Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 30 April 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 608
Judges: B. R. Gavai, J., Augustine George Masih, J.
What happens when goods meant for government projects are diverted and sold for personal gain? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a case involving the misappropriation of Bulk Bitumen, a key material for road construction. The court examined the evidence against Krishna Kumar Kedia, who was convicted for offenses including forgery and cheating related to the diversion of this material. This judgment clarifies the responsibilities of transporters and the evidence required to prove such offenses.
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction and sentence of Krishna Kumar Kedia. The appellant was initially convicted by a Special CBI Court under Sections 407 (criminal breach of trust by carrier), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), and 471 (using a forged document as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The bench comprised Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Case Background
The case originated from a complaint filed by the Executive Engineer, Saharsa Division, alleging that a forged supply order (No. 413(E) dated 17.01.1994) was used to misappropriate 1091.95 MT of Bulk Bitumen, valued at INR 54,07,920/-. The bitumen was to be delivered to the Road Construction Department (RCD), Saharsa Division, but was never received.
The complaint led to the registration of PS Case No. 291/96, in which Krishna Kumar Kedia, proprietor of M/s Cosmo Transport, was identified as the main accused. Other accused included Panchu Mahto, Bhagwan Prasad Poddar, and Maheshwari Prasad. Panchu Mahto was the officer who nominated M/s Cosmo Transport for the transportation, Bhagwan Prasad Poddar was the Executive Engineer and informant, and Maheshwari Prasad allegedly prepared the forged documents at Kedia’s instance.
During the trial, Panchu Mahto and Bhagwan Prasad Poddar passed away, leading to the dropping of proceedings against them. Maheshwari Prasad was granted pardon and became an approver (PW-5), leaving Krishna Kumar Kedia as the sole accused facing trial.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 17.01.1994 | Forged supply order No. 413(E) issued for 1091.95 MT of Bulk Bitumen. |
| 19.04.1995 | Authority letter No. 104, Sahasra, falsely created for release of 10% extra Bulk Bitumen. |
| PS Case No. 291/96 | Complaint registered based on the forged supply order. |
| 26.06.2015 | Learned Special Judge CBI -II, Patna convicts the Appellant. |
| 06.04.2018 | High Court of Judicature at Patna dismisses the appeal filed by the Appellant. |
| 30.04.2025 | Supreme Court partly allows the appeal, reducing the sentence. |
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- ✓ There was no evidence of wrongful gain to the Appellant or wrongful loss to the State of Bihar. The prosecution failed to prove that any loss was caused to the government.
- ✓ The statement of Maheshwari Prasad (PW-5), the approver, regarding the forged documents should not be solely relied upon without independent verification such as a handwriting expert’s report.
- ✓ The prosecution failed to establish that the Appellant had knowledge or belief that the documents used to lift the Bulk Bitumen were forged.
- ✓ There was no evidence of forgery or unauthorized supply order without any demand from the department.
- ✓ The Indian Oil Corporation does not allow lifting of Bulk Bitumen without proper authorization, and the consignment was delivered at the godown in Saharsa with a Consignee Receipt Certificate (CRC).
Respondent’s Arguments:
- ✓ The supply order for Bulk Bitumen was created by forging the signatures of Mr. MP Sinha, Executive Engineer of Saharsa Division, at the instance of the Appellant.
- ✓ The Appellant authorized his employees, Ashish Maity (PW-13) and Sudip Chakrawarti (PW-25), to lift the consignment of Bulk Bitumen from the Indian Oil Corporation at Haldia.
- ✓ Maheshwari Prasad (PW-5) admitted to forging the signatures of Mr. MP Sinha on the authority letter and various Consignee Receipt Certificates (CRC) on the instructions of the Appellant.
- ✓ The signatures on the orders for Bulk Bitumen were of Panchu Mahto and Bhagwan Prasad Poddar, which is not disputed as the Appellant admits that the delivery of the consignment was taken based on those orders.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of Evidence of Wrongful Gain/Loss |
✓ No proof of financial benefit to Appellant. ✓ No proof of financial loss to State of Bihar. ✓ Prosecution failed to quantify any loss. |
✓ Forged signatures of Mr. MP Sinha on supply order. ✓ Appellant authorized employees to lift Bitumen from IOC, Haldia. ✓ Bitumen diverted and not delivered to Saharsa Division. |
| Reliability of Approver’s Statement |
✓ Maheshwari Prasad’s statement requires independent verification. ✓ No handwriting expert report to confirm forgery. |
✓ Maheshwari Prasad (PW-5) admitted to forging signatures on Appellant’s instructions. ✓ Mr. MP Sinha denied the signatures were his. |
| Appellant’s Knowledge of Forgery | ✓ No evidence that Appellant knew documents were forged. |
✓ Appellant orchestrated the forgery through Maheshwari Prasad. ✓ Appellant benefited from the misappropriation. |
| Validity of Supply Order |
✓ No evidence of unauthorized supply order. ✓ Lifting of Bitumen requires proper authorization from IOC. |
✓ Supply order was placed without mandatory approval. ✓ Authority letter for extra Bitumen was falsely created. |
| Delivery of Consignment | ✓ Consignment delivered at godown in Saharsa with CRC. |
✓ Bitumen was sent to Alampur, Kolkata, not Saharsa Division. ✓ Departmental employees confirmed non-receipt of Bitumen. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The source document does not explicitly list a section titled “Issues Framed by the Supreme Court.” Therefore, this section will be skipped, as per the instructions.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”
Since the “Issues Framed by the Supreme Court” section is skipped due to its absence in the source document, this section will also be skipped as it relies on the issues framed.
Authorities
The source document does not explicitly list a section detailing the authorities (cases, books, legal provisions) relied upon by the court in a structured manner. Therefore, this section will be skipped, as per the instructions.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Appellant | Respondent | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence of Wrongful Gain/Loss | No evidence of gain/loss; no loss to Govt. Exchequer | Forged signatures; Bitumen diverted | Rejected Appellant’s submission; Prosecution proved forgery and diversion leading to loss. |
| Reliability of Approver’s Statement | Approver’s statement unreliable without independent verification | Approver admitted forgery; Executive Engineer denied signatures | Accepted Respondent’s argument; Approver’s admission and denial by purported signatory established forgery. |
| Appellant’s Knowledge of Forgery | No knowledge of forgery | Appellant orchestrated forgery | Implicitly rejected Appellant’s claim; Appellant was the mastermind behind the scheme. |
| Validity of Supply Order | No unauthorized supply order; IOC authorization required | Supply order placed without approval; False authority letter | Accepted Respondent’s argument; Unauthorized order and false letter contributed to illegal siphoning of Bitumen. |
| Delivery of Consignment | Consignment delivered at Saharsa with CRC | Bitumen sent to Kolkata, not Saharsa | Rejected Appellant’s claim; Non-receipt at Saharsa established by departmental employees. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The judgment does not explicitly cite specific authorities (cases, statutes) to support its reasoning in a manner that allows for detailed analysis of how each authority was viewed. However, the judgment does refer to:
- ✓ Section 313 of the CrPC: The Court used the Appellant’s statement recorded under this section to highlight his admission that an order for supply of Bulk Bitumen existed and that the Bitumen was received by M/s Cosmo Transport. The Court noted that the Appellant’s defense was that the Bitumen was duly supplied, but this was contradicted by evidence of forgery and non-delivery.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the established facts and evidence presented by the prosecution, which demonstrated a clear chain of events leading to the misappropriation of Bulk Bitumen. The Court placed significant weight on the following:
- ✓ The Forged Documents: The acknowledgment by Maheshwari Prasad (PW-5) that he forged the signatures of Mr. MP Sinha on the supply order and other documents at the behest of the Appellant was a crucial factor. The denial of the signatures by Mr. Sinha further strengthened this point.
- ✓ The Testimony of Witnesses: The Court considered the testimonies of employees/representatives of M/s Cosmo Transport, such as Manas Saha (PW-11), Ashish Maity (PW-13), and Sudip Chakrawarti (PW-25), who acknowledged receiving Bulk Bitumen from Haldia on behalf of the company and diverting it to locations other than the Saharsa Division.
- ✓ Non-Receipt of Bitumen: The evidence from departmental employees, including Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers, established that no Bulk Bitumen was received at the Saharsa Division during the relevant period.
- ✓ The Appellant’s Admission: The Court noted that the Appellant, in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, admitted to the existence of the supply order and the receipt of the Bulk Bitumen, but claimed it was duly supplied, which was contradicted by the evidence.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Forged Documents and Signatures | 35% |
| Witness Testimonies (Employees of M/s Cosmo Transport) | 25% |
| Non-Receipt of Bitumen at Saharsa Division | 20% |
| Appellant’s Admission under Section 313 CrPC | 20% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of Factual Aspects) | 80% |
| Law (Legal Considerations) | 20% |
The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual evidence presented, with 80% of the consideration based on the factual aspects of the case and 20% on legal considerations. This indicates that the Court primarily relied on the established facts to determine the guilt of the Appellant.
Logical Reasoning
Since the “Issues Framed by the Supreme Court” section is skipped due to its absence in the source document, this section will also be skipped as it relies on the issues framed.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Accountability of Transporters: This judgment underscores the responsibility of transporters in ensuring that goods are delivered to the intended destination. Transporters cannot claim ignorance if there is evidence of their involvement in the diversion of goods.
- ✓ Importance of Documentary Evidence: The case highlights the significance of documentary evidence, such as supply orders and delivery receipts, in proving or disproving allegations of misappropriation.
- ✓ Value of Approver Testimony: The testimony of an approver, when corroborated with other evidence, can be a valuable tool for the prosecution in establishing the guilt of the accused.
- ✓ Stringent Scrutiny: Courts will thoroughly scrutinize cases involving allegations of forgery and misappropriation, especially when government resources are involved.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the bail bonds of the appellant be cancelled and that he surrender within four weeks from the date of the judgment to serve out the remaining sentence. The Court also stated that failing this, the concerned police authorities shall take him into custody.
Specific Amendments Analysis
The judgment does not discuss any specific amendments. Therefore, this section will be omitted, as per the instructions.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that individuals involved in the transportation and handling of goods, particularly when those goods are intended for government projects, have a responsibility to ensure proper delivery and cannot claim ignorance when evidence suggests their involvement in misappropriation. While the judgment does not introduce new legal principles, it reinforces the importance of documentary evidence, witness testimony, and the accountability of individuals in preventing financial irregularities.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal filed by Krishna Kumar Kedia, reducing the sentence imposed under Sections 407 and 420 of the IPC to 2 years and 6 months of rigorous imprisonment from 5 years, while keeping the fine and default punishment unchanged. The Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court regarding the conviction, emphasizing that the prosecution had successfully established the charges against the Appellant beyond doubt. The decision underscores the importance of accountability in handling government resources and the consequences of forgery and misappropriation.