Orissa High Court
Sujaya Kumar Mohanty vs Republic Of India on 30 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.194 of 1991
(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Sujaya Kumar Mohanty ....... Appellant
-Versus-
Republic of India ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra,
Senior Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sathak Nayak ,
Special P.P.-cum-Retainer Counsel, CBI
Assisted by- Mr. Manish Dhir, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 23.04.2026 : Date of Judgment: 30.04.2026S.S. Mishra, J. The sole appellant has preferred the present Criminal
Appeal assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 29.06.1991 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar
in T.R. Case No. 1 of 1984, whereby the appellant, Sujaya Kumar
Mohanty, was convicted for the offences punishable under Section
477-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on eachcount, with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
It is pertinent to note that the co-accused in the instant case, namely
Sasanka Sekhar Jena, has been acquitted of the charges framed
against him.
2. Heard Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, the learned
Special P.P.-cum-Retainer Counsel appearing for the Respondent-
Republic of India (CBI) assisted by Mr. Manish Dhir, learned
Counsel.
Prosecution Story
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that during the years 1981-82,
accused Sujaya Kumar Mohanty was working as a Clerk in Syndicate
Bank, Cuttack Branch and was posted in the Loans on Deposit
Section. In that capacity, he was entrusted with duties such as
preparation of loan applications, maintaining loan ledgers, recording
particulars of deposits and advances, authenticating debit slips,
marking banker’s lien on deposit folios, and calculating the loan
amounts along with accrued interest.
Page 2 of 15
The co-accused Sasanka Sekhar Jena, who is the brother-in-law
of accused Mohanty, had opened an Adarsh Deposit Account bearing
No. 4074 in the said bank. It is alleged that both the accused persons
entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank and, in
furtherance of such conspiracy, facilitated the sanction and
disbursement of multiple loans against the said deposit account
without repayment of earlier loans.
In pursuance of the said conspiracy, on 06.05.1981, accused
Jena applied for a loan of Rs. 7,000/- against the aforesaid deposit
account. The relevant loan documents, including the application for
advance, pledge letter, promissory note, and debit slip, were filled up
by accused Mohanty after obtaining the signatures of Jena. The loan
was sanctioned by the then Assistant Manager and disbursed on the
same day under Loan Deposit Account No. 215/81. Although entries
were made in the loan ledger by Mohanty, he failed to obtain the
signature of the loanee in the ledger. Subsequently, false entries dated
11.07.1981 were made by him showing repayment of Rs. 7,108/-
along with Rs. 3/- as interest. These entries were neither supported by
any credit voucher nor reflected in the cashier’s or officer’s scroll.
Page 3 of 15
The account was falsely shown as closed by making fictitious entries
and remarks to that effect.
Thereafter, on 29.05.1981, despite the earlier loan remaining
unpaid, accused Jena submitted another loan application for Rs.
7,000/-. The loan was processed and sanctioned under Loan Deposit
Account No. 271/81. Accused Mohanty scrutinized and processed the
documents and made entries in the ledger. He again fabricated entries
indicating repayment of Rs. 7,075/- and falsely marked the account as
closed. No supporting credit vouchers or corresponding entries in
official records were available, and even the officer’s signature
appearing in the ledger was found to be forged.
Subsequently, on 17.06.1981, accused Jena applied for a third
loan of Rs. 5,000/- despite the outstanding liabilities under the
previous loans. In furtherance of the conspiracy, accused Mohanty
processed the application, filled in all necessary documents, and
facilitated sanction of the loan under Loan Deposit Account No.
289/81. He made entries in the ledger showing fictitious repayment of
Rs. 5,024/- and falsely recorded closure of the account on 27.07.1981
without any supporting documents such as credit vouchers or
authenticated entries.
Page 4 of 15
It is further alleged that in all the above transactions, accused
Mohanty deliberately omitted to follow prescribed banking
procedures, fabricated ledger entries, forged authentication, and
falsely showed repayment of loans in order to facilitate repeated
sanction of loans to accused Jena. As a result, accused Jena was able
to avail three loans amounting to Rs. 19,000/- without actual
repayment of earlier dues.
Finally, on 08.09.1981, accused Jena withdrew a sum of Rs.
11,375/- from the said Adarsh Deposit Account by way of a debit slip,
thereby causing wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding
wrongful gain to himself and to accused Mohanty. It is alleged that
out of the total amount, accused Mohanty derived pecuniary
advantage to the extent of Rs. 12,008.80, while the remaining amount
benefited accused Jena.
Thus, the prosecution alleged that both the accused persons, in
furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, dishonestly induced the bank
authorities to sanction and disburse loans on false representations,
falsified bank records, and misappropriated funds, thereby
committing offences punishable under the relevant provisions of law.
Page 5 of 15
4. The prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses and exhibited
51 documents in support of its case, while the defence has not
examined any witness. Among the prosecution witnesses, P.W.1,
D.A. Rego, is the competent authority who accorded sanction for
prosecution and was authorized to remove accused S.K. Mohanty
from service. P.W.10 was the Investigating Officer, and P.W.9 was
the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents. P.W.3 was a
witness in whose presence the specimen signatures of accused S.K.
Mohanty were obtained, whereas P.W.7, S.K. Sarangi, was a witness
to the specimen signatures of accused Sasanka Sekhar Jena. P.W.5,
R.K. Ramchandran, submitted an enquiry report as directed by his
employer. P.Ws.2 and 6 have proved the admitted writings of accused
S.K. Mohanty. The material witnesses in the case were P.W.4, who
was the Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank at the relevant time, and
P.W.8, who was serving as the Manager of the said Bank.
Judgment of the learned trial Court
5. The learned trial Court, upon a meticulous analysis of the oral
and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, came to hold
that the charges against the present appellant stood proved beyond all
Page 6 of 15
reasonable doubt. While arriving at such conclusion, the learned
Court below observed as follows:-
“8. It is contended for the defence that the voucher
bundles are not exhaustive and some vouchers
might be missing, but the evidence shows that the
bundles are exhaustive and the vouchers of the
accused persons are not there. If the accused
persons had actually deposited the amounts such
vouchers could have been available in the bank, but
those are not available and so it cannot be said that
the amounts had been deposited. Thus, there is
ample documentary evidence supported by the
evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 8 to show that accused S.K.
Mohanty has committed an offence under Section
5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act punishable under section
5(2) of the said Act, and he has also committed an
offence under Section 477-A I.P.C. With regard to
the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C., as already
stated, there is no evidence of agreement between
both the accused persons, So charge under Section
120-B I.P.C. fails. Further there is no inducement to
part with any property and so the charge under
Section 420 I.P.C. also does not stand. Accordingly,
accused S.S. Jena is acquitted of both the charges
and accused. S.K. Mohanty is acquitted of the
charges under Sections 120-B I.P.C. and 420
I.P.C”
In view of the aforesaid findings, while the co-accused,
Sasanka Sekhar Jena, was acquitted of all the charges, the present
appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 5(1)(d) read
with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section
477-A of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has
been preferred by the appellant.
Page 7 of 15
Submissions on Behalf of Appellant
6. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
strenuously contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated
and that the prosecution has failed to establish his involvement in the
alleged offences. It was further submitted that the very foundation of
the prosecution case stands weakened inasmuch as the co-accused, to
whom the alleged pecuniary benefit was said to have accrued, has
already been acquitted of all the charges by the learned trial Court. In
such circumstances, it was argued that the allegation of wrongful gain
and the consequential liability fastened upon the present appellant
cannot be sustained in the eye of law. On that premise, it was urged
that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of all the charges.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent
7. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent-CBI submitted
that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar does not suffer from any
illegality or infirmity and is based on a proper appreciation of both
oral and documentary evidence on record. It was contended that the
prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses and proved fifty-
Page 8 of 15
one documents, which, taken cumulatively, establish the guilt of the
appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.
8. It was submitted that P.W.4 and P.W.8, being responsible
officers of the Syndicate Bank at the relevant time, have categorically
deposed regarding the manner in which the appellant, while
functioning in the Loans and Deposits Section, made false and
fictitious entries in the loan ledgers to show repayment of earlier
loans, thereby facilitating sanction of subsequent loans. Their
evidence is consistent, cogent and inspires full confidence. The said
oral testimony stands amply corroborated by the documentary
evidence, particularly the loan ledgers, debit slips and the
conspicuous absence of corresponding entries in the cash scrolls and
voucher bundles, clearly demonstrating that no actual deposits were
made and that the entries were fabricated by the appellant.
Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution case is
reinforced by the scientific evidence of P.W.9, the handwriting
expert, who has opined that the questioned writings appearing in the
incriminating documents are in the handwriting of the appellant. This
evidence conclusively establishes the direct involvement of the
appellant in making the false entries.
Page 9 of 15
9. It was also argued that the motive and mens rea of the appellant
are clearly established from the evidence on record, inasmuch as the
beneficiary of the fraudulent transactions was none other than his
close relative, namely his brother-in-law. The appellant, being a
public servant, abused his official position to confer pecuniary
advantage upon said person, thereby causing wrongful loss to the
bank.
Learned counsel further submitted that the sanction for
prosecution has been validly accorded by the competent authority
after due application of mind, and no infirmity whatsoever can be
attributed to the same. The defence has failed to rebut the prosecution
evidence and has merely taken a plea of denial without offering any
plausible explanation regarding the absence of supporting vouchers
for the alleged repayments.
10. It was emphatically contended that the acquittal of the co-
accused does not, in any manner, dilute the prosecution case against
the present appellant, inasmuch as the charges under Section 5(1)(d)
read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and
Section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code are founded on independent
and direct evidence against the appellant.
Page 10 of 15
On the aforesaid grounds, it was urged that the appeal, being
devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence be affirmed.
Reasons and conclusion recorded by this Court
11. At the outset, it is evident that the prosecution has been able to
establish, through consistent and reliable evidence, that the appellant,
while acting in his capacity as a public servant, made false entries in
the official records of the bank. The testimonies of P.W.4 and P.W.8,
who were responsible bank officials at the relevant time, clearly
demonstrate that the entries showing repayment of loan amounts were
fictitious and were not supported by any corresponding vouchers or
entries in the cash scrolls. Their evidence has remained unshaken in
cross-examination and is duly corroborated by the documentary
evidence on record.
Further, the expert opinion of the handwriting examiner
(P.W.9) lends strong corroboration to the prosecution case by
conclusively establishing that the questioned entries were made by the
appellant himself. This scientific evidence removes any doubt
regarding the authorship of the incriminating entries.
Page 11 of 15
12. The contention of the appellant that the acquittal of the co-
accused entitles him to acquittal cannot be accepted. The offences for
which the appellant has been convicted are based on his individual
acts of falsification of accounts and abuse of official position. The
evidence against him is direct and independent, and does not hinge
upon proof of conspiracy.
13. This Court also finds that the sanction for prosecution has been
validly accorded by the competent authority after due application of
mind, and no prejudice has been caused to the appellant on that score
too. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the
prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt and that the learned trial Court has rightly
appreciated the evidence on record. The findings recorded by the
learned trial Court are well-reasoned and do not call for any
interference.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 29.06.1991 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar
in T.R. Case No. 1/84 is hereby affirmed.
Page 12 of 15
On question of Sentence
14. At this stage, Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel,
submitted that the incident dates back to the year 1981-1982. At that
time, the appellant was aged about 30 years and, as such, he is now
more than 74 years old. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court
in Abdul Hamid v. State of Orissa1, he contended that in a similar
case involving an aged offender under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, this Court had extended the benefit of the proviso to Section 5(2)
of the un-amended Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said
proviso empowers the sentencing Court to reduce the sentence below
the prescribed minimum of one year upon recording special reasons.
In the said decision, it was held thus:
“15. Regard being had to the fact that the appellant is more
than 80 years of age, I am inclined to accept the submission
made by Ms. Dei, learned Amicus Curiae. The proviso to
Section 5(2) of the un-amended Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 empowers the sentencing Court to reduce the sentence
below the minimum sentence of one year by recording sufficient
reasons. The provision reads as under:-
“5. Criminal misconduct in discharge of official duty- (1) A
public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
misconduct:-
(a) XXX XXX XXX
(b) XXX XXX XXX
(c) XXX XXX XXX
(d) XXX XXX XXX
1
CRA No.150 of 1992
Page 13 of 15
(e) XXX XXX XXX
(2) Any public servant, who commits criminal misconduct shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than one year but which may extend to seven years and
shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the court may, for any special reasons recorded
in writing impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one
year.”
16. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction recorded
against appellant, the sentence awarded by the learned trial
Court for the reasons stated above is liable to be varied.
Sentence order passed by the trial Court is accordingly
modified and the appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I. of one
week with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of making the payment,
the appellant shall undergo further R.I. for two days.”
15. Therefore, considering the submission advanced by the learned
Senior Counsel and having regard to the fact that the occurrence
relates back to the year 1981-1982 and the appellant, who was aged
about 30 years at the time of the incident, is now more than 74 years
of age, this Court finds force in the plea for reduction of sentence.
This Court also takes note of the ratio laid down in Abdul Hamid
(supra) wherein, in similar circumstances involving an aged convict
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the benefit of the proviso to
Section 5(2) of the un-amended Act was extended by reducing the
sentence below the statutory minimum upon recording special
reasons.
16. Thus, while maintaining the conviction recorded against the
appellant, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court is modified
Page 14 of 15
in exercise of the power under the proviso to Section 5(2) of the un-
amended Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In view of the
advanced age of the appellant and the long lapse of time since the
occurrence, this Court deems it just and proper to sentence the
appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one week
and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand) for offence
U/s.5(2) of the P.C. Act. In default of payment of fine, the appellant
shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
days. However, no separate sentence is awarded for offence U/s.477-
A of I.P.C.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 30th Day of April 2026/Swarna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of orissa
Date: 01-May-2026 17:06:10
Page 15 of 15
[ad_1]
Source link
