Bangalore District Court
In Sri.Ramesh Keshav vs Central Bureau Of on 13 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XLVII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE FOR
C.B.I. CASES (CCH-48), BENGALURU
Dated this the 13th day of May 2016
Present: SRI.ASWATHA NARAYANA, B.Sc., LL.M.,
XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
CRIMINAL APPEAL
Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
APPELLANT IN Sri.Ramesh Keshav,
CRIMINAL APPEAL S/o.Late Sri.Keshav,
NO.396/2012 Aged about 59 years,
(Accused-4 before Residing at No.438,
Trial Court): 1st & 3rd Block East,
19th Main, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru-560 011.
As per Charge Sheet:
Sri.Keshav Hegde,
S/o.Sri.Sudarshan Hegde,
Consultant-K.R.Associates,
No.121/1, 1st Main,
2nd Stage, West of Chord Road,
Mahalakshmipuram
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.R.Vidyasagar,
Advocate.)
APPELLANTS IN 1. Sri.S.Shashidhar,
CRIMINAL APPEAL S/o.Sri.N.Shivashankar,
NO.463/2012 Aged about 49 years,
(Accused-1 & 2 Residing at No.136/1,
before Trial Court): Ground Floor, 1st Main,
2 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
8th Cross, Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru-560 018.
2. Sri.C.Ganesh,
S/o.Late Sri.M.Chandra-
shekaraiah,
Aged 46 years,
Residing at No.127,
"Rudra Krupa",
First Floor, 4th Cross,
1st 'N' Block, Rajajinagara,
Bengaluru-560 010.
(By Sri.R.B.Sadasivappa,
Advocate.)
-Vs-
RESPONDENT Central Bureau of
IN BOTH THE Investigation,
CRIMINAL APPEALS: Bank Security & Fraud Cell,
(Complainant before Trial Gangenahalli Main Road,
Court): Bengaluru-560 032.
(By Public Prosecutor.)
COMMON JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NOs.396/2012 & 463/2012
These 2 Appeals are filed against the Judgment of
Conviction and Sentence passed by the XVII Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Special Court for CBI
Cases, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Trial Court') in
C.C.No.17181/2009 on 30.06.2012 convicting and
sentencing the Accused-1 and 2 for the offence punishable
under Sections 420 r/w. 120-B and 120-B of the Indian
3 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'), the Accused-4 for
the offence punishable under Section 120-B, 419, 420,
467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
2. As the Respondent in these 2 Appeals is one and
the same person, as these 2 Appeals are from a common
Judgment passed by the Trial Court, as the evidence relied
upon by both the parties is one and the same in these
Appeals and as the contentions of all the parties of these
Appeals are similar, for the sake of convenience, these
Appeals are taken together for disposal through a Common
Judgment.
3. The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.396/2012
was the Accused-4 and the Appellants-1 and 2 in Criminal
Appeal No.463/2012 were the Accused-1 and 2
respectively in C.C.No.17181/2009 before the Trial Court.
The Respondent of these 2 Appeals was the Complainant in
C.C.No.17181/2009 before the Trial Court. For the sake of
convenience, parties of these Appeals are referred to as
per their rank before the Trial Court.
4. Before the Trial Court, the Complainant filed
Charge Sheet alleging that the Accused-1 to 5, Late
Sri.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai entered into
Criminal Conspiracy during 2004-2005 to Cheat the Indian
Overseas Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru (for
short, 'the Bank') by availing Liqui-rent Loan from the
Bank by committing forgery, using forged and fake
4 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
documents and also cheating by personation and that in
pursuance of the said Criminal Conspiracy, the Accused-1
to 5 and Late Sri.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai
committed all those illegal acts and that they caused
wrongful loss of Rs.613.29 Lakhs to the Bank and
corresponding wrongful gain for themselves and that
thereby, the Accused-1 to 5 have committed an offence
punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 419, 467, 468 and
471 of the IPC, the Accused-1 and 2 have committed an
offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and that
the Accused-3 to 5 have committed an offence punishable
under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
5. After furnishing Copies of Charge Sheet to the
Accused-1 to 5 and after hearing both the sides before
framing Charge, the Trial Court framed Charge against the
Accused-1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Sections
120-B r/w. 467, 468, 471, 419 and 420 of the IPC, against
the Accused-1 and 2 for the offence punishable under
Sections 420 r/w. 120-B of the IPC and against the
Accused-3 to 5 for the offence punishable under Sections
419 r/w. 120-B and Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the
IPC. When the said Charge was read over and explained to
the Accused-1 to 5, they did not plead guilty and claimed
trial.
6. During trial before the Trial Court, the
Complainant got examined 44 Witnesses as P.W.1 to
5 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
P.W.44 and got marked 280 Documents as Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.280 on his behalf. With that evidence, the
Complainant closed his side. On examination of the
Accused-1 to 5 under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.), the Accused-1
to 5 denied all the incriminating evidence placed against
them. They closed their side without examining any
witnesses and without producing any documents on their
behalf.
7. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the
Trial Court passed Judgment on 30.06.2012 convicting and
sentencing the Accused-1 to 5 as under:
1. For the offence punishable under Section
420 r/w. 120-B of the IPC, the Accused-1
and 2 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment
for a period of 1 year and pay a fine of
Rs.500/- each and undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of 3 months in
default to pay fine amount;
2. For the offence punishable under Section
120-B of the IPC, the Accused-1 and 2 shall
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period
of 1 year and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each
and undergo Simple Imprisonment for a
period of 3 months in default to pay fine
amount;
6 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
3. For the offence punishable under Section
419 of the IPC, the Accused-3 to 5 shall
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period
of 1 year and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each
and undergo Simple Imprisonment for a
period of 3 months in default to pay fine
amount;
4. For the offence punishable under Section
420 of the IPC, the Accused-3 to 5 shall
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period
of 1 year and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each
and undergo Simple Imprisonment for a
period of 3 months in default to pay fine
amount;
5. For the offence punishable under Section
467 of the IPC, the Accused-3 to 5 shall
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period
of 3 years and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each
and undergo Simple Imprisonment for a
period of 3 months in default to pay fine
amount;
6. For the offence punishable under Section
468 of the IPC, the Accused-3 to 5 shall
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period
of 1 year and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each
and undergo Simple Imprisonment for a
7 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
period of 3 months in default to pay fine
amount.
7. For the offence punishable under Section
471 of the IPC, the Accused-3 to 5 shall
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period
of 1 year and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each
and undergo Simple Imprisonment for a
period of 3 months in default to pay fine
amount.
8. For the offence punishable under Section
120-B of the IPC, the Accused-3 to 5 shall
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period
of 1 year and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each
and undergo Simple Imprisonment for a
period of 3 months in default to pay fine
amount.
8. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction and
sentence, the Accused-1, 2 and 4 have filed these Appeals.
9. Sum and substance of the grounds urged by the
Accused-1 and 2 in their Appeals are as follows:
The Judgment and sentence are erroneous and
unsustainable both in law and on facts. The Trial Court
has failed to note that the Accused-1 and 2 are quite
innocent, not guilty of the offences alleged against them,
there was no Complaint against them and that their names
have not figured in the FIR. The Trial Court has failed to
8 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
note that the Accused-1 and 2 have neither purchased the
property nor sold the property and that in no way, they
have committed the offence punishable under Sections 420
r/w. 120-B of the IPC. The Trial Court has failed to note
that the Accused-1 and 2 were the employees of
M/s.R.J.Agro Private Limited and that on the instructions of
their Superior Officers, they have signed on Sale Deeds-
Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 as witnesses and that they are
nothing to do with the contents of those documents or
financial transactions between the Vendor and the
Purchaser. The Trial Court has failed to note that the
partners of M/s.R.J.Agro Private Limited committed suicide
by leaving Death Note-Ex.P.223 stating that except them,
none is responsible. The Trial Court has failed to note that
as the Accused-1 and 2 have not committed forgery,
neither Section 420 of the IPC nor Section 120-B of the
IPC attracts and as such, conviction of the Accused-1 and
2 for those offences is wholly erroneous. The Trial Court
has failed to appreciate that the evidence of P.W.1 to
P.W.44 and contents of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.280 do not implicate
the Accused-1 and 2. Sentence passed by the Trial Court
is excessive. The impugned Judgment and sentence are
otherwise also erroneous and liable to be set aside.
10. Sum and substance of the grounds urged by the
Accused-4 in his Appeal are as follows:
The Judgment of the Trial Court is an unreasoned
Judgment passed without considering and legally
9 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
appreciating the evidence on record. There is no evidence
placed by the Complainant against the Accused-4 for an
offence punishable under Section 467 of the IPC. In fact,
there is not even a factual basis for a Charge against the
Accused-4 for the said offence. The Complainant has
failed to prove that there was any benefit or gain to the
Accused-4, so as to record guilty of cheating punishable
under Section 420 of the IPC. So far as the Charge
regarding impersonation is concerned, the Trial Court has
not at all considered the Cross-examination of P.W.12,
which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Though there
is no admissible and acceptable evidence, the Trial Court
has committed error in convicting the Accused-4 for an
offence punishable under Section 419 of the IPC. The Trial
Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the
Investigating Officer has conducted a lopsided and
prejudiced investigation by leaving out 2 persons, though
investigation points out their direct involvement in the
crime. The Trial Court has erred in not complying the
dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the prosecution
must prove the Charge against the Accused beyond all
reasonable doubts. The Trial Court ought to have acquitted
the Accused-4 and hence, the Judgment of the Trial Court
is liable to be set aside.
11. Heard arguments of both the sides. Perused
records including the Written Arguments filed on behalf of
the Accused-4.
10 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
12. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Accused-1 and 2 has relied upon the following citations:
1. H.Siddiqui (dead) by Lrs. -Vs-
A.Ramalingam [2011 (3) SCJ 245];
2. Ajay Mitra -Vs- State of M.P. and
Others [2003 (2) Crimes 196 SC];
3. Anil Ritolla @ A.K.Ritolia -Vs- State
of Bihar and Another [2007 (4)
Crimes 44 SC];
4. Beni Chand -Vs- Kamla Kunwar
[AIR 1977 SC 63];
5. Smt.Hans Raji -Vs- Yosodanand
[AIR 1996 SC 761].
13. Sum and substance of the principles laid down in
the decisions of the above citations are as follows:-
Admitting one's signature on a document
does not amount to admitting contents of
the document. Admissibility of a document
or contents thereof may not necessarily lead
to draw any inference unless the contents
thereof have some probative value;
A guilty intention is an essential ingredient
of the offence of cheating. In other words,
'mens rea' on the part of the Accused must
be established before he can be convicted of
an offence of cheating;
It is well settled that in order to attract
Section 420 of the IPC, the allegations
contained in the Complaint Petition must,
prima facie, show inducement of the Accused
by making a representation;
By attestation is meant the signing of a
document to signify that the attestor is a
11 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
witness to the execution of the document
and an attesting witness is one who signs
the document in the presence of the
executant after seeing the execution of the
document or after receiving a personal
acknowledgement from the executant as
regards the execution of the document;
Sale Deed of Immovable property is not
required by law to be attested. It is not
necessary to examine the attesting
witnesses in proof of execution of the Sale
Deed.
14. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Accused-4 has relied upon the following citations:-
1. State (NCT of Delhi) -Vs- Navjot
Sandhu @ Afsan Guru [2005
SCC(Crl.)1715];
2. Amar Nath -Vs- State [1971
Crl.L.J.1335];
3. N.Mani -Vs- State by Deputy
Superintendent of Police
[Judgment in Criminal R.C.No.
532/2005, dated 26.07.2011 of
Madras High Court];
4. Venkatesha @ Chandra @ Kishna
-Vs- State [Judgment in Crl.Appeal
No.1407/2006 C/w. Criminal
Appeal No.1202/2006, dated
24.09.2010 of Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka];
5. Ravindra Alias Ravi Bansi Gohar
-Vs- State of Maharashtra and
Others [1998 SCC (Crl) 1527].
12 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
15. Sum and substance of the principles laid down in
the decisions of the above citations are as follows:-
The gist of the offence of Criminal
Conspiracy is an Agreement to break the
law. The parties to such an Agreement will
be guilty of Criminal Conspiracy, though the
illegal act agreed to be done has not been
done. The unlawful agreement and not its
accomplishment is the essence of the crime
of Conspiracy. If there is proof to the effect
that the Accused played a role, attended to
certain things or took steps consistent with
the common design underlying the
Conspiracy, that will go a long way in
establishing the complicity of the Accused,
though it is not a legal requirement that
Conspirator should do any particular act
beyond the agreement of Conspiracy;
In most cases, proof of Conspiracy is largely
inferential though the inference must be
founded on solid facts. Surrounding
circumstances and antecedent and
subsequent conduct, among other factors,
constitute relevant material;
A few bits here and a few bits there on which
the Prosecution relies cannot be held to be
adequate for connecting the accused in the
offence of Criminal Conspiracy. The
circumstances before, during and after the
occurrence can be proved to decide about
the complicity of the Accused;
Mere forging of body writing in any Cheque
belonging to other does not by itself make it
available for being used for the purpose of
cheating any one. Prosecution has to
establish that the signatures thereon had
been made by the Accused himself;
The expert evidence in every case must
receive conclusive corroboration from
circumstantial evidence. Wherever the
evidence combined unerringly points to the
direction of the guilt of a particular person
and when it is possible to determine that he
alone could have committed the forgery, only
13 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
then the offence defined by Section 463 of
the IPC can be held to have been proved.
The Prosecution has, therefore, to establish
that only the particular person charged with
having committed forgery has committed the
offence;
It is now well settled that normally,
identification of the Accused for the first
time before the Court without holding a test
identification parade by the Taluka Executive
Magistrate, would have no value and would
not prove the identity of the Accused.
However, where the Accused were known to
the victim or the victim had sufficient time
at the time of incident to gain the impression
about the personality and the identity of the
Accused and was able to depose about the
identification of the Accused before the
Court as the person who committed the
offence, in exceptional cases, holding of the
test identification parade can be dispensed
with.
16. Keeping in view the above principles of law, these
Appeals are dealt with.
17. On considering the rival contentions of the
parties, the Points that arise for determination in these
Appeals are as follows:
1. Whether the Trial Court has committed
error in holding that the Accused-1 and 2
Cheated the Bank, as appealed?
2. Whether the Trial Court has committed
error in holding that the Accused-4
committed Cheating by Personation in the
transactions relating to the Current Account
at Oriental Bank of Commerce, as
appealed?
14 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
3. Whether the Trial Court has committed
error in holding that the Accused-4
committed forgery, as appealed?
4. Whether the Trial Court has committed
error in holding that the Accused-4 used
forged documents as genuine documents
knowing to be forged documents, as
appealed?
5. Whether the Trial Court has committed
error in holding that the Accused-4 Cheated
the Bank, as appealed?
6. Whether the Trial Court has committed
error in holding that the Accused-1, 2 and 4
committed Criminal Conspiracy with the
Accused-3, 5, Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and
Late Sri.Rajesh Pai, as appealed?
7. Whether the Conviction and Sentence
passed by the Trial Court against the
Accused-1, 2 and 4 are illegal, as appealed?
8. What Order?
18. Findings of this Court on the above Points are as
follows:
Point No.1 : Negative;
Point No.2 : Affirmative;
Point No.3 : Negative;
Point No.4 : Affirmative;
Point No.5 : Negative;
Point No.6 : Affirmative, so far as the
Accused-1 & 2 are concerned;
15 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
Negative, so far as the
Accused-4 is concerned;
Point No.7 : Affirmative, so far as the Accused-
1 & 2 are concerned in respect of
offence punishable under Section
120-B & Section 420 of the IPC;
Affirmative, so far as the Accused-
4 is concerned in respect of the
offence punishable under Sections
420, 467 & 468 of the IPC;
Negative, so far as the Accused-4
is concerned in respect of the
offence punishable under Section
120-B, Section 419 & Section 471
of the IPC.
Point No.8 : See final portion of this Judgment.
REASONS
19. Before dealing with the Points considered for
determination, it is just and proper to have a glance
about the case against the Accused-3 and 5 in order
to understand the case against the Accused-1, 2 and
4. The evidence available on record shows that:
16 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late
Sri.Rajesh Pai were the Partners of the
Firm-M/s.R.J.Agro;
Those 2 persons, the Accused-3 and 5
entered into Criminal Conspiracy during the
year 2004 to Cheat the Bank to avail Liqui-
rent loan by way of Cheating by
Personation, Forgery and Using the Forged
Documents as genuine documents;
In pursuance of the said Criminal
Conspiracy, Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and
Late Sri.Rajesh Pai approached the Bank on
02.12.2004 for Liqui-rent loan against the
loan receivable from the properties situated
at 7th floor and 8th floor, HMG Ambassador,
Residency Road, Bengaluru, which were
proposed to be purchased from M/s.Tower
Land Developers Private Limited and
M/s.Panna Financial and Real Estate
Developers Private Limited, and submitted
false and forged documents to the Bank
and the Bank sanctioned loan of Rs.298.74
Lakhs in the name of Late Sri.U.Jeevanand
Kini and Rs.285 Lakhs in the name of Late
Sri.Rajesh Pai on 14.12.2004;
17 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
In furtherance of the said Conspiracy, the
Accused-3 committed cheating by
personation by executing Sale Deeds on
29.12.2004 in respect of the said
properties situated in 7th floor and 8th floor
in the name of Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini
and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai by personating as
"Kishore Budhrani, Authorized Signatory of
M/s.Tower Land Developers Private Limited
and M/s.Panna Financial and Real Estate
Developers Private Limited" and Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh
Pai submitted the said false and forged
Sale Deeds to the Bank as proof of
purchase of property;
In furtherance of the said Criminal
Conspiracy, the Accused-3 committed
cheating by personation by opening a
Current Account in the name of M/s.Tower
Land Developers Private Limited with
Oriental Bank of Commerce, Indira Nagara
Branch, Bengaluru, on 23.12.2004 by
personating as 'Kishore Budhrani, Director
of Tower Land Developers Private Limited
and he deposited Cheque of
Rs.1,15,00,000/- in that Account and
18 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
withdrawn the same by personating as
'Kishore Budhrani';
In furtherance of the said Criminal
Conspiracy, the Accused-3 and 5
committed cheating by personation by
opening a Current Account at State Bank of
Mysore, Cunningham Road, Bengaluru, in
the name of M/s.Panna Financial and Real
Estate Developers Private Limited on
18.12.2004 by personating as "Kishore
Budhrani and Goutham Budhrani, Directors
of the said Companies", and they deposited
Cheques of Rs.1,09,00,000/- and
Rs.1,46,20,000/- in that Account and the
same was withdrawn by the Accused-3 and
5 by personating as 'Kishore Budhrani and
Goutham Budhrani';
In pursuance of the said Criminal
Conspiracy, Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and
Late Sri.Rajesh Pai, the Accused-3 and 5
cheated the Bank causing loss to the tune
of Rs.613 Lakhs to the Bank and
corresponding wrongful gain for
themselves;
19 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
On 08.12.2006, Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini
and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai committed suicide
by leaving Death Note admitting their guilt.
By appreciating the said evidence available on record,
the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Accused-3
and 5 for the offence punishable under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. The
Accused-3 and 5 did not file any Appeal against the
said Judgment of conviction and sentence. On the
other hand, by accepting that Judgment, they suffered
punishment. Thus, case against the Accused-3 and 5
has reached its finality.
POINT-1
20. As observed above, it is settled now that the
Accused-3 committed Cheating by Personation by
personating as 'Kishore Budhrani', while executing the Sale
Deeds-Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 in favour of Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai in the Sub-
Registrar's Office and that he and Late Sri.U.Jeevanand
Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai forged those Sale Deeds. The
Accused-1 and 2 are the employees of Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai in the Firm-
M/s.R.J.Agro Private Limited. According to the
Complainant, the Accused-1 and 2 cheated the Bank by
signing as witnesses to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 and
20 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
identifying the Accused-3 as 'Kishore Budhrani' in the Sub-
Registrar's Office. In order to substantiate the said
contention, the Complainant has relied upon the evidence
of P.W.27, P.W.30 and P.W.44.
21. It is not in dispute that Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 were
executed on 29.12.2004. P.W.27 and P.W.30, who were
the Sub-Registrars, have deposed that the Accused-1 and
2 have signed as witnesses to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27.
P.W.44 is the Handwriting Expert. He has compared the
Specimen Signatures of the Accused-1 and 2 as per
Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38 with their signatures in Ex.P.15 and
Ex.P.27 and given his Opinion as per Ex.P.259 with
Reasons for his Opinion as per Ex.P.260. His evidence and
contents of Ex.P.259 and Ex.P.260 show that the Accused-
1 and 2 have signed as witnesses to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27,
which support the evidence of P.W.27 and P.W.30. Thus,
it is clear that the Accused-1 and 2 have signed on Ex.P.15
and Ex.P.27 as witnesses.
22. The Accused-1 and 2 have not disputed that they
have signed in Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 as witnesses. On the
other hand, in their Examination under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C., as well as while Cross-examining the material
witnesses, they have admitted that they are the witnesses
to those documents. It is their contention that as they
were working under Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late
Sri.Rajesh Pai, they have signed as witnesses in those Sale
Deeds as directed by Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late
21 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
Sri.Rajesh Pai. It is also their contention that except Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai, no other
person was present when they signed as witnesses to
those Sale Deeds and that they have not identified the
Accused-3 as 'Kishore Budhrani'. But, the evidence of
P.W.27 and P.W.30 shows that both purchasers and seller
were present in the Sub-Registrar's Office, when those
Sale Deeds were executed and registered in the presence
of the Accused-1 and 2. The evidence of P.W.27 and
P.W.30 as well as the recitals of Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 show
that the Accused-1 and 2 have identified the seller and
purchasers of the properties under those documents by
getting their signatures to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 as attesting
witnesses. This evidence negatives the contention of the
Accused-1 and 2 that except Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and
Late Sri.Rajesh Pai, who were the purchasers, no other
person was present at the time of execution of those Sale
Deeds.
23. As per Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 and the decision reported in AIR 1977 SC 63,
referred to above, an attesting witness is one who signs
the document in the presence of the executant after seeing
the execution of the document or after receiving a
personal acknowledgement from the executant as regards
the execution of the document. As the Accused-1 and 2
have signed Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 as attesting witnesses, it
is clear that they have personally seen execution of
Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 by the executant of those Sale Deeds.
22 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
As observed above, the Accused-3 has executed those
Sale Deeds by personating as 'Kishore Budhrani'. Hence, it
is clear that the Accused-1 and 2 have identified the
Accused-3 as 'Kishore Budhrani', when he executed
Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 in the Sub-Registrar's Office.
24. According to the Complainant, by falsely
identifying the Accused-3 as 'Kishore Budhrani' in Ex.P.15
and Ex.P.27, the Accused-1 and 2 have cheated the Bank.
According to the Complainant, cheating relating to this
case is deceiving the Bank and inducing the Bank to grant
Liqui-rent loan to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late
Sri.Rajesh Pai. Ex.P.11 shows that the Bank sanctioned
Liqui-rent loan to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late
Sri.Rajesh Pai on 14.12.2004 and that the loan amount
was disbursed to them on 29.12.2004 itself even before e
xecution of Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27. None of the witnesses
examined on behalf of the Complainant and none of the
documents relied upon by the Complainant show that the
Accused-1 and 2 had been to the Bank at any time,
participated in any of the process relating to sanction and
disbursal of the loan by the Bank to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand
Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai. There is nothing to show that
the Accused-1 and 2 in any manner deceived the Bank or
induced the Bank to sanction loan to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand
Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai. Though there is evidence to
show that the Accused-1 and 2 falsely identified as the
Accused-3 as 'Kishore Budhrani' on 29.12.2004 while
23 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
executing Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 i.e., after sanction and
disbursal of loan to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late
Sri.Rajesh Pai, there is no evidence to show that by
believing the said false identification by the Accused-1 and
2, the Bank sanctioned and disbursed loan to Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai. As Ex.P.15
and Ex.P.27 have come into existence subsequent to
sanction and disbursal of loan to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini
and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai, question of sanctioning and
disbursing loan by the Bank on the basis of Ex.P.15 and
Ex.P.27 does not arise. There is nothing to show on behalf
of the Complainant that the Bank has acted upon any of
the acts of the Accused-1 and 2 in identifying the Accused-
3 as 'Kishore Budhrani' in Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 to sanction
and disburse the loan to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and
Late Sri.Rajesh Pai and thereby the Bank was deceived.
There is also no evidence to show that with an intention to
deceive or cheat the Bank, the Accused-1 and 2 falsely
identified the Accused-3 as 'Kishore Budhrani' in Ex.P.15
and Ex.P.27. Under all these circumstances, it is not
possible to accept the bare contention of the Complainant
that the Accused-1 and 2 cheated the Bank by falsely
identifying the Accused-3 as 'Kishore Budhrani' in Ex.P.15
and Ex.P.27.
25. The Trial Court, though rightly held that the
Accused-1 and 2 have falsely identified the Accused-3 as
'Kishore Budhrani' in Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27, has not at all
24 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
considered any of the facts and circumstances, referred to
above, to show that the act of false identification by the
Accused-1 and 2 amounts to Cheating the Bank. The Trial
Court has not at all stated as to how and in what manner
the Accused-1 and 2 have Cheated the Bank. By relying
upon the Opinion of P.W.44 that Challans and Cheques-
Ex.P.86, Ex.P.87, Ex.P.89, Ex.P.90, Ex.P.119, Ex.P.123,
Ex.P.126, Ex.P.133 and Ex.P.134 are in the handwriting of
the Accused-2 and Ex.P.134-Cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- was
issued in the name of the Accused-2, the Trial Court has
jumped to a conclusion that the Accused-1 and 2 have
committed Cheating. The said Challans and Cheques are
nothing to do with sanction and disbursal of loan by the
Bank to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai.
There is nothing to show that the Accused-1 and 2 were
benefited in any manner through those Cheques and
Challans. As an employee of M/s.R.J.Agro Private Limited,
which belonged to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late
Sri.Rajesh Pai, the Accused-2 might have filled up the
Cheques and Challans in his official capacity and he might
have received Cheque-Ex.P.134 in his official capacity.
Hence, those Cheques and Challans do not throw any light
to show that the Accused-1 and 2 cheated the Bank in any
manner. Though there is no evidence at all to show that
the Accused-1 and 2 cheated the Bank in any manner or
the false identification of the Accused-1 and 2 in Ex.P.15
and Ex.P.27 deceived the Bank or induced the Bank to
sanction and disburse the loan to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand
25 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai and though there is no
evidence to show that the Accused-1 and 2 are benefited
in any manner from the loan granted by the Bank to Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai, the Trial
Court has committed error in holding that the Accused-1
and 2 Cheated the Bank. For all these reasons, this Point
is answered in the negative.
POINT-2
26. According to the Complainant, the Accused-4 is
'Keshav Hegde, S/o.Sri.Sudarshan Hegde, Consultant,
K.R.Associates, No.121/1, I Main, II Stage, West of Chord
Road, Mahalakshmipuram, Bengaluru'. P.W.42 has
collected documents relating to S.B.Account and Housing
Loan Account from P.W.23-Sri.Jojo Varghese and P.W.28-
Sri.Kuncheria Thomas, who were the Officers of Federal
Bank.
27. Ex.P.253 is the Account Opening Form relating to
S.B.Account No.17423 of Federal Bank of Rajajinagara
Branch. This document consists of Copy of PAN Card of
the Account Holder also. Ex.P.254 and Ex.P.255 are the
Challans and Ex.P.256 is the Accounts Extract pertaining to
that Account. As per these documents, Sri.Keshav Hegde
has opened that Account on 28.06.2004 and made
transactions in that Account. Ex.P.253 and Copy of PAN
Card show the Photo of the Accused-4. Contents of
Ex.P.253 and Ex.P.256 show the description of said
26 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
'Sri.Keshav Hegde', which fully tally with the description of
the Accused-4 as contended by the Complainant. This
circumstance and the Photos of the Accused-4 in Ex.P.253
and Copy of PAN Card fortify the contention of the
Complainant.
28. Ex.P.220 is the File relating to Housing Loan
Account of Sri.Keshav Hegde and his wife-Smt.Meena
K.Hegde with the same Federal Bank, Rajajinagara Branch.
This File consists of Loan Application Form with Photos of
the Accused-4 & his wife and Income Tax Returns.
Contents of these documents show that Sri.Keshav Hegde
and his wife-Smt.Meena K.Hegde applied to Federal Bank,
Rajajinagara Branch, for Housing Loan on 28.06.2004 by
submitting their Income Tax Returns. Description of
Sri.Keshav Hegde in those documents fully tally with the
description of the Accused-4 as contended by the
Complainant. This circumstance and Photos of the
Accused-4 and his wife in Ex.P.220 fortify the contention of
the Complainant that the Accused-4 is 'Keshav Hegde'.
29. In his Examination under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C., the Accused-4 has contended that he is not
'Keshav Hegde', he did not go to Federal Bank to open any
Account and that the Photographs are morphed and
misused. However, it is not his contention that the said
Photographs referred to in Ex.P.220, Ex.P.253 and PAN
Card are not his Photographs. It is not explained by the
Accused-4 as to how these Photographs are morphed and
27 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
misused. There is also no explanation from the Accused-4
as to how the Photographs went to Federal Bank, if at all
he did not open those Accounts. Though he has stated that
he is not 'Keshav Hegde', he has not stated as to what is
his actual name. However, he has taken a bald contention
that he is 'Ramesh Keshav, S/o.Late Sri.Keshav, Residing
at No.438, 1st & 3rd Block East, 19th Main, Jayanagara,
Bengaluru-11'. But, there is nothing to show that he is
'Ramesh Keshav' as contended by him. There is also no
explanation from the Accused-4 as to why the Federal
Bank Officers create such documents in the name of the
Accused-4 and his wife, if at all he had not opened such
S.B.Account and not taken Housing Loan. In the absence
of all these explanations and any material to show that the
Accused-4 is not 'Keshav Hegde' and that he is 'Ramesh
Keshav' as contended by him and in view of the contents
of Ex.P.220 and Ex.P.253 to Ex.P.256, it has to be inferred
that the Accused-4 is 'Keshav Hegde' as contended by the
Complainant and that he himself has opened S.B.Account
and that he has taken Housing Loan from Federal Bank,
Rajajinagara Branch, as contended by the Complainant.
30. According to the Complainant, the Accused-4
committed Cheating by Personation by personating as
'Goutham Budhrani' in the transactions relating to Current
Account No.1000425 at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New
Thippasandra Branch, Bengaluru. According to the
Complainant, the Accused-3 and 4 opened that Current
28 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
Account in the name of M/s.Tower Land Developers by
giving their names as 'Kishore Budhrani' and 'Goutham
Budhrani' respectively and they did transactions in those
names relating to that Current Account. As observed
above, the Accused-3 has been held guilty for such
Cheating by Personation and he has received punishment
for that offence without challenging the Judgment of the
Trial Court.
31. P.W.12-Smt.Nitya Rajesh was working as an
Officer in that Oriental Bank of Commerce, New
Thippasandra Branch, Bengaluru, from 2004 to 2007. She
has deposed that a Current Account was opened in the
name of M/s.Tower Land Developers Private Limited on
23.12.2004 by 'Kishore Budhrani' as Managing Director
and 'Goutham Budhrani' as Director of that Firm. She has
deposed that the Accused-3 and 4 had come on that day
to the Bank with an Application Form-Ex.P.79 to open that
Account. She has further deposed that Ex.P.80-Form
No.60, Ex.P.81-Income Tax Letter, Ex.P.82-Board Resolution
and Ex.P.83-Memorandum of Association and Articles of
Association were produced by them at the time of opening
of that Account. She has also deposed that Ex.P.102 is the
Specimen Signature Card containing Photographs of the
Accused-3 and 4. She has further deposed that she
verified the Introducer's Signature and that the Bank
Manager permitted to open the Account. She has further
deposed that the Accused-3 and 4 were in the Branch
Manager's Cabin and that she saw them at that time. She
29 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
has identified Ex.P.84 as the Account Extract pertaining to
that Account and Ex.P.85 as Pay-In-Slip regarding initial
deposit made by the Accused-3 and 4 while opening that
Account. She has further deposed that Ex.P.86, Ex.P.87,
Ex.P.89 and Ex.P.90 are the Pay-In-Slips and Ex.P.88,
Ex.P.91 to Ex.P.99 are the Cheques through which the
transactions are made in that Current Account. Contents of
Ex.P.79 and Ex.P.102 show that Current Account
No.1000425 was opened in the name of Tower Land
Developers Private Limited by Kishore Budhrani as
Managing Director and Goutham Budhrani as Director and
that there are Photos of the Accused-3 and 4 in the
Specimen Signature Card relating to that Account. Other
documents, referred to above, show the transactions made
in that Account in the names of Kishore Budhrani and
Goutham Budhrani. It is pertinent to observe here that
Cheque for Rs.40,000/- as per Ex.P.96 was issued in the
name of the Accused-4 and that he encashed that Cheque
through his personal S.B.Account, which is reflected in
Ex.P.256. As such, all these documents corroborate the
evidence of P.W.12, which also supports the contention of
the Complainant that the Accused-4 opened Current
Account along with the Accused-3 and that he made
transactions through that Account by personating as
'Goutham Budhrani'.
32. In the Cross-examination made on behalf of the
Accused-3, P.W.12 has stated that she saw the Accused-3
30 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
and 4 for the first time when they were present in the
Cabin of the Manager while opening the Account. She has
stated that thousands of people come to the Bank to open
the Account and that she cannot identify each one of them.
She has further deposed that she identified the Accused-3
and 4 before the Court based on the Photographs affixed in
Ex.P.102. To a question that, persons shown in Ex.P.102
had not come to the Bank at any time, she has stated that
the person, whose Photograph which is on the right side of
Ex.P.102 shown as 'Goutham Budhrani', was very much
present on that day. Said Photograph, referred to by
P.W.12 in Ex.P.102, is that of the Accused-4. From the
said answer of P.W.12, it is clear that P.W.12 is so
confident in identifying the Accused-4 as the person, who
had come to the Bank to open the Account by giving his
name as 'Goutham Budhrani'. This circumstance further
fortifies the contention of the Complainant that the
Accused-4 personated as 'Goutham Budhrani' in opening
the Current Account and doing the transactions in that
Account.
33. In the Cross-examination made on behalf of the
Accused-4, P.W.12 has stated that the Current Account
was opened in 10 to 15 minutes from the time the
customer came to the Branch, the coming of the customer
to open that Account was informed to her by the Branch
Manager and that when she entered the Cabin, the
Manager was sitting on the right side of the door and the
customer was sitting on the left side and that when the
31 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
Manager told her to open the Current Account, to say so, it
has taken 30 seconds and that after that, again she did not
go to the Cabin of the Manager. She has stated that she
identified the Accused-4 before the Court based on the
Photo shown to her as per Ex.P.102. On the basis of these
answers, the leaned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Accused-4 has contended that as P.W.12 has seen the
persons, who opened the account on that day, for only 10
to 15 minutes, it is impossible to remember them for
identifying them before the Court and that only on the
basis of Ex.P.102, she has said that the Accused-4 had
come to the Bank to open the Account. It is his further
argument that as P.W.12 has seen those persons for the
first time in the Bank, without the aid of Test Identification
Parade, her evidence cannot be accepted regarding
identification of the Accused-4. It is his further contention
that as the Investigating Officer has not conducted Test
Identification Parade, the evidence of P.W.12 cannot be
believed at any stretch of imagination. It is true that as
per the evidence of P.W.12, she saw the Accused-4 for the
first time when he had come to the Bank to open the
Account and that she has identified the Accused-4 before
the Court on the basis of Photo available in Ex.P.102. But,
it is not her evidence that only on the basis of Photo
available in Ex.P.102, she has identified the Accused-3 and
4. P.W.12 has processed the papers for opening that
Account. She has seen the Photos on that day along with
the Accused-3 and 4. As elicited in the Cross-examination
32 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
on behalf of the Accused-4, the Bank Manager had extra
interest in getting that Account opened as early as
possible. This answer shows that the Bank Manager had
special interest on the Accused-3 and 4. As P.W.12 has
seen the Accused-3 and 4 on that day along with their
Photos and as special treatment was given by the Bank
Manager to the Accused-3 and 4 while opening that
Account, as an Officer of the Bank, it is not difficult to
P.W.12 to remember and identify the Accused-3 and 4 as
she has processed the papers for opening the Account.
Under these circumstances, it is not fit to accept the bare
argument of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the Accused-4 that in the absence of Test Identification
Parade, the evidence of P.W.12 has to be rejected.
34. In the Cross-examination made on behalf of the
Accused-4, P.W.12 has stated that when she gave
evidence, P.W.10-Sri.Vasan was present in the court
premises. On the basis of this answer, it is the argument
of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Accused-4 that at the instance of P.W.10-Sri.Vasan, who
was the Manager of the Bank, P.W.12 has deposed falsely
against the Accused-4. But, P.W.12 has denied the
suggestions put to her in this regard on behalf of the
Accused-4. She has stood well in the test of Cross-
examination in this regard. P.W.10 was not in service
when P.W.12 gave her evidence. The evidence of P.W.10
does not show his special interest, if any, in this case and
33 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
any ill will against the Accused-3 and 4. His evidence also
does not show that he has influenced P.W.12 or any of the
witnesses relating to this case. Under these circumstances,
it is not fit to accept the bare argument of the learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused-4 that at the
influence of P.W.10, P.W.12 has given false evidence
against the Accused-4.
35. It is the explanation of the Accused-4 that he did
not go to the Oriental Bank of Commerce to open the
Current Account and that his Photo has been morphed and
misused. It is not explained by him as to by whom and
how his Photo has been morphed and misused. He has not
shown any basis for such morphing and misusing. There is
no acceptable evidence from him as to how his Photo went
to the Bank. There is also no explanation from him as to
why he received Cheque-Ex.P.96, which relates to the
Current Account, in his original name-Keshav Hegde and
that why he encashed that Cheque through his personal
S.B.Account. Absence of these explanations fortifies the
evidence of P.W.12, which supports the contention of the
Complainant. On considering the undisturbed evidence of
P.W.12, which is well supported by the documentary
evidence as observed above and in the absence of
acceptable evidence or explanation on behalf of the
Accused-4, it is crystal clear that the Accused-4 opened
Current Account by dishonestly concealing his real identity
and Personating as 'Goutham Budhrani' along with the
34 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
Accused-3 for wrongful gain, he and the Accused-4 made
transactions in that Current Account and that thereby
Cheated the Oriental Bank of Commerce by Personation.
36. By appreciating the evidence available on record
and considering all the circumstances, the Trial Court has
also come to the same conclusion that the Accused-4
personated as 'Goutham Budhrani', opened Current
Account along with the Accused-3 and that he has made
transactions in the name of 'Goutham Budhrani'. The Trial
Court has not committed any error in holding that the
Accused-4 committed Cheating by Personation by
personating as 'Goutham Budhrani' in the transactions
relating to Oriental Bank of Commerce. Accordingly, this
Point is answered in the affirmative.
POINT-3
37. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended
that the Accused-4 along with the Accused-3 committed
forgery by fabricating Ex.P.80-Form No.60, Ex.P.81-Letter
of Allotment of PAN Card, Ex.P.82-Resolution and Ex.P.83-
Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association for
the purpose of opening Current Account at Oriental Bank
of Commerce. In support of her argument, the learned
Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.34
and P.W.37.
35 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
38. P.W.34-Sri.Goutham Budhrani is one of the
Directors of M/s.Tower Land Developers Private Limited
and M/s.Panna Financial and Real Estate Developers
Private Limited. He has deposed that there is no person in
his family by name-Kishore Budhrani and that his Firms do
not have Account in any Banks at Bengaluru City. P.W.37-
Sri.Vasudev Narasingh Hegde is the Vice President of
Budhrani Groups, which own the Firms-M/s.Tower Land
Developers Private Limited and M/s.Panna Financial and
Real Estate Developers Private Limited. He has deposed
that he was looking after the Accounts and Finances of
those Companies. He has further deposed that there is no
person in the family of Budhrani by name-'Kishore
Budhrani' or any person by that name is in service. He has
further deposed that Ex.P.56, Ex.P.61 and Ex.P.62-Copies
of Minutes of Extraordinary General Meeting are forged
documents and that those documents were not issued by
his Company. He has also deposed that no such person by
name-'Kishore Budhrani' was in the Company nor there
was anybody authorized with that name. Though these 2
witnesses have not stated specifically that Ex.P.80 to
Ex.P.83 are forged, they have specifically stated that there
was no person by name 'Kishore Budhrani' and that their
Firms-M/s.Tower Land Developers Private Limited and
M/s.Panna Financial and Real Estate Developers Private
Limited had no Accounts in any Banks at Bengaluru City.
As observed above, the Accused-3 and 4 opened Current
Account at Oriental Bank of Commerce by personating as
36 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
'Kishore Budhrani' and 'Goutham Budhrani' and while
opening that Account, they have produced Ex.P.80 to
Ex.P.83, which indicate authorizing 'Kishore Budhrani' and
'Goutham Budhrani' to open and operate the said Current
Account. There is no explanation from the Accused-3 as
well as the Accused-4 as to how Ex.P.80 to Ex.P.83 came
to their hands. As the Accused-3 and 4 opened Current
Account by personating as 'Kishore Budhrani' and
'Goutham Budhrani' by producing Ex.P.80 to Ex.P.83 and
as the said 2 Firms-M/s.Tower Land Developers Private
Limited and M/s.Panna Financial and Real Estate
Developers Private Limited do not have any Account in any
of the Banks at Bengaluru City and as there was no such
person by name-'Kishore Budhrani' relating to those 2
Firms and as no such authorization was given to 'Kishore
Budhrani' and 'Goutham Budhrani' to open and operate the
Account, it has to be inferred that Ex.P.80 to Ex.P.83 are
false and forged documents.
39. Though the evidence on record indicates that
Ex.P.80 to Ex.P.83 are forged documents, there is no
evidence to show that the Accused-4 has forged those
documents. The evidence of P.W.34 and P.W.37 or that of
any other witnesses examined on behalf of the
Complainant do not show that the Accused-4 is responsible
for forgery of Ex.P.80 to Ex.P.83. Hence, it is not possible
to accept the bare argument of the learned Public
37 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
Prosecutor that the Accused-4 has forged Ex.P.80 to
Ex.P.83.
40. It is pertinent to observe here that it is not at all
the case of the Complainant in the Charge Sheet that the
Accused-4 forged Ex.P.80 to Ex.P.83. In fact, Charge is
also not framed by the Trial Court to the effect that the
Accused-4 has forged those documents. On the other
hand, the Charge framed by the Trial Court against the
Accused-4 is to the effect that he, the Accused-3 and 5
manipulated, forged and fabricated the property
documents i.e., Sale Deed dated 29.12.2004,
Encumbrance Certificate and Khatha Certificates relating to
property Nos.701 to 704 of 7th Floor, HMG Ambassador.
But, there is no evidence on behalf of the Complainant
against the Accused-4 in respect of the said Charge also.
Except opening the Current Account along with the
Accused-3 at Oriental Bank of Commerce by personating
as 'Kishore Budhrani' and 'Goutham Budhrani' and doing
transactions relating to that Current Account, the Accused-
4 has not done any act of forgery or creating false
documents relating to any other transactions pertaining to
this case. Hence, it is not fit to accept the allegation of
forgery made by the Complainant against the Accused-4.
41. At Para-50 and 51 of the Judgment of the Trial
Court, by observing that the Accused-3 to 5 prepared and
produced fabricated documents like Articles of Association
and Memorandum of Association and other documents,
38 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
which is nothing but forging or fabricating documents, the
Trial Court has held that the Accused-4 is guilty of forgery.
But, the Trial Court has not referred to any evidence
showing that the Accused-4 forged those documents. In
fact, the Trial Court itself has observed that there is no
direct evidence to show that those documents were forged
by the Accused. There is also no indirect evidence to infer
that the Accused-4 has forged those documents. Inspite
of the same, the Trial Court has held that the Accused-4 is
also responsible for forgery of those documents. The said
observation of the Trial Court is arbitrary and capricious as
it is not supported by any evidence. As such, there is error
on the part of the Trial Court in holding that the Accused-4
has committed forgery. For all these reasons, this Point is
answered in the negative.
POINT-4
42. As observed above, Ex.P.80 to Ex.P.83 are
forged documents. As observed above, the Accused-3 and
4 committed Cheating by Personation by opening Current
Account at Oriental Bank of Commerce in the name of
'Kishore Budhrani & Goutham Budhrani' by producing
Ex.P.80 to Ex.P.83. As the Accused-3 and 4 are not
'Kishore Budhrani' and 'Goutham Budhrani' as claimed by
them, while opening the said Current Account, they were
very well knowing that Ex.P.80 to Ex.P.83 do not pertain to
them and that they are forged documents. The Accused-3
and 4 used those forged documents as genuine documents
39 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
to open the Current Account in the Bank and to do
transactions by pretending as 'Kishore Budhrani' and
'Goutham Budhrani'. The evidence on record also shows
that they did transactions in those names through that
Account. As such, it is clear that knowing fully well that
Ex.P.80 to Ex.P.83 are forged documents, the Accused-3
and 4 fraudulently and dishonestly used those documents
as genuine documents for opening Account in the Bank
and to do transactions through that Account. By
appreciating the evidence available on record, the Trial
Court has also come to the same conclusion and it has not
committed any error in holding that the Accused-4 used
forged documents as genuine documents knowing fully
well that they are forged documents. For all these reasons,
this Point is answered in the affirmative.
POINT-5
43. According to the Complainant, the Accused-4
Cheated the Bank by causing wrongful loss to the Bank to
the tune of Rs.274 Lakhs by opening Current Account at
Oriental Bank of Commerce, Indiranagara Branch, in the
name of M/s.Tower Land Developers Private Limited by
personating himself as 'Goutham Budhrani' and
withdrawing the amount from that Account. Question of
Cheating by Personation relating to opening of Current
Account at Oriental Bank of Commerce and doing
transactions in that Current Account by the Accused-4, has
40 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
been dealt with under Point-2. Now, it has to be seen as
to whether the Accused-4 cheated the Bank i.e., Indian
Over Seas Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, to the tune of
Rs.274 Lakhs as alleged by the Complainant.
44. Cheating the Bank relating to this case, as
observed above, is deceiving the Bank and inducing the
Bank to grant and disburse Liqui-rent loan to Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai. As observed
above, the evidence on record shows that the Bank
sanctioned the said Liqui-rent loan to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand
Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai on 14.12.2004 and that the
loan amount was disbursed to them on 29.12.2004 itself
on the basis of the documents submitted by Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai.
45. The overt act done by the Accused-4 relating to
this case is opening of Current Account on 23.12.2004 by
him and the Accused-3 jointly at Oriental Bank of
Commerce, New Thippasandra Branch, in the name of
M/s.Tower Land Developers Private Limited by personating
as 'Goutham Budhrani' and withdrawing the amount from
that Current Account by personating as 'Goutham
Budhrani'. The evidence on record shows that Cheques-
Ex.P.25 for Rs.1,15,00,000/- and Ex.P.26 for
Rs.1,53,00,000/- given to the Accused-3 by the Bank on
29.12.2004 on behalf of Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and
Late Sri.Rajesh Pai, for having purchased the properties
41 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
under Sale Deeds-Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 out of the Liqui-
rent loan granted to them by the Bank, were deposited to
the said Current Account and that from that Current
Account, the Accused-4 has received Rs.40,000/- on
22.12.2004 through Cheque-Ex.P.127, Rs.80,000/- on
05.02.2005 through Cheque-Ex.P.129 and Rs.80,000/- on
27.06.2005 through Cheque-Ex.P.137 in his personal
name. The evidence of any of the witnesses examined on
behalf of the Complainant and contents of any of the
documents relied upon by the Complainant, do not show
that the Accused-4 had been to the Bank at any time,
participated in any of the process relating to sanctioning
and disbursing of the loan by the Bank to Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai. There is
nothing to show that the Accused-4 in any manner
deceived the Bank or induced the Bank to sanction loan to
Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai. Though
there is evidence to show that, on 23.12.2004, the
Accused-4 opened Current Account at Oriental Bank of
Commerce, New Thippasandra Branch, by personating as
'Goutham Budhrani', there is no evidence to show that by
believing or acting upon the said opening of Account by the
Accused-4, the Bank sanctioned and disbursed loan to Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai. Though there
is evidence to show that Cheques-Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.26
issued in the name of M/s.Tower Land Developers Private
Limited by the Bank to the Accused-3 on behalf of Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai, out of Liqui-
42 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
rent loan granted to them by the Bank were deposited in
the Current Account opened by the Accused-3 and 4 at
Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Thippasandra Branch,
there is nothing to show that due to deception or
inducement by the Accused-4 in any manner, the Bank
gave those Cheques to the Accused-3. There is also no
evidence to show that withdrawal of amount from that
Current Account by the Accused-4 deceived the Bank in
any manner. There is also nothing to show as to how the
Accused-4 is responsible for causing loss to the Bank to
the tune of Rs.274 Lakhs, which was the loan amount
granted to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh
Pai by the Bank. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show
that opening of Current Account at Oriental Bank of
Commerce, New Thippasandra Branch and doing
transactions in that Current Account by the Accused-4 by
personating as 'Goutham Budhrani' deceived or induced
the Bank i.e., Indian Over Seas Bank, Malleshwaram
Branch to sanction and disburse loan to Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai. Hence, it is
not possible to accept the bare contention of the
Complainant that the Accused-4 Cheated the Bank and
that he caused wrongful loss to the Bank to the tune of
Rs.274 Lakhs.
46. But, the Trial Court has totally ignored the above
facts and circumstances. On the other hand, on the ground
that the Accused-4 opened Current Account at Oriental
43 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
Bank of Commerce, New Thippasandra Branch and did
transactions in that Account by personating as 'Goutham
Budhrani', the Trial Court has jumped to the conclusion
that the Accused-4 Cheated the Indian Over Seas Bank,
Malleshwaram Branch. The Trial Court has not at all stated
as to how and in what manner the Accused-4 deceived the
Bank or responsible for inducing the Bank to grant and
disburse Liqui-rent loan to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and
Late Sri.Rajesh Pai. Thus, finding of the Trial Court that
the Accused-4 Cheated the Bank is perverse and
capricious. For all these reasons, this Point is answered in
the negative.
POINT-6
47. According to the Complainant, the Accused-1, 2
and 4 entered into an agreement with Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini, Late Sri.Rajesh Pai, the Accused-3
and the Accused-5 to Cheat the Bank and as such, they
are guilty of Criminal Conspiracy. As observed above, as
per the evidence available on record and the Judgment of
the Trial Court, which remained unchallenged by the
Accused-3 and 5, there was Criminal Conspiracy between
the Accused-3, 5, Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late
Sri.Rajesh Pai to Cheat the Bank and that in pursuance of
that Conspiracy, they Cheated the Bank. Now, it has to
be seen as to whether the Accused-1, 2 and 4 have also
taken part in that Criminal Conspiracy.
44 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
Conspiracy Relating To The Accused-1 & 2:
48. According to the Complainant, Cheating relating
to this case is deceiving the Bank and inducing the Bank
to grant and disburse Liqui-rent loan to Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai. As per the
case of the Complainant and the evidence available on
record, the only role played by the Accused-1 and 2
relating to this case is that they identified the Accused-3
as 'Kishore Budhrani' in the Sale Deeds-Ex.P.15 and
Ex.P.27 before the Sub-Registrar. As observed above, the
evidence on record does not show that the Accused-1 and
2 had been to the Bank at any time and that they had
participated in any of the process relating to sanction and
disbursal of loan by the Bank to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini
and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai. As observed above, there is
nothing on record to show that the Accused-1 and 2 in
any manner deceived the Bank or induced the Bank to
sanction or disburse the said Liqui-rent loan to Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai. There is
also no evidence to show that by believing or relying upon
the false identification of the Accused-3 by the Accused-1
and 2 relating to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 or any other acts of
the Accused-1 and 2, the Bank sanctioned or disbursed
loan to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai.
As observed above, there is also no evidence to show that
the Accused-1 and 2 had an intention to deceive or Cheat
the Bank while identifying the Accused-3 as 'Kishore
45 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
Budhrani' in Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27. There is nothing to
show on behalf of the Complainant that the Accused-1 and
2 had an occasion to discuss anything with Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini, Late Sri.Rajesh Pai and the Accused-
3 to 5 or with the Bank or its Officers, either before or
after sanction and disbursal of Liqui-rent loan by the Bank
to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai,
about any of the process relating to sanction and disbursal
of the loan by the Bank. There is also nothing to show
that the Accused-1 and 2 are benefited out of the said
sanction and disbursal of Liqui-rent loan by the Bank to
Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai. Except
the fact that the Accused-1 and 2 are the employees of
M/s.Agro Private Limited, which belonged to Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai, there is no
material to connect the Accused-1 and 2 with the acts of
the Accused-3 to 5, Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late
Sri.Rajesh Pai relating to Cheating the Bank. None of the
witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant has
whispered anything about the alleged agreement between
the Accused-1 and 2 with the Accused-3 to 5, Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai to Cheat the
Bank in any manner. On considering all these facts and
circumstances, it is clear that there is no evidence at all to
believe that the Accused-1 and 2 have participated in the
alleged Conspiracy as contended by the Complainant.
46 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
49. But, the Trial Court has held that participation of
the Accused-1 and 2 in this case establishes that they
have conspired with the remaining Accused and also with
Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai to Cheat
the Bank on the ground that intention of the Accused-1
and 2 in putting their signatures in Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27
was nothing but Criminal Conspiration with the remaining
Accused and that Challans and Cheques-Ex.P.86, Ex.P.87,
Ex.P.89, Ex.P.90, Ex.P.119, Ex.P.123, Ex.P.126, Ex.P.133
and Ex.P.134 are in the handwriting of the Accused-2 and
that Ex.P.134 indicates that some monetary benefit was
passed on to the Accused-2. As observed above, the said
Challans and Cheques are nothing to do with the sanction
and disbursal of the loan by the Bank to Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai and there is
nothing to show that the Accused-1 and 2 were benefited
in any manner through those Cheques and Challans. As
observed above, circumstances indicate that as an
employee of Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh
Pai, the Accused-2 might have filled up those Cheques and
Challans in his official capacity and that he might have
received Cheque-Ex.P.134 also in his official capacity. As
observed above, Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 have come into
existence after sanction and disbursal of loan by the Bank
and the Bank did not rely upon Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 to
sanction and disburse the loan. Without considering all
these facts and circumstances, the Trial Court has
straightaway jumped to the conclusion that the Accused-1
47 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
and 2 had an intention to Cheat the Bank and that
thereby, they have conspired with the other Accused by
putting their signatures to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27. There is
no evidence acceptable evidence at all to come to such a
conclusion and on the other hand, the facts and
circumstances narrated above negative the contention of
the Complainant. As such, the Trial Court has committed
error in holding that the Accused-1 and 2 participated in
the Criminal Conspiracy.
Conspiracy Relating To The Accused-4:
50. As observed above, the evidence on record
shows that the Accused-4 opened Current Account on
23.12.2004 at Oriental Bank of Commerce, New
Thippasandra Branch, Bengaluru, along with the Accused-
3 in the name of M/s.Tower Land Developers and that the
Accused-3 personated as 'Kishore Budhrani' and the
Accused-4 personated as 'Gowtham Budhrani' in respect
of that Account and they did transactions in those names
through that Account and that thereby, they have Cheated
by Personation. As observed above, the evidence on
record shows that the Accused-3 and 4 used forged
documents as genuine documents, knowing fully well that
those documents are forged documents, relating to the
transactions of that Current Account. As observed above,
the Accused-3 sold properties to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini
and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai on 29.12.2004 by executing Sale
48 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
Deeds-Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 by personating as 'Kishore
Budhrani' and towards the Sale Consideration, he received
Cheques-Ex.P.25 for Rs.1,15,00,000/- and Ex.P.26 for
Rs.1,53,00,000/- from the Bank by way of sanction of
Liqui-rent loan to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late
Sri.Rajesh Pai.
51. Ex.P.84 shows that the said Cheques were
credited to the Current Account opened by the Accused-3
and 4 at Oriental Bank of Commerce in the name of
M/s.Tower Land Developers on the same day and that
they have withdrawn the said amount subsequently by
way of issue of Cheques in the names of various persons
including in their real names. Ex.P.84 further shows that
prior to deposit of Sale Consideration, the Accused-3 and
4 have deposited Rs.25,000/- at the time of opening the
Account, deposited Rs.8,00,000/- on 27.12.2004 by
receiving Cheque from Late Sri.Jeevanand Kini (shown in
Ex.P.27) and deposited Rs.25,000/- on 29.12.2004 and
that they have withdrawn Rs.6,00,000/- on 29.12.2004
itself by issuing Cheque in the name of Suchithra
Properties. Except these transactions and the transactions
of withdrawal of Sale Consideration amount, the Accused-
3 and 4 have not done any other transactions in that
Current Account.
52. As the Accused-3 was not the owner of the
property purchased under Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.27 and as the
49 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
Accused-3 and 4 opened Current Account in the name of
M/s.Tower Land Developers Private Limited by way of
Cheating by Personation and as the Accused-3 and 4 have
no other transaction in that Current Account except
receiving Sale Consideration and withdrawing the said
amount subsequently, it is clear that the Accused-3 and 4
have opened that Current Account only for the purpose of
encashing Cheques given by the Bank by way of sanction
of Liqui-rent loan to Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late
Sri.Rajesh Pai.
53. As observed above, the Accused-4 has opened
S.B.Account on 28.06.2004 at Federal Bank. Ex.P.253-
Account Opening Form shows that Late Sri.Jeevanand Kini
has introduced the Accused-4 to the Bank for opening of
that Account. Ex.P.256-Accounts Statement shows that
Cheques-Ex.P.117, Ex.P.129 and Ex.P.137, which are
issued in the real name of the Accused-4 from that
Current Account relating to Oriental Bank of Commerce
opened by the Accused-3 and 4 through Cheating by
Personation, have been encashed by the Accused-4 in his
real name from his personal S.B.Account.
54. On considering all the above facts,
circumstances and the evidence, there is no doubt at all to
infer that the Accused-4 has shared his mind with the
Accused-3, 5, Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late
Sri.Rajesh Pai to Cheat the Bank and that in pursuance of
50 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
such sharing of his mind, he joined hands with the
Accused-3 openly to open a Current Account at Oriental
Bank of Commerce in the name of M/s.Tower Land
Developers by way of Cheating by Personation as well as
by using forged documents as genuine documents and
that the Accused-3 and 4 have withdrawn the Liqui-rent
loan amount sanctioned and disbursed in the name of Late
Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late Sri.Rajesh Pai. Hence, it is
clear that the Accused-4 is guilty of Criminal Conspiracy to
Cheat the Bank. By appreciating the evidence available
on record, the Trial Court has also rightly come to the
same conclusion and it has not committed any error in
coming to such conclusion.
55. From the above discussion, it is clear that
though the Trial Court has committed error in holding that
the Accused-1 and 2 have committed Criminal Conspiracy,
it has not committed any error in holding that the
Accused-4 has committed Criminal Conspiracy.
Accordingly, Point-6 is answered in the affirmative, so
far as the Accused-1 and 2 are concerned, and in the
negative, so far as the Accused-4 is concerned.
POINT-7
56. From the above findings, it is clear that the
Complainant has failed to prove that the Accused-1 and 2
have Cheated the Bank and that they have committed
Conspiracy as alleged. As such, they are not liable for
51 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
conviction for the offence punishable under Section 120-B
and Section 420 of the IPC. But, the Trial Court has
committed error in holding that the Accused-1 and 2 are
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 120-B and
Section 420 of the IPC, though there is no acceptable
evidence. Hence, conviction recorded and sentence
imposed by the Trial Court against the Accused-1 and 2
for the offence punishable under Section 120-B and
Section 420 of the IPC are illegal and unsustainable.
57. As observed above, the evidence on record
shows that the Accused-4 committed Criminal Conspiracy
with the Accused-3, 5, Late Sri.U.Jeevanand Kini and Late
Sri.Rajesh Pai to Cheat the Bank, he used the forged
documents as genuine documents knowing to be forged
documents and committed Cheating by Personation. As
such, he is guilty of the offence punishable under Section
120-B, Section 471 and Section 419 of the IPC. By
appreciating the evidence available on record, the Trial
Court has also come to the same conclusion and convicted
the Accused-4 for those offences. There is no illegality or
error on the part of the Trial Court in recording that
conviction. On considering that the Accused-4 is the first
offender, he has no criminal background, he was in
custody since long time, he was suffering from Diabetes
and Heart ailments and also the nature of offence
committed by him, the Trial Court has sentenced him to
undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay
52 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
fine of Rs.500/-, and to undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of 3 months in default to pay fine amount, for
each of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B,
471 and 419 of the IPC. The said sentence is not at all
harsh as contended by the Accused-4, when compared to
the nature, seriousness and gravity of the offences
committed by him. As such, there is no illegality or error
on the part of the Trial Court in imposing said sentence on
the Accused-4.
58. As observed above, the evidence on record and
findings show that the Complainant has failed to show
that the Accused-4 cheated the Bank and that he
committed forgery of the documents, much less valuable
securities. As such, it cannot be said that the Accused-4
has committed offence punishable under Sections 420,
467 and 468 of the IPC. But, the Trial Court has held that
the Accused is guilty of Cheating and Forgery, which are
punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC.
As observed above, the said finding of the Trial Court is
erroneous, arbitrary and perverse. As such, conviction
recorded and sentence imposed by the Trial Court against
the Accused-4 for the offence punishable under Sections
420, 467 and 468 of the IPC are illegal and unsustainable.
59. For all the above reasons, as the conviction and
sentence recorded against the Accused-1 and 2 by the
Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 120-B
and Section 420 of the IPC are illegal, Point-7 is answered
53 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
in the affirmative, so far as the Accused-1 and 2 are
concerned. Similarly, as the conviction and sentence
recorded by the Trial Court against the Accused-4 for the
offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of
the IPC are illegal, Point-7 is answered in the
affirmative, so far as the Accused-4 is concerned in
respect of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467
and 468 of the IPC. However, as the conviction and
sentence recorded by the Trial Court against the Accused-
4 for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, Section
419 and Section 471 of the IPC are sustainable and legal,
Point-7 is answered in the negative, so far as the
Accused-4 is concerned in respect of the offence
punishable under Section 120-B, Section 419 and Section
471 of the IPC.
POINT-8
60. In view of the above findings, the Appeal of the
Accused-1 and 2 is fit to be allowed, the Accused-1 and 2
are entitled for acquittal and consequently, the Judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is
liable to be set aside. So also, the Appeal of the Accused-4
filed in respect of the Judgment of conviction and
sentence recorded by the Trial Court, so far as the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC is
concerned, is fit to be allowed, the Accused-4 is entitled
for acquittal for those offences and the Judgment of the
Trial Court to that extent is liable to be set aside.
54 Common Judgment in Criminal
Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012
However, the Appeal of the Accused-4, so far as the
Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial
Court relating to the offence punishable under Section
120-B, Section 419 and Section 471 of the IPC is liable to
be dismissed. In the result, the following Order is passed:
ORDER
1. The Appeal of the Accused-1 and 2 filed in Criminal Appeal No.463/2012 is allowed. Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court on 30.06.2012 in C.C.No.17181/2009 against the Accused-1 and 2 is set aside, the Accused-1 and 2 are acquitted from the Charges of the offence punishable under Section 120-B and Section 420 of the IPC and they are set at liberty.
2. The Appeal of the Accused-4 in Criminal Appeal No.396/2012 filed in respect of the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court on 30.06.2012 in C.C.No.17181/2009 against the Accused-4 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC is allowed. The said part of the Judgment of the Trial Court is set aside. The Accused-4 is acquitted from the Charges for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC. He is set at liberty in respect of those Charges.
3. However, the Appeal of the Accused- 4 in Criminal Appeal No.396/2012 filed in respect of the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by 55 Common Judgment in Criminal Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012 the Trial Court on 30.06.2012 in C.C.No.17181/2009 against the Accused-4, so far as the offence punishable under Section 120-B, Section 419 and Section 471 of the IPC is concerned, is dismissed upholding the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in respect of those offences.
4. Send the records to the Trial Court along with copy of this Judgment.
5. Keep the original of this Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.396/2012 and Copy of this Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.463/2012.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 13th day of May 2016.) (ASWATHA NARAYANA) XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
56 Common Judgment in Criminal Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012 Common Judgment pronounced (vide separate Judgment consisting of 55 separate sheets) in Criminal Appeal Nos.463/2012 and 396/2012 and the following Order is passed:
ORDER
1. The Appeal of the Accused-1 and 2 filed in Criminal Appeal No.463/2012 is allowed. Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court on 30.06.2012 in C.C.No.17181/2009 against the Accused-1 and 2 is set aside, the Accused-1 and 2 are acquitted from the Charges of the offence punishable under Section 120-B and Section 420 of the IPC and they are set at liberty.
2. The Appeal of the Accused-4 in Criminal Appeal No.396/2012 filed in respect of the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court on 30.06.2012 in C.C.No.17181/2009 against the Accused- 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC is allowed. The said part of the Judgment of the Trial Court is set aside. The Accused-4 is acquitted from the Charges for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC. He is set at liberty in respect of those Charges.
3. However, the Appeal of the Accused-4 in Criminal Appeal No.396/2012 filed in respect of the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court on 30.06.2012 in C.C.No.17181/2009 against the Accused-4, so far as the 57 Common Judgment in Criminal Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012 offence punishable under Section 120-B, Section 419 and Section 471 of the IPC is concerned, is dismissed upholding the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in respect of those offences.
4. Send the records to the Trial Court along with copy of this Judgment.
5. Keep the original of this Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.396/2012 and Copy of this Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.463/2012.
(Computerized by Judgment Writer to my dictation).
(ASWATHA NARAYANA) XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
58 Common Judgment in Criminal Appeal Nos.396/2012 & 463/2012