Krishna Kumar Kedia vs. Union Of India

2025 INSC 608
NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 280 of 2019
KRISHNA KUMAR KEDIA …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DIRECTOR, CBI …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J .
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment
and order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Patna whereby appeal filed by
the Appellant against the order of conviction and
sentence dated 26.06.2015 by the Learned Special
Judge CBI-II, Patna stands dismissed. The Appellant
herein was convicted under Section 407, 420, 465,
471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.04.30
18:22:43 IST
Reason:
as “IPC”) and punished for sentences for the said
1 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of


offences to run concurrently with fine and default
stipulations in following manner: -

2. The facts in brief leading to the registration of a case
against the Appellant was a complaint lodged by the
Executive Engineer, Saharsa Division stating therein
that a supply order no. 413(E) dated 17.01.1994 has
been placed for supply of 1091.95 MT of Bulk
Bitumen valued at INR 54,07,920/- (Rupees Fifty-
Four Lakhs, Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and
Twenty Only) which, as a matter of fact, was forged
and without proper sanction, delivery of which was
taken by M/s Cosmo Transport from Indian Oil
Corporation (IOC), Haldia and was required to be
delivered to the Road Construction Department
(RCD), Saharsa Division but was not so delivered.
2 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of


3. The said complaint was registered as PS Case No.
291/96 leading to the investigation wherein four
persons were identified/arrayed as accused. Krishna
Kumar Kedia, proprietor of M/s Cosmo Transport,
the Appellant herein was the main accused and
Maheshwari Prasad, Panchu Mahto and Bhagwan
Prasad Poddar were accused no. 2, 3 and 4
respectively. It would not be out of way to mention
here that Panchu Mahto (Accused No. 3) was the
officer who managed things and passed the working
order nominating M/s Cosmo Transport for
transportation of the aforesaid Bulk Bitumen
whereas Bhagwan Prasad Poddar (Accused No. 4)
was an Executive Engineer and the informant of
Saharsa PS Case No. 291/26. Maheshwari Prasad
was a person who according to the prosecution had
prepared, forged and fabricated documents at the
instance of Krishna Kumar Kedia, the proprietor of
M/s Cosmo Transport, who was the mastermind and
main accused in the misappropriation of the entire
quantity of Bulk Bitumen.
4. During the course of trial, Panchu Mahto (Accused
No. 3) and Bhagwan Prasad Poddar (Accused No. 4)
3 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of


died leading to the dropping of the proceedings
against them. Accused No. 2, Maheshwari Prasad
was granted pardon and turned approver who
appeared as PW-5. Appellant was thus, the only
person who faced the trial wherein he was held guilty
of having committed offences under Section 407,
420, 465, 471 of IPC.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has
referred to the evidence of the witnesses and
thereafter put forth the following submissions:
i) There is no evidence on record to show that the
wrongful gain has been obtained by the Appellant
and corresponding wrongful loss has been caused
to the State of Bihar. The ingredients of the
offences for which the Appellants has been
convicted have not been proved rather the
evidence does not support the same. No loss has
been caused to the Government Exchequer as the
same has not been proved by the prosecution.
ii) The mere statement of Maheshwari Prasad, (PW-
5) accused turned approver with regard to the
forged and fabricated documents which contains
his signatures as has been stated by him cannot
4 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of


be relied upon. Merely because the alleged person
Mr. MP Sinha, the Executive Engineer had denied
his signatures would not be enough. No
independent witness has been produced such as
handwriting expert, nor has any report been
placed on record which would establish the
signatures to be not that of the person concerned.
iii) The evidence which has been produced, by the
prosecution fails to establish that the Appellant
had any knowledge or belief with regard to the
documents being forged which were being used for
lifting the Bulk Bitumen from the Indian Oil
Corporation, Haldia.
iv) Similarly, nothing has come on record which
would establish that there was forgery and
unauthorized order for supply of Bulk Bitumen at
the end of the department without there being any
demand.
v) The Indian Oil Corporation does not allow lifting
of Bulk Bitumen without proper authorization and
in any case after the lifting of the consignment the
same was delivered at the godown at Saharsa with
the receipt having been issued on the Consignee
Receipt Certificate (CRC).
5 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of



6. Prayer has thus been made for setting aside the
conviction and sentence and acquitting the Appellant
of the charges by allowing the present appeal.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for Appellant in alternatively
prayed that a lenient view may be taken in terms of
sentence, in case the conviction is upheld. She
contends that the alleged occurrence in the present
case is of 1993-94 i.e. more than 30 years old and the
present case has caused tremendous mental agony
to the Petitioner for the last more than the 25 years.
The Appellant is 71 years old infirm person suffering
from various old age ailments. He had already
undergone more than 1 year and 6 months of actual
custody period at the time of grant of bail by this
Court.
8. On the other hand, Learned Additional Solicitor
General, appearing for the State has supported the
judgement of High Court. His submissions are as
follows: -
(i) while referring to the evidence as led by the
prosecution and submitted that during the course of
6 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of


investigation it transpired that at the instance of the
Appellant, an Order was created to be placed for
supply of Bulk Bitumen by forging the signatures of
Mr. MP Sinha, Executive Engineer of Saharsa
Division.
(ii) The Appellant authorized two of his office
employees namely Ashish Maity (PW-13) and Sudip
Chakrawarti (PW-25) to lift the consignment of Bulk
Bitumen from Indian Oil Corporation at Haldia.
These persons appeared in Court and proved the
factum of receipt of Bitumen from the Indian Oil
Corporation at Haldia, which was sent to Alampur,
Kolkata. They also proved the signatures on the
authorization letter issued and signed by the
Appellant in their presence.
(iii) Maheshwari Prasad who was initially an
accused but had turned approver, appeared as PW-5
and admitted that he had affixed forged signatures of
Mr. MP Sinha, Executive Engineer, Saharsa Division
on the authority letter on various Consignee Receipt
Certificate (CRC) on the instructions of the Appellant
for which he was paid. The factum of the forged
signatures on the orders for supply of Bulk Bitumen
7 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of


has also been established on the admission of this
witness.
(iv) Apart from that, it is asserted that the
signatures on the Orders placed for Bulk Bitumen
were of Panchu Mahto, Director, Purchase and
Transport, Head Office, RCD, Patna and Bhagwan
Prasad Poddar, Executive Engineer, RCD, Saharsa
Division, arrayed as Accused No. 3 and 4
respectively, stands established on the basis of the
evidence led by the prosecution, which factum in any
case is not disputed as it is admitted case of the
Appellant that it is on the basis of those orders that
the delivery of the consignment was taken. Prayer
has thus been made for dismissal of the appeal as
being devoid of merit.
9. After hearing the submission of both the parties, the
contention of the Counsel for the Appellant cannot be
accepted in the light of the fact that the author of the
document Maheshwari Prasad, the approver (PW-5)
himself has acknowledged the said fact that he had
forged the signatures of Mr. MP Sinha, the Executive
Engineer at the behest of the Appellant and further
the person who is alleged to have signed the said
8 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of


document has denied the signatures of being his. No
dent has been created in the cross-examination with
regard to the evidence led by the prosecution.
10. The case of the prosecution rests not only upon the
evidence of Maheshwari Prasad, the accused turned
approver who had forged and fabricated the
documents on the asking of the appellant but also on
the documentary evidence produced to substantiate
the allegations apart from the oral evidence of the
witnesses. As many as 26 prosecution witnesses were
examined.
11. The case of the prosecution was that without there
being any demand for supply of Bulk Bitumen from
the Road Construction Department, Saharsa Division
to the Head Office, the Head Office proceeded to issue
a supply order No. 413(E) dated 17.01.1994 which
was by Panchu Mahto (Accused No 3) since deceased.
It came to light that this order had been placed
without taking mandatory approval from the
Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department,
Saharsa Division. The order for transportation was
placed by the then Executive Engineer, Bhagwan
Prasad Poddar (Accused No. 3) since deceased with
9 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of


M/s Cosmo Transport. Not only was the said bulk
order placed but another authority letter no. 104,
Sahasra dated 19.04.1995 for release of 10% extra
Bulk Bitumen was also falsely created by means of
committing forgery.
12. Therefore, the Bulk Bitumen and the 10% extra
quantity thereof was lifted from Haldia delivery point
and the same was siphoned off illegally. The
documents which have been created as forged and
fabricated at the instance of the accused were signed
by Maheshwari Prasad. It has come in the evidence
as also in the documents produced that 20 forged
signatures of the Executive Engineer, Mr. MP Sinha,
were forged by Maheshwari Prasad which were duly
exhibited.
13. MP Sinha, Executive Engineer (PW-3) has appeared
and denied the signatures to be his on the said
documents and has positively stated that they do not
belong to him. With the author of the said signatures
(Maheshwari Prasad - PW5) having acknowledged the
said factum of forging signatures, the prosecution
had been successful in establishing the forgery at the
behest of the Appellant. In the cross-examination no
10 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of


dent has been created with regard to the evidence of
the witnesses.
14. Not only this, witnesses have been produced who
were employees/representatives of M/s Cosmo
Transport who have also acknowledged the fact that
they had received Bulk Bitumen from Haldia on
behalf of the M/s Cosmo Transport Company.
Manas Saha (PW-11), an employee of M/s Cosmo
Transport Company from 1984-95 stated that the
company was mainly engaged in transportation of
Bulk Bitumen. The Appellant had executed power of
attorney in his favour and on the basis thereof, he
used to go to the oil company wherefrom CRC,
delivery order was being issued. He had further
stated that he had gone with the supply order no.
413(E) dated 17.01.1994, RCD, Saharsa Division and
had lifted Bulk Bitumen in total quantity. Thereafter,
he sold it to factory located at Alampur, Kolkata on
the instruction of the Appellant. During cross-
examination he had stated that the aforesaid Bulk
Bitumen was sold in his presence.
15. It has also come in the evidence that after loading of
the Bulk Bitumen, on the directions of the Appellant
11 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of


the vehicles were being sent to Howrah as well as
Alampur which indicated that the Bulk Bitumen was
not sent to Saharsa Division where it was intended to
be delivered as per the order placed at Indian Oil
Corporation, Haldia. Ashish Maity (PW-13) had
stated that in the year 1993-94, he was
representative of M/s Cosmo Transport to receive
Bulk Bitumen from Haldia on behalf of M/s Cosmo

Transport. He further stated that after loading of bulk
bitumen, as per direction of the Appellant the vehicle
was being sent to Howrah as well as Alampur.
16. Sudip Chakarwarti (PW-25), had deposed that he had
worked under M/s Cosmo Transport from 1993-97.
Ashish Maity (PW-13) used to receive the bulk
bitumen on behalf of M/s Cosmo Transport. He used
to receive the same under authorization letter being
issued by the Appellant in favour of Ashish Maity and
Tapan Poddar. The authorization letter was exhibited
during Trial. He had further stated that after lifting
the bulk bitumen from Haldia, the same was sent to
Alampur, Kolkata.
17. The factum with regard to non-receipt of the Bulk
Bitumen at Saharsa Division has also been
12 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of


established from the evidence of the departmental
employees which include various Junior Engineers
who were working at the relevant time as also the
Assistant Engineers, who have all, on the basis of the
documentary evidence established non-receipt of any
Bulk Bitumen during the period when the Bulk
Bitumen delivery was taken from Haldia.
18. PW-6, PW-9 and PW-20 are Junior Engineers who
were posted at Saharsa Division during the relevant
time. They deposed that after receipt of bulk bitumen
the same is being entered in the stock register. The
stock register of all the junior engineers of different
sub-divisions happens to be independent. They had
further stated that they had not received bitumen in
pursuance of supply order no. 413(E) dated
17.01.1994 and also exhibited Stock Account
Register of their respective sub-divisions. There was
no entry inconsonance with supply order no. 413(E)
dated 17.01.1994 because of the fact that there was
no supply against the aforesaid order.
19. PW-7, PW-10, PW-17 and PW-18 had deposed that
they were Assistant Engineers at RCD, Saharsa
Division during relevant time and during their
13 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of


tenure, they had not received bulk bitumen relating
to supply order no. 413(E) dated 17.01.1994.
20. Similarly, evidence of the PW-14, PW-20, PW-22 who
were Executive Engineers as also the PW-2, PW-15,
the officials of the accounts branch has also come on
record which would indicate that there was no
demand for supply of Bulk Bitumen or that there was
even any requirement for the same.
21. All these aspects establish the fact with regard to
there being absence of any requirement, demand or
even delivery of Bulk Bitumen in pursuance to
unauthorized order no. 413(E) dated 17.01.1994 for
supply of Bulk Bitumen relating to Road
Construction Department, Saharsa Division.
22. Another aspect which comes to light is the statement
of the Appellant recorded under Section 313 of CrPC.
What is apparent from his statement on perusal
would be that the factum of an order being there for
supply of Bulk Bitumen which was made the basis
for receiving the supply product i.e. Bulk Bitumen
from Haldia by M/s Cosmo Transport stands
14 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of


admitted. Even the receipt of the full quantity of the
said Bulk Bitumen stands acknowledged.
23. What has been sought to be projected by the
Appellant is that the said Bulk Bitumen has been
duly supplied at Road Construction Department,
Saharsa Division. The evidence sought to be relied
upon by the Appellant is the Consignee Receipt
Certificates (CRCs), which, as per the evidence on
record, is a forged and fabricated document, created
at the behest of the Appellant and signed by
Maheshwari Prasad (PW-5), the approver. On the
basis of the above evidence, which has been led by
the prosecution, the courts below having considered
in detail the evidence have found the Appellant guilty
of the charges levelled against him leading to his
conviction and sentence. This is being sought to be
challenged in the present appeal which we found to
be without any basis.
24. As stated above, the non-receipt of Bulk Bitumen
stands established at the end of the Prosecution
leading to the guilt of the Appellant having been
established. No admissible evidence has been
produced by the Appellant in respect of due delivery
15 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of


of Bulk Bitumen to Road Construction Department,
Saharsa Division after having taken delivery of Bulk
Bitumen as per his own admitted case in his
statement under Section 313 CrPC.

25. Thus, all the offences as has been alleged to have
been committed by the Appellant stands established
and proved beyond doubt leaving no scope for any
interference.
26. The findings of the Trial Court and the High Court
with regard to conviction are affirmed.
27. As regards the quantum of punishment is concerned,
the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along
with a fine under Sections 407 and 420 of the IPC on
each count. In addition, the Appellant has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of two years along with a fine under Sections
465 and 471 of the IPC on each count. All the
sentences have been directed to run concurrently. As
per the record, the Appellant has already undergone
a period of 1 year and 6 months of the said sentences.
16 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of


28. The offences under which the Appellant is convicted
do not provide for any minimum imprisonment to be
imposed and the maximum imprisonment provided
under Section 407 and 420 IPC is seven years.

29. The records produced before this Court indicate that
the Appellant is a 71-year-old individual who is
afflicted with various age-related ailments. The
medical documentation further reveals that the
Appellant is a diabetic person and has a history of
having suffered three heart attacks. That apart, the
incident is of the year 1994 i.e. more than 30 years
old causing mental trauma and agony as faced by the
Appellant. All these factors in the facts and
circumstances of this case persuade us to take a
lenient view.
30. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the sentences
imposed under Section 407 and 420 of IPC be
reduced to 2 years and 6 months of rigorous
imprisonment from 5 years with fine and default
punishment unchanged as imposed on each count
and to run concurrently with other sentences. This
reduced sentence would meet the end of justice.
17 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of


31. It is reported that the appellant is on bail.
The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled and
he is directed to surrender within four weeks from
today to serve out the remaining
sentence, failing which, the concerned police
authorities shall take him into custody.
32. The present appeal is partly allowed in the above
terms.
33. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.



……...……….……………………..J.
[ B. R. GAVAI ]




……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]


NEW DELHI;
APRIL 30, 2025


18 18
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 Page of