Karnataka High Court
N K Srikanta Sastry vs The State Of Karnataka By Cbi Bangalore on 8 March, 2011
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
iN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD _ DATED THIS THE 8' DAY OF MARCH, 2011. - BEFORE ~ THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V, JAGANNAT HAN CRL.A. NO. 1130/ 2004 » BETWEEN N.K.SRIKANTA SASTRY, S/O N.KARIBASAVAIAH,. ~ AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, KUMBARAWADA BRANCH, R/O SHANTHI NIVAS, NEAR URDU PRIMARY SCHOOL, TOWNSHIP, DANDELI, DIST: NORTH KANARA, ee er? APPELLANT (BY SRLSHAKNAR HEGDE AND ASSOTS-ABSENT) AND: THE STATE: OF KARNATAKA BY C.B.l, BANGALORE: a : | es .RESPONDENT "(BY SRE M. B AKANAVI, ADV.) oo "PHIS CRIMI NAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 874 CR.P.C: BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DT.31.5.2004 PASSED BY THE -- PRLS. DHARWAD IN SPL(CBH CC NO.1/95, _ .CONVICTING THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 409, 471, 477(A) OF IPC AND U/S "18(ite) AND i3{i\(d) PUNISHABLE L/S 132) OF THE P.CACT AND ETC. ", THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THI COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - JUDGEMENT
Phe appellant calls in question his conviction. in. respect of the offences punishable under Sections. 400) 4715. 477A) of IPC and under Sectioris 13{1}c} and. 12(i ay r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of. Corranption Act, 1988.
2. This' matter is: posted for' Hearing and none appeared for. "the: appeliatit."." Phe ° learned counsel Sri.M.B.Kanavi for the CRY. Ts present and ready to submit nis argu merits' 7 This case Js of the year 2004 and more than 7 years has been elapsed. Under the above circumstances, this Court jedett with e ny-other allernative than to hear the . learned counsel forthe C.B.I. and dispose of the matter on merits, 6 3. «- Ip arriving at this conclusion, this Court takes ince OF the jucement of the Apex Court in the case "ol Bari Singh and Others vs. State of UP (1996) 4 SCO 720. he apex Court has held in the said case that rhe Appellate fy yl h-
a oe aye ead Court is not obliged to adiourn the matter i the appe lant and bis counsel are absent and the Court can dispose 'of the appeal after perusing the record and judgment:of the. trial"
Court. The relevant observation of the Apex' Court. y this regard are as under:
"Ie is the duty of the" appellant and his: lawyer io : remain present on the appointed day, "time and place when the appeal Is posted. for 'hearing. s This is the requirement of the. ¢ Code on a plain reading of Sections 385-386 of the Code. 7 he law does. 101 ienjioin that the court shal.acjourn the casé if a the appellant and his lawyer are absent. If the: court does so as a matter of prud enon ¢ or rnduigence, | iis a different matter, but itis not. bound 'Le y adjourn the matter. It can dispose of the appe al "after perusing the record and the judgment rial courts. [the accused is in jail and cannot, an his ewn; come to court, if would be advisabie to 'adjourn the Case and fix another date io facilitate the na . ape ance of the accused/appellant if his lawyer is "not present. If the lawver is absent, and the court deems it appropriate to appoint a lawyer at State sepenee | fo assist it, there 1s nothing in the law to Even Wo a ease is decided on merits in the snicee of the appellant, the higher court can rermec By oC be the situation if there has been a failure of pustice. This would apply equally if the accused is the respondent for the obvious reason that if the appeal. .cannct.be_ disposed of without hearing the resporident. or Pus: lawyer, the progress of the appeal would be
4. Reeping the afore:
ek os Court, | have heard the learned: counsel Sri MB. wanavi for the C.B.1. and perused the records-of this case and also the judgement of the trial Court.as well.
3. The prosecution case in short is that, the appellant was working as Menageér, State Bank of Mysore, Kumbarawada Branch between 16.07.1992 and 08.02.1994 and during the. said pertod, the appellant dishonestlv misappropriated the bank funds to the tune of rupees two lakhs. The appellant fraudulently debited cheque purchase agGeull Gf Ube branch. walhemtagiuelly receiving or sending any instruments for collection and obtained wronglul gain "the tune of £94 000/- over and above. During the said ig, -- ce seid te have encashed from his S.B. account in the branch without passing the debit entry to the account to the tune of €55,000/-. Purther, the accused prepared four false loan documents in the nameoof-ndn- existing and fictitious persons namely, S.K.Velif:. ARO. Well, Mo53.Velif and K.S.Velif, showtime thar an 'aroun vw. of - °18,200/-, 219,000/-, F15400/- and @18,.00072.. be 16.10.1993, 16.10.1993, 3) 10.1998" and "21.10. 1993 respectively were sanctioned and-avel le ed the . loan proceeds for himself to the tune of 270,000 /- "Purther , ihe accused fraudulently collected 11. 700/: - fram ihe cure nt account of customer Sri. Dayanan dG ovindeg owda end credited to his ACCOLTTE.
63, ls. of various transactions, which were made by t i persdn by making false entries, are as "It is the case of prosecution that on bo. G.4 coe, ihe accused made false entry in the "Chec Lie Purchase Account indicating lodging of hay cheque bearing No.78997 for $200/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Dandeli Branch and a ceoited €200/- to Cheque Purchase Account and received cash of €200/-
tre said entry was falsely shown to have 6 responded from the Stare Bank of Mysore. Dandeli Branch on 26.7.1993 and debited. | f200/- to his S.B.Account on 26.7.1993 and. reversed the said Cheque Purcnase Account and' . noe such cheque was lodged on 13.371 ag3 for realisation. | On 20.35.1993, the accused, made a false debit entry to the Cheque:.Purchase Account of the Bank indicating ledging of cheque No.078999 for 21,090 /- drawn on State Bank of Mysore Dandeli Bra rich : and credited, the said amount fo his S:B.Account and ; "utilised the same without such A 'eheque' was-being lodged with the Sank and-he has falsely shown that the said cheque.was. 3 esponded by state Bank of Mysore, Da ndeli Braiach on 26.7.1993 and made a debit entry to the Cheque Purchase Account whicke. was reversed: by fimo on 26.7.1993 by _ debiting to his S.BLAccount.
"On PFO, 1993, the accused made a faise the Cheque Purchase Account et pei! it ?
inte int pnt 10 nd, ne hirnself lodged cheque bes Mysore, Dandeli Branch for realisation and "loredited the said amount to his S.B.Account and "
Dandeli Branch on 26.7.1993 and the said entr was reversed on 26.7.1993 by debiting his. os. Account in the Branch. ma The aceused on 3.6.1993, ai hout® preparing any voucher and entering "ithe | Cheque Purchase Account falsely posted a credit. entry for %6,000/- to his S.B. No. LOF7 showing debit to Cheques Purchase, Account. and utilised and on 26.7. 1993 he accused pre pay eC debit and cr redit voucher 'de TL 26 OC 10/ to his 5.B.Account and.-éredited the. Said amount o Cheque Purchase" Account cof €6.000/- dated 6.3.1998 ard thereby re b thealebit en try of 26,0CO0/-.on ine same de wo 9.1993, made a false The dicused On Fs entry. in the Chee pic Purchase Account indicating that. he. Himself lodged a cheque for £8 OOO / - draw Ro oer State Bank of Mysore, . Dancdell bran} mn for realisation and by preparing vouchers he posted credit entry of €8,000/- to ~ hie S.B.Aécount on the same day and utilised andthe seid entry was falsely shown to have been- responded from the State Bank of Mvsore, the same day and = the ito the Cheque Purchase Saath! co os fat oN nea ot to a "
Account and debited to his S.B.Account 9 SRD On 25.6.1993, accused falsely debited. £2,000/- to the Cheque Purchase Account and - credited the said amount to his 5.6 Acco. inf.and :
utilised and no instrument was lodged anid sent for realisation inthe Branch. _ | On 29.6.1993, the accuse df faisely de bitecl. 8,000/- to Cheque Pur citse Account xt cand without receiving any am ount; pi repared ary application for issue of -.De mand" Draft for 28 ,000/- in the na me oF Sri 7.$.Vishwanath Land prepared a Deman d. Dref 1 for €8;000/ - im Fis name drawn ora State. "Bank et Mysore, Bhadravath) i. and: serit Lo him atd.on 26.77.1993 he reverse a the 3a Hb debit Sntey of 8,000/- by de biting, "als "amount ee 28,000/- to his SBA COO un LO On 5.7.1993). "the accused without receiving any o money from the customer, 7 prepared ¢ spphic 'avin ior issue of Demand Drait of F2,200/- in the name of Sri.B.C.Sharma ~ drawn on. Bangurnagar Branch, Dandell and falsely debiting the said amount to the Cheque Purchase Account and issued Demand Draft iavou ring Sri B.C Sharma for €2,200/-.
On 10.77.1993, by preparing false ited Rs.9,000/- to the rege work Pn ay iv oo 3 oot Soe ot om Sta gy Soe mh ep owt o om os Pouche rs, . vat Cheque Purchase Account ard posted the credit H Poe a #4 0 entry of Rs.9,000/- to his S.B.A/eo and utilised. On 17.7.1993, by preparing vouchers > faiselvy, the aceused debited <9,000/- is the' . Cheque Purchase Account and_posted a credit of that sum to his S.B.A/e and utilised the same. On 22.7.1993, by preparing. vouchers, the accused falsely debited %1,000/- to "Cheque Purchase Account and posted.a relative creclit entry of €1,000/- to. his "S.BLA fo and utilised the SaliTie..
On 3.9.19G3> the aéecused, made false entry in ithe. Cheque .Parcha'se Account indicating sellodwirne a cheque for %5,000/- cLrawen on State Bank of Mysore, Kumbarawada Bra neh "aid, credited, %5,000/- to his S.B.A/c and utilised th e sam Gee | 199: "the accused made a false os entry ine. the Cheque Purchase Account ingiicating seli-lodging a cheque for @7,000/- Mysore, Dandeli Branch "and credited the same to his $.B./ uilised the said amount, though no such eneque was lodged and realised by him. On £4.30.1993, the accused by preparing Purchase Account and posted a credit entry of that sum to his S.B.A/e on 24.9,.1993 and _ uitilisecl the same.
On 18.10.1993, the aceused by preparu posted Qocbedit Cheque Purchase Account and entry of that sum to hisS.B.A sas on 7.PO) 1983.
and utilised the same.
faise vouchers, debited an dmmount of 9.000/- to and showed @ erecit of %9,000/- to his SBA s bub the said credit entry was sot shoewtror posted to S.B.A/c of the accused.
it is. flrther-case.of prosecution that on IG.10. 1993). the. accused ~ sanctioned false demang foan- of. 2)9,000/- under Loan A/c or ALK. Vehf, a fictitious No.3/73 "in favor persons, agains. a-security of R.LD. Certificate yc realised the said amount on the 2 No. 160286 ihe proceeds to Cheque " Parckase Account and reversed the debit entre £Y ,O00/- and <1,000/- raised by an lOL7.1993, G7 1993 and On the same day, the accused sanctioned & faise loan GIFS. LB ,OF -umder Loar Ast favouring S.K.Vehi, a NCnuous persons hoe can t against the security of RAD. Certificare. AY NO, 1602582 and realised the said amount on the a sameday and credited the proceeds ta Cheque. Purchase Account and reversed the debit ventries . of 82,000/-, F9,000/-, 82,000 / - and %5,¢ 5.7.1993, 5,8.1993, cand - as hOOS.. respectively raised by him earlier. On 21.10.1993, 7 accused © SAanciic ioned false loan of 715,.400/ unde r Loar. Acco nt No.3/49 in favour. 0 M, B: y hi a ific titious person, against the sec uri RE D certificate No.26930| sand realised: the. wei bon on the SAITO day anv credit ad 'the proce ceeds to Cheque Purchase Ac count arid: re ve rsed-the debit entries of 29 080} dated LY. 16 1903, raised by him earlier and credited the remaining amount of &6,400/~ to. va mo us. < ver 'draft accounts. ms Jn the se xine dat y, the accused sancuioned a false De mand joan of F18.000/- under loan acccunt, No.3 /331 in favour of K.S.Velif, a «person and realised the amount on the Same dey and the proceeds were credited "direcuis' to the Cheque Purchase Account and the debit entries of &9,000/- and dated 14.10.7993 and (8.16.
Ben oud it is further case of prosecution that on- 16.10.1993 and 21.10.1993, the accused. -- entered the false information to the Demaid . Loan Re gisters of the Branch regareind iu Reinvestment Deposit Ce riificates wach "were used as security for sanctioning "the four. demand loans and proceeds of the said ¢ cis emand loans were utilised to reverse the debit e niries LD. the Cheque Purchase Account, raised by him earher and no loarsapplic ation im respect of the above said four loars "were pre parec | and hele in the Branch for Sanit tote of the said oan. The Accused rraudule sith or cishonesily used' a "genuine co certain' documents "to misappropriate che. funds of the Bank to the fue of © P.65 800) "by "fasing spurious depits to Cheque Purchase: Ace gant of the Branch and by sanction ane telease ol the fictitious demand
- loans by abusin2 nis official position and he knew or had reason to believe that tne said ~ deci mien ts are forced documents. oe] tas further case of prosecution that the accused willfully and with intent to defraud the + 4 misappropriated the Bank funds to the
-. tune of £1,65,500/- by raising spurious debits j the Cheque Purchase Account of the Branch and by sanction and release of the four fictitious. demand loans by abusing his official position. -- lt is further case of prosecution that tHe accused being a public servant, between IS5.3.1993 and 21.10.1993... dishenestly "or fraudulently nesppnepess the Bark funds". which were entrustec to > im atid were under "his control as public serv: art, to the tone. 6f a PO O00K- by adopting. the above said 7, The accused..was charged by: the C.BA. for isthe offesces | ponish able under Sections 409, 471, 477(A) of IPC and under Sections 13{1}e} and [Stl pid) r/w Sectior:.. P32) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, [988° The. pleaded not guilty and therealterwords the prosecution to prove its case examined j EW "to. 1Q and got' marked Exs. Pl to P72. Accused : statemie ni. was.rccorded and the accused has not chosen to lead » on fis behalf Learned trial Judge after appreciating fhe evidence on record and hearing the tbe PRS By i .drguiments of both sides held that the prosecution hed ry "breught home the guilt of the accused person bevond ail z reasonable doubt and the documents produced during the tnal were sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the decused person. Apart from this, learned trial Judge also observed that the accused himself had admitted the a mounts which are proved tnrough exhibits PG ]- remittance slip and a Ex Poe:
another remittance si ip and therefore, # tne Serial 4 Court had no doubt as to the case having proved by "the _presecution beyond all reasonable foube, Accor, the appellant convicted for all the offences. with. w hich, | he was charged. og Learned trial Judée sen enced the a netién t to undergo RJ. ey for three years ¢ and to ; ay a Tine of 5, 000 /- and in default to undergo SL. tor th ree Ir enths: The same sentence was awarded in te spect ole each One @ of the offences for wi nich, the S convicted. All the sentences were to run appellant « "concurrenily: The impugned judgement of conviction and "sentence is ecdin question by the accused in this appeal, Ul "8.5 'Referring to the ground urged by the appellant inthis appeal, learned counsel for the C. BL SruM.B Kanayi argucd that, the appellant has put forward the following "grouinds in the appeal. The first one is that, P.W.10 is not Set '£ oroper officer to authorize te act and he is not empowered by proj coms the Magistrate to investigate the case, because See tom 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 10464. "The second.
ash proper ground taken in the appeal is that, there sanction order to prosecute the accused and EX.PS7 Cannot be termed as valid sanction order 7 The evide re - appreciation by the trial Court was also erronéeus and the ground taken in the appeal is that, due to pressure 'and miluence the appellant was asked to.pav.the amount, but he has not actually committed the offences in quéstion. The evidence appreciation .by the trial Court is not proper and contrary to the well-settled prinviples of law- 9, "Referring to. the aforesaid appeal yvrounds, submission made. by learned counsel for the C.Bi. is thet, the. prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt by examinin & PW.1, 7, 8 and 9 apart from producing tcluminous decurnents as per Exs.Pi to P72. Carcerning the evidence of above witnesses, submission reade-is that, the official witnesses clearly ideritificd the Vani doacuiments and apart from that, accused himself has admitted his misappropriation by remitting an amount of %1,30,000/- on OL.09,1994 as per Ex.P61 and Ex.P62 shows that, he. accused has remitted %12,000/- on 11.10. i994. ~ These :
documents confirms the charges a gain st ihe dectised person. As far as the sanction order is concerned, learned counsel for the C.B.1. argued that, the sanctioning authority is examined as PWS apart from pi odicing "Sanction order as per Ex.Po?. Theretore,. the. prosec Litioni Nas proved the sanction order in' accordance with la wand in this regard, learned couse] placed. reliance on Apex Court decision reported in "ATR 1979 "SC 677 to contend that, the grosecution has to prove the sanction by adopting one of the WO Ways ard one. is .by producing the original sanction "which its Hi -contains the facts constitu ting the offence and "the grounds. of satisfaction and the second way is that, by bal ence aliunde to show the facts placed before ne adducin the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by "ab TRus, in the present case, both the methods have been os ¢ we yt iollowed and therefore, no defects can be found in the sanction order as per Ex.PS7.
LO. Therefore, submission made by the learned counsel for the C.B.1. is that the conviction, of 4 and sentence passed does not call 'interfere nce, as. the:
learned trial Judge has considered entiveevidence:in proper aid submission made by the learned 1 cours '|. for the C.3.L> T-have carefully gone through the ree cords of this case, as well as the judgement of the triad Cou No "Ibis no dou ot he at the appellant was working as Ganesh isthe Deputy Manager in Vigilance Department of mas deposed in respect of the 'decuments, which were examined by him and = the doctiments. PAW 8 Siate Bank of Mysore ra a vid PEE] cape f "learned tia Kumbarawada Branch who is the successor in office af the accused who identified the handwriting of the accused "aiid also Signatures in varicus documents. P.W F-Raghottom was the Branch Manager of the late Rank' oF Mysore: ; Dandeli Branch and the accused was having a S.BAre i the said Branch in S.B.A/c No.86. The evidence "ef P.W.7 was to the fact that, accused was. given ~cheque books containing cheque leaves hearing, Nos, St 2901 to 925 and cheque leaves bearing Nos. Sil 326, to 350 sind two cheque leaves were given bearing Nos. 651 nM 3 wid 227553. Apart from the ev idence of aloresaid wine sses, the prosecution has placed voluminous documents to prove the case, and the sred to all these documents in learned trial Judge has re the course of his. judgement from para 40 onwards till LBP to the evidence of P.W.8-Branch Mandver: ol State Bank of Mysore, Kumbarawada branch, | Judge has observed that, the evidence of said Witness reveals that, the documents lox. PL, Ex.Pl lla}, VPi2lal, Ex.Plo, Ex.PiGla}, Ex. PIS, lex. PT S{a}, mx. P21], Ex.P2ital, Ex.P235, Ex. P23fa}, Ex.P30, Ex. P30{a), Ex.P31, Ex.P3lfa), Ex.P35. Ex.P35{aj, Ex.P37, Ex.P&7ie), Ex.P39, Ex.P39(a), Ex.P44, Ex.P44(a), Ex.P46 anil EXP are the debit slips are in the hand writing of the accused and -- Signatures on the said documents are that of the accesédy Likewise, learned trail Judee has also doubted that the 7, EX.PI7 lal.) Ex. P22, documents Ex.Pl2, Ex. PL2{a}, Bx.Pt Ex.P22(a}, Ex.P24, Ex.P24(a), Ex. P26, Ex.P26(a}, Ex.P32, Ex.P32(a), Ex.P36, Ex.P36(a), Ex.P38) Ex. P389(a), Ex.P40, Ex.P4O0(aj, Ex.P4S:.1s.P45ia}, Ex P47 and Ex.P47(a} are the transfer credit vouchers and the signatures thereon are in the hand writing of the accused. The entries as per Ex. P3{y), Ex.P3(m), Ex.P3(it}; Ex. Paty) Ex.PSlad), Ex.P3lr), Ex.P3fbd), Ex.PStab}, Ex.P3(min), Ex'P3U0 are also the hand writing of oS the accused. Likew?
the contents of the demand draft ~ applicate i4 and ExX.PiS another demand drafi prepared and in the hand writing of the accused and also the | documents HX.P1o and Ex.P20 are prepared by the accused himself, Further, the contents of © and Hx. P49 as weil as Ex.P28laj), Ex.P33laj, Ex. P42ta}, and 6 #4 Ex.P49(a) are in the hand writing and sienature of the accused. The endorsements as per Ex. P29(b), Bx.P43th}, Ex. PoO(b) are im the hand writing of the accused.' Apart from this, the evidence. of ---presecution: witness also indicates that the Ex,Pi2, Ex.Piv,. Fx.P22,> Ex.P24, Ex.P26, Ex.P32, Ex.P36> Ex.P38, Ex. P40, Ex.P45 and Ex P47 are the credit slips prepared by the accused and bears his signature and these eredit vowehers correspond to the debit vouchers prepared by the accused. 1S. Referring to the Gemand loan ledger, | have perused the same and. ifvreveals that, Ex.P.41 the demand loan ledger in respect-of A.K.Velif for €19,000/- is sanctioned and disbursed to A-K.VeHf Ex.P42 is the transfer debit Ex. P42 15 passed by Lhe accused him by signing the same as per Ex. P42(a). . Actuady, tne said amount should nave been paid to the ity 6:8. 1904, the said amount was transierred to the SB... bud the accused and likewise, Ex.P43, and Ex.P43{a) also reveals that, an amount of €19,000/-was transferred to the 3.2 of the accused. [n respect of Ex. P46 transfer it voucher. for €9,000/-, there is no signature or the initidis of the -- z accused or any person having passed .chis. vouchér and Ex.P4y is another transfer' credit voucher' for .%0,Q00/- espect of passed by the accused, but no eptry is made in r Likewise, Ex.P47 in the Cheque Purchase Acce In respect of M.B.Velif Ex.P48is.the demand loan ledeer L shows that, an a@mourit of $15 400/--Sanctioned by the accused and Ex.P49 is the trarisfer debit slip passed and signed by the accuseca and the said amount should have been debited to the demand. foan account of M.B.Velif. But actually the amount has been credited to the S.B. A/c of the accused... Ex.PSO "And Ex.PS1 are the transfer credit "vouchers. under which the amounts were credited to the S.BLA/e of the accused.
iappreciavion of hier and PW 7 and after referring various documents "
7 Fy ed 5 ne wo a a:
produced draft, the signature the S.B.A/e af the accused, therefore belt tl prosecution | T -acéused beyond --
all reasonable doubt.
b, ly.
Two other importa, documents taker mote of by the learned trial Judge.are at Po We6l.and P.W.G2. These remittance Oe slips dated <9. 004 for. ©1 o0,000/- and 11.10.1994 for €12,000/- and. Ex. P63 is the another important document whichwwas issued by the Manager ¢ uu} the Regional Manager and the- contents of the Ex.P63 is as under 6 ~ "Please refer Gur letter No.Estt/1&7 of 8"
Asag. oF ag you about transfer of misappropriated: amrmounts to P.B.A/e vide your approval. letter No. RMI/Este/DPD/7420 of The above officer has today calied on us fuel remitted a cash of <1.30 lakhs to P.BLA/c . which results im credit balance of €5,100-51 for your kind information"
Poa Late
18. Ex. P64 is another letter issued by the Manager fo tne Regional Manager and the contents of the Ex Ps 1s aS uncer:
"On 11.10.94, the above. has remitted. 4 sum of €12,000/- to P.BA/c. total.credit balance © comes to €17,100-51 as on date. This is for your Kind information.
19. Thus, the very act Of the part of the accused having remitted huge arnount As per Fox. Be and Ex.P62 is further proof of tle act of "misappropriation and breach of trust on ihe, pare of "the secused and therefore, the trial Court had | drawn inference thet the accused had forged certain documents - and, fraudulently debited Cheque purene se Acct. nt of thie Branch without actually receiving nd obtained oor senidire coe] 'any instruments for collection a : wre! 0 ful" gain and withdraw the amount from time to time and also repaid the amount of misappropriation. Under the "said circumstances, | do not find any ground made by the
-appellant io interfere with the trial Court judgement as far as "the evidence appreciation is concerned. a4 20, Coming to the validity of the sanction order, the prosecution examined P.W.3 sanchoning authority and the said witness SriA Krishnan, Rerd, Managing Director State Bank of Mysore has deposed.in his Fa accused was working as a Junior Vi anagement Grade-1 Officer and P.W.3 is contpetent to remove the. officer of CGrrade-] to Gracle-IV. The very witness further deposec he studied the whole matter. indepeqdent ly and examined the statement of the witnesses and was Setisfied tha itis prima facie case omrauaulent, misappropriation of the bank propert, criminal breach of (rust; falsification of account and using tne bank: money bythe accused for his own purpose nC mee | and therefore, P.W-3°-dises sanction order as per EX. P57, ' . : . . * oe, omy ts -- : : . . ' EX. PO? sanction order and on perusal of the same, it reveals 'that,, allb-the transactions pertaining fo the various acts .comumitted y.the accused having mentioned in detail at Para 3. There-fo >, the sanctioning authority has a pplied his "pund and has also observed the sanction order at Para 5, waiter wareful exarnination of the material, sanctioned to "presecute the accused was therefore accorded. Q a oe 7 ut Sad
--
Thus, in the instant case, not only Sanction order gives details of various acts of the accused in resr the offences a aoe See os ot oy gainst the accused by referring parti and the transaction and amount involy ved and th 1 © Paatiner oe by ;
misappropriation .@f the accused "by Teac ch uilerity posting credit entry, falsely preparing. the "debic vouchers "and sanctioning faise loan and as such, the -sanctidm order cannot be termed as ne at valid inlaw. That a part in the judgement of Apex Court. re ferred fo by the iearned counsel for the C 'BL "repért ed in AIR ; 1o7 9° 8C 677 Mohd dqbal ot s Ahmed, Vs. State of And Ara. P rade shy t has been held that:
"Thas ic umbe me on the prosecution to prave that i a valid Sanction has been granted by the Sa anctic ning. Auth cority after it was satisfied : Unat a case' for sanction has been made out 'constituting the offence, This, should be done in ">. two "ways;. either (2) by producing the original | which itself contains the facts the offence and tk anal © grounds of igfaction and (2) by adducing evidence altunde io show the facts placed before the 'Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction me 26 22, the above, principles applies to the "Case 'on hand and it can be said that the prosecution! bh a d provea sanction order as valid one by not onky proeh 1eing othe. sanction order as per Ex,P57, but has also "exariined. Sanctioning Authority as PAWS. Theretore, no, defect is found in the sanction order,
23. As far as the validity of P.W-1O to.investigate the nase 1s concerned, though the'ground taken in the appeal is that, there was no 'specific authorization is required under Section. G-of Delhi Special. Police Rstablishment Act, 1946, the evidence on record 1S that, the government has given approval to.P.W.16. to. hold investigation and as such the requirement of Section 6 of Delhi Special Police " Establishtment-Act, 1946 is therefore met. As far as the in fhe sanction order is concemed, if is also to be mentioned that by virtue of Section i9(3lfaG@b), mo finding, z Semtence or order passed by a special Judge shall be ec or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or "revision on the eround of the absence of, or any error, ea Ne "ae af ;
omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under, sub- section{ij, unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has im fact been occasioned thereby... No.such:. situlation arises in this case. e+. Por the aforesaid reasons, in > my view, judgement of conviction and sentence pa yy othe trial Court does not call lop. any interference and "re finding recordect cannot be terme 2d as unreason abl e or perverse. As such, the appeat lac ks me rit, is 5 digmlisseds ts
20. ae Appel lait ab iS-on: bail and therefore he shall surrencer bel wre the trial Court to undergo the sentence imposed upon him. and trial Court was also to take necessary st eps in this regard, without any further delay. Copy, of the: dud gemeérit sent forthwith to the trial Court for