Bangalore District Court
Cbi Acb Blr vs A1 M. Nagaraja on 6 November, 2024
KABC010279892016
IN THE COURT OF THE XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES (CCH-47) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2024
PRESENT:
SRI. SANTOSH S. PALLEDH, B.A., LL.B. (Spl.),
XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Bengaluru.
SPECIAL CRIMINAL CASE No.514/2016
COMPLAINANT : Central Bureau of Investigation,
A.C.B., Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
-VERSUS-
ACCUSED A1. Sri. Nagaraj,
S/o.Late Munigurappa,
Aged about 50 years,
Office Superintendent, Dispatch Section,
Office of the Senior Divisional Personnel
Officer, South Western Railways, Bangalore
Division, Bengaluru
Presently residing at:
Srinagara, Near Bapuji School, Railway
2 Spl. C.C.514/2016
Station, Ddoddaballapur, Bengaluru Rural
District,
Permanent Address:
Holageranahalli Village and post,
Srinivaspur Taluk, Kolar District,
Karnataka
A2. Shri. K. Ramana,
S/o. Shri Pedanna Bhushanna
Aged about 34 years,
Junior Clerk, Office of the Senior Divisional
Personnel Officer, South Western Railways,
Bengaluru Division, Bengaluru
Presently residing at:
No.5-6-22, Nedar Balaji Temple,
Lakshmipuram, Hindupur, Anantapur Dist,
Andhra Pradesh.
Permanent Address:
Seshampalli Village, Ramgiri Mandal,
Ananthapur Dist, Andhra Pradesh.
A3. Shri. Shadab Khan,
S/o. Shri S.A.M. Khan,
Aged about 25 years,
Personnel Branch Clerk, Office of the
Senior Section Engineer, Chennapatna,
South Western Railways, Bengaluru
Division, Bengaluru
Presently residing at:
No.77, 3rd Main, Kausar Nagar, R.T. Nagar
Post, Bangalore 560032.
Permanent Address:
No.4-5-217, Balaji Talkies Road,
Dharampuram, Ananthapur District,
Andhra Pradesh.
3 Spl. C.C.514/2016
A4. Smt. Padmini,
W/o. B.T. Shivaprasad,
Aged about 60 years,
Accounts Assistant (retired), Office of the
Senior Divisiional Finance Manager, South
Western Railways, Bangalore Division,
Bangalore.
R/o.No.181, Shankar Nagar, APMC Market,
Bengaluru 560096.
By Sri. K.D. Adv. For A1, Sri. V.G.R. Adv.
For A3, O.M.G. adv for A4, A2 dead.
1. Date of Commission of : 27.04.2016
Offence
2. Date of Report of Offence : 27.04.2016
3. Date of Arrest of accused : -------------
4. Date of release of accused on : -------------
bail
5. Period of undergone in : -------------
custody
6. Name of the complainant : Central Bureau of
Investigation, A.C.B.,
Bengaluru.
7. Date of recording of Evidence : 17.07.2021
8. Date of closing Evidence : 19.04.2024
9. Offences complained of : Offence punishable u/s.120-B
Charges framed r/W. Sec. 409, 420, 468, 471
and 477-A of I.P.C. and Sec.
13(1)(c) & (d) r/w. Sec. 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption
: Act, 1988.
10. Opinion of the Judge : Accused held guilty
11. State/CBI represented by : Special Public Prosecutor
12. Accused defended by A1-Rep. By K.D., A2-Dead, A3-
Rep. By VGR, A4 Rep. By.
OMG.
4 Spl. C.C.514/2016
(SANTOSH S. PALLEDH)
XLVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, CBI, Anti Corruption Branch filed the charge-sheet against the Accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under sections 120B r/w with sec 420, 409, 468, 471 and 477(a) of IPC and under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of PC Act 1988.
2. The case of prosecution is as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that Sri.Nagaraj (Accused no-1), Ramana (Accused no-2), Sri. Shadab Khan (Accused no-3) and Padmini (Accused no-4), entered into criminal conspiracy among themselves and in furtherance to the conspiracy, during the period between July 2015 and December 2015 abused their official positions, dishonestly prepared edit lists and salary bills, in the names of 16 employees towards reimbursement of Hostel subsidy and disbursed the amount to the salary accounts of the said employees and later misappropriated the amounts.
5 Spl. C.C.514/2016
3. The specific allegations against accused No.1 was stated as while functioning as Office Superintendent, Senior Section Engineer Office, Hindupur Section South Western Railways, Bangalore Division was entrusted with the duty of preparation of pay bills of Penukonda Section as regular Personnel Branch of Penukonda Section was absent from duties and he has abused his official position in connivance with Smt. Padmini (Accused-4), Accounts Assistant, Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, South Western Railways, Bengaluru Division, dishonestly prepared false edit lists and salary bills for the months of July, September, October and November 2015 with respect to office of Senior Section Engineer, Permanent Way, Penukonda by dishonestly including the amounts in the names of 9 employees in respect of Hostel Subsidy Reimbursements under the head of Educational Assistance, without permission/sanction from the competent authority, the same are in respect of employees by name V. Thimmaiah Ramaiah, the amount of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.90,000/- is credited for the month of July 2015 and September 2015, in respect of T. Aswathappa Rs.90,000/- for the month of July 2015, Sathendra Kumar Rs.90,000/- for the month of September 2015, P. Sudhakar Rs.90,000/- for the month of October 2015, Kattubadi Manjunath 6 Spl. C.C.514/2016 Rs.90,000/- for the month of October 2015, Venkatarami Reddy Rs.90,000/- for the month of October 2015, G. Siddappa Rs.90,000/- for the month of October 2015, Rachepalli Raju Rs.90,000/- for the month of October 2015, Chennakesavulu Rs.90,000/- for the month of October 2015, in total amount of Rs.9,00,000/- of misappropriation was done by accused no.1.
4. In respect of Accused no.2, K. Ramana, he was functioning as Personnel Branch Clerk at the office of Senior Section Engineer, Penukonda Section, South Western Railways, Bengaluru Division and in furtherance of Criminal Conspiracy with Smt. Padmini (Accused-4) abused his Official position and dishonestly prepared false edit list and salary bills for the month of December 2015 in respect of V. Thimmaiah Ramaiah for Rs.90,000/-, D. Anil Kumar Rs.90,000/-, M. Thirupalu Rs.90,000/-, Kathe Ramanjaneyulu Rs.90,000/-, V. Venugopal Rs.90,000/-, Venkatarami Reddy Rs.90,000/- and Chennakesavulu Rs.90,000/- which totally amounts to misappropriation of Rs.6,30,000.
5. In respect of Accused no.3, Shadab Khan, while functioning as Personnel Branch Clerk at the office of Senior Section Engineer, Penukonda Section, South Western Railways, 7 Spl. C.C.514/2016 Bengaluru Division, in furtherance of Criminal Conspiracy with with Smt. Padmini Accused no. 4 has created false edit list and salary bills for the month of August, 2015 by abusing his official position in the name of Akulappa V. for Rs.90,000/-, K. Nagaraj Rs.90,000/- and Sadasiva Rs.90,000/-, and thereby misappropriated to the extent of Rs.2,70,000/-.
6. The Accused no.4- Padmini while serving as Accounts Assistant in the office of Senior Divisional Finance Manager, South Western Railways, Bengaluru in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with A1 to A3 willfully omitted to ascertain about sanction in the sanction register for disbursement of Hostel subsidy and intentionally facilitated to include the names of 16 employees in the salary bills, though none of the above named 16 employees had submitted application for reimbursement hostel subsidy, either to Personnel Branch Clerk or to any Railway Officers and further some of them were un-married, some of them had no children and some of the employee's children were not in the age group specified and some were not at all staying in hostel and after disbursement of money Accused no.1 and Accused no.2 in furtherance to criminal conspiracy along with other accused persons fraudulently collected the cash from all the employees on the pretext that the 8 Spl. C.C.514/2016 payment was wrongly done to them and it has to be remitted back to the account of Railways, but did not do so and instead misappropriated the money for their personal use and caused wrongful loss of Rs.18,00,000/- to Railways, thereby attracting act of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust by public servants, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using forged documents as genuine and falsification of accounts abusing their official position as such attracting offences under sections 120B read with 420, 409, 468, 471 and 477(a) of IPC and under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of PC Act 1988.
7. Initially, the FIR has been registered by CW-49 in RC No.9(A) of 2016 dated 27.04.2016 under sections 120B read with 420, 409, 468, 471 and 477(a) of IPC and under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of PC Act 1988 against one Somashekar Rao, Assistant Personnel Officer (Engineering), Bengaluru Division, South Western Railway, Bengaluru, Smt.Anjali Muthukrishna, Chief Superintendent, South Western Railways, Bengaluru Division and K. Ramana, Personnel Branch Clerk, Permanent way office, Penukonda based on the source information. After the investigation progressed it is revealed that the accused by name Nagaraj, Ramana, Shadab Khan who were working as Public 9 Spl. C.C.514/2016 Servants in the office of Senior Section Engineer, Permanent way Office, Penukonda, South Western Railways, who were entrusted with duties of preparation and processing of pay and allowances i.e. edit lists and salary bills pertaining to the employees of Senior Section Engineer, Permanent way, Penukonda. And Smt. Padimini who was functioning as a public servant in the capacity of Accounts Assistant in the Senior Divisional Finance Manager office, was entrusted with the duties including vetting of the edit lists put up to her by personnel branch clerks, after verifying the said edit lists with the relevant sanction registers have committed the alleged offences.
8. After obtaining sanction from the competent authorities the Investigation Officer has filed charge-sheet against these Accused no. 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under sections 120B read with 420, 409, 468, 471 and 477(a) of IPC and under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of PC Act 1988.
9. After the charge-sheet is received, my Learned Predecessor-in-office has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offenses and summoned accused persons shown in the charge-sheet.
10. In response to the summons issued, initially Accused no. 1 and Accused no.2 sought for dispensation of appearance, 10 Spl. C.C.514/2016 under section 205 of Cr.P.C. and Accused no. 3 and Accused no. 4 obtained bail. Later Accused no.1 and Accused no.2 have also obtained bail by furnishing sureties. The copies of charge-sheet were furnished to Accused no.1 to 4 in compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C.
11. Accused no. 1 to 4 have not advanced arguments before charge and hence, the charges were framed by my Learned Predecessor-in-office for the offences punishable under sections 120B read with 420, 409, 468, 471 and 477(a) of IPC and under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of PC Act 1988 and the accused no. 1 to 4 have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
12. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 34 witnesses and produced Ex.P.1 to P.126 documents and Ex.D.1 document.
13. After the completion of evidence of prosecution side, my learned predecessor has recorded the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against them. The accused Nos.1 to 4 have denied the incriminating evidence, but did not chose to lead evidence on their side.
11 Spl. C.C.514/2016
14. Accused No. 2 died during the course of trial and hence the case against Accused no.2 abated. The arguments were heard form learned Public prosecutor and from counsel for accused no. 1,3 and 4.
15. The gist of submission of learned prosecutor :
It is argued that Accused no.1 to 4 who are the Railway Employees in different position have hatched the plan to commit fraud for gulping the public money belonging to the Railways department, by forging the documents and falsifying the accounts.
The Accused no. 1, 2 and 3 in the capacity of Personnel Branch Clerks who were entrusted with the duty of preparing list of persons entitled for benefits of Hostel subsidy and educational allowances of children and their duty was to compare with the family register maintained and kept with them from the application details furnished by employees and the persons who are genuinely entitled for the claim, their applications have to be forwarded for sanction. But they failed in their duty and got created the records showing that the employees are entitled for Hostel Subsidy amounts though in fact some of them are not having children, some of their children are not staying in hostel and some of their children have married already and some of them showing the name 12 Spl. C.C.514/2016 of 3rd child, though it is restricted to first two children only. The Accused no. 4 shared hands with other accused and being responsible for comparing the same before preparing the salary bills i.e. edit list and vetting list, before placing it before Finance officer for approval of bill. Thereby they have all gone to the extent of committing offences of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, forging records, forging accounts using them as genuine and being public servants have committed the offenses of wrongful gain for personal benefit and the prosecution witness have clearly deposed in this regard showing their involvement. The sanction obtained is lawful and it is not seriously disputed by accused.
Hence, seeks to convict the accused and filed written arguments as well.
16. Submissions on the side of counsel for accused:
The submissions on behalf of counsel for accused No.1 is that the children education allowance is available only for first two children.
In this case initially in the FIR the names of one Somashekhara Rao, the Assistant Personnel Officer, Anjali Muthukrishnan, Chief Office Superintendent were also shown but it is not shown in the charge sheet and they are made as witnesses, it clearly show that in order to safeguard the higher officials, the subordinate 13 Spl. C.C.514/2016 employees have been falsely implicated in this case. The above officials were all responsible for sanction of allowance and it is with their permission / sanction the allowance will be disbursed and included in the salary, but I.O has falsely implicated these accused persons. There is need for charges to be altered as per Section 231 of Cr.P.C. The Accused no. 1 is not the sanctioning authority nor he is a beneficiary and allegations of misappropriation is false. The accused No.1 only forwarded the application and it is the higher authorities who have to check correctness and sanction but unfortunately the Accused no.1 is alleged of cheating, forging, creating documents, accounts which are all baseless and there is no material to attract these offences and no document is proved as forged. To attract the criminal conspiracy there should be collective mind, meeting of persons but in this case all the accused persons were doing their duties independently and no material is produced to show that they have entered into conspiracy. The 313 statement shows no evidence is made out against the accused. Accused no.1 was not working at Penukonda but allegations of same is at Penukonda and the examination of PW1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 26, 28, 33, 34 shows no such material is 14 Spl. C.C.514/2016 elicited to attract the guilt alleged against this accused No.1.
Hence, sought to acquit the accused.
17. The submission of counsel for accused no.3 is that though the prosecution has examined PW1 to 34 witnesses, but no one has deposed against Accused no.3 and this Accused no.3 was continuously absent from his duties as such allegations of committing these offence is baseless and he is falsely implicated.
18. The submission of counsel for Accused no. 4 is that the charge sheet Page 8, para 3 & 4 shows that there is no direct allegation towards guilt of these accused and the witness deposed only about procedure and there is no evidence attracting offence alleged against them. Though the PWs 4 and 5 who were shown as accused in the FIR but later they were made as witnesses which is the fatal part of investigation and actually they were responsible for sanctioning the allowance and they have not verified the records properly but thrown the liability on these poor employees. Hence seeks to acquit the accused.
19. In reply to arguments advanced by counsels' for accused, the Learned Public Prosecutor has replied that the Ex.P.42 is the order of deputation of Accused no. 1 and Accused no.3 has committed the offence only for the month of August 2015 15 Spl. C.C.514/2016 and his liability of misappropriation is to the extent of Rs.2,72,000/-. PW.2 and 6 deposed the detail procedure which shows duties and responsibilities of each employee and the documents produced shows their negligence in performing their duties and thereby all the allegations were proved. Hence seeks to convict the accused persons.
20. I have gone through the prosecution papers, evidence, and after hearing the arguments of both side, the following points arise for my consideration :-
1. Whether the sanction accorded against the accused No.1 to 3 is valid and proper?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 4, as the case may be, have conspired together to do an illegal act by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing the official position of accused No.1 to 4 being the public servant to have the pecuniary advantage in their favor without any public interest by committing an act of criminal breach of trust, falsification of the relevant accounts in respect of salary bill for the month of july 2015 to December 2015 and criminal misconduct by accused No.1 being incharge Personnel branch clerk at Senior Section Engineer office , Penukonda Section, South Western Railway, 16 Spl. C.C.514/2016 Bengaluru Division, Accused no.2 and 3, who were working as Personnel branch clerk at Senior Section Engineer office , Penukonda Section, South Western Railway, Bengaluru Division, Accused No.4 who was working as Accounts Assistant at Senior Divisional Finance Manager, South Western Railways, Bengaluru Division, and thereby accused Nos.1, to 4 have committed the offence punishable under Section 120B R/w. Secs.409, 420, 468, 471,477A of IPC and Sec.13(1)(c)&(d) R/w. Sec.13(2) of the PC Act?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that during the aforesaid period, the accused No.1 in furtherance of his conspiracy with accused Nos. 4, as the case may be,being the Office Superintendent entrusted with work of processing money matter and In-charge Personnel branch clerk at Penukonda, has facilitated by allowing false claim of Hostel subsidy allowance reimbursement to the extent of Rs.9,00,000 in respect of 9 employees, accused no.2 in furtherance of his conspiracy with accused no. 4 being the personnel branch clerk at Penukonda section entrusted with the work of processing money matter has facilitated allowing false claim of reimbursement of hostel subsidy allowance of 7 employees to the tune of Rs. 6,30,000-/ , accused no.3 in furtherance of his conspiracy with accused no. 4 being the 17 Spl. C.C.514/2016 personnel branch clerk at Penukonda section entrusted with the work of processing money matter has facilitated allowing false claim of reimbursement of hostel subsidy allowance of 3 employees to the tune of Rs. 2,70,000-/, the accused no. 4 being the Accounts Assistant entrusted with processing of money matter, in furtherance of her conspiracy with Accused no. 1, 2 and 3, facilitated allowing false claim of Hostel subsidy reimbursement to the tune of 18,00,000-/ and committed the offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 409 R/w.
Sec.120B of the IPC ?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, during the above said period, the accused No.1 in furtherance of the conspiracy with accused no. 4, has induced fraudulently, dishonestly the Assistant Divisional Finance Manager of South Western Railways, to pass the Salary bills , which included false claims of Hostel subsidy claims to the tune of 9,00,000/-, accused no. 2 has induced fraudulently and dishonestly to pass the salary bills including false claims of Hostel subsidy allowance of Rs. 6,30,000-/ the accused no. 3 has induced fraudulently and dishonestly to pass the salary bills including false claims of Hostel subsidy allowance of Rs. 2,70,000-/ and accused no.4 has induced fraudulently and dishonestly to pass the salary bills including false claims of Hostel subsidy allowance of 18 Spl. C.C.514/2016 Rs. 18,00,000-/ and committed offence punishable under sec.420 IPC r/w section 120-B of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 during the months of July, September, October November 2015, accused no.2 during the month of December 2015, accused no.3 during the month of August 2015, in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy have created edit bills containing false claim of Hostel subsidy re- reimbursement intending to be used for cheating South Western Railway, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC R/w. Sec.120B of the IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 during the months of July, September, October November 2015, accused no.2 during the month of December 2015, accused no.3 during the month of August 2015, in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy have fraudulently and dishonestly forged edit lists knowing it to be forged documents, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC R/w. Sec.120B of the IPC?
7. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 during the months of July, September, October, November 2015 being entrusted with duty of preparing pay bills of personnel branch, accused no.2 during the month of 19 Spl. C.C.514/2016 December 2015, accused no.3 during the month of August 2015 being entrusted with the duty of preparing salary bills of personnel branch of Penukonda section, accused no.4 during the months of July to December 2015 being Accounts Assistant, in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy have willfully with an intention to defraud Railway Department falsified the salary bills and accounts of office, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 477-A of IPC R/w. Sec.120B of the IPC?
8. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 during the months of July, September, October, November 2015 being In charge Personnel branch clerk at Senior Section Engineer office having entrusted with the duty of Preparing pay bills , accused no.2 being personnel branch clerk at Senior Section Engineer office having entrusted with the duty of Preparing pay bills during the month of December 2015, accused no.3 during the month of August 2015 being personnel branch clerk at Senior Section Engineer office having entrusted with the duty of Preparing pay bills and Accused no.4 being accounts assistant at Office of Senior Divisional Finance Manager entrusted with processing work of encashment, all of them being public servants conspired together and abused their official position and dishonestly, 20 Spl. C.C.514/2016 fraudulently misappropriated the hostel subsidy allowance payable to employees by corrupt and illegal means and obtained pecuniary advantage and committed offences punishable under section 13(1)
(c) (d) r/w sec 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act?
9. What order ?
21. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Points No.2 to 6, 8 : In the Affirmative.
Point No.7 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Point No.9 : As per final order
for the following:-
:R E A S O N S:
22. Point No.1 :- In this case it is relevant to mention here that question of sanction with respect to Accused no. 4 is concerned the CBI authorities have not obtained sanction as she got retired prior to filing charge sheet and it is not disputed, hence the discussion is restricted to validity of sanction in respect of accused no. 1 to 3 only. It is not in dispute that accused No.1 to 3 are the public servants. It is settled law that, without sanction the prosecution cannot continue the case. On going through the prosecution evidence it is noticed that, in respect of accused No.3, PW.1 has given evidence stating that, he is competent authority to remove accused No.2 and 3 from their office. The evidence of PW.1 21 Spl. C.C.514/2016 shows that, he is competent authority to remove accused No.2 and 3 from their office as they were working as Junior clerks and hence he is having competency to remove them from service and according to him he has verified the records of CBI and then came to the conclusion that there was prima facie case holding that accused No.2 and 3 have committed the offences as alleged by the CBI and thereby, he has accorded sanction to prosecute accused No.2 and 3. The relevant document in this regard is Ex.P.118 which is the sanction order in respect accused No.2 and Ex.P.119 is the sanction order in respect of accused No.3.
23. On going through these sanction orders it can be held that there is application of mind. The sanction order consists of 11 pages. The PW.1 has referred to all the enclosures and came to the conclusion that there is prima facie material to proceed against these accused No.2 and 3. Further has discussed about the duties of these employees and how they have erred in performing their duties and amounting to commission of offence. Thereby, he has accorded sanction to prosecute against accused No.2 and 3.
24. There is no serious contest by accused about sanction aspect. The cross examination of PW.1 only shows, learned counsel 22 Spl. C.C.514/2016 for the accused suggested that, he has accorded sanction without due application of mind.
25. In case of accused No.1, it is PW.31, who has accorded sanction. He has deposed in his evidence that, he was working as Divisional Personnel Officer Co-ordination, Bengaluru, during the period 2016 and that he has received request letter from CBI for sanction order to prosecute accused No.1. He had perused the investigation report, statements and documents and came to the conclusion that there is prima facie material to prosecute accused No.1 and accordingly he has issued sanction order as per Ex.P.112.
26. In the cross examination he has clearly stated that, he has examined the statements of around 30 persons that were recorded by the CBI. He has denied the suggestion that, he has issued sanction order without application of mind.
27. The learned Spl.P.P has argued that PW.1 and 31 have thoroughly verified the records of CBI and accorded sanction and no need of conclusion is required. In this regard they relied upon the judgment in C.S.Krishnamurthy V/s State of Karnataka, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "in case the sanction order speak for itself then the satisfaction of sanctioning authority is apparent by reading the order."
23 Spl. C.C.514/2016
28. In respect of appreciation of evidence in respect of Sanction, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs. Mahesh G. Jain, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 119, has held that "an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper technical approach to test its validity. When there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating the application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of the accused".
29. Further in another decision in the case of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal 2014 (4) SCC 295, it is held that, the prosecution has to satisfy the court that at the time of sending the matter for grant of sanction by the competent authority, adequate material for such grant was made available to the said authority. This may be evident from the sanction order, in case, it is not extremely comprehensive as well as facts and circumstances of the case may be spelt out in the sanction order. However, in every individual case, the court has to find out whether there has been an application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority concerned on the material placed before it.
24 Spl. C.C.514/2016
30. In the case of Subramanyaswamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64, it is held that the grant or refusal of the sanction is not a quasi judicial function, what is required to be seen by the competent authority is whether the facts placed before it by investigation agency prima-facie disclose the commission of the offence by the public servant. If the competent authority satisfied that the material placed before it is sufficient for prosecution of the public servant, then, it is required to grant the sanction. If the satisfaction of the competent authority is otherwise, then, it can refuse the sanction. The competent authority cannot undertake a detailed inquiry to decide whether or not the allegation made against the public servant are true. Further, in the decision, relied by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor in the case of C.S.Krishna Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that; "therefore, the ratio is sanction order should speak for itself and in case, facts do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all the particulars were placed before the sanctioning authority for due application of mind. In case, the sanction speaks for itself, then, the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is apparent by reading the order". It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, "it is no doubt true that the 25 Spl. C.C.514/2016 sanction is necessary for every prosecution of the public servant, this safeguard is against the frivolous prosecution against the public servant from harassment. But, the sanction should not be taken as a shield to protect corrupt and dishonest public servant."
31. Therefore, considering the above judgments cited supra, it has to be examined whether the prosecution has proved that the sanction accorded is valid as stated above. After going through the evidence of PW.1 and PW.31 and Ex.P.112, 118 and 119 documents, it is clear that the competent authorities have applied their mind and accorded sanction. They have discussed the role of these employees in preparing false pay bills and causing loss to the department and attracting prosecution. Thereby, it is not possible to disbelieve their version. Therefore, there is no material to discard their evidence, as they are the competent authorities to accord sanction. Hence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is able to prove that the sanction accorded against accused No.1 to 3 is valid. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
32. Points No.2 to 8 : As these points require common appreciation of evidence and to avoid repetition they are taken up together for discussion.
26 Spl. C.C.514/2016
33. In this case, the prosecution claimed that, accused No.1 to 4 being the clerks in the Railway department have committed criminal breach of trust and forged the documents and used them as genuine one for the purpose of encashing the amount towards false claim by misusing their official position and as such they have committed the offences punishable U/Secs.120(B) r/w Sec.409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1) (c),(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
34. Is not in dispute that the accused No.1 to 4 are the public servants in the office of Railway department. Accused No.1 to 3 were working in the office of Senior Engineer (Permanent way) Penukonda, South Western Railways, Bengaluru and accused No.4 was working as Accounts assistant in the office of Sr.Divisional Finance Manager. Before adverting to the role of the accused in the alleged offences, it is essential to know what are the duties of these public servants and work entrusted to them. In this regard, PW.1 who was Divisional Personnel Officer, has explained in his evidence as under:
"The duties and responsibilities of K.Ramana and Shahdab Khan (A-2 and A-3) were to maintain service records of all the employees at SSE P-way office Penukonda Sathya Sai Prashanthi Nilayam and 27 Spl. C.C.514/2016 also to maintain leave accounts,salary bills to be prepared, promotion orders,family composition register, incumbency register, seniority register,post based reservation roster register, children's education allowance/hostel subsidy register, night duty allowance register, over time allowance register, festival advance register,staff grievances register."
35. Further the procedure how the claim for Children education allowance and Hostel subsidy allowance will be granted is explained by various witnesses which can be summed up for understanding where the irregularity has been committed by these accused persons. The PW.1 has deposed as;
" 11.Children education allowance will be provided to the regular employee of their eldest two surviving children based on the claim of the employee from Nursery to 12 th Standard,Diploma students for 1st year and 2nd year are entitled. Education allowance will be given to the children who are staying with the parents.
12.Hostel subsidy is different which will be given to the children who are staying and studying in residential school/hostels which is beyond 50 kms from the parents residence.
13.Employee has to file application in the prescribed form for claiming education allowance and hostel subsidy for eligible eldest 28 Spl. C.C.514/2016 two surviving children through immediate superior officer in charge. In this case superior officer was SSEP-way Penukonda.
Application shall be submitted along with the documents in originals viz; Fee receipt- self attestation, bonafide certificate from the institution/school certifying that the child is studying in the school / class for the year so and so. That application along with the documents to be submitted to supervisory official in turn supervisory official send it to Personnel branch clerk in the P-way Unit. Then Personnel branch clerk has to verify the application along with the enclosures received with family composition certificate, check the eligibility and only with regard to eligible children,necessary entry has to be made in the children's education Allowance /Hostel Subsidy register. Then Personnel branch clerk has to put up application along with enclosures in the register to the chief office superintendent in the Sr.DPO office Bengaluru. The Chief office superintendent again has to verify all the applications along with enclosures and check the eligibility. Then Personnel branch clerk and as well chief office superintendent have to sign in the register. There after Asst. Personnel Officer has to verify applications with enclosures and register randomly and he will 29 Spl. C.C.514/2016 sanction the claim. Having sanctioned the claim Asst.Personnel officer has to sign in the register.
14.After sanction, Personnel branch Clerk has to takethe register to the counter part in the Finance Department,both together enter the prime data, after entry is over Personnel branch clerk will take edit list print in duplicate. After taking edit list print, both Personnel branch clerk and chief office superintendent have to check, sign edit list and send to Finance Department counter part for vetting. It will be in two copies, one copy will be retained with the Finance Department and another copy will be retained with Personnel branch clerk. Once edit list is vetted, the amount vetted in the edit list shall be entered in the salary bill and final salary bill will be taken.
15.After taking salary bill, it has to be sent to Finance Department for further passing for the payment by the Sr.Section Officer to Divisional Finance Manager. After passing the said salary bill it will go to bank account of the employee."
36. PW.2 the then Assistant Personnel Officer has deposed as under:
"3.In our Railways hostel subsidy, children education allowance are permitted to the first two surviving children of the employees and in 30 Spl. C.C.514/2016 order to avail the same the employees are required to submit necessary application along with supporting documents. And in order to avail hostel subsidy the children of the employees are required to stay in the hostel of a residential school. The said applications along with documents are required to be submitted to the Sr. Section Engineer of P-Way unit then the same will be verified and authenticated by the said officer with the help of Personnel Branch Clerk by duly verifying the family compensation of the concerned employee. After that necessary entries will be made by the Personnel Branch clerk in the RTF (Reimbursement of Tuition Fee Register). There afterwards the register along with the documents submitted has to be presented before the Chief Office Superintendent at Personnel Branch of Divisional office which is at Bengaluru. After verification by the Chief Office Superintendent at Personnel Branch will be placed before the Assistant Personnel Officer for obtaining necessary sanction. After obtaining sanction the same will be placed before the Accounts Branch by the Personnel Branch Clerk for making necessary entries in the prime module of Computer system with the help of Personnel branch clerk and their counter part in the Associate Finance of Account Branch. Prime module will be totally under the control of Associate 31 Spl. C.C.514/2016 Finance Branch of Accounts Department. The personnel Branch Clerk along with their counter part in Associate Finance Branch, of Account's Department will make necessary entries with respect to salary bills along with other allowances like Hostel Subsidy allowance, Children Education Allowance, TA etc., after that draft will be generated which is called as Edit List. The said Edit List will be checked and verified by the Personnel Branch Clerk and also their counter part in Accounts Department. After completion of the said procedure the same will be brought before the Chief Officer Superintendent bills of Personnel Branch. After that it will be sent to the Accounts Department for vetting of the said Edit List. After that the final salary bill will be generated. After obtaining the print out the same will be sent to the Chief Office Superintendent,Personnel Branch and the same has to be duly signed by the clerk of the said Unit. After completion of the said procedure the same will be placed before the Assistant Personnel Officer,bills for accepting the salary bill. No supporting documents will be produced along with final salary bill at the time of obtaining signature of the Assistant Personnel Officer. The same will be forwarded to Associate Finance for arranging the payments through bank. No changes can be made after vetting of edit list."
32 Spl. C.C.514/2016
37. PW.4 who was the then Asst. Personnel Officer (Engineering) Bengaluru Division, has deposed in his cross- examination as under:
"Once the application is submitted making claim for the allowances it will be verified by the concerned Sr.Section Engineer P-Way and after that it will be sent to P Branch Clerk and make his entry in the Sanction Register and if found proper and correct it will be sent to Chief Office Superintendent of Bills Section. After verification by the Chief Officer Superintendent the same will be forwarded to Asst.Personnel Officer Concerned. After random check up by the Asst. Personnel Officer and if he found proper the same will be sanctioned".
38. PW.5 the then Chief Office Superintendent has deposed in her examination in chief as under:
"Bills pertaining to Hostel Subsidy allowance, Children Education allowance, Festival Advance and all other bills were to be routed though me. After that it would be sent to Asst.Personnel Officer for obtaining sanction and on obtaining the sanction it will be sent to account department. The same will be carried by the P-Bill branch clerk. After that edit bills will be generated by the P-Bill Clerk of Accounts Branch along with Section Assistant. After preparation of 33 Spl. C.C.514/2016 the edit bills the same will be forwarded to the Accounts section through Chief Office Superintendent"
39. PW.6 the then Senior Divisional Finance Manager has deposed in his examination in Chief as under:
" That the personal branch clerk used to prepare the edit bill and the same would be verified in the accounts department, firstly by the account assistant and then vetted by Senior Section Officer and finally passed by the Officer concerned. After that the same will be placed before the check bill preparation before the officer concern and later on after cross checking the salary bill and edit list the payment would be arranged through NEFT."
40. PW.8 the then Senior Section Engineer P-Way Penukonda who was Supervisor of employees under that unit has deposed in his chief Examination as Under:
"In order to make a claim towards children education allowances and hostel subsidy allowances the employee would forward an application along with necessary bills and receipts to the personnel branch clerk who will verify the same by looking in to the family composition register maintained of the employee and the same will be forwarded to the Sr.Section Engineer who in turn was required 34 Spl. C.C.514/2016 to verify the same and was required to forward the same to the Sr. DPO, Bengaluru Division.
41. The personnel branch clerk was required to maintain the leave register,traveling allowances register, family composition register along with other allowances register. The personnel branch clerk was required to prepare salary bills of the employees every month."
42. PW.11 the Senior Section officer in Divisional Finance Manager office has deposed in his examination in chief as Under:
" I know the procedures towards preparation of salary bills and passing edit list. Initially the salary bills are entered by concerned clerk of the personal branch and on completion of data entry edit list and on preparation of the same it was to be signed by office Superintendent of personal branch and later on it was to be handed over to the concerned clerk of accounts branch. The accounts branch clerk was required to verify the edit list with documents and if found correct the same was required to be placed before the section officer of establishment section. The section officer was required to carry out random check in the edit list and after verifying the same he was required to handover the same to the Electronic Data Processing Center after affixing the signature to 35 Spl. C.C.514/2016 prepare the bill in physical form. On preparation of the bill it was once again required to be handed over to the personal branch. The personal branch concerned would affix his signature and send it to the accounts branch for passing the said bill".
43. PW.29 Sr.Section Officer of at the office of Sr.Divisional Finance Manager, has deposed in her Examination in Chief as under:
"It was the duty of the dealing clerk to verify and check the register with respect to absentee statement, revision of pay, DA arrears, Tuition fees,educational assistance including hostel subsidy and children education allowances, traveling allowances, etc., It was required for her to i.e. the dealing clerk to check the original sanction obtained by Asst.Personnel Officer or Divisional Personnel officer and verifies the calculations and sanctions obtained. On successful verification it was required for the dealing clerk to endorse on the edit list against each claim of having verified the sanctions. After vetting the same it would be sent to Sr.Section Officer who would in turn make crosscheck of the said bills pertaining to sanction and ensure that the sanctions are in accordance with law. After that the same will be put up before the Sr.Section Office who would affix his signature and once again it 36 Spl. C.C.514/2016 would be sent to the dealing clerk who in turn would send it to the personnel branch dealing clerk".
44. PW.32 the then Senior Section Officer at senior Divisional Finance Manager Office Bengaluru has deposed in her examination in chief with respect to duty of Accused No.4 as under:
"During that period accused No.4 Smt. Padmini working as Accounts Assistant. Her duty was to make all the internal checks with regard to all the claims,salary bills, DA arrears, OTA, TA, tuition fee, education allowances, recoveries etc., Hindupur and Pennukonda Units were alloted to accused No.4 Smt. Padmini. She was the only unit clerk to deal with the said units. She was required to vet all the claims, sanctioned obtained,verification wherever sanction was obtained from APO,DPO etc., in respect of the claims. There after she has to vet all the documents and make an entry in the last portion of the claim by putting her signature.
She was required to check all the claims in detail and put up the same before the Senior Section Officer for further process. After putting the file the same will come to me. After receipt of the files I will check MACP, absentee statement, OTA, TA, and also make a random check wherever sanction was obtained".
37 Spl. C.C.514/2016
45. So after going through the procedure for considering the claim application for Children Education and Hostel Subsidy Allowance and duties of accused persons in respect of holding their posts, as explained by the above witnesses referred, it is essential to examine visa-viz with cross-examination conducted by accused, so as to appreciate whether accused have committed thealleged offenses.
46. The accused are alleged of offences punishable under sections 120B r/w with sec 420, 409, 468, 471 and 477(a) of IPC and under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of PC Act 1988. before adverting to appreciation of evidence it is necessary to know what are the ingredients required to prove the alleged offences. Firstly for the offence under section 409 of IPC the definition the expression 'criminal breach of trust' is defined under Section 405 IPC. Hence, to attract Section 405 IPC, the following ingredients must be satisfied:
(i)Entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property;
(ii)That person has dishonestly mis-appropriated or converted that property to his own use;
38 Spl. C.C.514/2016
(iii)Or that person dishonestly using or disposing of that property or willfully suffering any other person so to do in violation of any direction of law or a legal contract.
47. If such criminal breach is caused by a public servant or a banker, merchant or agent,the said offence of criminal breach of trust is punishable under Section 409 IPC, for which it is essential to prove that:
(i)The accused must be a public servant or a banker, merchant or agent;
(ii)He/She must have been entrusted, in such capacity, with property; and
(iii)He/She must have committed breach of trust in respect of such property.
48. Ingredients necessary to prove a charge under Section 420 IPC:
(i) deception of any person,
(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and
(iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement.
( As explained in the case of Sadupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 547) 39 Spl. C.C.514/2016
49. Ingredients to Attract offence under section 468 IPC :
i) that the accused has fabricated an instrument; and
(ii) it was done with the intention that the forged document would be used for the purpose of cheating.
50. Ingredients to attract offence under section 471 of IPC:
The accused made use of the forged document or electronic record as a genuine one.
The accused knew or had a reason to believe that such document or electronic record is a forged one. The accused made use of the said document or electronic record in spite of knowing it to be a forged one.
51. Ingredients to prove offence under section 477A of IPC:
(a) that the accused destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified the books, electronic records, papers, writing, valuable security or account in question;
(b) the accused did so in his capacity as a clerk, officer or servant of the employer;
(c) the books, papers, etc. belong to or are in possession of his employer or had been received by him for or on behalf of his employer;
(d) the accused did it wilfully and with intent to defraud.
40 Spl. C.C.514/2016
52. The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy under section 120-B IPC:
(i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) an agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act;
(b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
(As explained in MIR NAGVI ASKARI Vs. C.B.I. 2009(15) SCC 643 ) The section 13 (1) (c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act reads as under:
"Section13: Criminal misconduct by a public servant - (1)a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do
d) if he, i) by corrupt or illegal means,obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage;or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant,obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage;or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant,obtains for any persons any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
41 Spl. C.C.514/2016
53. So in the background of the above referred provisions and the ingredients required to prove the offences, let me analyze the evidence adduced by prosecution and the cross-examination done by accused.
54. In this case prosecution has examined in all 34 witnesses from PW.1 to PW.34. Among them PW.3 the then Senior Section Officer, Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, SW railway, deposed about, handing over Accounts Inspection Report of P-Way Office of Penukonda pertaining to the month of February-2010 and Attendance Muster of Smt Lilly Vijay, Smt Pankajakshi and Accused No.4 and through him ExP.39 the covering letter and Ex.P40 Attendance Muster from July 2015 to December 2015 are marked. PW.7 the then Branch Manager of SBI Penukonda, deposed about producing Ex.P 63 to P.76 documents which are production cum receipt memo, Account opening form of K. Channakesahvalu, Statement of account copy of K Channakeshavalu for the period 1.9.2015 to 31.01.2016, Account opening form of Satendra Kumar, copy of Statement of account Satnedra Kumar for the period 1.6.2015 to 31.10.2015, Account opening form of Mala Tirapalu, copy of Statement of account Mala Tirapulu for the period 1.12.2015 to 31.01.2016, Account opening 42 Spl. C.C.514/2016 form of Thimmaih Ramaih, copy of Statement of account Thimmaih Ramaih for the period 1.6.2015 to 31.01.2016, Account opening form of K Sadashiva, copy of Statement of account K Sadashiva for the period 1.6.2015 to 31.08.2015, copy of Account opening form of T Ashwathappa , copy of Statement of account T Ashwathappa for the period 1.6.2015 to 31.08.2015. No much cross-examination is done by accused to disbelieve their evidence. The evidence of these witnesses is with respect to producing the above mentioned documents and does not require much appreciation.
55. PW.12 the then Chief Vigilance Inspector, Accounts in the office of SDGM, SW railway, Hubli and the member of Joint Surprise Check team, has deposed about accompanying the CBI team to the office of Senior Section Engineer, P-way Penukonda and collecting the documents like Pay slip for the month of October-2015 marked as per Ex.P.102, Pay slip for the month of December-2015 marked as Ex.P.103, Letter of correspondence dated 25/26.02.2016 marked as Ex.P.104, Letter of Thimmaiah Ramaiah marked as Ex.P.105, Pass register / family composition register marked as Ex.P.106, TA summary bills for the month of October-2015 marked as Ex.P.107,Personal register of Kathe 43 Spl. C.C.514/2016 Ramanna marked as Ex.P.108, Proceedings in connection with joint surprise check marked as Ex.P.109 and deposed that these documents were seized through Ex.P101 Seizure memo. There is nothing to appreciate much as it is only with respect to seizure of documents, they being public documents cannot discarded. PW.26 is witness to seizure mahazar, has deposed about seizure of documents like CEA register of Engineering Department of South Western Railway as per Ex.P.38, when he accompanied CBI Team in the search operation and also deposed about collecting specimen writings of Accused No. 1 ,3 and 4 as per Ex.P115 and 120. Though this witness has turned hostile at the first instance, later when cross-examined by Learned PP has supported the case of prosecution. However his evidence is only to the aspect of being witness to seizure of documents and collection of specimen writings of accused and cross examination done by accused, has not damaged much. Hence it can be restricted to believe that they are witnesses to seizure of documents which cannot be disputed as they are public documents.
56. PW.27 has deposed about being witness to the procedure wherein the specimen signature of accused no.1, 4 were taken in his presence as per Ex.P110 and his evidence is believable 44 Spl. C.C.514/2016 only if Expert report corroborates it. PW.30 has deposed about furnishing Bill register for the period 15.12.2014 to 29.09.2015 to CBI as per Ex.P.52 through production memo as per Ex.P 111. So to that extent her evidence is believable.
57. PW.33 is the Director of CFSL,Pune who has deposed about examining the specimen writings of accused no. 1 to 4 with the questioned documents. He has deposed that documents marked as Q.1 to Q.18, Q 25,29,33,40,42,61 to 72 and S 1 to S 12, S 19 to S 30, S 127 to S 166 , S 308 to S 317 were all written by one and same person. The documents marked as Q 55, 59, and S 67 to 96, S 196 to 244 were all written by one and the same person, the documents marked as Q 53, 54,57 S 97 to 114, S 121 to 126, S 245 to 307 were all written by one and same person. The Signatures marked as Q 19 to Q 24, Q 26 to 28, 30 to 32, 34 to 39, 41, 56, 43 to 50 being too limited in nature do not afford sufficient data to express any definite opinion. In his cross-examination has admitted that his senior has addressed letter to CBI stating the documents sent to them were not sufficient and he has not expressed opinion about Accused no.1. However the evidence of this witness is having limited scope, if prosecution establishes the entrustment and criminal breach of trust alleged against accused, 45 Spl. C.C.514/2016 it would be for the accused to explain how irregularities took place even if assumed that the alleged entries are not in their hand writings.
58. It is specific allegation of prosecution that accused no.1 to 4 have conspired together and abused their official position, dishonestly prepared edit lists and salary bills in the names of 16 employees towards reimbursement of hostel subsidy and disbursed to their respective accounts and then collected the amounts from these employees saying that, it was credited by mistake and failed to re deposit the amount to the department. So these 16 employees, the CBI has examined them as PW.9,10,13 to
25. Before going to the evidence of these witnesses it is necessary to go through the evidence of higher officials to understand how they explained the commission of offence by these accused persons. According to PW.2 some interpolation were made in the Sanction Register which he has explained as, in Ex.P38 the Children Education Allowance Register of P-way penukonda unit, at page no. 14 and 15 Sl.no.4 standing in the name of Mr. Akulappa who is also beneficiary of allowance, an amount of Rs.90,000/- is shown against his name but it does not show folio number and documents supporting it( Ex.P38-a). So he says this is interpolation. Further 46 Spl. C.C.514/2016 explained in page no.16 in entry at Sl.no.4 already existed but name of Satendra kumar is shown. In page no. 46 and 47 at sl. no.48 name of K.Nagraj is inserted without folio number and without supporting documents and Sl. no. 48 already it was in the name of Nirmal Jyothi. At page no.78 Sl.no.9 two entries were made and original entry was in the name of Nirmala Jyothi and name of Sadashiv K for 90,000/- was added without supporting documents and folio number(Ex.P38-d).
59. Further he has deposed that at page no.78 at Sl no.10 the entry in the name of C Ramanjaneyulu has been inserted without supporting documents and without folio number(Ex.P38-e), at page no.80 at sl.no 11 entry in the name of K.Nagaraju was inserted for amount of Rs.90,000-00 without supporting documents and without folio number(Ex.P38-f). In page no.80 he admits that there are entries which contain his signature and which is sanctioned by him and it was found at Ex.P 38(g). He has clarified that only when supportive documents found he has sanctioned hostel subsidy allowance. But above pointed entries were made without his knowledge and without supporting documents and without folio number. Though in his cross- examination has stated that he cannot specifically identify the 47 Spl. C.C.514/2016 hand writing of accused no.1 but he has explained that the Register was in the custody of accused no.1 as he was in charge of Personnel branch.
60. The witness PW.4 who was the Assistant Personnel Officer of Engineering section has deposed that, after receiving complaint from one Basha Senior Section Engineer in 2016 about payment of subsidy allowance in the salary for the month of December 2015, though they were not eligible, asked Accused no.2 to produce details and he failed to produce sanction particulars and documents. Then on 02.02 2016 he received written information from one Yeshwanth Kumar and others those who are Track Maintainers, that Hostel subsidy allowance are being paid to Venktaramai Reddy, Manjunath, M. Thirupal, SattendraKumar, Thimmiah though they were not eligible and he called the relevant records from the accounts branch with respect to hostel subsidy paid to Penukonda staff for the last six months and from the statement he had noticed that hostel subsidy allowances were paid to some staff, more than once which was apparently illegal. Then he puts up a note in this regard to his senior Divisional Personnel Officer and with the approval of Divisional Personnel Officer nominates Tulasi Das who was the staff welfare inspector to 48 Spl. C.C.514/2016 conduct enquiry in this regard and On 17.02.2016 the said Tulsi Das submits report indicating the illegality wherein hostel subsidy allowances were paid to ineligible employees and concerned P- Branch clerk was unable to produce necessary sanction order or the documents.
61. Though this witness was named as one of the accused during FIR stage, but cross-examination done shows only formal suggestion put to say he has deposed falsely. He has denied the suggestion that bill clerk will not be the custodian of register and further explained that he use to put his signature whenever he sanctioned allowance.
62. PW.5 the Chief Office Superintendent has deposed that hostel subsidy and children education allowances were forwarded to the competent authority through her and for which she maintained a personal dairy. The documents which used to pass through her were initialed by her and on going through the edit list as per Ex.P.19 she has deposed that it does not contain her initials but has identified the signature of accused No.4 Padmini. On going through another edit list pertaining to the month of January-2015 as per Ex.P.44 deposed that it was not passed through her and it was signed and vetted by Accused-4 Padmini 49 Spl. C.C.514/2016 which was also in her handwriting. Further edit list pertaining to the month of March-2015 as per Ex.P45 signed and vetted by Accused-4 Padmini and even the said edit list was not passed through her, edit list pertaining to the month of May-2015 as per Ex.P46 which is signed and vetted by Accused-4 Padmini, was not passed through her, edit list pertaining to the month of July-2015 marked as Ex.P47 which is signed and vetted by Accused-4 Padmini was not passed through her, edit list pertaining to the month of August-2015 as per Ex.P48 which is signed and vetted by A-4 Padmini, was not passed through her, another edit list pertaining to the month of October-2015 as per Ex.P49 which is signed and vetted by Accused-4 Padmini, was not passed through her, edit list pertaining to the month of December-2015 as per Ex.P 50 which is signed and vetted by Accused -4 Padmini, was not passed through her. So according to her these edit lists were vetted by accused no.4. without bringing to her knowledge.
63. In her cross-examination it was suggested that she is responsible for the entire delinquencies which took place, and she has denied it. It is also suggested that she was named in the FIR as accused and it took place with her connivance and now deposing falsely, which is denied by her.
50 Spl. C.C.514/2016
64. PW.8 the then Senior Section Engineer P-way Penukonda has deposed that during May 2015 to November 2015 Accused no.3 was Personnel branch clerk and in the month of December 2015 Accused no.2 was Personnel branch clerk and they have not forwarded any applications of employees by name M.Tirupalu, Rachepalli Raju, K.Channakeshavalu, Katte Ramanjineyalu, V. Akulappa,Satendra Kumar, Sadashiva, Thimmiah Ramiah, Kattubadi Manjunath, K. Nagaraj, C. Siddappa, Veugopal, D. Anil Kumar,Venkatarama Reddy, Sudhakar to him and as per records these employees have not presented any applications claiming allowances.
65. In his cross-examination admitted that he has not seen any order directing accused no.1 to take the charge of Accused no.3.
66. PW.28 in her cross-examination has deposed that accused no.4 cannot edit or delete the salary bill, as it will be done by personnel branch. Further she has admitted that the other officers who have signed the bills, have signed after verifying the bills.
67. PW.29 in her chief -examination deposed that Accused no.4 being dealing clerk, was required to verify and check the 51 Spl. C.C.514/2016 register with respect to absentee statement, revision of pay, DA arrears, Tuition fees, educational assistance including hostel subsidy allowance, education allowance, traveling allowance and to check original sanction obtained by APO or DPO and shall endorse on the edit list against each claim of verifying the sanction and after vetting shall send to Sr. Section Officer and he would make cross-check and send it dealing clerk who in turn send it to Personnel branch. The cross-examination of this witness is done suggesting that Sr. section officer has to thoroughly check the bills which is denied by this witness.
68. PW.32 has deposed that accused No.4 Smt. Padmini was working as Accounts Assistant. Her duty was to make all the internal checks with regard to all the claims,salary bills, DA arrears, OTA, TA, tuition fee, education allowances, recoveries etc., Hindupur and Pennukonda Units were allotted to accused No.4 Smt. Padmini. She was the only unit clerk to deal with the said units. She was required to vet all the claims, sanction obtained,verification wherever sanction was obtained from APO,DPO etc., in respect of the claims. There after she has to vet all the documents and make an entry in the last portion of the claim by putting her signature. She was required to check all the 52 Spl. C.C.514/2016 claims in detail and put up the same before the Senior Section Officer for further process. After putting the file the same will come to her and after receipt of the files she will check MACP, absentee statement, OTA, TA, and also make a random check wherever sanction was obtained.
69. In her cross-examination she has deposed that in Ex.P.19,20,21 to 24, signatures of all the relevant officers in the accounts section are there but she did not verify the bills because it was done by the concerned clerk and she has put her signature in the said documents only after verification made by her and whenever sanction is made by the personnel section, sanction memorandum will be attached to that bill and after receipt of the same by the accounts section, the concerned clerk will make a mark as to whether sanction order is available or not and on that basis she will put her signature. Further deposed that Accused no.4 had no independent jurisdiction to release the bill amount and all the bills that were received by Accused-4 had come to her and then went to Sri.Gopalakrishna. That before the bill comes to account section, the personnel section will verify all the documents with regard to Family Composition and entitlement and after passing the bill only it will come to accounts section and edit bill 53 Spl. C.C.514/2016 will be prepared by the personnel branch, final salary bill also will be prepared by the personnel branch and their branch duty only to passing the bills as per sanction order and there was no provision for Accused -4 to insert the name of another person while scrutinizing the sanctioned bill.
70. PW.34 the Investigation officer and he has been cross- examined and he has answered that during investigation he found no sanction was obtained from APO for release of allowance and 16 employees who got the allowance have given statement that they have not claimed such allowance and have not submitted any application and it is accused no 1, 2 and 4 who have incorporated their names. He has admitted in Ex.P25 and 26 signature of Rajan Nair APO is found and it is not forged and all the bills were approved by APO. He admits that even Somashekhar Rao /PW.4 who was accused in FIR has also approved the bill vide Ex.P27 and during his investigation he came to know that accused no.1 was not permanent clerk at Penukonda and was deputed to work in the place of accused no.3 and Ex.P.42 is the order deputing him. It is suggested that he has concocted the register and entries and same was denied as false.
54 Spl. C.C.514/2016
71. Further admitted that he has not seized the bank accounts of any of the accused persons and the persons in whose favour education allowance was credited to their accounts have been subsequently repaid to the Railway Department and the said beneficiaries have not at all transferred any of the amounts either to the accounts of Accused no-1 to 4 or to their nearest persons. He has not recovered any cash amount from the accused persons. He has denied the suggestion that he has filed this false charge sheet with a sole intention to safeguard the interest of higher gazetted officers like Sri.Somashekara Rao and Smt.Anjali Muthukirhsna. Further admitted that in the opinion given by CFSL Hyderabad it is stated that no opinion could be given with regard to signatures of M.Nagaraj/ accused no.1.
72. According to the prosecution, the employees to whom these alleged allowance has been sanctioned as shown in records were created by accused persons by making false entries in the register, as none of the employees to whom such amount is credited have claimed such benefit and in the arguments it is highlighted by learned SPP that some of them have no children, some are already married. So in this background it is important to 55 Spl. C.C.514/2016 examine the evidence of those employees who have given evidence as PW.9,10,13 to 25.
73. PW.9 has deposed that when he noticed an amount of 90,000-00 was credited to his account in the month of August 2015 in excess to his regular salary, he received telephone call from Accused no.1 who was then Personnel branch clerk and he stated to withdraw the same and return the same to him, as such he withdrew amount on two occasions from bank and gave it to accused no.1 for remitting to department but he has not done so. Further has made it clear by saying that he had not filed any application for children education or hostel allowance as he was not eligible to claim as his children were married by then. PW.10 has also deposed that when he noticed an amount of 90,000-00 was credited to his account in the month of August 2015 , he was contacted by Accused no.2 who was then Personnel branch clerk and he stated to withdraw the same and return the same to him, as such he withdrew amount on different dates from ATM with the help of accused no.2 as he was not savy, and accused no.2 said it is for remitting to department, but he has not done so. Further has made it clear by saying that accused no.2 made false claim on his 56 Spl. C.C.514/2016 behalf for hostel allowance of his children though they were not staying in hostel.
74. PW.13 has deposed that when he noticed an amount of 90,000-00 was credited to his account in the month of August 2015 in excess to his regular salary, he enquired with accused no.2 the then Personnel branch clerk and he stated to withdraw the same and return the same to him, as such he withdrew amount on three occasions from ATM and gave it to accused no.2 for remitting to department, but he has not done so. Further has made it clear by saying that he had not availed any Children education allowance or hostel allowance.
75. PW.14 has deposed that when he noticed an amount of 90,000-00 was credited to his account in the month of October 2015 in excess to his regular salary, he made telephone call to Accused no.2 who was then Personnel branch clerk and he stated to withdraw the same and return the same to him, as such he withdrew amount on different occasions and gave it to accused no.2 for remitting to department but he has not done so. After about one month he had once again received a sum of Rs.1 lakh credit to his account and again he had enquired Accused no-2 in this regard and he had stated that, it will not cause any problem, 57 Spl. C.C.514/2016 accordingly, he had once again withdrawn the amount and paid the same to Accused no-2. Further deposed that he had not utilized any excess amount credited to his account and it was completely utilized by Accused no-2 and he had not applied for any educational allowance.
76. PW.15 deposed that He got two children studying in 6 th standard and 5th standard, in 2015 but he had not applied for any educational or hostel subsidy allowance, but in the month of October 2015, about Rs.90,000/- was credited to his account in excess of his salary and at that time Accused no-2 had called him stating that by mistake the said amount was credited in excess of salary and had requested to return the said amount to him and Accused no-2 had come along with him to the bank where he had withdrawn the said amount by using withdrawal form and handed over the amount to him, however he had not given any receipt to him.
77. PW.16 deposed that he got two children studying in 3 rd standard and 4th standard, in 2015 but he had not applied for any educational or hostel subsidy allowance, but in the month of December 2015, about Rs.90,000/- was credited to his account in excess of his salary and at that time he enquired with Accused no-2 58 Spl. C.C.514/2016 had who stated that by mistake the said amount was credited and he had returned the said amount to him by way of rs. 80,000-00 once and Rs.10,000, however he had not given any receipt to him. PW.17 deposed that he got two children studying in 2 nd standard and 1st standard and they were living with him, he had not availed any educational or hostel subsidy allowance, but in the month of October 2015, about Rs.90,000/- was credited to his account in excess of his salary and at that time he enquired Accused no-2 and he told that by mistake the said amount was credited and he had returned the said amount to him by way of Rs. 60,000-00, 20,000- 00 and Rs.10,000, however he had not given any receipt to him. PW.18 has deposed that in the year 2015 he was unmarried, but in the month of October 2015, about Rs.90,000/- was credited to his account in excess of his salary and at that time he enquired Accused no-2 and he told that by mistake the said amount was credited and he had returned the said amount to him by way of Rs. 70,000-00, 20,000-00, however he had not given any receipt to him.
78. PW.19 has deposed that he has two children who were aged about 27 years and 28 years in the year 2015 and they were staying with him, he had not availed any educational allowances or 59 Spl. C.C.514/2016 hostel allowances but in the month of July 2015 a sum of Rs.90,000/- was credited in excess to his account and when he enquired with the personal branch clerk Accused no-2 he had sated that the said amount was credited by mistake and accordingly he had returned the said amount in its entirety. But again in the month of September 2015 once again his account credited with excess salary of Rs.90,000/- and once again he had returned it as per his request in two installments, again in the month of December 2015 once again credited with excess amount of Rs.90,000/- and once again Accused no-2 had stated that, it was by mistake and accordingly he had returned the said amount in three installments of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/-to him. Accused no.2 had not issued any receipt in this regard.
79. PW.20 deposed that he has three children who were aged about 11 years, 9 years and 7 years in the year 2015 and they were staying with him, he had not availed any educational allowances or hostel allowances but in the month of September 2015 a sum of Rs.90,000/- was credited in excess to his account and when he enquired with the personal branch clerk Accused no- 2 he had sated that the said amount was credited by mistake and 60 Spl. C.C.514/2016 accordingly he had returned the said amount in three installments. Accused no.2 had not issued any receipt in this regard.
80. PW.21 has deposed that he has two children who were aged about 9 years and 7 years in the year 2015 and they were staying with him, he had not availed any educational allowances or hostel allowances but in the month of October 2015 a sum of Rs.90,000/- was credited in excess to his account and when he enquired with the personal branch clerk Accused no-2 he had sated that the said amount was credited by mistake and accordingly he had returned the said amount in two instalments. But again in the month of December 2015 once again his account credited with excess salary of Rs.90,000/- and once again he had returned it. Accused no.2 had not issued any receipt in this regard. PW.22 has deposed that in the year 2015 he was unmarried, he had not availed any educational allowances or hostel allowances, but in the month of December 2015, about Rs.90,000/- was credited to his account in excess of his salary and at that time he enquired Accused no-2 and he told that by mistake the said amount was credited and he had returned the said amount to him by way of Rs. 50,000-00, 40,000-00, however he had not given any receipt to him.
61 Spl. C.C.514/2016
81. PW.23 has deposed that in the year 2015 he was unmarried, he had not availed any educational allowances or hostel allowances, but in the month of October 2015, about Rs.90,000/- was credited to his account in excess of his salary and at that time he enquired Accused no-2 and he told that by mistake the said amount was credited and he had returned the said amount to him by way of Rs. 40,000-00, 30,000-00, 20,000-00, however he had not given any receipt to him.
82. PW.24 has deposed that in the year 2015 he had one child who was aged about 4 years at that time,he had not availed any educational allowances or hostel allowances, but in the month of October 2015, about Rs.90,000/- was credited to his account in excess of his salary and at that time he enquired Accused no-2 and he told that by mistake the said amount was credited and he had returned the said amount to him , however he had not given any receipt to him.
83. PW.25 has deposed that in the year 2015 he had two children who were aged about 5 and 3 years at that time and they were staying with him, he had not availed any educational allowances or hostel allowances, but in the month of December 2015, about Rs.90,000/- was credited to his account in excess of 62 Spl. C.C.514/2016 his salary and at that time he enquired Accused no-2 and he told that by mistake the said amount was credited and he had returned the said amount to him by paying Rs. 40,000-00, 30,000-00, 20,000-00 respectively, however he had not given any receipt to him.
84. So except PW.9 saying that it was accused no.1 who had sated that excess amount was credited mistakenly, the other witnesses PW.10 and PW.13 to 25 haven taken the name of accused no.2 but this is contrary to the case of prosecution. As could be seen form the charge sheet, it is alleged that there is allegation that accused no. 1 has committed the offences during the months of July, September, October, November 2015 and accused no.2 in the month of December 2015 and accused no. 3 in the month of August 2015, but these witnesses have stated contrary to it. The prosecution has not taken note of it and not made request to treat them as hostile.
85. The accused have only cross examined two of them asking with respect to whether they received any receipt from the accused persons so as to say that the amount has been handed over to these accused persons which was credited in excess to their salary. All of them have answered that no receipt is issued, but 63 Spl. C.C.514/2016 they stood firm in saying that it was the accused no. 1 and 2 who stated that by mistake such amount is credited to their account and asked to return the same to deposit with the government. No doubt, there are no documents showing that these witnesses / employees have handed over the excess amount to these accused persons, but it is not in dispute that the amount is being recovered from the salary of these employees after this allegation came into light. But never the less it is documentary proof which plays more important role in appreciating the act of accused whether attract the alleged offence or not.
86. Prosecution has highlighted from the evidence of P.W.2,3, 4, 5, 28 and 32, that the Personnel Branch Clerk is entrusted with a duty of verifying applications with the details produced by employees mentioned in Family composition register. Thereafter, it has to be sent for obtaining sanction from APO and after sanction it has to be sent to Accounts branch along with sanction memorandum attached to it, thereafter the accounts clerks has to verify whether the sanction is obtained or not and then edit the list and send it for sanction of final salary bill. In this regard, the illegality committed by accused were highlighted which can be found in the evidence P.W.2 wherein he has stated that in 64 Spl. C.C.514/2016 Ex.P.38 which is Children Education Allowance register pertaining to P-Way Penukonda Unit and at page No.14 and 15 wherein the Sl.No.4 has been shown in the name of one Akulappa but it is stated that this entry is subsequently made and without his knowledge and it is not bearing Folio number. Further on page No.16 it can be found that the Sl.No.4 is again mentioned in the name of one Sathendra Kumar and this is also not containing folio number and making it clear that this name of Sathendra Kumar is entered without the knowledge of this witness. Again in page No.46 and 47, it is highlighted that the name of K.Nagaraju is entered in between the Sl.No.47 and 48 by showing the number as "48" and this is without giving the folio number. Likewise, the Sl.No.48 already existed in the name of one Nirmala Jyothi, but this interpolation reflect the fraud committed by the accused persons. The page No.78, Sl.No.9 is shown in the name of K.Sadashiva and another name Mastan Vali. This entry in the name of K.Sadashiva is shown with no folio number whereas the entry in the name of Mastan Vali is showing folio No.1 to 8 and even at Sl.No.10 the name of K.Nagaraj has been shown earlier created Sl.No.10 stood in the name of Sri.Raman. To understand it better the scanned copy of Ex.P.38 of some entries cited is extracted as under: 65 Spl. C.C.514/2016 66 Spl. C.C.514/2016 67 Spl. C.C.514/2016
87. All these interpolations lead to conclude that entry created in the original register to patch the illegality committed by them. This is because the register shows where ever the sanction is granted, it has shown the amount which entered for example Rs.43,000/- is claimed in page No.46 in Ex.P.38 and the amount sanctioned is written in red ink as Rs.36,000/- which shows the APO has verified and sanctioned the amount. Whereas in the case of Ex.P38(b) cited supra the claim in the name of K Nagaraju is shown as Rs. 90,000 but it is not verified and written in red ink by APO. So this shows the same is not within knowledge of APO.
88. Likewise, P.W.4 who was the Assistant Personnel Officer of Engineering Section has deposed that he has received complaint of disbursement of allowance to the persons who are not eligible and after conducting investigation he has found irregularity and the Chief Officer Superintendent has deposed that she has maintained personal diary in which she has used to write all the bill numbers, unit numbers which passes through her, because it is she who has to check them.
89. So it shows that the entry is created one, as already entries were there in the same Sl.no. PW.5 she has clearly deposed that accused No.4 has clearly falsified the accounts by showing 68 Spl. C.C.514/2016 sanction obtained in the edit list whereas the same has not passed through her nor brought to her knowledge and this has led to commission of offence alleged. To understand the same one such bill scan copy is extracted as under:
90. P.W.8 has also deposed that it is not brought to the knowledge of Section Officer to say that it is only irregularity.
Though this witness in cross-examination admitted that all the Section officer, finance officer, chief office superintendent were responsible for cross checking and verifying what ever submitted to them, but this would have been acceptable if the same is done after 69 Spl. C.C.514/2016 bringing to the knowledge of them. But in this case, the employees whom have stated to receive benefit have deposed in the Court that no such applications are filed by them for claiming hostel subsidy allowance or children education allowance and they were not at all eligible for making such claim at that point of time. Considering the facts of the case, it is incumbent on the accused to show why they kept silent if the salary bills which passed through them containing false claims, why they did not brought to the notice of their higher authorities. This is because the Offence is not that actually they should commit any act illegally, but omission to not to do an act is also punishable and it is offence.
91. No doubt the higher officials were also having the responsibility of checking whether the bills prepared were proper or not. However, it is initial duty of Personnel Branch Clerk i.e. accused No.1 to 3 to check the applications with the register of family composition and if it is found correct they have to put a note as verified and then submit for approval. But the accused have not shown any such proof of evidence and they have not led defense evidence to believe the same. All the beneficiaries PW.9, 10, 13 to 25 as per the case, have deposed that they have not filed such applications for claim of allowance. Even accused No.4 whose 70 Spl. C.C.514/2016 primary duty was to verify again with the genuineness of the sanction obtained, has failed to do so.
92. In respect of offence alleged under section 120-B IPC is concerned the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MIR NAGVI ASKARI Vs. C.B.I. 2009(15) SCC 643 held that:
"The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) an agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. Condition precedent for holding the accused persons to be guilty of a charge of criminal conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil of the fact which must be established by the prosecution, viz., meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means. The courts, however, while drawing an inference from the materials brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charges of the criminal conspiracy have been proved or not, must always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The manner and circumstances in which the offences have been committed and the accused persons took part are relevant. For the said purpose, it is necessary to prove that the propounders had expressly agreed to it or caused it to be done, and it may also be proved by adduction of circumstantial evidence and/ or by necessary implication. Most necessary is the intention of the accused persons involved in the alleged criminal conspiracy. If they do not intend to commit any unlawful act, then they are not punished under Section 120B of the IPC. It is said to be a conspiracy, only when two or more persons incorporate an intention to commit an offence in themselves. Therefore, the 71 Spl. C.C.514/2016 intention is a sine qua non to construe an act as a criminal conspiracy."
93. In this case when the evidence is evaluated it is clear that the accused no 1 to 3 who were entrusted with duty of maintaining register of sanction, preparing salary bills, they have manipulated the register and salary bill by entering the names of P.W.9, 10 and 13 to 25 showing them as claimants for allowance, though no applications were filed by them and edited the list to show sanction of allowance in their favor and entered the amount in the salary bill, which show their criminal intention to cheat the Railway department and this is conspired by accused no. 1 to 3 in connivance with accused no.4 who was entrusted with duty to verify whether there is sanction order obtained or not for allowance and she has mentioned in the bill as sanction obtained, to defraud Railway department. In Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI (2003) 3 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"354.... For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement need not be proved. The evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient."
A criminal conspiracy is established the moment an agreement is reached between two or more persons to commit an illegal act. The agreement is the crux of the offense, and no overt act is necessary in most cases.
72 Spl. C.C.514/2016 Illegal Object or Illegal Means: The object of the conspiracy must be to carry out an illegal act, or if the act itself is legal, it must be carried out by illegal means. The illegal act can be a crime under the penal code or any other statute. Common Intention: The conspirators must share a common intention to commit the criminal act. It is not necessary for each conspirator to perform the same role or act in the conspiracy, but their involvement in the agreement to commit the crime must be established.
94. Thereby from the above discussed evidence and in the background of decisions relied supra, it is clear that all the accused persons conspired together with an agreement to cheat the Railway Department and created entries and made the higher authorities to believe them as genuine and deceived to deliver property in the form of money by signing salary bill which resulted in release of money which caused loss to Railway department. Therefore it can be firmly held that all the accused no. 1 to 4 entered into criminal conspiracy and prosecution is successful in proving offence under section 120-B IPC.
95. With regard to offence punishable under section 409 IPC concerned I would like to place reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Sadupati Nageswara Rao v. State 73 Spl. C.C.514/2016 of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 547) wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held as under:
"The entrustment of public property and dishonest misappropriation or use thereof in the manner illustrated under Section 405 are a sine qua non for making an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. The expression 'criminal breach of trust' is defined under Section 405 IPC which provides, inter alia, that whoever being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over a property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property contrary to law, or in violation of any law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or contravenes any legal contract, express or implied, etc. shall be held to have committed criminal breach of trust. Hence, to attract Section 405 IPC, the following ingredients must be satisfied:
(i) Entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property;
(ii) That person has dishonestly mis-appropriated or converted that property to his own use;
(iii) Or that person dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do in violation of any direction of law or a legal contract.
43. It ought to be noted that the crucial word used in Section 405 IPC is 'dishonestly' and therefore, it pre-supposes the existence of mens rea. In other words, mere retention of property entrusted to a person without any misappropriation cannot fall within the ambit of criminal breach of trust. Unless there is some actual use by the accused in violation of law or contract, coupled with dishonest intention, there is no criminal breach of trust. The second significant expression is 'mis-appropriates' which means 74 Spl. C.C.514/2016 improperly setting apart for ones use and to the exclusion of the owner.
44. No sooner are the two fundamental ingredients of 'criminal breach of trust' within the meaning of Section 405 IPC proved, and if such criminal breach is caused by a public servant or a banker, merchant or agent, the said offence of criminal breach of trust is punishable under Section 409 IPC, for which it is essential to prove that:
(i) The accused must be a public servant or a banker, merchant or agent;
(ii) He/She must have been entrusted, in such capacity, with property; and
(iii) He/She must have committed breach of trust in respect of such property.
45. Accordingly, unless it is proved that the accused, a public servant or a banker etc. was 'entrusted' with the property which he is duty bound to account for and that such a person has committed criminal breach of trust, Section 409 IPC may not be attracted. 'Entrustment of property' is a wide and generic expression. While the initial onus lies on the prosecution to show that the property in question was 'entrusted' to the accused, it is not necessary to prove further, the actual mode of entrustment of the property or misappropriation thereof. Where the 'entrustment' is admitted by the accused or has been established by the prosecution, the burden then shifts on the accused to prove that the obligation vis-à-vis the entrusted property was carried out in a legally and contractually acceptable manner.
96. Further in respect of offence under section 420 IPC is concerned the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Sadupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 547) wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held as under:
75 Spl. C.C.514/2016 " It is paramount that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. There are, thus, three components of this offence, i.e., (i) deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement. It goes without saying that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made.
48. It is equally well-settled that the phrase 'dishonestly' emphasizes a deliberate intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss, and when this is coupled with cheating and delivery of property, the offence becomes punishable under Section 420 IPC. Contrarily, the mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution under Section 420 unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. It is equally important that for the purpose of holding a person guilty under Section 420, the evidence adduced must establish beyond reasonable doubt, mens rea on his part. Unless the complaint showed that the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention 'at the time the complainant parted with the monies', it would not amount to an offence under Section 420 IPC and it may only amount to breach of contract.
97. The difference between section 409 and 420 of IPC is explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 3114 of 2024 wherein it has explained as under:
The Ingredients of Section 409 IPC are;
whoever, being in any manner, entrusted with a property or having dominion over property;
76 Spl. C.C.514/2016 dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use or disposes of that property;
in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any, express or implied, direction emanating from a legal contract, and the said misuse is to the detriment of the interest of the person entrusting that property.
Likewise, for cheating, it is trite law that for an act to constitute offence under Section 420 of IPC, the below three ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
deception of any person;
fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person against whom the offence is carried out to deliver any property to any person; and at the time of making such inducement mens rea to deceive is present from the inception.
In the said judgment it was held that for the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of IPC 'entrustment' of property is quintessential, which is dishonestly misappropriated at a later stage.
98. So it is clear that if prosecution establishes the entrustment aspect then it need not prove actual mode of misappropriation thereof. In this case also the prosecution is successful in proving that accused no. 1 to 3 were entrusted with duty of maintaining register of sanction and preparing salary bills of employees from the evidence discussed above. So when prosecution established that there is manipulation of register Ex.P.38 and Pw.9,10, 13 to 25 have stated that they have not filed application claiming allowance and were not entitled to claim, it is 77 Spl. C.C.514/2016 for the accused no. 1 to 3 to prove how the amount has been allotted to them and burden shifts on them to prove that they were not responsible for that. Further accused no. 4 was entrusted with the duty of verifying the details of sanction order and salary bill edited by personnel branch clerk, but she has endorsed that sanction obtained against the persons, but they have deposed that no such claim is made by them. As such in this case the accused have failed to rebut the evidence of prosecution successfully, as such in my opinion prosecution is successful in proving the offence alleged under section 409 IPC.
99. So considering the ratio cited supra, from the evidence led by prosecution it is clear that PW.9,10, 13 to 25 have stated that their account was credited with excess amount which is stated by accused as by mistake it was credited and asked to return the same which they have done, so this would show the amount being parted from the Railway department and if accused had no dishonest intention then why the records have been manipulated and why no rebuttal evidence is given. Thereby it infers that there was dishonest intention of accused which caused the Higher authorities to pass salary bill including allowance to PW.9,10, 13 to 25 though they have not claimed and they were not entitled. This 78 Spl. C.C.514/2016 clearly indicates they have cheated the Railway department for their dishonest intention. Hence, offence under section 420 of IPC is also proved by prosecution.
100. Further in respect of forgery and creation of entry showing it as genuine,i.e offences under section 468, 471 of IPC is concerned it is essential to note that the offences gets attracted only when there is creation of false document and execution thereof. Section 463 defines the forgery as under:
"463. Forgery.--Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
101. Section 468 IPC reads under:
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
102. Section 471 of IPC reads under:
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.--
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
79 Spl. C.C.514/2016
103. Therefore, as per Section 463, "whoever makes any false documents, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title,or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed", he is said to have committed the offence of forgery. Making a false document is defined under Section 464 IPC. Therefore,for the offence of forgery, there must be making of a false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person and it is sine qua non.
104. While interpreting Sections 464 and 471 IPC and other relevant provisions of IPC, the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Md.Ibrahim & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr reported in 2010 AIR SCW 405 in paragraphs 13 and 14, it is observed and held as under:-
"13.The condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the firs taccused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him),can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused.
80 Spl. C.C.514/2016
14.An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a)unsoundness of mind; or
(b)intoxication; or (c) deception practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. In short, a person is said to have made a"false document", if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
105. It is argued by counsel for accused that Prosecution has not produced any document to show that it is forged and Ex.P1 to 126 documents do not contain any forged document, hence this offence is not proved. It is pertinent to note that the definition of forgery what is contained is making of false document or part of 81 Spl. C.C.514/2016 document with dishonest intention to cause damage or injury or with intent to commit fraud. So in this case the accused have made entry in Ex.P38 register/ document to believe that it is made by higher authority, ie, sanctioning allowance to PW.9,10, 13 to 25 which is without sanction order by APO and it is with dishonest intention to cheat the Railway department to part with the property which is release of money as in this case it is for Rs. 18,00,000-00. What is dishonestly is defined in section 24 of IPC as "Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly". The word fraudulently is defined under section 25 of IPC as "A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise".
106. As per definition under section 464 of IPC whoever dishonestly or fraudulently;
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the 82 Spl. C.C.514/2016 authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed. Therefore the offence under section 468 and 475 of IPC definitely attracts in this case as accused have created part of document i.e making false entry in the names of PW.9,10 ,13 to 25 in Ex.P38 register stating to have claimed allowance of Hostel Subsidy and Children Education, showing it to be sanctioned by higher authority, entering it in the edit list and Salary bills which is without any claim application by PW.9,10,13 to 25 and even it is disclosed that they were not eligible for such claim, would infer that it is only with dishonest intention to commit fraud on Railway department to cause loss to the department. Hence the argument of learned counsel that no document is produced to prove that it is forged is not acceptable. Therefore in my opinion prosecution is successful in proving that accused no. 1 to 4 have committed the offences punishable under section 468 and 471 of IPC.
107. With respect to offence under section 477-A of IPC is concerned the section reads as under:
1[477A. Falsification of accounts-- Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, wilfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any 2[book, electronic record, paper, writing] 83 Spl. C.C.514/2016 valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or wilfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in. any such 2[book, electronic record, paper, writing] valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation.--It shall be sufficient in any charge under this section to allege a general intent to defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defrauded or specifying any particular sum of money intended to be the subject of the fraud, or any particular day on which the offence was committed.]
108. In order to prove this offence, the following ingredients have to be proved by the prosecution:
1. The person coming within its purview must be a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant.
2. He must willfully and with intent to defraud (a) destroy, alter, mutilate or falsify any book, electronic record, paper, writing valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer. (b) make or abet the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or 84 Spl. C.C.514/2016 in, any such book, electronic record, paper, writing valuable security or account. The evidence must be produced by the prosecution to establish that:
(i) at the relevant time the accused was a clerk, officer or servant;
(ii) acting in that capacity he destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified any book, electronic record, paper or writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer.
(iii ) that he did so with an intend to defraud. So in order to bring the accused within the ambit of section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, it must be proved by the prosecution that he was working as a clerk or officer and in that capacity he had made false entry etc and that he had done with an intention to defraud his employer.
109. In the decision reported in S. Harnam Singh v. The State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1976 SC 2140), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
85 Spl. C.C.514/2016 "Wilfully" as used in S.477-A means "intentionally" or "deliberately". But from the mere fact that certain entries were made "wilfully" by an accused, does not necessarily follow that he did so "with intent to defraud" within the meaning of section 477-A, Penal Code. The Code does not contain any precise and specific definition of the words "intent to defraud." However, the expression "intent to defraud' contains two elements viz., deceit and injury. A person is said to deceive another when by practicing "suggestio falsi" or "suppressio veri" or both he intentionally induces another to believe a thing to be true, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true.
'Injury' has been defined in Section 44 of the Code as denoting "any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind reputation or property.
110. The said principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court is aptly applicable to the facts of the case wherein it has been held that if the act was committed willfully by the accused with a deliberate intention of fraud can be ascertained the same would indicate the existence of mens rea. So from the evidence lead by prosecution it is noticed that the accused no. 1 to 3 being personnel branch clerks at the relevant period of their holding charge, were responsible for preparing pay bills and they are the one who have to edit and vet the salary bills and accused no.4 also 86 Spl. C.C.514/2016 being accounts assistant had the responsibility of cross-verifying the bill and participate along with P-branch clerk in preparing salary bills. PW.2 in the evidence has explained that after obtaining sanction the same will be placed before the Accounts Branch by the Personnel Branch Clerk for making necessary entries in the prime module of Computer system with the help of Personnel branch clerk and their counter part in the Associate Finance of Account Branch. Prime module will be totally under the control of Associate Finance Branch of Accounts Department. The personnel Branch Clerk along with their counter part in Associate Finance Branch, of Account's Department will make necessary entries with respect to salary bills along with other allowances like Hostel Subsidy allowance, Children Education Allowance, TA etc., after that draft will be generated which is called as Edit List. The said Edit List will be checked and verified by the Personnel Branch Clerk and also their counter part in Accounts Department. Even PW.5 the Chief office Superintendent has deposed saying that edit bills will be generated by the P-Bill Clerk of Accounts Branch along with Section Assistant ie, accused no.4. No doubt some of the witnesses have deposed that the accounts branch and Personnel branch are different branches and it is the Personnel branch clerk 87 Spl. C.C.514/2016 who has to prepare the edit list and salary bill and accused no.4 had no opportunity to add or edit the bills, but the evidence of PW.2 and 5 is not taken away in saying that even accused no.4 had role in preparing edit list and salary bill. However with regard to salary bill for the month of August-2015 is concerned it is clear form the evidence of officials that it is not vetted by Accused no.3 and it does not bear his signature where as it is containing signature of accused no.1. So in my opinion the accused no.3 cannot be held guitly for this offence. But the accused no. 1, 2 and 4 have created false entry in the salary bill which amounts to commission of offence under section 477-A of IPC. Hence I hold that they are guilty of committing this offence and prosecution is successful in proving the same.
111. Now with regard to the offence under section 13(1)
(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption act is concerned, What amounts to misconduct has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the judgment reported in (2009)8 SCC 617 (State of M.P. v. Sheetla Sahai) wherein it is held as:
46. In Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2007) 4 SCC 566 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 58 : 2007 AIR SCW 2532] this Court observed: (SCC pp. 570-71, paras 10-
11) 88 Spl. C.C.514/2016 "10. In State of Punjab v. Ram Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 54 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 793 : (1992) 21 ATC 435] it was stated: (SCC pp. 57-58, para 5) '5. Misconduct has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn., at p. 999, thus:
"Misconduct.--A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior; its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness."
Misconduct in office has been defined as:
"Misconduct in office.--Any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. Term embraces acts which the office holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act." '
11. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, 3rd Edn., at p. 3027, the term 'misconduct' has been defined as under:
'Misconduct.--The term "misconduct" implies a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment.
*** Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude. The word "misconduct" is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being, construed.
89 Spl. C.C.514/2016 "Misconduct" literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct.' (See also Bharat Petroleum Corpn.
Ltd. v. T.K. Raju [(2006) 3 SCC 143 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 480] .)"
112. As per the said dictum the misconduct can be construed as not a mere error in judgment but an intentional act. In the instant case the Accused no. 1 to 4 crated entries in Register of Sanction of allowance, Salary edit bills and vetted bills which could have been made only if employee filed application for claim of allowance and it was verified and put up before APO and it was sanctioned by APO. But in this case the accused have acted with dishonest intention and also the deliberate act on the part of the accused persons. The entire evidence which is placed before the court would clearly indicate that the accused had intentionally and deliberately made entries in the register and Salary bills which is proved by the prosecution, hence the provision under Sec. 13 of prevention of corruption act stands proved. The act of the accused squarely comes with in the purview of misconduct as enumerated in the said provision.
113. In this case it is proved by prosecution that accused no. 1 to 4 were public servants and have entered into 90 Spl. C.C.514/2016 conspiracy to defraud Railway department and abused their official position, created false entry in the register and salary bill and by violating the rule and law breached their duties ad this is shown to be not in the public interest but for dishonest intention to gain for them selves unlawfully and for others like PW.9,10,13 to 25. So this amounts to criminal misconduct attracting the alleged offences stated above.
114. The learned counsel for Accused no.1 in the arguments highlighted that the expert who has given evidence has stated that he cannot give opinion as the materials sent were not adequate. Further it is argued that no one has shown any document stating to be forged and the higher officials were having the power to sanction allowance and this accused being clerk as no role in it. Further contended that all the witnesses examined do admit that they should also cross check before signing the bill and they have failed to do so as such this accused cannot be held guilty. The IO has left the officials and filed charge sheet against the innocent and there is need of alteration of charge. No amount is recovered from this accused to say that he has mis-appropriated amount and he has only forwarded application and he is not the sanctioned authority, there is no ingredient of inducement. Already amount is 91 Spl. C.C.514/2016 recover from the salary of employees and no bank official is examined to prove the transfer of amount to their account. There is no document to show that amount has gone into account of accused but, it has been transferred to the accounts of employees and there is no fabrication of accounts, even after perusing Ex.P-1 to 126 no document is proved as forged. Further there is no evidence to show meeting of minds and sharing of conspiracy and 313 statement does not show incriminating material and no document is produced to show that he was in charge of penukonda section. He was not working at penukonda but worked at Hindupura and the allegation of fraud took place at penukonda. In the arguments has referred to Para No.7 of chief-examination of PW-1where in he has identified the documents and also cross- examination at page No.15 where in he admits that registers of family composition and CEA will be in the custody of drawing officer of concerned section and hence there is no question of tampering the register by Accused no-1. Further PW-1 admits that he has not furnished details regarding the allocated duties of Accused no-1. . In Ex.P-32 there is no signature of Accused no-1. Further the evidence of PW-2 is highlighted referring Para No.14 where in the cross-examination he has admits that 'I do not 92 Spl. C.C.514/2016 remember whether he had issued any order requesting Accused no- 1 to look after the work of Accused no-3 in writing since Accused no-3 was un-authorized absent. Therefore there is no document showing that the Accused no-1 is involved in this offence. Further referred the evidence of PW-4 where in at Para No.4 in the chief- examination also admits that there is no record to show Accused no-1 is on deputation. Further referred the evidence of PW-5 where in he admits that APO can inject application if not satisfied and further admits that Accused no-1 had no jurisdiction to grant education allowance. Further referred the evidence of PW-6, 7, 8 who have stated there was no order and PW-6 admits that only of inspection by his department bills will be approved and PW-8 has stated that he has not seen any order directing Accused no-1 to take the charge of Accused no-3. Further referred the evidence of PW-33 where in he has deposed that no opinion is expressed against Accused no-1 as documents were not furnished sufficiently. Therefore to prove the allegations of fraud and cheating there is no material. In the FIR stage this accused name was not there but to safeguard the higher officials the accused is made as scapegoat. Hence seeks to acquit the Accused no-1.
93 Spl. C.C.514/2016
115. The counsel for Accused no-3 advanced arguments stating that though PW-1 to 34 have been examined but none of them have deposed against Accused no-3 and he was continuously absent from his duties and he is not the authority to sanction allowance and hence seeks to acquit him.
116. The counsel for Accused no-4 advanced arguments stating that the charge sheet at Para No.3 and 4 though show the allegation against this accused but in the chief-examination of PW- 1 at Para No.13 has spoken about the duties and procedure where in when he was cross-examined, deposed that senior section engineer will be supervising and it is exclusive duty of personal branch and this accused working in accounts branch has no role. Further referred the evidence of PW-2 where in no evidence uttered against this accused and PW-4 and 5 who were Accused in FIR stage but they were given clean chit and the CBI has not seized the edit bill with the personal branch and only seized from the accounts branch and PW-5 who has relied upon personal dairy as per Ex.P-126 is the created dairy and has no evidentiary value. In the evidence of PW-6 has admits that senior section officer will vett the bill and it is personal branch clerk use to prepare the bill and PW-8 has deposed that personal branch clerk will be under his 94 Spl. C.C.514/2016 supervision, PW-13 to 25 beneficiaries made allegation against A-2 and there is no evidence to show the involvement of this accused and hence seeks to acquit the Accused no.4.
117. In reply to their arguments learned PP submitted that there is document to show that accused no.1 was deputed as in charge clerk in place of accused no.3 for the Penukonda section and merely the Expert PW.33 has deposed that no opinion can be formed to say that the created entries are in the hand writings of this accused, will not take away the liability to be honest to the department. Further contended that the attendance register show that accused no.3 was present and his role is for the month of August 2015 only and he cannot say he was not involved. Further accused no.4 has made note in the vetted bill that sanction is obtained but no such sanction order is passed by concerned official and no claim application is produced. Thereby contends that all the accused were involved in committing the offences alleged. Hence seeks to convict the accused persons.
118. After analyzing the points urged in the arguments of both side, it is noticeable that the accused no.1 disputes that he was in charge of Penukonda section as P-branch clerk in the place of accused no.3. No doubt in this regard PW.1 , 2 ,4 admits that 95 Spl. C.C.514/2016 there are no documents to show that he was deputed to Penukonda, but Ex.P 42 is the order showing that PW.2 has deputed Accused no.1 to attend personal matters of PWI/O/PKD also temporarily, until further orders and this order is passed on 16-09-2014 on the request of SSE/P Way/PKD as per Ex.P.41. So the contention of counsel for accused no.1 that he never worked at penukonda is falsified. With respect to the contention of this accused that he was not sanctioning authority and it is admitted by higher officials, it is apt to note that there is evidence produced to say what are the duties of this accused being personnel branch clerk as discussed already in the preceding paras. So it cannot be said that this accused had no duty in respect of Ex.P.38 Register for sanction of allowance. Further the evidence of PW.9,10, 13 to 25 employees against whom the allowance was released have deposed that they had not filed any application for claim of Children education allowance or Hostel Subsidy allowance. So the question of sanction by higher authorities would not arise. Such being the case it is for the accused to explain how the entries in Ex.P38 register and salary bills, the entry of allowance came to be entered, because from the cumulative analysis of evidence adduced by prosecution what is brought to notice is that the personnel branch 96 Spl. C.C.514/2016 clerk is having the custody of register and he has to enter the details of claim and edit the salary bill. So when prosecution established that the alleged beneficiaries have not claimed the allowance, how their name has been mentioned in Ex.P.38 register and amount of allowance mentioned in salary bills stating their names, it is for the accused no. 1 to 4 to explain. This is because the prosecution is able to establish the entrustment of duty of accused no. 1 to 3 to maintain Ex.P.38 register and edit salary bill and Accused no.4 to make note by verifying whether sanction obtained. The accused have created entries in the name of Pw.9,10 and 13 to 25 and edited the bills in their names wrongly showing that sanction obtained, so all the accused have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust, with dishonest intention to cheat the Railway department and crated entries to believe them as genuine and used them as genuine for dishonest intention to get benefit of them.
119. With respect to the argument of counsel for accused no.1 that PW.33 Expert has deposed that no opinion is expressed in respect of comparison of specimen and admitted writings and signature of accused no.1, it is to be noticed that the work entrusted to accused no.1 and his duties have been discussed as 97 Spl. C.C.514/2016 above would indicate that it is for the accused no.1 to explain then how the register is manipulated, as he was the custodian of register and he being Personnel branch clerk was responsible for preparing salary bill and editing and vetting salary bill. Even the higher officials have identified his signature and writings in the alleged entries and they being probable witness to identify the same have deposed in that regard and it cannot be brushed aside as no evidence from the side of accused is produced to say there was any enmity with them for deposing falsehood. So in my opinion even if expert has not given opinion the same would become immaterial.
120. Further the argument of counsel for accused no.3 that he was absent continuously and the witnesses have clarified it, it is pertinent to note here that the attendance register Ex.P.34 produced would show that he was present on some of the dates in the month of August -2015 and not absent for the whole month. PW.33 in his report has stated that Q53,54,57 the questioned writings and the specimen writings S-97 to S-114, S-121 to 126, S 245 to 307 were written by one and the same person. This writing belongs to Accused no.3 and the questioned writing at Q53,54,57 is created entry in the name of Akkulappa/PW.9, Q54 entry in the name of K.Nagaraju /PW.10,Q-57 is the entry in the name of K 98 Spl. C.C.514/2016 sadashiva/ PW.13 without folio number and in between the entries already existed in Ex.P.38 register. The same was depicted in salary bill for the month of August-2015. So it shows though accused no.3 has not vetted or edited bill as it does not bear his signature, but has created entries to patch the illegal claim and it shows he has also shared conspiracy with other accused. Hence the argument of learned counsel for accused no.3 that accused no.3 is not involved in the alleged offence is not acceptable.
121. With regard to the argument of counsel for accused no.4 is concerned though it is deposed by many witnesses that the accounts section and personnel branch are two different branches and accused no.4 had no opportunity to alter or edit the bills as it would be prepared by P-branch clerk, the same is not acceptable as the witnesses under whom this accused worked have deposed clearly saying that alleged entries like " SDN obtained" is in the hand writing of this accused no.4 and the signature is also identified by them, who are the best persons to identify the same as during the period of accused no.4 working as accounts assistant they had the opportunity to witness her signature and writings. Even PW.33 Expert has confirmed the specimen writings of this 99 Spl. C.C.514/2016 accused matches with questioned writings. So in my opinion the contention of accused no.4 is not acceptable.
122. However the question which requires determination is whether the accused is bound to explain any circumstances. The provisions of Sec.106 of Indian Evidence Act is to be reckoned in this regard. For the sake of convenience and brevity the provisions of Sec.106 of Indian Evidence Act is extracted which reads as :
106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.--When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustrations
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
123. If any fact is specially within the knowledge of a person and it is difficult for others to know about that fact or prove it, section 106 Evidence Act places the onus of proof on the person in whose knowledge the fact lies. Section 106 is an exception to s 101. The latter lays down the general rule that in a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve prosecution of that duty. Neither section 103 nor section 106 Evidence Act absolves the prosecution from the duty of discharging its general or primary burden of proving the 100 Spl. C.C.514/2016 case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, that the question arises of considering the burden of proof on the accused. In other words, it is only in cases where the facts proved by the evidence gives rise to a reasonable inference of guilt unless the same is rebutted and such inference can be negatived by proof of some other fact which can only be within the special knowledge of the accused that the burden of proving the fact is on the accused. So in this case the accused have through out the case defended saying that they are not the authorities to sanction allowance, but they failed to explain how and why the illegal entries have been made when they are responsible to maintain the register and prepare edit and vet salary bills. So this would definitely goes to show that they failed to rebut the evidence of prosecution and hence evidence led by prosecution has to be accepted.
124. Hence considering all these aspects in my considered opinion prosecution is successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt that accused no.1to 4 have committed the offences punishable under sections 120-B of IPC, Section 409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC and under section 13(2) r/w section 13(1) (c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused have failed to rebut 101 Spl. C.C.514/2016 the evidence of prosecution cogently. Hence I hold that accused no. 1 ,2 and 4 are guilty of committing the offences p/u sections 120- B of IPC, Section 409, 420, 468,471,477-A of IPC and under section 13(2) r/w section 13(1) (c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and accused no.3 is guilty of committing the offences p/u sections 120-B of IPC, Section 409, 420, 468,471 of IPC and under section 13(2) r/w section 13(1) (c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. As the accused no.2 reported dead during the pendency of proceedings, the case abated against him and hence accused no. 1,3 and 4 are found guilty. Hence I Answer Points No. 2 to 6, 8 in the affirmative and Point no. 7 partly in the affirmative.
125. Point No.9 :- In view of my answers to Points no. 1 to 8 as above, I proceed to pass the following:-
: ORDER :
Acting Under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C The Accused no. 1 and 4 are found guilty of committing offences p/u sections 120-B of IPC, Section 409, 420, 468,471,477-A of IPC and under section 13(2) r/w section 13(1) (c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Accused No.3 is found guilty of committing offences p/u sections 120-B of IPC, Section 409, 420, 468, 471 of IPC and under section 13(2) r/w 102 Spl. C.C.514/2016 section 13(1) (c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Bail bond of the accused no. 1,3,4 and that of their sureties executed stands cancelled. Call for hearing on Sentence.
(Dictated partly to Stenographer-III and partly to Typist, transcribed and computerized by them, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court today, on 6th day of November, 2024.) (SANTOSH S. PALLEDH) XLVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Bengaluru.
Heard from Learned PP and counsels for accused no. 1,3 and 4.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
The counsel for accused No.1 submitted arguments stating that accused No.1 is a Senior Citizen and because of this case he has lost job and he is the only bread earner in the family and there is no criminal history, the offenses are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and offence U/s.477-A of I.P.C. is 103 Spl. C.C.514/2016 punishable with fine only and minimum punishment may be imposed.
The counsel for accused No.3 argued that he is having two kids, aged parents who are depending on him and there is no criminal history, lenient view may be taken and only fine may be imposed.
The accused No.4 counsel argued that this accused is aged person, having injuries and there is no criminal history. Hence lenient view may be taken. Further all the counsels have argued that through out the case these accused have appeared promptly and there is no antecedent of criminal history and hence lenient view may be taken in imposing sentence.
The learned PP argued that the work of Government is treated as work of God and even though these employees being public servants employed by the Central Government of India have been given with all facilities yield to corruption and they were meant to help the public and smooth functioning of Government Machinery, but they have cheated the Government and caused loss of Rs.18,00,000/- to the Government which has to be recovered from these accused persons and to be deposited to the Government and as per Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, after the 104 Spl. C.C.514/2016 amendment in the year 2014 minimum sentence is 4 years and these offences are committed in the year 2015 there by there is no question of taking lenient view and seeks to impose them with maximum punishment and fine as well.
The point that requires to be considered is what would be the appropriate sentence that can be imposed upon the accused. Time and again it has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex court that in matters of awarding sentence the court should be cautious and has to consider all the relevant factors in order to arrive at a just conclusion. It is also the cardinal principles of law that the nature and the gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration to impose suitable sentence. Apart from that the Hon'ble Apex court has held that at the time of passing of the sentences the court has to make an exercise by precisely pointing out the aggravating and mitigating factors. When the said aspect is considered in the wake of the facts and circumstances of the case the chart of following aggravating factors can be drawn which are :
a. The accused were entrusted with domain over public property when they were discharging the public duty.
105 Spl. C.C.514/2016 b. The accused had breached the trust which was imposed upon them.
c. The act of the accused was a deliberate
and well planned as they had intentionally
manipulated the entries in the register and Salary bills knowing fully well that they can take advantage.
d. The act of the accused is a degradation of conduct and amounts to breach of trust with respect to public money.
6. The mitigating factors which can be enumerated are as follows:
a. The accused are not a habitual offenders.
b. The accused does not have any antecedent of criminal offence ended in conviction.
c. The accused having deep roots in the society and having good reputation in the society. e. There are no materials to indicate of they being enriched by causing loss to the Government.
7. The court has considered the aggravating and mitigating factors and on consideration of the same it is to be kept in mind that the act of the accused is to be termed as white collared offence which bleeds the economy of the nation. Even though the gravity of offence cannot be easily deciphered the same requires to be considered in a manner which would indicate the mode of execution in secrecy by them. Time and again it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the cry of the victim has to be 106 Spl. C.C.514/2016 considered. In the instant case it is the society at large which suffers and bleeds due to the act of the accused persons.
8. In this case the accused no. 1,3 and 4 have committed offence u/S 120-B, 409, 420, 468,471,477-A of IPC by conspiring with criminal intention, breaching the trust imposed upon them and cheated the government and created false entries used them as genuine and manipulated records and entries. Though it is argued that in reality no loss has been caused, but at the same time the act committed by the accused has to be considered. In this case prosecution failed to prove that misappropriated money is utilized by these accused persons. No record is produced in this regard. It is admitted that amount is recovered from the salary of PW.9,10, 13 to 25. However under the circumstances the act of misconduct which is proved against the accused persons cannot be ignored. Accordingly it would be appropriate to note that suitable fine is required to be imposed. Hence I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The accused No.1 Nagaraj, Accused No.3 Shadabh Khan and Accused No.4 Padmini are convicted for the offences punishable u/S 409 of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo a Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 4 years and imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year.
107 Spl. C.C.514/2016 The accused No.1 Nagaraj, Accused No.3 Shadabh Khan and Accused No.4 Padmini are convicted for the offences punishable u/S 420 of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 4 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall under go a simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
The accused No.1 Nagaraj, Accused No.3 Shadabh Khan and Accused No.4 Padmini are convicted for the offences punishable u/S 468 of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall under go a simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
The accused No.1 Nagaraj, Accused No.3 Shadabh Khan and Accused No.4 Padmini are convicted for the offences punishable u/S 471 of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall under go a simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
The accused No.1 Nagaraj and Accused No.4 Padmini are convicted for the offences punishable u/S 477(A) of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 108 Spl. C.C.514/2016 a period of 3 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-
each and in default of payment of fine they shall under go a simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
The accused No.1 Nagaraj, Accused No.3 Shadabh Khan and Accused No.4 Padmini are convicted for the offences punishable u/S 120-B of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall under go a simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
The accused No.1 Nagaraj, Accused No.3 Shadabh Khan and Accused No.4 Padmini are hereby convicted for the offences punishable u/S 13(2) and 13(1)(c)&(d) under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and they are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 4 years and a fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo a further simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year.
The sentences ordered shall run concurrently and the accused No.1,3 and 4 shall be entitled for set off as contemplated u/s. 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period of detention if undergone.
109 Spl. C.C.514/2016 In the event of deposit of fine amount same shall be forfeited to Government of India.
Office is hereby directed to furnish copy of the Judgment to the accused No.1,3 and 4 forthwith.
(Dictated to the Partly to the Stenographer III and partly to the Typist on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 06th day of November 2024) (SANTOSH S. PALLEDH) XLVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION SIDE:-
P.Ws. WITNESS NAME C.Ws.
P.W.1 Raju Gurupadappa Fandilolu C.W.1
P.W.2 Sri Rajan Nair C.W.2
P.W.3 Smt.K.Champakavalli C.W.6
P.W.4 Somashekhara Rao C.W.3
P.W.5 Anjali Muthukrishnan C.W.4
P.W.6 Gopala Krishna C.W.8
P.W.7 Nageshwar Rao C.W.16
P.W.8 Sunkara Mahaboob Basha C.W.15
P.W.9 Sri.Akulappa C.W.36
P.W.10 Sri.K.Nagaraju C.W.26
P.W.11 Krishna Urs C.W.12
P.W.12 Sri. L Raghavendra C.W.13
110 Spl. C.C.514/2016
P.W.13 K.Sadasiva C.W.28
P.W.14 Shri. K.Chennakesavulu C.W.29
P.W.15 Shri.P.Sudhakar C.W.30
P.W.16 Shri.G.Venugopal C.W.31
P.W.17 Shri.K.Manjunath C.W.32
P.W.18 Shri.C.Sidappa C.W.33
P.W.19 Shri.Thimmaiah Ramaiah C.W.34
P.W.20 Shri.Satendra Kumar C.W.35
P.W.21 Shri.Venkatrami Reddy C.W.37
P.W.22 Shri.Anil Kumar C.W.38
P.W.23 Shri.Rachepalli Raju C.W.39
P.W.24 Shri.K.Ramanjaneyulu C.W.40
P.W.25 Shri.M.Thirupalu C.W.41
P.W.26 Shri.Y.Shankar C.W.42
P.W.27 Shri.Venkata Rao C.W.43
P.W.28 Smt.K.Indira Devi C.W.9
P.W.29 Smt.T.S.Pankajakshi C.W.29
P.W.30 Smt.Shubhashini S.P. C.W.5
P.W.31 Sri.K.Asif Hafeez C.W.47
P.W.32 Smt.Lily Vijay C.W.11
P.W.33 Sri.P.Vijaya Shankar C.W.52
P.W.34 Shri.R.Manohar Reddy C.W.50
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE SIDE:-
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:-
EXHIBITS PARTICULARS Ex.P-1 Letter dated 18.08.2016 (2 pages) Ex.P-1 (a) Signature of witness Ex.P-2 DFM (Divisional Finance Manager) Letter dated
03.08.2016 enclosing certified copies of Service Register of Somashekara Rao (contains 26 sheets including letter) Ex.P-3 Certified copies of Service Register of Smt.Anjali 111 Spl. C.C.514/2016 Muthukrishna (contains 18 sheets) Ex.P-4 Certified copies of Service Register of K.Ramana (contains 8 sheets) Ex.P-5 Attested copy of the circular dated 01.10.2008 (RBE No.135/2008) by Joint Director East Welfare Railway Board (contains 3 shets). This circular also includes DOPT Circular (Department of Personnel and Training Office) Ex.P.6 Attested copies of Railway Board Circular RBE No.150/2008 dated 13.10.2008 along with Department of Personnel and Training Office OM No.12011/04/2008 Estt (allowance) dated 11.09.2008 and extracts of the notification dated 01.06.2001 of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (contains 5 sheets) Ex.P-7 Attested copies of Railway Board Circular RBE No.197/2008 dated 18.19.12.2008 along with Department of Personnel and Training Office OM No.12011/03/2008 Estt (allowance) dated 11.11.2008 (contains 2 sheets) Ex.P-8 Attested copies of South Western Railway Personnel Branch Serial Circular No.70/2009 (RBE No.78/09) dated 04.06.2009 (contain 1 sheet) Ex.P-9 Attested copies of South Western Railway Personnel Branch Serial Circular No.100/2009 (RBE No.100/09) dated 07.07.2009 (contain 1 sheet) Ex.P-10 Attested copies of South Western Railway Personnel Branch Serial Circular No.1/2010 (RBE No.1/2010) dated 20.01.2010 along with Railway Board Circular issued vide RBE No.1/2010 dated 04.01.2010 and Department of Personnel and Training OM No.12011/16/2009 (allowance) dated 13.11.2009 (contains 2 sheets) Ex.P-11 Attested copy of Railway Board Circular issued vide RBE No.132/2011 dated 28.09.2011 (contain 1 sheet) Ex.P-12 Attested copy of Railway Board Circular issued vide RBE No.55/2013 dated 07.06.2013 along 112 Spl. C.C.514/2016 with Department of Personnel and Training Office OM No.12011/08/2013-Estt (AL) of Sri.S.G.Mulchandaney, under Secretary (contains 4 sheets) Ex.P-13 Attested copies of Railway Board Circular issued vide RBE No.58/2013 dated 25.06.2013 along with Department of Personnel and Training Office OM No.12011/01/2013-Estt (Allowances) dated 23.04.2013 (contains 2 sheets) Ex.P-14 Attested copies of Railway Board Circular issued vide RBE No.93/2013 dated 12.09.2013 along with Department of Personnel and Training Office OM No.12011/01/2012-Estt (Allowances) (contains 2 sheets) Ex.P-15 Attested copies of Railway Board Circular issued vide RBE No.44/2014 dated 09.05.2014 along with Department of Personnel and Training Office OM No.12011/01/2014-Estt (Allowances) (contains 2 sheets) Ex.P-16 OM No.A27012/01/2014-Estt (3 sheets) Ex.P.17 Circular RBE 53/15 (2 sheets) Ex.P-18 Senior DFM letter dated 14.07.2016 Ex.P.19 Original vetted edit list July-2015 Ex.P.19(a)&(b) Signatures of A4 Ex.P-19 (c) Signature of PW.32 Ex.P-20 Original vetted edit list August-2015 Ex.P-20(a) Signature of accused Ex.P-20(b) Signature of A4, 20(c) (d) and (e) Ex.P-21 Original vetted edit lists for the month of September-2015 Ex.P-21(a)(b) Signatures of A4 Ex.P-21(c) Signature of PW.32 Ex.P-22 Original vetted edit lists for the month of October-2015 Ex.P-22(a)(b) Signatures of A4 Ex.P-22(c) Signature of PW.32 Ex.P-23 Original vetted edit lists for the month of November-2015 Ex.P-23(a)(b) Signatures of A4 Ex.P.23(c) Signature of PW.32 113 Spl. C.C.514/2016 Ex.P.24 Original vetted edit lists for the month of December-2015 Ex.P-24(a)(b) Signatures of A4 Ex.P-24(c) Signature of PW.32 Ex.P-25 Original Salary bills for the month of July 2015 Ex.P.25(a) Signatures of A4 Ex.P.25(b) Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.26 Original Salary bills for the month of August 2015 Ex.P-26(a) Signatures of A4 Ex.P-26(b) Signature of PW.32 Ex.P-27 Original Salary bills for the month of September 2015 Ex.P-27(a) Signatures of A4 Ex.P-28 Original Salary bills for the month of October 2015 Ex.P-28(a) Signatures of A4 Ex.P-29 Original Salary bills for the month of November 2015 Ex.P-29(a) Signatures of A4 Ex.P-30 Original Salary bills for the month of December 2015 Ex.P-30(a) Signatures of A4 Ex.P-31 Covering letter in the form of NOTE dated 04.08.2016 (containing 1 sheet) Ex.P-31(a) Signature Ex.P-32 Along with Ex.P.31 bank details of 16 employees Ex.P-33 Letter dated 07.10.2016 (containing 2 sheets) Ex.P-33(a) Signature Ex.P-34 Along with Ex.P.33 original attendance register for the period from January-2012 to December 2015 Ex.P-35 Another Covering letter dated 07.10.2016 (containing 1 sheet) Ex.P.35(a) Signature of the witness Ex.P.36 Attested copy of service register of M.Nagaraj (contains 24 sheets) Ex.P-37 Along with Ex.P.35 attested copy of service register of Shahadab khan (contains 9 sheets) Ex.P-38 Children Education Allowance Register of 114 Spl. C.C.514/2016 Sr.Section Engineer Permanent-way Pennukonda Unit Ex.P-38(a) Sl.No.4 in Ex.P.38 Ex.P-38(b) Sl.No.48 in page No.46 and 47 standing in the name of K.Nagaraj Ex.P-38(c) Signature of PW.38 in page No.48 and 49 Ex.P-38(d) (Page No.74 to 81) in Ex.P.38 Sl. No.8 Ex.P-38(e) (Page No.78) Sl. No.10 in Ex.P.38 Ex.P-38(f) (Page No.79) Sl. No.11 in Ex.P.38 Ex.P-39 Covering letter Ex.P-39(a) Signature of PW.3 Ex.P-40 Certified copy of Attendance for the period from July 2015 to December 2015 pertaining to Smt.Padmini Ex.P-41 Letter dated 11.09.2024 Ex.P-42 Utilization of service of P.B.Clerk dated 16.09.2014 Ex.P-43 Covering letter Ex.P-44 Edit list for the month of January 2015 Ex.P-44(a) Signature Ex.P-45 Edit list for the month of March 2015 Ex.P-45(a) Signature Ex.P-46 Edit list for the month of May 2015 Ex.P-46(a) Signature Ex.P-47 Edit list for the month of July 2015 Ex.P-47(a) Signature Ex.P-48 Edit list for the month of August 2015 Ex.P-48 Signature Ex.P-49 Edit list for the month of October 2015 Ex.P-49(a) Signature Ex.P-50 Edit list for the month of December 2015 Ex.P-50(a) Signature Ex.P-51 Salary Bill for the month of November 2014 Ex.P-52 Bill Register for December 2014 Ex.P-53 Production cum receipt memo (marked with content) Ex.P-54 Covering Letter Ex.P.54(a) Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.55 Service statement of Padmini Ex.P.56 Statement of Service of Pankajakshi Ex.P.57 Statement of Lily Vijay 115 Spl. C.C.514/2016 Ex.P.58 Statement of service of Krishna Urs Ex.P.59 Certified copy of Attendance Register Ex.P.60 Office Memorandum dated 09.05.2012 Ex.P.61 Office Memorandum dated 23.02.2015 Ex.P.62 Office Memorandum dated 05.01.2015 Ex.P.63 Production Memo Ex.P.63(a) Signature of PW.7 Ex.P.64 Production Memo dated 22.09.2016 Ex.P.64(a) Signature of PW.7 Ex.P.65 A/c opening form of K.Chanakeshava Ex.P.66 Statement of Account of Channakeshava for the period along with certificate of 65B and Banker Book Certificate.
Ex.P.67 Account opening form of Satendra Kumar Ex.P.68 Statement of Accounts pertaining to Satendra Kumar along with 65B and Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.69 Account opening form of Malathipolu Ex.P.70 Statement of Accounts along with 65B and Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.71 Account opening form of Ramaiah Thimmaiah Ex.P.72 Statement of Accounts along with 65B and Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.73 Account opening form of Kuruba Sadasiva Ex.P.74 Statement of Accounts along with 65B and Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.75 Account opening form of Aswathappa Ex.P.76 Statement of Accounts along with 65B and Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.77 Production Receipt Ex.P.78 Account opening form of Siddappa with KYC Ex.P.79 Account extract of Siddappa for the period of 01.09.2015 to 31.12.2015 along with certificate of Bankers Book of Evidence Act 65 B Ex.P.80 Production Memo Ex.P.81 Attested copy of account opening form of Venkatarami Reddy with KYC documents Ex.P.82 Account extract of Venkataramireddy for the period of 01.06.2015 to 31.09.2016 along with 65B and Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.83 Attested copy of account opening form of 116 Spl. C.C.514/2016 Nagaraj with KYC documents Ex.P.84 Account extract of Nagaraj for the period of 01.07.2015 to 30.09.2015 along with 65B certificate and Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.85 Attested copy of account opening form of Anil Kumar (screen shot) along with KYC documents Ex.P.86 Account extract for the period of 01.12.2015 to 31.01.2016 along with 65B certificate and Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.87 Attested copy of account opening form of Sudhakar along with KYC documents Ex.P.88 Account extract for the period of 01.06.2015 to 31.12.2015 pertaining to Sudhakar along with 65B certificate and Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.89 Attested copy of account opening screen shot of Ramanjaneyalu along with KYC documents Ex.P.90 Account extract of Ramanjaneyulu for the period of 01.11.2015 to 31.01.2016 along with certificate of 65B and Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.91 Attested copy of account opening screen shot of Rachapalli Raju along with KYC documents Ex.P.92 Account extract of Rachapalli Raju for the period of 01.09.2015 to 31.12.2015 along with certificate of 65B and Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.93 Attested copy of account opening form of Akulappa along with KYC documents Ex.P.94 Account extract of Akulappa for the period of 01.08.2015 to 31.01.2016 along with certificate of 65B and Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.95 Attested copy of account opening screen shot along with KYC documents of Manjunath Ex.P.96 Account extract of Manjunath for the period of 01.06.2015 to 31.12.2015 along with certificate of 65B and Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.97 Attested copy of account opening form of Venugopal along with KYC documents Ex.P.98 Account extract of Venugopal for the period of 01.06.2015 to 31.06.2016 along with certificate 117 Spl. C.C.514/2016 of 65B and Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.99 Production Memo dated 22.09.2016 Ex.P.100 Production Memo dated 22.09.2016 Ex.P.101 Sizer mahazar Ex.P.101(a) Signature of PW.12 Ex.P.101(b) Signature of PW.12 Ex.P.102 Pay slip for the month of Oct 2015 (59 pages) Ex.P.103 Pay slip Ex.P.104 Letter of correspondence dated 25/26.02.2016 Ex.P.105 Letter of Thimmaiah Ramaiah Ex.P.106 Pass register/family composition register Ex.P.107 TA summary Bill for the month of October 2015 Ex.P.108 Personal register of Katha Ramanna Ex.P.109 Joint surprise check proceedings dated 13.04.2016 Ex.P.109(a) Signature of PW.12 Ex.P.110 Spicimen Signature of A1 Ex.P.110(a) Signature of PW.27 Ex.P.111 Production Memo Ex.P.111(a) Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.112 Sanction order against A1 Ex.P.112(a) Signature of PW.31 Ex.P.113 Notification Ex.P.113(a) Relavant part of P.113 Ex.P.114 Original letter dated 10.01.2018 to 07.09.2022 Ex.P.114(a) Signature Ex.P.115 Speciman signature of Smt.Padmini Ex.P.115(a) Signature of PW.26 Ex.P.116 Supplimentary opinion report dated 27.05.2019 Ex.P.116(a) Signature of PW.33 Ex.P.117 Letter dated 11.07.2018 Ex.P.118 2 Sanction orders by PW.1 pertaining to A2 (11 sheets) Ex.P.118(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.119 Sanction order Ex.P.119(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.120 (Specimen signature and handwriting of A3) Signature of PW.26 Ex.P.121 Xerox copy of order sheet Crl.Misc.No.8696/2016 Ex.P.122 Original FIR 118 Spl. C.C.514/2016 Ex.P.122(a) Signature of I.O.
Ex.P.123 F.A.Register Ex.P.123(a) to Signature of PW.4 dated 28.02.2024
(c) Ex.P.124 Letter dated 07.10.2016 from Somashekhar Rao (PW.4) to I.O., C.B.I., Ex.P.124(a) Signature of PW.4 dated 28.02.2024 Ex.P.125 Register (Leave encashment) Ex.P.123(a) to Page 3,5,7,9,10, Signature of PW.4 dated
(c) 28.02.2024 Ex.P.126 Register Extract LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED THROUGH DEFENCE SIDE:-
EXHIBITS PARTICULARS
Ex.D.1 Production-cum-Receipt Memo
Ex.D.1(a) Signature of this witness
(SANTOSH S. PALLEDH)
XLVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Bengaluru.