Krishna Kumar Kedia v. Union of India

Read Judgment: https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/orsz/

Citation: 2025 INSC 608
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: B.R. Gavai, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Date of Judgment: April 30, 2025
Parties: Krishna Kumar Kedia v. Union of India, through Director, CBI

Penal Code, 1860, Sections 407, 420, 465, 471 – Forgery and Misappropriation – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Reduced.

Appellant, proprietor of M/s Cosmo Transport, convicted for forging supply order and misappropriating 1091.95 MT of Bulk Bitumen valued at INR 54,07,920 meant for Road Construction Department, Saharsa Division – Forged documents created at appellant’s behest, bitumen diverted to Kolkata instead of Saharsa – Prosecution evidence, including testimony of approver and company employees, established guilt beyond doubt – No evidence of delivery to intended recipient – Conviction under Sections 407, 420, 465, and 471 IPC affirmed by Supreme Court – Considering appellant’s age (71), health issues, and 30-year-old incident, sentence under Sections 407 and 420 IPC reduced from 5 years to 2 years 6 months rigorous imprisonment, with fines unchanged – Sentences to run concurrently – Appellant directed to surrender within four weeks.

Background

The case originated from a complaint by the Executive Engineer, Saharsa Division, alleging that a forged supply order (No. 413(E) dated 17.01.1994) for 1091.95 MT of Bulk Bitumen worth INR 54,07,920 was used to lift the consignment from Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), Haldia. The bitumen, meant for delivery to the Road Construction Department (RCD), Saharsa Division, was not delivered. Krishna Kumar Kedia, the appellant, was accused of orchestrating the forgery and misappropriation, with co-accused Maheshwari Prasad (forged documents), Panchu Mahto (issued unauthorized order), and Bhagwan Prasad Poddar (Executive Engineer). The latter two died during the trial, and Maheshwari Prasad turned approver.

Procedural History

• Trial Court: The Special Judge CBI-II, Patna, convicted Kedia on 26.06.2015 under Sections 407 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), and 471 (using forged documents) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Sentences included 5 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) each for Sections 407 and 420, and 2 years RI each for Sections 465 and 471, with fines and default imprisonment, to run concurrently.
• High Court: The Patna High Court dismissed Kedia’s appeal on 06.04.2018, upholding the conviction and sentence.
• Supreme Court: Kedia appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the conviction and alternatively seeking leniency in sentencing.

Issues

1. Whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt under Sections 407, 420, 465, and 471 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the sentence imposed was proportionate, considering the appellant’s age, health, and the age of the case.

Arguments

• Appellant:
  • No evidence of wrongful gain to Kedia or loss to the State.
  • Testimony of Maheshwari Prasad (PW-5, approver) unreliable without corroboration from a handwriting expert.
  • No proof that Kedia knew the documents were forged or that the supply order was unauthorized.
  • Bitumen was delivered to Saharsa, as evidenced by Consignee Receipt Certificates (CRCs).
  • Alternatively, sought leniency due to the 30-year-old incident, Kedia’s age (71), health issues (diabetes, heart attacks), and 1.5 years already served.
• Respondent:
  • Forgery established by Maheshwari Prasad’s testimony (admitted forging signatures of Executive Engineer MP Sinha at Kedia’s behest) and MP Sinha’s denial of signatures.
  • Employees of M/s Cosmo Transport (PW-13, PW-25) confirmed lifting bitumen from Haldia and diverting it to Alampur, Kolkata, on Kedia’s instructions.
  • No demand for bitumen existed; the supply order was unauthorized, lacking approval from the Engineer-in-Chief.
  • Non-delivery to Saharsa Division corroborated by departmental witnesses (Junior and Assistant Engineers) and stock registers showing no receipt.

Judgment

• Conviction: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Sections 407, 420, 465, and 471 IPC. Key findings:
  • Maheshwari Prasad’s testimony, corroborated by MP Sinha’s denial and documentary evidence, established forgery of 20 signatures and unauthorized orders.
  • Employees’ testimonies (PW-11, PW-13, PW-25) confirmed Kedia authorized lifting and diversion of bitumen to Kolkata, not Saharsa.
  • Departmental witnesses (PW-6, PW-9, PW-20, etc.) and stock registers confirmed non-delivery to Saharsa.
  • Kedia’s Section 313 CrPC statement admitted receiving the bitumen, but his claim of delivery via CRCs was rejected as CRCs were forged.
  • Prosecution evidence, including 26 witnesses and documents, proved guilt beyond doubt.
• Sentence: The Court reduced the sentence under Sections 407 and 420 IPC from 5 years to 2 years 6 months RI, with fines and default terms unchanged, to run concurrently with other sentences (2 years RI each for Sections 465 and 471). Factors for leniency:
  • Appellant’s age (71) and health issues (diabetes, three heart attacks).
  • Incident dated back to 1994, causing prolonged mental agony.
  • 1 year 6 months already served.
• Orders: Bail bonds cancelled; Kedia directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence, failing which police to take him into custody.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed Kedia’s guilt in the forgery and misappropriation scheme but reduced the sentence, balancing justice with humanitarian considerations. The appeal was partly allowed to the extent of the sentence modification.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. Under which sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was Krishna Kumar Kedia convicted?
   a) Sections 406, 419, 464, 470
   b) Sections 407, 420, 465, 471
   c) Sections 408, 421, 466, 472
   d) Sections 405, 418, 463, 469
   Answer: b) Sections 407, 420, 465, 471
2. What was the primary allegation against Krishna Kumar Kedia in the case?
   a) Embezzlement of government funds
   b) Forging a supply order and misappropriating Bulk Bitumen
   c) Bribery of government officials
   d) Tax evasion through fraudulent documents
   Answer: b) Forging a supply order and misappropriating Bulk Bitumen
3. What was the original sentence under Sections 407 and 420 IPC imposed by the Trial Court?
   a) 7 years rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 50,000 fine each
   b) 5 years rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 25,000 fine each
   c) 3 years rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 10,000 fine each
   d) 2 years rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 5,000 fine each
   Answer: b) 5 years rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 25,000 fine each
4. Why did the Supreme Court reduce the sentence under Sections 407 and 420 IPC?
   a) Lack of sufficient evidence
   b) Appellant’s age, health issues, and the 30-year-old incident
   c) Procedural errors in the trial
   d) New evidence presented during the appeal
   Answer: b) Appellant’s age, health issues, and the 30-year-old incident
5. What was the role of Maheshwari Prasad in the case?
   a) He was the main accused and convicted
   b) He was a co-accused who turned approver and testified against Kedia
   c) He was the Executive Engineer who filed the complaint
   d) He was a prosecution witness from Indian Oil Corporation
   Answer: b) He was a co-accused who turned approver and testified against Kedia
6. What evidence confirmed the non-delivery of Bulk Bitumen to Saharsa Division?
   a) Stock registers and testimonies of Junior and Assistant Engineers
   b) Handwriting expert reports
   c) Consignee Receipt Certificates (CRCs)
   d) Indian Oil Corporation’s delivery logs
   Answer: a) Stock registers and testimonies of Junior and Assistant Engineers
7. What action was ordered for the appellant after the Supreme Court’s judgment?
   a) Immediate acquittal and release
   b) Surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence
   c) Payment of additional fines without imprisonment
   d) Retrial due to insufficient evidence
   Answer: b) Surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What was the main issue in Krishna Kumar Kedia v. Union of India?
   The case centered on whether Krishna Kumar Kedia, proprietor of M/s Cosmo Transport, was guilty of forging a supply order and misappropriating 1091.95 MT of Bulk Bitumen meant for the Road Construction Department, Saharsa Division, and whether the imposed sentence was proportionate given his age and health.
2. What crimes was Krishna Kumar Kedia convicted of?
   Kedia was convicted under Sections 407 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), and 471 (using forged documents as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. What was the forged document in the case?
   The forged document was a supply order (No. 413(E) dated 17.01.1994) for 1091.95 MT of Bulk Bitumen, created without proper authorization. Additionally, an authority letter for 10% extra bitumen and Consignee Receipt Certificates (CRCs) were forged, bearing the signatures of Executive Engineer MP Sinha.
4. Who provided key testimony against Kedia?
   Maheshwari Prasad, a co-accused who turned approver (PW-5), admitted to forging MP Sinha’s signatures on documents at Kedia’s behest. Employees of M/s Cosmo Transport (PW-11, PW-13, PW-25) also testified about lifting and diverting the bitumen to Kolkata.
5. Why was the bitumen not delivered to Saharsa Division?
   The bitumen was diverted to Alampur and Howrah in Kolkata, as instructed by Kedia, instead of being delivered to the Road Construction Department, Saharsa Division, as required by the supply order.
6. How did the Supreme Court modify the sentence?
   The Supreme Court reduced the sentence under Sections 407 and 420 IPC from 5 years to 2 years 6 months of rigorous imprisonment, with fines unchanged, citing Kedia’s age (71), health issues (diabetes, heart attacks), and the 30-year-old nature of the incident. Sentences under Sections 465 and 471 (2 years each) remained unchanged, all to run concurrently.
7. What was the Supreme Court’s reasoning for upholding the conviction?
   The conviction was upheld due to robust prosecution evidence, including Maheshwari Prasad’s testimony, MP Sinha’s denial of signatures, employee testimonies confirming diversion, and departmental records showing non-delivery. The forged CRCs relied upon by Kedia were dismissed as fabricated.
8. What happened to the other accused in the case?
   Panchu Mahto and Bhagwan Prasad Poddar, co-accused, died during the trial, leading to the dropping of proceedings against them. Maheshwari Prasad was granted pardon and became an approver, testifying against Kedia.
9. What was the value of the misappropriated Bulk Bitumen?
   The Bulk Bitumen was valued at INR 54,07,920 (Rupees Fifty-Four Lakhs, Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty).
10. What was the final order regarding Kedia’s bail?
    The Supreme Court cancelled Kedia’s bail bonds and directed him to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence, failing which the police were to take him into custody.