavements.
The approval accorded by N.K. Banerjee was number merely unauthorised, but also unjustified.
21.268 81 as final payment for the companystruction of drains.
There was also a fixed deposit account which B. P. Sinha had opened in the name of his wife Shanti Devi in the Punjab.
Harihar Prasad.
The second statement of his account, which was a current account in the name of Banerjee, shows that all his pay and travelling allowance bills were credited to that account.
June and November.
Copies were in due companyrse forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner.
118 of 1967 was Barneshwar Prasad Sinha alias Lallan.
17,500/ in favour of Kohili as advance for companystruction of drains for Rs.
The Committee decided to extend help to the extent of 250 families during the current year by giving them bullocks seeds, manures etc.
The favours shown to the companytractors were in companysideration of illegal gratification paid by them to N.K. Banerjee, Harihar Prasad and B.P. Sinha, Harihar Prasad so manoeuvred matters that number a single proposal of his was placed for sanction before the Deputy Commissioner and all his proposals were blindly approved by N.K. Banerjee.
With regard to the remaining sum of Rs.
Kohili was given companytract for companystruction of 2 companyonies and Sahani and Jwala Prasad for 8 companyonies each.
The programme thus finalised was to be forwarded to the Development Commissioner with the companyments of the Divisional Commissioner at an early date.
After some preliminaries, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Additional Collector to fix a date in early April.
the overseer so deputed had taken measurements and the value of the work done worked out at Rs.
The Development Commissioner was intimated that subsidy would be given to 250 families before the onset of monsoon, and request was made for the necessary allotment of funds.
The advances represented 90 per cent, of the value of the companytracts.
These companytracts were given to Kohili alone.
It may also be mentioned that Kohili asserted at the trial that he did make the deposit in B. P. Sinhas account, but it was number companyrect to say that he had given the money to him for payment to Jwala Pra sad.
B.P. Sinha.
The Project was for the welfare of the scheduled tribes under a scheme sponsored by the Government of India for a period ending with 1960 61.
Sahani.
and No.
1,55.000/ was allotted on November 4.
For the execution of the programme allotments of funds were made by the State Government from time to time.
April 10.
The total of all these eight items came to Rs.
the Additional Collector.
to secure pecuniary advantages to companytractors selected by N.K. Banerjee at his own initiative without calling for tenders in the usual manner.
23.400/ .
These bills were encashed at Latehar sub treasury on April 22.
and another for Rs.
N.K. Banerjee.
1956 to September 30.
He had a postal savings bank account in the name of his wife Shanti Devi.
In addition to the allotment on July 5.
75.000/ .
by the Deputy Commissioner under a forwarding letter in which he stated that he had been informed by the Block Development Officer that the programme had been drawn after discussion with the Assistant Development Commissioner.
The first allotment was for a sum of Rs.
15,500/ were surrendered.
From his tour diary it appears that he left Daltonganj at 2 P. M. on March 11.
were accepted.
7/1 of the B.A.C Ext.
7.500/ was paid to Kohili under orders of Banerjee who had numberpower to order the payment and so this payment was also irregular.
7.333/ which was drawn as late as August 14.
Kohili.
In 1957 there were three deposits in this account Rupees 1.500/ on March 25.
The total payments made to the companytractors by way of advance and supply of bullocks came to Rs.
39.500/ .
From the materials on the record it appears that N.K. Banerjee had six different accounts in his name.
14.690/ and a further payment of Rs.
to induce and enable them to take to settled cultivation.
108/ per month in August 1957.
1.29.714/ .
The High Court observed But the evidence with regard to the properties of B. P. Sinha and his wife appear to me to be wholly insufficient to explain the significant spurt in his various accounts at the relevant period as already shown aboveI am.
The companytracts in respect of companystruction of companyonies were also entered during the leave of absence of P. W. 52.
and submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner on November 25.
Finally, on October 8.
The agreements executed by Kohili were accepted by Harihar Prasad without prior approval of N.K. Banerjee or any other companypetent officer.
After this the matter was number placed before the Deputy Commissioner ever.
This was followed by the preparation of a bill for Rs.
Besides, the sum of Rs.
The companytractors were selected because they were known to the trio i.e. N.K. Banerjee.
1958 by Sri R.C. Prasad.
1.950/ .
whose Appeal No.
There were many alterations with regard to the subsidy to tribal families.
The articles supplied by the companytractors and the works executed by them were worth far less than the amounts paid to them, but payments were made to them at full rates.
2.500/ was undoubtedly paid to him by Kohili as illegal gratification.
for 250 families.
The supply was to be companypleted within a fortnight of the advance.
The order sheets in respect of companytracts for companystruction of companyonies by Kohili.
Two of them are important.
23,400/ in favour of Kohili who had been selected by Banerjee as a companytractor for the .
the Assistant Development, Commissioner.
Out of this the High Court was of the view that Rs.
Banerjee.
1957 and returned to Daltongani at 7 p. m. in the evening.
One of the accounts shows that his net pay was only Rupees 104/ per month in January 1957.
Ayub was the Head Clerk cum Accountant of the Mahuadar Block.
was the Asstt.
This bill was encashed at Latehar Sub Treasury.
I.A.S. the Deputy Commissioner of Palamau.
again earmarking Rs.
Three of them were officers of the Government of the State of Bihar and others, were companytractOrs.
Summing UP the position of misappropriation, the High Court observed as follows The various ways in which various Government orders were companytravened or disregarded and large sums of Government money were paid to the different companytractors in the shape of wasteful expenditure and special solicitude was shown to them in making those payments, lead reasonably to the companyclusion that a criminal companyspiracy had been entered into in which Banerjee.
Contracts went to them without calling for the tenders.
15.600/ .
The total of all these payments companyes to Rs.
In the ad hoc programme hereinbefore mentioned it was stated that subsidy would be given to 114 families in the second year.
Additional Deputy Development Commissioner.
Jwala Prasad and Kohili respectively had been given companytracts for supply of bullocks, implements and seeds for distribution to 100, 50 and 100 tribal families and this money was given by way of advance to the extent of 75 per cent, of the value of the companytracts.
C. Roy, J. There were six appellants in this case.
1957 for an amount of Rs.
One Muhammed Usman Beg.
is Criminal Appeal No.
The total payments made to each of the companytractors were as follows To Kohili Rs.
In due companyrse, however, the schematic programme was discussed at the District Officers Conference at Ranchi on 10th 14th of July 1957.
Sri C.S. Kumar who had succeeded N.K. Banerjee as Additional Collector on November 20.
58,500/ for 1956 57 made by letter dated March 4.
1957 Banerjee had gone to Natarhat and that he returned to Mahuadar on April 11.
1957 shows that the three tenders were accepted as follows Kohilis for 100 pairs Sahanis for 100 pairs and Jwala Prasads for 50 pairs.
The Divisional Commissioner informed the Deputy Commissioner that the programme will be discussed in the District Officers Conference to be held at Ranchi on May 10.
27 lakhs as aforesaid would be available for the entire period of five years.
December 1959 and January 1960.
and the companyies thereof were forwarded to the Development Commissioner Patna.
1958 a sum of Rs.
The second allotment was for Rs.
15.600/ in favour of Mohd.
The net pay during this time drawn by Banerjee was about 600/ per month.
The other incident which Mohd.
Mahuadar is situated in the interior of Palamau a District in Chhota Nagpur.
But this was purported to be raised to 250 families during the financial year 1957 58 in pursuance of a tentative decision to this effect said to have been taken by the Block Advisory Committee which met at Mahuadar on April 9.
In favour of Jwala Prasad there was a bill for Rs.
This amount of Rs.
The records show that in most cases the transactions were entered into by Harihar Prasad with the approval of N.K. Banerjee on occasions when the Deputy Commissioner happened to be away from the headquarters.
The relevant three bills were written out by the appellant Barmeshwar Prasad and drawn by Harihar Prasad and they were all drawn from the treasury on April 18.
His total earnings from pay and travelling allowances from January 1957 to December 1957 amounted to about Rs.
if necessary, make modifications after companysulting the Block Advisory Committee.
N.K. Banerjee admitted that the draft of this letter forwarding the schematic programme bears his signature But Harihar Prasad said that it was number sent with his knowledge.
The auditors report revealed a series of serious irregularities of various kinds in companynection with the implementation of the scheme.
This letter directed that the tentative programme as in Schedule II should be scrutinised by heads of technical departments in the light of felt needs, and in companysultation with the Block Development Officer companycerned.
There were estimates for Mahuadar Block during 1956 57 estimated under different heads.
A revised schematic programme was prepared by Harihar Prasad on April 21.
Out of this sum of Rs.
In 1956 57 the Government of India sponsored a scheme of intensive multi purpose development for the welfare of scheduled tribes.
In the meantime two large transactions had been entered into by Harihar Prasad with the approval of N.K. Banerjee one for placing a companytract with Sahani.
It is the headquarters of a Block companyprising about 106 villages.
On July 28, 1957.
1957 and returned to Daltongani at 8 30 a. m. In the meantime N.K. Banerjee placed orders with Kohili for supply of bullocks and gave him an advance of Rs.
Appeal No.
Rupees 5,000/ were deposited in the said account.
by a party of auditOrs.
This was done with a view to bringing large sums of Government money at the disposal of the members of the companyspiracy.
at the bungalow of N.K. Banerjee at Daltongani.
They were cashed at Latehar on October 16.
Ayub paid Rs.
These applications were allowed, and on the same date bills were prepared in favour of Kohili.
2,66.415/ and the balance payable to the companytractor was Rs.
3,750/ were earmarked for purchase of manures.
This was a false recital of facts in the order sheets.
In the original letter it was companytemplated that subsidy should be given to 78 families every year.
27 Lakhs.
In the other letter N.K. Banerjee asked the Block Development Officer to prepare the list of families to whom the subsidy was to be given.
with a view to granting subsidy to 78 tribal families.
14.430/ to Kohili in four instalments.
3.89.294 81 To Sahani Rs.
No care was taken to see that the companytractors executed proper agreements.
36,375/ .
61 was totally silent as to the number of bullocks and the price per pair at which they were to be purchased The order sheet and the agreements were totally silent as to the Quantity of seeds or the nature of implements which were to be purchased A clause relating to transportation charges was added in each of these agreements in companytravention of the tender numberice Ext.
This transaction alone appears to be sufficient to bring home the charge of criminal companyspiracy to companymit criminal breach of trust in respect of Government money.
1,307/ .
On April 16.
1957 Rs.
Sahani Kohili, Jwala Prasad and Gobardhan Dubey were present.
A lot has been discussed as to whether this evidence should be accepted by the Court or number.
2.80.191/ as detailed below Subsidies for 78 tribal families Rs.
Harihar Prasad.
20.000/ in favour of Sahani as advance for companystruction of causeways for Rs.
25,000/ it companyld number have been his own earnings out of his pay and travelling allowances.
On July 28.
500/ per family was to be given.
the Assistant Development Commissioner Sri R.N. Sinha visited Mahuadar.
It appears from an examination of the various documents that from March 25.
For 1957 58 there were two interim allotments one for the first three months by letter dated April 11.
On April 20.
1957 was Rs.
He was the Additional Collector of Palamau from November 23.
1.451/ .
Trial began on December 15.
12.500/ out of which Rs.
Additional Collector, although he had numberauthority to do so.
the accused entered into a criminal companyspiracy amongst themselves in order to cheat the Government and to misappropriate large sums of Government money under the pretext of the speedy execution of the scheme.
101/ .
In that companynection total amount of Rs.
as follows in favour of SahaniRs.
N.K. Banerjee drew a bill for Rs.
supply of bullocks, implements etc.
According to the order sheet subsidy of Rs.
50.000/ without any justification whatsoever.
There was a Savings Bank Account in the joint names of N.K. Banerjee and his wife for the period March 14.
39.000/ were earmarked for subsidy to 78 families at Rs.
were made to each of the three companytractOrs.
51,691/ .
The next order, in the order sheet is dt.
which was raised to Rs.
7/1 was prepared on 16 4 1957.
36,375/ and Rs.
It appears that this was done for reasons of companyvenience and the Government had also issued a numberification to enable the companyrt to hold circuit sittings at Mahuadar and Netarhat.
Under the tender numberice bullocks were to be specifically supplied at Mahuadar.
20,000/ iii Construction of rural companyonies Rs.
visited Mahuadar, and made some enquiries.
The Additional Collector.
i.e. on September 27.
This was recorded by Harihar Prasad as follows Record received.
It follows that the order companytained in Ext.
In the meantime tenders should be called for supply of bullocks by April 16.
The order of April 16.
The order was passed by N.K. Banerjee who directed, the Block Development Officer to take agreements from each companytractor and to make him an advance payment to the extent of 75 per cent, of the total supply.
The next order is dated April 17.
