Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Appeal No.S-383-SB of 2007
.....
Date of decision:11.3.2014.
Ranjit Kaur
...Appellant
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Gaurav Hooda, Advocate for Ranjit Kaur.
Mr. K.S. Aulakh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
for the State.
......
Inderjit Singh, J.
Ranjit Kaur has filed this appeal challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.2.2007 passed by learned Special Judge, Faridkot, whereby accused-Ranjit Kaur has been held guilty and convicted for the offences under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and Sections 465, 471, 420 and 409 IPC. Accused-Ranjit Kaur has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days for the offence under Section 13(2) of the Act. She has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `250/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.25 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. A. No.S-383-SB/2007 [2] under Section 465 IPC. She has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `250/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under Section 471 IPC. She has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 420 IPC. She has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 409 IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. However, co-accused Hardev Singh has been acquitted of the charges framed against him.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 28.5.1996, Harbans Singh, the then D.S.P.,Vigilance Bureau, Faridkot received information from a reliable source that Ranjit Kaur-accused, while posted as Junior Clerk in Faridkot Central Cooperative Bank, Branch Sadiq, from 1982 to 1994 had withdrawn `7,90,000/- from the accounts of many account holders/depositors in her official capacity and had misappropriated the said amount and had caused loss to the Government and the said account holders. On this reliable information, he sent `Ruqa', on the basis of which formal FIR was registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepore. As per the investigation, whenever any account holder came to the Bank to deposit the amount in his account, Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.25 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. A. No.S-383-SB/2007 [3] then Ranjit Kaur used to make fictitious entries in his passbook and personal ledger but did not make entries in the cash book, day book and general ledger of the Bank and used to keep that amount with her. This type of fraud she had played with many account holders. On coming to know of this fact, the then Manager of the Bank deputed Baldev Singh, Branch Manager, Bhushan Lal, Junior Accountant, Narinder Kumar Jain, Junior Accountant, Harbhajan Singh, Senior Assistant for tallying the balance for the period from 1982 to 1994 of the said Branch of the Bank and after going through the entire record of the Bank, a list was sent to the Head Office at Faridkot. It is also found in the investigation that in the year 1993, Harbans Singh, the then Senior Auditor had done the audit of the said Branch of the Bank and then he had prepared the special report in which it was found that Ranjit Kaur had embezzled the amount of `3,42,664/-, `7,90,000/- of the said Bank. It was also found during audit that the opening balance of the previous balance was not certified though they were signed by Ranjit Kaur and making it the basis, the above said report was prepared. During investigation, the statements of aggrieved depositors were recorded and their passbooks were taken into custody. Proper sanction for prosecution of Ranjit Kaur was received and then the challan was presented in the Court.
As per prosecution version, only one FIR had been registered, but as per provision of 219 Cr.P.C. for three transactions in one calendar year separate challan was prepared and presented and total 70 challans were presented. After necessary investigation, challan was presented. Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.25 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. A. No.S-383-SB/2007 [4] On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against accused-Ranjit Kaur and co-accused Hardev Singh, framed charges for the offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 465, 471, 420 and 409 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Baldev Singh, Branch Manager deposed that on 30.5.1996 he along with Bhushan Lal, Junior Accountant and other officials were deputed for tallying the balances for the period from 1988 to 1994 of Cooperative Bank, Branch Sadiq. Then, whatever entry they traced, which were found to be bogus, they sent the list of the same to the Head Office at Faridkot. These entries were entered in the personal ledger, but not in the cash book. PW-2 Harbans Singh mainly deposed that he was posted as DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Faridkot on 28.5.1996. He deposed regarding sending of `Ruqa' to the Vigilance Bureau for registration of the FIR. PW-3 Bhupinder Singh, Branch Manager, who remained posted in the Bank for some period in the years 1982, 1986-87, 1987-88 and Ranjit Kaur present in the Court was working as Clerk in the said Branch under him. This witness brought the original bank ledger and proved the hand-writing and signatures on the entries of the ledger relating to the depositors whose money had been shown by making credit entry. He had also brought the balance book of saving bank individual and entries made in this balance book are also in the hand-writing of Ranjit Kaur. This balance book is prepared on the last Friday of the Bank and balance of the book is to tally Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.25 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. A. No.S-383-SB/2007 [5] with the general ledger balance. He had also brought the general ledger, balance of the general ledger and the balance bank tallied with each other. Entries of the general ledger were also in the hand-writing of the accused. PW-4 Bhushan Lal mainly brought appointment letter and posting order of Ranjit Kaur. She was appointed on 7.1.1980 as Junior Clerk in the Faridkot Central Cooperative Bank, Faridkot. She was posted at Sadiq Branch on 11.1.1980. He proved the appointment letter and posting order and also brought the service book of the accused. PW-5 Bhupinder Singh, deposed that he was posted as District Manager in Central Cooperative Bank, Faridkot from 3.9.2003. On 15.1.2003, the Board of Directors had passed the resolution for giving sanction for sanction for prosecution of accused Ranjit Kaur in this case. He had brought the original resolution, which was signed by Makhan Singh, Chairman, whose signature he identified as he worked with him. He was authorized by the Board of Directors to give the sanction for prosecution.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution. Accused Ranjit Kaur denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded herself as innocent. She admitted her posting at Sadiq. She also admitted regarding her appointment and posting order and service book. The remaining averments were mainly denied. She had also taken the plea that the amount deposited by her was actually deposited in the account of her relative's account and the Bank authorities had planted this false case on her to save other employees. Accused Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.25 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. A. No.S-383-SB/2007 [6] Hardev Singh deposed that he is innocent. The Board of Directors had also found him innocent. He had not done any embezzlement.
In defence, the accused examined DW-1 H.R. Yakta, who deposed that he has 20 years service to his credit at various posts in the said Bank and had worked as Branch Manager in Faridkot Central Cooperative Bank, Branch Sadiq for a year. He stated that it is correct that there is duty roster in every branch of the bank, according to which the duties of all the employees as to at what relevant period which employee is on duty is mentioned. That duty roster is in the custody of Branch Manager. If any customer is to deposit money in bank through one voucher, but the same is to be deposited in the name of more than one person/account holders, then the voucher should be accompanied by one list of those account holders. If there are no account holders, then otherwise list of their names is required and then later on their accounts are opened in the bank. He stated that to complete one such transaction, there is involvement of Cashier, Accountant, Manager and Clerk. The officer in-charge compares the balance of opening and closing in the evening. If any amount is found less or more, then both account will not tally and in such case information has to give to the head office immediately at Faridkot. The monthly statement to the head office is to be sent of the entire transactions in the bank. The audit is done concurrently. The inspection is done after every three months by the departmental inspection team. He further stated that it is not possible that there may be 60/70 misappropriations and the same should not be detected and no Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.25 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. A. No.S-383-SB/2007 [7] information is sent to the head office. If there is any misappropriation, then there is joint responsibility and overall responsibility is that of Branch Manager. DW-2 Kuldip Singh mainly deposed that Ranjit Kaur is the wife of his younger brother and they live in joint family. They had deposited an amount of `7,90,000/- on behalf of Ranjit Kaur on different dates in Faridkot Central Cooperative Bank, Sadiq. Whenever they used to deposit the amount in the bank along with the vouchers, she also attached the list of their family members in whose names the said account was, but the bank authority did not issue them passbook regarding the amount which was deposited by them. The said amount was not deposited because of any fraud.
After going through the evidence and material produced on record, the learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced accused Ranjit Kaur for the offences as mentioned above. However, co-accused Hardev Singh was acquitted.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and order, Ranjit Kaur has filed this criminal appeal.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for appellant-Ranjit Kaur argued that in the present case account holders have not been examined. He argued that the present appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk/Accountant at the relevant time, but she was stated to be given the charge of Cashier. The learned counsel further argued that even duty roster should be prepared every day as per the procedure which has not been produced. Learned counsel further argued that there is audit every Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.25 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. A. No.S-383-SB/2007 [8] year. Therefore, this fraud cannot be done by any single individual. Otherwise also, she cannot be held liable because other officials and officers have also to maintain the record and balance of the bank. He further argued that DW-1 has given the defence version. He further argued that DW-2 has deposed regarding depositing of amount of `7,90,000/- in the account. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in two of the cases of similar nature, she has been acquitted, therefore, a reasonable doubt exists in other cases also.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the State argued that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved by the PWs. Learned Assistant Advocate General argued that the appellant made entries in the personal ledger and in the passbooks of the depositors but the same were not made in the cash book, day book and general ledger. The entries are made in all the books in the hand-writing of appellant Ranjit Kaur and also signed by her. The PWs have duly proved the hand-writing and signatures under whom the accused had worked. It is also argued by learned Assistant Advocate General that the appellant had acted in a mischievous way. She got tallied the balance book of the saving bank individual and general ledger with each other. Learned Assistant Advocate General also argued that the PWs have duly proved that no entry has been made in the cash book, day book and general ledger by the appellant and the money has not been deposited in their accounts and this amount was misappropriated. He also argued that the embezzled amount, as informed, was not deposited in the accounts Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.25 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. A. No.S-383-SB/2007 [9] of the depositors as deposed by PWs nor any bank account had been summoned to prove the same. Rather, this amount has been deposited in the account of the accused as well as her relatives. He argued that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved. Therefore, he argued that there is no merit in the appeal filed by appellant-Ranjit Kaur and the same should be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the State and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
From the record, I find no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. The prosecution has brought the PWs to prove the hand-writing and signatures of Ranjit Kaur with whom the accused had worked. They are the competent persons to prove the hand- writing and the signatures as they had seen her writing and signing. In no way, it can be held that the hand-writing and the signatures must be proved from the Hand-writing Expert. Otherwise also, there is no evidence produced by the accused to show that she has not signed or the hand-writing is of some other person. Rather, she has admitted her posting in the said branch during the relevant time. DW-1 has given the procedure as to how this record is maintained and how this record is tallied etc. and if any embezzlement is found, then it is to be reported to the head office. But as it is in the evidence that the Branch was having less staff, therefore, due to this reason all this work was done by the Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.25 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. A. No.S-383-SB/2007 [10] present-appellant and taking benefit of the situation, she embezzled the amount of the depositors. In the present case also, she made the entries in the personal ledger of the depositors of this case which have been duly proved by the PWs by bringing the records and entries. The entries were also made in the balance book, but no entry is made in the cash book or the day book nor any amount was deposited in the accounts of the depositors. It is on the record that an amount of `1,90,000/- and `50,000/- have been deposited in the saving bank account of the appellant and her relative. The record of the bank shows the embezzlement made by the present-appellant and no reasonable doubt exists on this fact. The mere fact that during the audit or by the Branch Manager, this misappropriation could not be detected at that time, does not create any doubt in the prosecution version. Again there is no allegation against any other official or officer that he had misappropriated or embezzled any amount. Therefore, they cannot be tried along with the accused. Even if it is taken that there is some negligence or lapse on the part of any other official, it is for the department to see whether any departmental action is to be taken or not. The present appellant cannot be given the benefit on this account.
As regards the defence version, DW-1 has simply deposed regarding the procedure but as already stated above all this happened due to shortage of staff in the Branch. Again, even if some procedure has not been adopted properly or there is negligence on the part of some officials, the accused cannot be given the benefit.
The present case is filed after obtaining the prosecution Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.25 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. A. No.S-383-SB/2007 [11] sanction. There is also no evidence to show that `7,90,000/- have been deposited by the appellant in the accounts of account holders. No such record has been summoned by the accused from the bank to prove this fact. Otherwise also, even if at a later stage any accused deposited the embezzled amount, he/she cannot be absolved from the criminal liability. The mere fact that in two cases the accused-appellant has been acquitted due to some reasons, no benefit can be given in this case nor any reasonable doubt exists on this ground.
Even if the account holders are not examined in this case, it does not create any doubt in the prosecution version as the prosecution has duly proved the embezzlement by bringing the bank record.
From the above discussion, I find that the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the criminal appeal filed by Ranjit Kaur is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are upheld.
The sentence of Ranjit Kaur was suspended by this Court and she was released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. As she is on bail, her bail/surety bonds stand cancelled. She is directed to surrender herself before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against her in accordance with law.
March 11, 2014. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.25 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh