Bangalore District Court
Has Clearly Admitted That He Was Joint vs To Currency Chest. It Is Also Not Denied ... on 14 December, 2022
KABC030698542015
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 14th day of December 2022
Present: Shri Anand T Chavan, B.Com., LL.B(Spl.).
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s. 355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.24993/2015
Date of Offence : 09.04.2012 to 12.09.2013
Name of complainant : State by Financial Intelligence
Unit, CID, Bengaluru.
(By Learned Sr. APP)
Name of accused : Nagaraju M.H.
S/o late Honnegowda,
aged 59 years,
R/o No.6/5, Siri Byrasandra
main road, near Madhavan Park,
Jayanagar 1st block, East,
Bengaluru 560 011.
(By Shri Anil Babu C. &
Associates, Advocates)
2 C.C.No.24993/2015
Offences complained off: U/s.409, 468, 477(A) of IPC.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is acquitted
Date of Order : 14-12-2022
JUDGMENT
Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Financial Intelligence Unit Bengaluru has filed charge sheet against above named accused for offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 477(A) of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case are that:-
The accused was working as Manager of Syndicate Bank, Electronic City branch from
18-7-2011. He was bound to remit amount received in said branch to currency chest each and every day. Further a debit cash entry is reflected in branch adjustment general ledger as and when cash remittance is made to currency chest on day-to-day basis. Subsequently on-line credit will be received by branch from currency chest for their remitted 3 C.C.No.24993/2015 amount. C.W.18 H.Ravindra Nayak the then Account Manager of regional Office-I of Syndicate Bank, Bengaluru took charge of said post on 15-7-2013 and on 12-9-2013 in normal course of verification of trial balances of Electronic City branch under ledger head 280070400/branch adjustment, he noticed that huge amount of Rs.1,95,42,555/- was outstanding as on the date reflected on GL report. Further on enquiry about said report in the system, it was found that 6 debit entries corresponding to cash remittances made by the branch to currency chest were outstanding for reconciliation to the tune of Rs.1,95,00,000/- as on 12-3-2013. On enquiry with accused about said matter, he assured to enquire into matter with currency chest of Jayanagar and reconcile within two days. But accused failed to do so. Thereafter, one T.K.Bose, Senior Manager, (Inspection report and Review Cell) along with C.W.18 and Deputy 4 C.C.No.24993/2015 General Manager Alok Kumar visited surprisingly to above branch of accused on 13-9-2013 and it came to their notice on checking double vault cash, there was shortage of Rs.19 lakhs as on 13-09-2013. Immediately matter was reported to regional head and accused was placed under suspension on 16-9-2013. Further on 14-9-2013 on verification of branch adjustment ledger pertaining to cash remittance made from above branch to currency chest for a period between 9-4-2012 to 4-9-2013, it was observed that 69 remittance were made and on enquiry with currency chest vide letter dated 16-9-2013, they sent inconsistent report about remittance of Rs.1,95,00,000/-. On serving up it was found that total cash remittance with respect to 12 entries was Rs.3,40,00,000/- whereas the branch of accused received credit of Rs.1,45,00,000/-. Hence the bank suffered loss of Rs.1,95,00,000/-. Further there was shortage of 5 C.C.No.24993/2015 Rs.19 lakhs on 13-9-2013 in aforesaid branch. Hence accused fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated total amount of Rs.2,14,00,000/- by falsifying entries in branch adjustment ledger while making cash remittance and by abusing his official position for his personal gain. Further accused committed criminal breach of trust being custodian of amount of said bank, knowing fully well that it would cause wrongful loss to the bank. It is further averred in charge sheet that the accused used aforesaid amount temporarily for his own use and during period of his suspension in between 08-10-2013 to 17-3-2014 he has deposited such misappropriated amount to complainant bank from step by step. It shows that C.W.1 being Assistant Manager of Syndicate Bank lodged first information before Parappana Agrahara police on 18-9-2013 and same is registered by said police in their PS Cr.No.263/2013 and FIR is issued. It further shows 6 C.C.No.24993/2015 that subsequently investigation of the case is transferred to CID, FIU. The I.O. after collecting material documents and after recording statement of witnesses has filed charge sheet against accused for above offences.
3. The accused voluntarily appeared before this court during crime stage and he is enlarged on bail as per order of anticipatory bail granted by Hon'ble Fast Track XI Court, Bangalore in Crl.Misc.No.5532/2013. After filing of this charge sheet against accused, cognizance of alleged offences are taken and summons is issued to accused. Accused has appeared before court in pursuant to summons. Copy of charge sheet is furnished to accused u/s 207 of Cr.P.C and charge is framed against accused. Accused has not pleaded guilt of alleged offences and he has claimed to be tried.
7 C.C.No.24993/2015
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 28 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 28 and got marked 35 documents as per Exs.P1 to P32. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded and accused has denied incriminating evidence against him. Accused has not led any defence evidence.
5. On the basis of charge sheet allegation, the following points arose for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused has committed offence punishable under section 409 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused has committed offence punishable under section 468 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused has committed offence punishable under section 477(A) of IPC?
4. What order ?8 C.C.No.24993/2015
6. Heard arguments. Perused oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.
7. The following are findings to above points.
Point No.1 to 3 : In the Negative Point No.4 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 3 :These points are taken together for consideration as findings on one point have bearing on other points.
9. C.W.2/ P.W.1 Basavaraju S/o Asangappa, who is said to be an Attender of Syndicate Bank, Electronic City branch and one of mahazar witness of this case has testified that the accused was Manager of said branch for the period of 2-3 years from 2011 and their currency chest branch is at Hediyur branch. He has further stated that during said period accused used to remit the amount to currency chest branch in person in a scooter and he was also in control of single locker and double locker. He has further stated that in the year 2013 accused was suspended for 9 C.C.No.24993/2015 non-remitting amount to currency chest and in that regard case is filed against him. He has identified mahazar as per Ex.P1, his signature as per Ex.P1(a) and accused before court. In cross-examination by defence side P.W.1 admits that his duty is to give concerned files to officials and he is not aware about contents of such files or money transactions in their branch. Further he has clearly admitted that personally he is not aware about present case and police obtained his signature on a written document. However, quite contrary to time mentioned in Ex.P1, he has stated that mahazar was conducted after 3-30 p.m., whereas it is conducted in between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. Further this witness has not stated exact date of mahazar. Moreover admittedly this witness is not an independent witness and no reasons are assigned to cite his as witness of mahazar, without ascertaining nature of his relationship with accused. Hence evidence of this witness cannot be relied upon. 10 C.C.No.24993/2015
10. C.W.3/P.W.2 Doremani S/o Changappa, who is another witness of Ex.P1 spot mahazar and gun man of Syndicate Bank, electronic City branch has also supported prosecution case by testifying that accused being Manager of their branch since 2011, he used to remit the amount to currency chest branch in person in a scooter and he was also in control of single locker and double locker. He has further stated that in the year 2013 accused was suspended for non- remitting amount to currency chest and in that regard case is filed against him. He has identified mahazar as per Ex.P1, his signature as per Ex.P1(b) and accused before court. In cross-examination by defence side this witness has also admitted that he came to know about the alleged transaction through his officials and he has no personal knowledge about this case. He has further admitted that police obtained his signature on a written document and he does not know the contents of the mahazar. Further this 11 C.C.No.24993/2015 witness is also an employee of above bank and not an independent witness. Hence evidence of PW1 and 2 cannot be relied upon to prove Ex.P1 spot mahazar, in the absence of reasons for non citing independent witnesses to said document.
11. C.W.5/P.W.3 Raghavendra Rao S/o Ananda Rao the then Clerk-cum-typist of Syndicate Bank, Electronic City branch and one of material witness of the case has also supported prosecution case by testifying that accused being Manager of said bank from 2011, used to remit the amount to currency chest branch in person in a scooter to Hediyur currency chest branch and he was also in control of single locker and double locker. He has further stated that in the year 2013 accused was suspended for non-remitting amount to currency chest and in that regard case is filed against him. He has further stated that there was misappropriation to the tune of Rs.2,14,00,000/- and he has identified 12 C.C.No.24993/2015 accused before court. In cross-examination by defence side P.W.3 admits that, he came to know about alleged misappropriation through their Regional office and he is not aware about such misappropriation personally. He has further admitted that he is not aware about cash, chest, single and double lockers and his duty in office was only clerical in nature. The entire evidence of this witness is denied by defence side and it is suggested to him that he is deposing falsely as per instance of his senior officials.
12. C.W.7/P.W.4Vijayalakshmi W/o Ramanathan who is the then Clerk of Syndicate Bank, Electronic City, Bengaluru has testified that on 13-9-2013 at 12.00 p.m, the then DGM, one Nayak and Ghouse, who were Class IV officers asked about the Branch manager i.e., accused and at that time accused used to keep petty cash in single lock and denomination in double lock. She has further stated that separate ledgers were maintained for said lockers and out of 13 C.C.No.24993/2015 two keys, one was with Manager and other key was with joint custodian. She has further stated that no officer could keep both keys of the locker and when the above officer visited their branch, the accused and joint custodian were not present. She has further stated that at that time one key was with Cashier Roopa and another key was with Raghavendra Rao without authorization of higher officers and they were asked to give keys. She has further stated that when ever amount was taken by Cashier, relevant entries were made in double lock register, which was kept inside said double locker. She has specifically stated that on above date the officers verified actual cash in double locker with amount mentioned in double lock register as per entries on 12-9-2013 and it was ought to be Rs.60,34,000/-. But actual cash available in double locker was only Rs.41,34,000/-, which is short of Rs.19,00,000/-. She has further testified that same was mentioned in the list prepared during verification 14 C.C.No.24993/2015 and she has identified said list as per Ex.P2, her signature as per Ex.P2(a). Further she has identified the double lock register kept for a period 22-10-2012 as per Ex.P3, relevant entry dated 12-9-2013 as per Ex.P3(a) and accused before court. In relevant portion of cross-examination P.W.3 admits that she is not aware about any transaction before said period personally and her nature of duty as a Clerk was pass book printing, issuing statements of accounts, issuance of ATM and handling NEFT and RTGs transaction. She has further admitted that she has worked as Cashier for 5-6 days when Cashier was not present and there was no written order of her deputation for said work. She has denied to have put her signature to statement prepared by concerned officer on above date and she has admitted that except accused, nobody were present at the time of inventory and further she has put her signature on Ex.P2 as per direction of above officers by name Nayak and Ghouse. 15 C.C.No.24993/2015 She has further admitted that she and other staff were discharging their duties from 12-30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and except Manager, immediate Senior and Cashier, no one else were aware about Ex.P3. She has further admitted that she is not personally aware about alleged misappropriation of funds in the bank and he came to know about it through her Senior officer.
13. C.W.8/P.W.5 Sreedharan S/o Ramachara, who is the then Senior Manager of complainant bank has testified that as per requisition made by police he handed over double lock cash book maintained for period between 8-9-2011 to 20-10-2010, which is marked as per Ex.P4, double lock cash book maintained from 22-10-2012 to 12-9-2013 as per Ex.P3, single lock book maintained for a period between 1-12-2011 to 31-12-2012 as per Ex.P5, other single lock book maintained for the period between 1-1-2013 to 12-9-2013 as per Ex.P6, branch adjustment ledger as per Ex.P7, attendance registers 16 C.C.No.24993/2015 from 1-9-2009 to 31-12-2009 as per Ex.P8 and attendance register from 1-1-2013 to 30-9-2013 as per Ex.P9. It is further averred that as per telephonic message made by I.O. he handed over 12 original debit slips as per Exs.P10 to P21, covering letter as per Ex.P22 and certified copy of key movement register as per Ex.P23. He has further specifically stated that for both single and double lock, there are 2 sets of keys, one with Manager and another with joint custodian. Further if any keys are exchanged, same will be entered in Ex.P23 and as per entry shown in Ex.P23 dated 17-4-2013, second set of locker key has been handed over by Chetan Kumar to Roopa Pramod and first sets of keys was delivered by Chetan Kumar to accused. He has further stated that thereafter there was no entry with regard to delivery of keys upto 16-9-2015. However, in cross-examination by defence side, P.W.5 admits that he is not aware about any transactions prior to his taking charge on 16-6-2014 17 C.C.No.24993/2015 and till handing over Ex.P3 to P10, Ex.P22 to I.O., same were in their possession. He has further admitted that he is not aware about contents of documents personally and he has produced the same before I.O. for first time. Most importantly he has admitted that concerned locker keys were not in possession of accused from 9-4-2012 onwards, but denies that he has purposely produced incomplete Ex.P23. He has further admitted that there is mention of antedates after 27-2-2013 as 15-2-2013 and 10-2-2013. It is suggested to him that same were manipulated by them for this case. He has admitted that he is not aware whether amount shown is remitted or not. This evidence of PW 5 clearly shows that despite mandatory procedure of entry of exchange of keys, Ex.P23 movement register is not maintained after 09.04.2013. Further he has not explained anything with regard to mention of aforesaid ante dates and non awareness of non-remittance of 18 C.C.No.24993/2015 amount. Which is a ground to suspect the case of prosecution.
14. C.W.9/P.W.6 Shylaja W/o Mohan the then clerk of Syndicate Bank, Electronic City branch has testified that she used to discharge work of account opening, clearing of DDs and cashier in the absence of Manager or Assistant Manager. She has further stated that she was on maternity leave from 10-8-2013 to 10-2-2014 and when she returned, she learnt that accused had misappropriated sum of Rs.1,95,00,000/-, which is supposed to be deposited to currency chest and Rs.19 lakhs which had to be kept in double lock of their bank. Evidence of this witness is not challenged by defence side. However, it clearly shows that P.W.6 has no personal knowledge about alleged acts of accused and she appears to be a hear say witness.
15. C.W.10/P.W.7 Jayanthi Nayak W/o Upendra Nayak the then Clerk of Syndicate Bank, electronic 19 C.C.No.24993/2015 City branch has testified that she was attending loans, preparing statements and accused being Manager was looking after depositing excess amount and he used to collect amount from currency chest branch as per requirement. She has further stated that in the year 2013 to 2014, when she was transferred to Bannerghatta branch, she came to know about aforesaid misappropriation of funds by accused and filing of this case against accused. However, it clearly shows that P.W.6 also has no personal knowledge about alleged acts of accused and she also appears to be a hear say witness.
16. C.W.1/P.W.8 Kethan Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar Datta who is first informant and the then Assistant Manager (probationer) Syndicate Bank, Electronic City branch has testified in his evidence that in the month of July 2011 accused is posted to said branch as Branch Manager and their branch used to approach currency chest branch, Jayanagar, 20 C.C.No.24993/2015 Bengaluru for necessary help of depositing cash and accused used to look after such transactions. He has further stated that a register is maintained for those transactions as branch adjustment ledger and such transactions are reflected in it. He has further stated that it was in joint custody of accused and himself and such transactions used to be sent under electronic telegraphic transfer. He has further stated that he was on privilege leave from 6-9-2013 to 15-9-2015 and on returning the bank on 16-9-2015, he came to know about suspension of accused on the ground of misappropriation of funds and their DGM by name Mr.Alok Kumar Sharan had made preliminary enquiry. Further their Regional office instructed him to file complaint against accused as on few occasions he has not at all remitted currency to the chest and on few occasions he deposited lesser amount, which came to the extent of Rs.1,95,00,000/-. He has further stated that accused had also misappropriated an amount of 21 C.C.No.24993/2015 Rs.19 lakhs, he has identified first information lodged by him as per Ex.P24, his signature as per Ex.P24(a), mahazar conducted by police as per Ex.P1 and his signature on it as per Ex.P1(a). In relevant portion of cross-examination P.W.8 admits that he was equally responsible for discharging duty with accused during above period along with other staffs and out of two locker keys, one key was with accused and other key was with him. He has further admitted that during his absence he used to hand over his keys to senior officers of the branch and in his absence he used to hand over it to Raghavendra Rao, Roopa Pramoda and R.Vijayalakshmi. He has further clearly admitted that apart from accused, he and other staff members were also responsible to take care of day-today transaction and whenever locker is opened both officers holding keys have to sign concerned register. He has further admitted that whenever amount is rounded, it means that it is credited to their account and TT number will 22 C.C.No.24993/2015 be issued by concerned chest branch. Most importantly to the question that the General manager had written a letter to police to take action against eight persons including accused and himself, P.W.8 does not deny it and he states that he has not gone through the letter. He has further admitted that may be they have not maintained proper accounts of subject matter of present case, but denies that accused was not responsible for any anomaly accrued during said period. Most importantly P.W.8 clearly admits that it was his duty to inform any non- payment or less payment of any amount to chest branch on same day or next day and he has not informed the same. He has further stated that as per his knowledge there was no enquiry against accused and before filing of complaint he has not verified relevant documents thoroughly. The entire evidence of this witness is denied and it is suggested to him that he is deposing falsely to safeguard other officials and 23 C.C.No.24993/2015 himself. Thus evidence of this material witness discloses his equal responsibility in holding joint key of amount deposited in bank and in verifying relevant registers of bank including telegraphic transfer from chest branch. It further shows that though he was duty bound to inform shortage or difference in such deposit to chest, he has not informed the same in time, which is a ground to suspect about his conduct. Further evidence of this witness also goes to shows that action was recommended against several other staff members in respect of above matter. Hence above material elicitation from the mouth of above witness makes it difficult to believe that accused is solely responsible shortage of funds in above bank during above period.
17. C.W.4/P.W.9 Roopa Pramoda W/o Pramoda the then Clerk of above bank has also testified about designation of accused as a Manager of their bank, his duty to deposit excess amount to currency chest and 24 C.C.No.24993/2015 maintenance of branch adjustment register in that regard. She has further testified that the entries in such register was maintained everyday. She has further stated that there were two keys to double one cash branch, one key was with accused and other key was with Assistant Manager i.e., C.W.1/P.W.8. Further everyday morning required amount was given to cashier and after end of the work the balance amount was kept in double one locker. She has further stated that in this regard they were maintaining single lock and double lock registers, which were signed by concerned Manager i.e. accused and Assistant Manager i.e., C.W.1 regularly. She has further testified with regard to visit of superior officers to their branch on 12-9-2013, their demand of keys of single and double lockers, handing over of such keys by accused to her on previous day, production of such keys to such inspecting officers and production of other key by C.W.5. Further on verification of single 25 C.C.No.24993/2015 and double lock, there was shortage of Rs.19 lakhs and above officials enquired her with regard to any late payments of previous day. She has further stated that she herself informed them that no such late payments have taken place. She has further specifically stated that said superiors verified branch adjustment register in the cabin of accused and it was found that there was shortage of Rs.1,95,00,000/- towards amount forwarded to cash chest branch. P.W.9 has identified a report prepared by such officers with regard to shortage of money as per Ex.P2 and her signature on it as per Ex.P2(C). She has also identified branch adjustment register for the period between 29-7-2006 to 4-9-2013 as per Ex.P7, attendance register from 1-1-2013 to 30-9-2013 as per Ex.P9 and relevant dates of absence of accused from 13-9-2013 to 15-9-2013 as per Ex.P9(a). She has also identified lock registers as per Exs.P3 & P4, single lock cash books as per Exs.P5 & P6 and admits that when 26 C.C.No.24993/2015 amount is deposited to chest branch, their branch receives one telegraphic transfer (TT), which has to be entered into bank adjustment register by concerned Manager and Assistant Manager. She has further stated that accused has misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,15,00,000/- of their bank. However, in relevant portion of cross-examination P.W.9 admits that she was also responsible with regard to amount received from 9-4-2012 to 12-9-2013 and she was verifying the entries in concerned registers made by Manager and Assistant Manager about single and double locker. She has further admitted that during above period she was also in possession of key of double locker and she has not verified the cash at counter at any time. She has further stated that she came to know about misappropriation on 13-9-2013, when officers of Regional office came to their branch, but denies that she is involved in such misappropriation. Further in page No.5 of her 27 C.C.No.24993/2015 cross-examination, she has admitted that on 10-2-2013 there is entry in movement register with regard to handing over of double locker key to her and she has further stated that in view of misplace of movement register after 17-4-2013, same is not produced before court. She has further specifically admitted that as per branch rules C.W.1 was bound to possess the key of locker. The entire evidence of this witness is denied and it is suggested to her that she has signed the above registers as per direction of her superiors and she is seeing some of registers for the first time today. Thus evidence of this witness with regard to holding keys of lockers without cogent entries of register and misplace of key movement register of above branch raises serious suspicion about involvement and negligence on part of other staff members of the bank, which goes to the benefit of accused.
28 C.C.No.24993/2015
18. C.W.11/P.W.10 Varadaraju Mallya has testified that from July 2011 to November 2013 he was working as Manager in Syndicate Bank, Currency Chest branch, Jayanagar and at that time he was deputed as cash officer in currency chest cash counter. Further his duty was to receive amount from different branches and to disburse amount to branches who need money. He has further testified that at the time of receiving money, Managers of concerned banks used to bring bank adjustment slips in duplicate and if it was not a Manager, they used to bring a letter of Manager. He has further stated that behind such adjustment slips he used to mention as to on which date how much amount was received and after confirmation of correctness of amount, he used to issue one slip to concerned branch by putting his signature. He has further testified that he used to maintain a ledger with regard to receiving money in their chest branch and 29 C.C.No.24993/2015 thereafter they used to send telegraphic transfer ( TT) message to such branch, which must be entered by concerned clerk of such branches in TT register. He has further stated that he does not know as to who was maintaining such TT register in Electronic City branch and generally it is duty of Manager. He has further stated that accused was Manager of Electronic City branch and he used to come to their branch for depositing money to currency chest and as per rules at least 2-3 persons have to come either to deposit or to withdraw money from currency chest for the reason of security, but accused used to come alone. He has further stated that same was objected by him several times and he had intimated the same to his superiors.
19. He has further specifically stated that on 16-04-2013 accused had deposited Rs.15 lakhs to currency chest and he has identified bank adjustment 30 C.C.No.24993/2015 symbol as per Ex.P25 . But as per branch adjustment register Rs.25 lakhs was deposited.
20. He has further specifically stated that on 03-05-2013 accused had deposited Rs.20 lakhs to currency chest and he has identified bank adjustment symbol as per Ex.P26. But as per branch adjustment register Rs.25 lakhs was deposited.
21. He has further specifically stated that on 20-05-2013 accused had deposited Rs.20 lakhs to currency chest and he has identified bank adjustment symbol as per Ex.P27. But as per branch adjustment register Rs.25 lakhs was deposited.
22. He has further specifically stated that on 02-09-2013 accused had deposited Rs.25 lakhs to currency chest and he has identified bank adjustment symbol as per Ex.P28. But as per branch adjustment register Rs.30 lakhs was deposited.
31 C.C.No.24993/2015
23. He has specifically stated that he himself had received amount mentioned in Exs.P25 to P28 documents in currency chest and he has identified the accused before court.
24. In relevant portion of cross-examination by defence side P.W.10 admits that he issues his signed slips if amount is correct and he does not know how much amount was deposited by Bank Manager. He has further admitted that he personally cannot say how much amount was misappropriated in their main branch and he came to know about the same through his superiors. He has denied that accused was accompanied by 2-3 persons while depositing the cash and asserts that they mentioned names of such persons, who come to their branch for said purpose. He has further admitted that after confirming the correctness of amount brought by accused he has issued the slips and he admits that he cannot say who will be working in other branch while sending 32 C.C.No.24993/2015 telegraphic messages by them. The entire evidence of this witness is denied by defence side and it is suggested to him that he is deposing falsely as per his instance of his superiors. However Exs.P25 to P28 Branch adjustment advices are true copies attested by one Senior Manager of Currency chest by name Lakshimnarayana, who is not cited as witness, nor original registers are produced to prove authenticity of said advices and to prove alleged shortage of money deposited by accused. Further nothing is produced to show movement or attendance of sole accused in above process, without any escort in violation of above rule. Hence evidence of this witness is not sufficient to bring home guilt of accused.
25. C.W.12/P.W.11 A.N.Subbaramu S/o Nagaraju has testified that from June 2010 to September 2013 he has worked as Senior Manager in Syndicate Bank, currency chest branch, Jayanagar and at that time P.W.10 was cash officer of said branch. Further he 33 C.C.No.24993/2015 has reiterated procedure of receipt and disbursement of money from branches by P.W.10 and issuance of slips, entry in concerned ledger and forwarding telegraphic transfer messages to such branches. Further he has reiterated the version of P.W.10 by testifying that accused was Manager of Electronic City branch and he used to come to their branch for depositing money to currency chest and as per rules at least 2-3 persons have to come either to deposit or to withdraw money from currency chest for the reason of security, but accused used to come alone. He has further stated that same was objected by him several times and he had intimated the same to his superiors. He has specifically stated in the month of September 2013 they received letter from their Regional Office stating that amount received from Electronic City branch are correct and thereafter from 09-04-2013 to 04-09-2013 an amount of Rs.1,95,00,000/- was misappropriated. In cross-examination by defence side 34 C.C.No.24993/2015 P.W.11 admits that P.W.10 used to submit details of total amount received by him at the end of day and he personally does not know who had come to their currency chest to deposit amount. He has also admitted that they issued signed slips only if amount found to be correct and he cannot say the Manager deposit how much amount in their branch. He has also admitted that he cannot say misappropriation of amount in his branch personally and he came to know about the same through his superiors. He has also denied that accused was accompanied with 2-3 persons while depositing the cash, but admits that they had issued slips to accused after ascertaining correctness of amount. He has also admitted that he cannot say as to, who was working in other branch at the time of sending telegraphic messages. Entire evidence of this witness is also denied by defence side by way of cross-examination. Hence it shows that this 35 C.C.No.24993/2015 witness also has no personal knowledge about alleged misappropriation of funds by accused.
26. C.W.12/P.W.13 Narayanacharya S/o Ramachandra Acharya has testified in his evidence that he was working as Asst. Manager in Syndicate Bank, Currency chest, Jayanagar branch and he was also deputed as cash officer in currency chest. Further his duty was to receive amount from different branches and to disburse amount to branches who need money. He has further testified that at the time of receiving money, Managers of concerned banks used to bring bank adjustment slips in duplicate and if it was not a Manager, they used to bring a letter of Manager. He has further stated that behind such adjustment slips, he used to mention as to on which date how much amount was received and after confirmation of correctness of amount he used to issue one slip to concerned branch by putting his 36 C.C.No.24993/2015 signature. He has further testified that he used to maintain a ledger with regard to receiving money in their chest branch and thereafter they used to send telegraphic transfer message to such branch, which must be entered by concerned clerk of such branches in TT register. He has further stated that he does not know as to who was maintaining such TT register in Electronic City branch and generally it is duty of Manager. He has further stated that accused was Manager of Electronic City branch and he used to come to their branch for depositing money to currency chest and as per rules at least 2-3 persons have to come either to deposit or to withdraw money from currency chest for the reason of security, but accused used to come alone. He has further stated that same was objected by him several times and he had intimated the same to his superiors. He has identified the accused before court. In relevant portion of cross- examination by defence side P.W.12 admits that he 37 C.C.No.24993/2015 issues his signed slips if amount is correct and he does not know how much amount was deposited by Bank Manager. He has further admitted that he personally cannot say how much amount was misappropriated in their main branch and he came to know about the same through his superiors. He has denied that accused was accompanied by 2-3 persons, while depositing the cash and asserts that they mentioned names of such persons who come to their branch for said purpose. He has further admitted that after confirming the correctness of amount brought by accused he has issued the slips and he admits that he cannot say who will be working in other branch while sending telegraphic messages by them. The entire evidence of this witness is denied by defence side and it is suggested to him that he is deposing falsely as per his instance of his superiors. 38 C.C.No.24993/2015
27. C.W.15/P.W.13 Dennis Lobo S/o Thomas Lobo has testified in his evidence that he was working as Asst. Manager in Syndicate Bank, Currency chest, Jayanagar branch and he was also deputed as cash officer in currency chest. Further his duty was to receive amount from different branches and to disburse amount to branches who need money. He has further testified that at the time of receiving money, Managers of concerned banks used to bring bank adjustment slips in duplicate and if it was not a Manager, they used to bring a letter of Manger. He has further stated that behind such adjustment slips he used to mention as to on which date how much amount was received and after confirmation of correctness of amount he used to issue one slip to concerned branch by putting his signature. He has further testified that he used to maintain a ledger with regard to receiving money in their chest branch and thereafter they used to send telegraphic transfer 39 C.C.No.24993/2015 message to such branch, which must be entered by concerned clerk of such branches in TT register. He has further stated that he does not know as to who was maintaining such TT register in Electronic City branch and generally it is duty of Manager. He has further stated that accused was Manager of Electronic City branch and he used to come to their branch for depositing money to currency chest and as per rules at least 2-3 persons have to come either to deposit or to withdraw money from currency chest for the reason of security, but accused used to come alone. He has further stated that same was objected by him several times and he had intimated the same to his superiors. He has identified the accused before court. In relevant portion of cross-examination by defence side P.W.12 also admits that he issues his signed slips if amount is correct and he does not know how much amount was deposited by Bank Manager. He has further admitted that he personally cannot say how much 40 C.C.No.24993/2015 amount was misappropriated in their main branch and he came to know about the same through his superiors. He has denied that accused was accompanied by 2-3 persons while depositing the cash and asserts that they mentioned names of such persons who come to their branch for said purpose. He has further admitted that after confirming the correctness of amount brought by accused he has issued the slips and he admits that he cannot say who will be working in other branch while sending telegraphic messages by them. The entire evidence of this witness is denied by defence side and it is suggested to him that he is deposing falsely as per his instance of his superiors. The above evidence of P.Ws.10 to 13 officials of Jayanagar branch shows that they were totally unaware as to who was maintaining telegraphic transfer register at the other side and what was reason for not revealing such discrepancies or shortage of amount of deposit by 41 C.C.No.24993/2015 accused on day to day basis in aforesaid adjustment register of concerned branch.
28. C.W.20/P.W.14 Thrideep Kumar Bose S/o late K.C. Bose has testified in his evidence that he was working as Senior Manager of Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Bengaluru North from 2012 to 2014 and on 13-9-2013 he along with his DGM Alok Kumar Sharan and manager Ravindra Nayak went to Syndicate Bank, Electronic City branch in view of some difference with regard to amount deposited as per adjustment register of said branch. He has further stated that during after noon they reached said branch and collected keys of double locker from P.W.3 Raghavendra and P.W.9 Roopa Pramod. On verification of such double locker, they found an amount of Rs.41,01,000/- and there was shortage of Rs.19,00,000/- in said locker. Further on enquiry P.Ws.3 and 9 did not satisfactorily answered about 42 C.C.No.24993/2015 said shortage. Further he has specifically stated that on same day they verified branch adjustment register from 2-9-2012 to 2-9-2013 and forwarded 69 entries of such register to Jayanagar chest branch for verification of correctness of said entries. He has further stated that after about 2 days they received a report from chest branch and as per said report amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/- was forwarded to chest branch and some adjustments were made in it. He has clearly stated that accused has misused an amount of Rs.2,14,00,000/-. He has identified report prepared during inspection of double locker as per Ex.P2 and his signature on it as per Ex.P2(d). He has further identified 69 entires as per Ex.P29, double locker books verified by them on above date as per Exs.P3 & P4 and branch adjustment register as per Ex.P7. He has further identified the accused before court to be manager of above branch during said period. In relevant portion of cross-examination by 43 C.C.No.24993/2015 defence side P.W.14 admits that the above Electronic City branch of Syndicate Bank comes under his jurisdiction and it was his duty to verify all registers of such branch. He has further admitted that it was confirmed that the books of accounts were correct from 9-4-2012 to 12-9-2013 and he had responsibility to intimate superior if any discrepancy is found in such books of accounts and also to initiate suitable action against concerned employee. He has further stated that on 13-9-2013 at 10 a.m. he secured information about above branch and then he visited the branch at 3.00 p.m. He has further admitted that during his visit keys of single locker and double locker were with P.Ws.3 and 9 and they themselves opened such lockers during his visit. He has further stated that on the date of inspection they were present in branch till 9 p.m. and after investigation they sent amount to currency chest within 2-3 days. He has further admitted that he cannot say which official was 44 C.C.No.24993/2015 in possession of which key of locker. It s suggested to him that he is deposing falsely as per instance of his superior. However nothing is explained by this witness with regard to securing presence of accused and CW1 during their visit and inspecting the lockers. Further it shows that Ex.P2 report is prepared as an in-house document, in the absence of accused and independent witnesses. Hence evidence of this witness and his sub- ordinates do not help prosecution in any manner to prove the guilt of accused in misappropriation of funds or manipulation of accounts.
29. C.W.18/P.W.15 H.Ravindra Nayak S/o Sanjeev Nayak has testified in his evidence that he was working as Manager of Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Bengaluru North from 2013 to 2016 and on 13-9-2013 he along with his DGM Alok Kumar Sharan and P.W.14 went to Syndicate Bank, Electronic City branch in view of some difference with regard to amount deposited as per adjustment 45 C.C.No.24993/2015 register of said branch. He has further stated that during after noon they reached said branch and collected keys of double locker from P.W.3 Raghavendra and P.W.9 Roopa Pramod. On verification of such double locker, they found an amount of Rs.41,08,000/- and there was shortage of Rs.19,00,000/- in said locker. Further on enquiry P.Ws.3 and 9 did not satisfactorily answered about said shortage. Further he has also specifically stated that on same day they verified branch adjustment register from 2-9-2012 to 2-9-2013 and forwarded 69 entries of such register to Jayanagar chest branch for verification of correctness of said entries. He has further stated that after about 2 days they received a report from chest branch and as per said report amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/- was forwarded to chest branch and some adjustments were made in it. He has clearly stated that accused has misused an amount of Rs.2,14,00,000/-. He has identified report 46 C.C.No.24993/2015 prepared during inspection of double locker as per Ex.P2 and his signature on it as per Ex.P2(e). He has further identified 69 entires as per Ex.P29, double locker books verified by them on above date as per Exs.P3 & P4 and branch adjustment register as per Ex.P7. He has further identified the accused before court to be manager of above branch during said period. In relevant portion of cross-examination by defence side P.W.15 also admits that the above Electronic City branch of Syndicate Bank comes under his jurisdiction and it was his duty to verify all registers of such branch. He has further admitted that it was confirmed that the books of accounts were correct from 9-4-2012 to 12-9-2013 and he had responsibility to intimate superior if any discrepancy is found in such books of accounts and also to initiate suitable action against concerned employee. He has further stated that on 13-9-2013 at 10 a.m. he secured information about above branch and then he 47 C.C.No.24993/2015 visited the branch at 3.00 p.m. He has further admitted that during his visit keys of single locker and double locker were with P.Ws.3 and 9 and they themselves opened such lockers during his visit. He has further stated that on the date of inspection they were present in branch till 9 p.m. and after investigation they sent amount to currency chest within 2-3 days. He has further admitted that he cannot say which official was in possession of which key of locker. It is suggested to him accused has not corrected any account books and he has not received any money as deposed by them. It is suggested to him that he is deposing falsely as per instance of his superior. Further even this witness has not spoken anything with regard to his efforts in securing presence of accused during inspection and preparation of Ex.P2.
30. C.W.22/P.W.16 Alok Kumar Sharan S/o late Dr.Raghuveer Sharan has testified in his evidence that 48 C.C.No.24993/2015 he was working as Senior Manager of Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Bengaluru North from January 2013 to December 2013 and on 13-9-2013 he along with P.Ws.14 and 15 went to Syndicate Bank, Electronic City branch in view of some difference with regard to amount deposited as per adjustment register of said branch. He has further stated that during after noon they reached said branch and collected keys of double locker from P.W.3 Raghavendra and P.W.9 Roopa Pramod. On verification of such double locker, they found an amount of Rs.41,08,000/- and there was shortage of Rs.19,00,000/- in said locker. Further on enquiry P.Ws.3 and 9 did not satisfactorily answered about said shortage. Further he has also specifically stated that on same day they verified branch adjustment register from 2-9-2012 to 2-9-2013 and forwarded 69 entries of such register to Jayanagar chest branch for verification of correctness of said entries. He has further stated that after about 2 days 49 C.C.No.24993/2015 they received a report from chest branch and as per said report amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/- was forwarded to chest branch and some adjustments were made in it. He has clearly stated that accused has misused an amount of Rs.2,14,00,000/-. He has identified report prepared during inspection of double locker as per Ex.P2. He has further identified 69 entires as per Ex.P29, double locker books verified by them on above date as per Exs.P3 & P4 and branch adjustment register as per Ex.P7. He has further identified the accused before court to be manager of above branch during said period. In relevant portion of cross- examination by defence side P.W.15 also admits that the above Electronic City branch of Syndicate Bank comes under his jurisdiction and it was his duty to verify all registers of such branch. He has further admitted that it was confirmed that the books of accounts were correct from 9-4-2012 to 12-9-2013 and he had responsibility to intimate superior if any 50 C.C.No.24993/2015 discrepancy is found in such books of accounts and also to initiate suitable action against concerned employee. He has further stated that on 13-9-2013 at 10 a.m. he secured information about above branch and then he visited the branch at 3.00 p.m. He has further admitted that during his visit keys of single locker and double locker were with P.Ws.3 and 9 and they themselves opened such lockers during his visit. He has further stated that on the date of inspection they were present in branch till 9 p.m. and after investigation they sent amount to currency chest within 2-3 days. He has further admitted that he cannot say which official was in possession of which key of locker. It is suggested to him accused has not corrected any account books and he has not received any money as deposed by them. It is suggested to him that he is deposing falsely as per instance of his superior.
51 C.C.No.24993/2015
31. C.W.16/P.W.17 Mukta W/o G.R.Nagaraj has testified in her evidence that she was working as Senior Manager of Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Bengaluru North from November 2012 to October 2013. Further she was in account section of said office and she was verifying the certificates issued by Manager of Electronic City branch. Further in the month of July 2013, she was transferred from Account Department to other section. She has further testified that on 13-9-2013 P.W.14 to 16 went to Syndicate Bank, Electronic City branch in view of some difference with regard to amount deposited as per adjustment register of said branch. Further they collected keys of double locker from P.W.3 Raghavendra and P.W.9 Roopa Pramod. On verification of such double locker, they found an amount of Rs.41,08,000/- and there was shortage of Rs.19,00,000/- in said locker. Further on enquiry P.Ws.3 and 9 did not satisfactorily answered about 52 C.C.No.24993/2015 said shortage. Further he has specifically stated that on same day they verified branch adjustment register from 2-9-2012 to 2-9-2013 and forwarded 69 entries of such register to Jayanagar chest branch for verification of correctness of said entries. She has further stated that after about 2 days they received a report from chest branch and as per said report amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/- was forwarded to chest branch and some adjustments were made in it. He has clearly stated that accused has misused an amount of Rs.2,14,00,000/-. She has further identified the accused before court. In relevant portion of cross-examination by defence side P.W.17 has admits that it was her duty and responsibility to retain certificates issued by concerned Manager and also to verify its correctness. She has further admitted that she has not taken any such process of verification from 9-4-2012 to 12-9-2013 nor she has given any notice in that regard. She has further stated that she 53 C.C.No.24993/2015 had brought the above transactions to the notice of superiors and denies that absolutely there were no discrepancies in certificates issued by accused. Though she has stated that during her tenure she has personally not noticed the above misappropriation, she came to know about the same through her superiors. Entire evidence of this witness is also denied in toto and it is suggested to her that she is deposing falsely.
32. C.W.17/P.W.18 Thirumurthy S/o Damodaran has testified that in the year 2011-12 he was serving as Asst. Manager in Syndicate Bank, currency Chest, Jayanagar, he has reiterated about procedure of depositing or disbursal of money in said currency chest and he has identified accused as Manager of aforesaid Syndicate Bank, Electronic City branch. He has further testified that on 13-9-2013 they went to Syndicate Bank, Electronic City branch in view of some difference with regard to amount deposited as 54 C.C.No.24993/2015 per adjustment register of said branch. Further they collected keys of double locker from P.W.3 Raghavendra and P.W.9 Roopa Pramod. On verification of such double locker, they found an amount of Rs.41,08,000/- and there was shortage of Rs.19,00,000/- in said locker. Further on enquiry P.Ws.3 and 9 did not satisfactorily answered about said shortage. Further he has specifically stated that on same day they verified branch adjustment register from 2-9-2012 to 2-9-2013 and forwarded 69 entries of such register to Jayanagar chest branch for verification of correctness of said entries. He has further stated that after about 2 days they received a report from chest branch and as per said report amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/- was forwarded to chest branch and some adjustments were made in it. He has clearly stated that accused has misused an amount of Rs.2,14,00,000/-. He has further identified the accused before court. In cross-examination by 55 C.C.No.24993/2015 defence side P.W.18 admits that he has no knowledge about above transaction after 16-8-2021 and he was only aware about depositing of money and taking this account during his tenure. Entire evidence of this witness is also denied by defence side and it is suggested to him that the accused has not committed any dereliction of his duty. However this witness also appears to be a hearsay witness and same cannot be relied upon for corroborative purpose.
33. C.W.19/P.W.19 K. Chakradhara S/o Kashipathi has testified in his evidence that he was working as Senior Manager, Planning and Development Section of Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Bengaluru North from June 2010 to July 2013. At that time their AGM Darshan had given a report to their office after inspecting Electronic City branch and he had addressed a letter to Electronic City branch with said report directing them to file compliance report. Thereafter, the concerned branch 56 C.C.No.24993/2015 did not file any such compliance report. Hence on 13-09-2013, he along with P.W.14 to 16 went to Syndicate Bank, Electronic City branch in view of some difference with regard to amount deposited as per adjustment register of said branch. Further they collected keys of double locker from P.W.3 Raghavendra and P.W.9 Roopa Pramod. On verification of such double locker, they found an amount of Rs.41,08,000/- and there was shortage of Rs.19,00,000/- in said locker. Further on enquiry P.Ws.3 and 9 did not satisfactorily answered about said shortage. Further he has specifically stated that on same day they verified branch adjustment register from 2-9-2012 to 2-9-2013 and forwarded 69 entries of such register to Jayanagar chest branch for verification of correctness of said entries. He has also further stated that after about 2 days they received a report from chest branch and as per said report amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/- was forwarded to chest 57 C.C.No.24993/2015 branch and some adjustments were made in it. He has clearly stated that accused has misused an amount of Rs.2,14,00,000/-. He has further identified the accused before court. In relevant portion of cross- examination P.W.19 has stated that it was his duty to forward concerned report to concerned department and he has denied that his AGM Darshan has not given such reports. He has further admitted that he came to know about allegations against accused after departmental enquiry.
34. C.W.21/P.W.20 N.V.Darshan S/o Vijay Gopal has testified in his evidence that he was working as Asst. General Manager of Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Bengaluru North from August 2012 to July 2013. Further on 5-2-2013 he had visited Electronic City branch of his bank and thereafter he filed a report about irregularities in said branch to Planning and Development section of his office. Thereafter the said 58 C.C.No.24993/2015 section issued a letter to Electronic City branch directing them to file compliance report, but during his tenure said bank did not file any such report. For said reason on 13-9-2013, he along with P.W.14 to 16 visited to Syndicate Bank, Electronic City branch in view of some difference with regard to amount deposited as per adjustment register of said branch. Further they collected keys of double locker from P.W.3 Raghavendra and P.W.9 Roopa Pramod. On verification of such double locker, they found an amount of Rs.41,08,000/- and there was shortage of Rs.19,00,000/- in said locker. Further on enquiry P.Ws.3 and 9 did not satisfactorily answer about said shortage. Further he has specifically stated that on same day they verified branch adjustment register from 02-9-2012 to 2-9-2013 and forwarded 69 entries of such register to Jayanagar chest branch for verification of correctness of said entries. He has further stated that after about 2 days they received a 59 C.C.No.24993/2015 report from chest branch and as per said report amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/- was forwarded to chest branch and some adjustments were made in it. He has clearly stated that accused has misused an amount of Rs.2,14,00,000/-. He has further identified the accused before court. In relevant portion of cross-examination P.W.20 has denied that he is aware about problems of shortage of staff, complaints of customers, expansion of branches, difficulties in loan disbursement and labour issues. He has further admitted that during his visit he was not aware about alleged misappropriation of money in above branch in detail. The entire evidence of this witness is also denied and it is suggested to him that though he has not submitted any report, he is deposing falsely as per instance of his superiors. Further it shows that he has not reported alleged shortage of funds during his initial visit and submission of report and same is alleged to have been observed after inspection on 60 C.C.No.24993/2015 13.09.2013, in the absence of accused. Hence his evidence cannot be completely relied upon to prove alleged misappropriation by accused.
35. C.W.26/P.W.21 Manjunath S/o Gangadhar who appears to be an independent witness has testified that he knows accused persons from last 7 years, he is a member of Wilson Garden club where they have bar section, canteen, cards and sport section. He has further stated that there is committee for cards section and he was Chairman of the club. Further the members and guests were permitted to play the card and usually they play rummy game for money. He has further stated that accused visits their club as guests, he used to play rummy game, but he cannot remember how much money he had brought and lost in rummy game. Evidence of this witness is not challenged by defence side by way of cross-examination.
61 C.C.No.24993/2015
36.C.W.27/P.W.22 M.Govinda S/o K.Mada Shetty who appears to be another independent witness has similarly testified that he used to visit Wilson Garden club as a guest through its member, said club has bar section, canteen, cards and sport section. He has further stated that there is committee for cards section and P.W.21 was Chairman of the club. Further the members and guests were permitted to play the card and usually they play rummy game for money. He has further stated that accused visits their club as guest, he used to play rummy game, but he cannot remember how much money he had brought and lost in rummy game. Evidence of this witness is not challenged by defence side by way of cross-examination.
37. C.W.28/P.W.23 M.S.Raju S/o Srinivas Iyengar who appears to be Manager of Wilson Garden Club has similarly testified that he was Manager of said club in the year 2013, said club has bar section, 62 C.C.No.24993/2015 canteen, cards and sport section. He has further stated that there is committee for cards section and P.W.21 was Chairman of the club. Further the members and guests were permitted to play the card and usually they play rummy game for money. He has further stated that accused visits their club as guest, he used to play rummy game, but he cannot remember how much money he had brought and lost in rummy game. Evidence of this witness is not challenged by defence side by way of cross-examination. However though evidence of P.Ws. 21 to 23 goes to show that accused used to visit above club and he was used to play cards, same cannot be a ground to believe that he had bet huge amount, much less amount alleged to have been misappropriated in said club and he had lost said money. The above witnesses do not say as to how much money was lost by accused nor they have produced any cogent evidence to show betting and loosing huge cash by 63 C.C.No.24993/2015 accused in above club. Hence evidence of these witnesses do not help prosecution to draw inference of reasons of misappropriation of funds by accused.
38. C.W.30/P.W.24 the then Police Constable of Parappana Agrahara PS has testified that on 19-09-2013 as per direction of their PSI, he has submitted FIR and original information to the court. He has identified original information as per Ex.P24 and FIR as per Ex.P30 (which is wrongly mentioned as Ex.P35 in his deposition). In cross-examination by defence side he has denied that though he has no personal information about present case, he has submitted FIR as per instance of his superior.
39. C.W.25/P.W.25 Nooruddin S/o Fayamuddin has testified that from 2012 to 2014 he worked as Chief Manager (vigilance) Syndicate Bank, Bengaluru unit and his corporate office vigilance department instructed him to investigate the allegation of 64 C.C.No.24993/2015 misappropriation by accused in their Electronic City branch. Accordingly he visited the branch and verified documents of their currency chest and it was found to him that accused had misappropriated sum of Rs.1,74,00,000/- in currency chest, which was taken by him fro Electronic City branch. He has further stated that similarly he deposited less cash of Rs.40,00,000/- on five occasions and he misappropriated an amount of Rs.19 lakhs from Electronic City branch. He has specifically stated that, he submitted report to their corporate office and during said period accused was working as branch Manager of said branch. This witness has identified accused in court. In cross-examination by defence side P.W.25 asserts that his corporate office issued him authorization to inquire into the matter and he was competent to investigate the matter as Chief Manager (Vigilance). He has further stated that in the month of September 2013 their corporate office issued letter 65 C.C.No.24993/2015 in that regard and as per procedure they directly went to the branch to start investigation. He has denied that before starting investigation they must issue intimation or letter or notice to concerned person. He has further accepted that he recorded statements of staff of said branch and denies that he has not investigated the matter personally . He has also denied that he has submitted report only on the basis of statements of their staff and he submitted a favourable report on advice of senior officer. However, names are rival interest of any such senior officer is not suggested to the witness. Further to the question that staff of the branch were also equally responsible for misappropriation of funds, this witness states that he has submitted report against other staff with regard to negligence in discharging their duties, but he has submitted the report against accused with other staff. He has denied the suggestion that misappropriation was due to negligence in discharging 66 C.C.No.24993/2015 of duty and there was no intention of misappropriation. Further P.W.25 has stated that he recorded statements of officials of currency chest and verified documents maintained by them. He has further denied that the report submitted by him is not in accordance with law and it is prepared to implicate the accused in present case.
40. C.W.32/P.W.28 H.K.Srikanta Shetty S/o Kada Shetty the then ASI of CID has testified that on 20- 09-2014 he received a letter from I.O. and he has handed over the same to Manager of Electronic City branch of Syndicate branch. He has further stated that accordingly the said Manager had given 12 debit slips in a cover along with an internal report, which is submitted by him before I.O. In cross-examination by defence side P.W.28 admitted that IO had not issued him any notice in that regard nor he had issued any notice to the Manager to produce such documents. The entire evidence of this witness is denied in toto. 67 C.C.No.24993/2015 However these material documents are not received by I.O. himself under mahazar and as such seizure of these documents from proper custody is not proved. Further the related registers of concerned chest branch are not secured by I.O. to shows authenticity of above slips with cross entries. Hence securing of above material documents without above procedure does not help prosecution to prove authenticity of such documents.
41. Finally C.W.33/P.W.26 R.Vijay Kumar S/o Ramanna, the then P.I. CID and IO who has conducted the major investigation of the case has testified that on 31.1.2014, he took up further investigation of the case from C.W.31, he recorded statement of C.W.4 on 10-02-2014 and secured the cash deposit receipts of accused No.1 on 21-03-2014 through C.W.31. He has further testified with regard to issuance of notice to the branch Manager of Electronic City branch on 10-04-2014 and recording 68 C.C.No.24993/2015 statement of C.W.2, C.W.5 and C.W.7. Thereafter, on 25-4-2014 he issued a requisition to Chief Manager currency chest Jayanagar to furnish documents and on 30-04-2014 accused appeared before him by obtaining anticipatory bail. He has further stated that on same day after complying arrest formalities, he released accused and issued one more requisition to C.W.25 to produce documents. Thereafter, on 05-06-2014 he issued notice to C.W.3, he appeared on 07-06-2014 and his statement was recorded. He has further stated that on 30-7-2014, C.W.23 submitted a report to him and on 1-8-2014, C.W.14 produced certified copy of telegraph transfer slip before him.
42. He has further stated that on 6-8-2014 one Sridhar i.e., P.W.5 of Electronic City branch produced double lock cash register, single lock cash register, attendance register, bank adjustment book and key movement register and he recorded statement of said 69 C.C.No.24993/2015 official. He has further testified with regard to issuance of notice and recording statements of C.Ws.18, 9, 11, 12, 19, 13 to 15, 16, 21, 17, 22, 20, 26, 29, 27 and 28 and further statement of C.W.1. He has further stated that on 25-10-2014 he received certified copy of internal audit report from C.W.25. Thereafter on 13-11-2014, C.W.32 produced 12 mula debit slips before him and thereafter in view of his transfer he handed over further investigation of the case to C.W.34/ P.W.27. He has further stated that he received double lock cash book, single lock cash book, bank adjustment register, attendance register and key movement register from P.W.5 and he has identified said documents as per Exs.P3 to P9. He has further stated that he received certified copy of audit report from P.W.25, he received 12 debit slips from P.W.28 as per Exs.P10 to P21 and his requisition as per Ex.P22. He has further identified vigilance report as 70 C.C.No.24993/2015 per Ex.P31, key movement register as per Ex.P32 and he has also identified the accused before court.
43. In cross-examination by defence side P.W.26 has specifically stated that after taking up investigation of the case he again visited the bank and verified the locker. However, he states that he has not conducted mahazar in that regard and he received single locker and double locker registers from staff of said bank. He has further admitted that he has not called for the audit report and he has volunteered that Bank Manager himself has produced it. He has further admitted that he has not seized the cash books, but asserts that concerned officers themselves have produced it. Hence seizure of above cash books from proper custody without ascertaining genuineness of entries by this I.O. is a ground to suspect entries in such documents. The entire evidence of this witness is denied by defense side and 71 C.C.No.24993/2015 it is suggested to him that he is deposing falsely by filing false charge sheet against accused.
44. C.W.34/P.W.27 Venkatesh S/o M.Narayanappa the then Dy.S.P. of CID SED and one of IO of this case has testified that he took up further investigation of the case from C.W.33(P.W.26), he verified the file and in view of completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused. The entire evidence of this witness is also denied and it is suggested to him that he has filed false charge sheet without investigating the matter.
45. Thus on perusal of entire charge sheet materials and evidence adduced by prosecution it shows that the position of accused as Branch manager of aforesaid Syndicate Bank, Electronic City branch is not disputed. Further it is also not disputed that accused was main custodian of keys of single locker and double locker of said branch, in which the 72 C.C.No.24993/2015 amount was generally stocked and he was also responsible for depositing the excess cash to currency chest of Jayanagar and also to withdraw the amount from said chest in case of any shortage of funds to said branch. On going through the evidence of above witnesses, it shows that all of them have categorically testified with regard to alleged misappropriation of funds by accused to the tune of Rs.2,14,00,000/- by not remitting the amount of Rs.1,95,00,000/- to currency chest and also being responsible for shortage of Rs.19,00,000/- in double locker during visit of higher/supervising officials to said branch on 13-9- 2013. However, the evidence of above witnesses clearly shows that accused was not present on the branch on the date of visit and the joint custodian of keys of above lockers-cum-first informant Kethan Kumar Asst. Manager was also on privileged leave for certain period. It further shows that above inspection has been conducted as per report of C.W.21/P.W.20 73 C.C.No.24993/2015 N.V.Darshan, the then AGM of Syndicate Bank, Regional office, but he has neither identified the said report showing any irregularities nor same is produced by investigating agency to ascertain such irregularities, inviting attention of regional office to above branch.
46. It is also pertinent to note that aforesaid P.Ws.1 and 2 mahazar witnesses are none other than Attender and Gun man of aforesaid branch and no independent witnesses are cited to such mahazar. Further these witnesses have testified that they came to know about alleged misappropriation through their superiors and their evidence is not sufficient to prove the alleged guilt of accused. Further P.W.3 the other official of above branch has also stated that he has no personal knowledge about alleged misappropriation. P.W.4 who is also an employee of above branch has narrated the procedure of maintaining single locker and double locker of the branch, but he has 74 C.C.No.24993/2015 specifically stated that the other Asst. Manager is a joint custodian of such lockers and no officer can keep both keys of the locker. Hence if at all the accused had illegally drawn aforesaid amount of Rs.19 lakhs from any of lockers much less from double locker, it could have definitely come to the notice of C.W.1, who was the then Asst. Manager and joint custodian of above lockers. The non-initiating suitable action either by C.W.1 or other staff having joint custody of above lockers is a ground to suspect the alleged misappropriation of amount of Rs.19 lakhs by accused. It is also pertinent to note that during visit of officials of regional office the keys of accused and C.W.1 were found in custody of other staff members i.e., P.W.3 Raghavendra and P.W.9 cashier Roopa. Nothing is produced to show that they were handed over the keys as per procedure laid down in above branch.
75 C.C.No.24993/2015
47. Further it is also pertinent to note that on the date of alleged visit to above branch by officials of Regional office i.e., on 13-09-2013 neither accused nor C.W.1 were present and the said officials have inspected the lockers as per Ex.P2 report in presence of other officials, who have also contributed their negligence in handling the lockers in accordance with law. Further the accused is neither secured nor his signature is obtained on Ex.P2 in order to confirm such shortage of amount in above lockers. Further evidence of P.W.4 depict that she has worked as cashier for 5-6 days without any written order and same is not considered either by Regional office of the bank or by I.O. Even P.W.4 has pleaded that she has no personal knowledge about alleged misappropriation of funds by accused. Most importantly P.W.5, who is other official of aforesaid bank has admitted in his evidence that if any keys are exchanged, same will be entered in Ex.P23 key movement register and even he 76 C.C.No.24993/2015 admits that he has no personal knowledge about alleged misappropriation of funds by accused. Further he has clearly admitted that there are two sets of keys for aforesaid single and double locker, one will be with Manager and another will be with joint custodian, who appears to be C.W.1 Asst. Manager. He has further stated that if keys are exchanged, same will be entered in Ex.P23 and as per entry dated 17-04-2013 second set of locker key has been handed over by C.W.1 to P.W.9 and first set of the key was delivered to accused. He has further stated that absolutely there was no entry in this regard upto 16-09-2015. Most importantly P.W.5 has admitted that concerned locker keys were not in possession of accused from 09-04-2012 onwards.
48. Most importantly C.W.1/P.W.8 who is defacto complainant has clearly admitted that he was joint custodian of above keys and he was on privilege leave from 06-09-2013 to 15-09-2015 i.e., including the 77 C.C.No.24993/2015 date of inspection by officials of Regional office. P.W.8 admits his equal responsibility as a joint custodian above locker keys and that each of them were responsible for verification of day-to-day transactions. Under such circumstances as an Asst. Manager of the branch P.W.8 is expected to know the actual amount kept in locker and actual excess amount deposited by accused to currency chest. It is also not denied by him he was bound to verify day-to-day transactions, but he has not explained anything with regard to verification of telegraphic transfer of currency chest each and every day. If at all there was shortage or discrepancy in the amount deposited by accused to currency chest for aforesaid long period, C.W.1 could have immediately reported the same to their higher office and his silence with regard to said aspect is a ground to suspect his conduct. Hence this aspect is a ground to extend benefit of doubt about alleged misappropriation by accused. Further P.W.8 has 78 C.C.No.24993/2015 clearly admitted that a register is maintained with regard to remittance of cash to currency chest, Jayanagar as branch adjustment ledger and such transactions are reflected in it. He has further admitted that such transactions used to be made under electronic telegraphic transfer and whenever the amount is rounded, it means same is credited to their account and T.T.number will be issued by concerned chest branch. He has not denied that their General Manager had written letter to police seeking to take action against eight persons including accused and himself and he asserts that he has not gone through such letter. He has further clearly admitted that may be they have not maintained proper accounts of subject matter of present case and he denies the suggestion that the accused was not responsible for irregularities accrued during said period. This witness has further clearly admitted that it was his duty to report non-payment or less payment of amount by 79 C.C.No.24993/2015 chest branch either on same day or next day and inspite of it he has not informed the same. Further as already stated above P.W.9 Cashier of above bank has clearly admitted that there was entry with regard to handing over key of double lock to her on 10-02-2013 and in view of misplace of movement register after 17-04-2013, same is not produced before this Court. These aspect raise serious doubt about the case of prosecution in believing alleged guilt of accused.
49. Further P.Ws.14 to 16, who are inspecting officials of Regional office dated 13-9-2013 have reiterated about their inspections of above branch during absence of accused and C.W.1, verification of 69 entries of relevant registers, observing shortage of cash in double locker as well as shortage of cash remitted to currency chest by above branch. However, none of these witnesses have explained about their efforts to secure accused at the spot immediately to explain such shortage and it appears that they have 80 C.C.No.24993/2015 immediately referred the matter to concerned currency chest for opinion. Thereafter, on the basis of information availed from such currency chest, they have recommended C.W.1 to lodge present information before concerned police. On the basis of their direction it shows that C.W.1 Kethan Kumar has lodged above information before Parappana Agrahara PS on 18-09-2013. However, as per evidence of C.W.1/P.W.8 himself he was on privilege leave from 06-09-2013 to 15-09-2015. Under such circumstances he has not explained as to how he lodged aforesaid information before police during his leave period. Further the delay of five days in lodging the information is also not explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence it shows that P.Ws.14 to 16 have not made any efforts to ascertain the role of each and every official in shortage of amount deposited to currency chest and shortage of amount in lockers of the bank by considering the responsibility and joint custody of keys by each and 81 C.C.No.24993/2015 every officials. Further the evidence of aforesaid witnesses of concerned branch clearly shows that entries of Exs.P3 and P4 key registers are not maintained upto date.
50. Further though there is allegations that the accused was in habit of remitting the cash alone to currency chest in his scooter without proper escort, despite there is rule that there shall be 2-3 persons to remit such cash with proper escort. However, nothing is put forth by the informant or other witnesses with regard to existence of such rule and its violation by accused. Further though the witnesses of currency chest have categorically testified with regard to such violation by accused, they have admitted that a register is maintained with regard to persons appearing for said purpose and such register is not produced before court to prove alleged violation leading to misappropriation of funds as per case of prosecution.
82 C.C.No.24993/2015
51. Further P.W.25 Nooruddin S/o Fayamuddin, who is Chief Manager of Vigilance, Syndicate Bank has testified with regard to investigation of alleged misappropriation by accused, visiting of said branch, depositing of less cash on five occasions by accused. However, he has clearly admitted that staff of the branch were also responsible in view of submission of report against them with regard to negligence in discharging their duty and he asserts to have submitted such report against other staff. It is asserted and suggested by defence side that misappropriation was due to negligence in discharging of duty and there was no such intention by accused.
52. Further the evidence of prosecution shows that either accused in capacity of Manager or any other official of the bank who is authorized by him could remit the cash to currency chest. Further admittedly telegraphic transfer message is intimated to branch each and every day showing depositing of cash to 83 C.C.No.24993/2015 currency chest and such entries are checked every day by concerned officials. Under such circumstances, the questions of alleged shortage of amount remitted and its non-reporting at immediate point of time is a ground to suspect role of each and every official of said bank in alleged misappropriation.
53. Further though it is alleged that there is falsification of entries of amount remitted by accused, nothing explained as to which accounts are falsified and nothing is put forth to show that such accounts are referred to expert to ascertain said fact. Further such entries are subject to cross verification by other officials of the bank and it cannot be believed that the entire staff of the above branch has maintained silence about such entries despite, it has come to their notice well within time. It further shows that keys of locker are exchanged between staff members without entering into movement registers and there is gross 84 C.C.No.24993/2015 negligence on the part of such concerned officials which is not considered by I.O.
54. Thus on perusal of entire materials collected on record, it shows that the accused cannot be blamed with entire liability of shortage of funds remitted to chest or shortage of funds in lockers of the bank during visit of superiors, just for the reason that he was the Manager of the concerned branch at relevant point of time. The materials collected by I.O. itself depict that there is internal investigation by vigilance unit of Syndicate Bank which discloses suspension of accused and some other staff members as per Ex.P31 report submitted by P.W.25 Chief Manager of vigilance. Further said report depicts some of lapses on the part of C.W.1 Kethan Kumar that he failed to discharge his duty as joint custodian of branch property and he failed to record handing over charge of joint custodian to other staff of while going on leave . It is further alleged that he has committed 85 C.C.No.24993/2015 gross negligence by adjusting old pending items of cash remittance in branch adjustment from TT pertaining to fresh remittances made by the branch without verification and he has also shared his ID password with other staff members, exposing the bank to the risk of financial loss. Further in same report there are allegations of gross violation of security norms by other staff members of the bank while remitting cash to currency chest by accused and it is alleged against some of staff members of currency chest that they failed to monitor and detect discrepancy in cash remittance from the branch of accused. These all aspect goes to show that accused cannot be held solely liable and responsible for alleged misappropriation or shortage of funds and it shows that the alleged shortage has taken place due to gross negligence on the part of other staff members mentioned above. Moreover, Ex.P31 report depict that bank has recovered full amount of Rs.214 lakhs from 86 C.C.No.24993/2015 accused, which was deposited by him in stages during 08-10-2013 to 17-03-2014. However, mere depositing above amount by accused cannot be a ground to hold that he himself has misappropriated the alleged amount and thereby he committed fraud on above bank for his personal gain. Further absolutely there are no materials to hold that the accused has forged any documents much less he has committed falsification of account of the bank so as to attract Sections 468 and 477(A) of IPC. Hence the case of prosecution is surrounded with unexplained circumstances and the gross negligence of other staff members including C.W.1 in managing the affairs of the branch is a ground to extend benefit of doubt in favour of accused with regard to alleged offences. Hence evidence adduced by prosecution is not sufficient to hold that the accused has misappropriated alleged amount of the bank by way of forgery and falsification of account. Hence in view of 87 C.C.No.24993/2015 above reasons, the evidence of prosecution witness has not inspired the confidence of the Court with regard to alleged guilt of accused and as such it is incumbent upon this Court to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 477(A) of IPC. Hence, Point No.1 to 3 are answered in Negative.
55. Point No.4: -
For the reasons stated and findings given on point No.1 to 3, following is:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 409, 468, 477(A) of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this 88 C.C.No.24993/2015 order and thereafter same shall stand canceled automatically.
( Typed by me directly on computer, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 14 th day of December 2022).
(Anand T Chavan) st 1 Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution :-
P.W.1, Basavaraju,
P.W.2, Doremani,
P.W.3, Raghavendra Rao,
P.W.4, Vijayalakshmi,
P.W.5, Sridharan,
P.W.6, Shylaja,
P.W.7, Jayanthi Naik,
P.W.8, Kethan Kumar,
P.W.9, Roopa Pramod,
P.W.10, Varadaraju Malya,
P.W.11, A.N.Subbaramu,
P.W.12, Narayana Acharya,
P.W.13, Denis Lobo,
P.W.14, Thideep Kumar Bose,
P.W.15, H.Ravindra Nayar,
P.W.16, Alok Kumar Sharan,
P.W.17, Muktha,
P.W.18, Thirumurthy,
P.W.19, K.Chakradhara,
P.W.20, N.V.Darshan,
P.W.21, Manjunath,
P.W.22, Mgovinda,
P.W.23, M.S.Raju,
P.W.24, Shreeshyla S.I.,
89 C.C.No.24993/2015
P.W.25, Nooruddin,
P.W.26, R.Vijay Kumar,
P.W.27, Venkatesh,
P.W.28, H.K.Srikanta Shetty;
List of exhibits marked for prosecution :-
Ex.P1, Mahazar,
Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1,
Ex.P1(b, Signature of P.W.2,
Ex.P2, List of details of double lock
verification,
Ex.P2(a), Signature of P.W.4,
Ex.P2(c), Signature of P.W.9,
Ex.P2(d), Signature of P.W.14,
Ex.P2(e), Signature of P.W.15,
Ex.P3, Double lock register,
Ex.P3(a), Entries in Ex.P3 dated 12-9-2012,
Ex.P4, Double lock cash book maintained
for the period on 8-9-2011 to
20-10-2010,
Ex.P5, Single lock book maintained for the
period of 1-12-2011 to 31-12-2012,
Ex.P6, other single lock book maintained for
the period of 1-1-2013 to 12-9-2013,
Ex.P7, Branch adjustment ledger for the
period from 29-7-2006 to 4-9-2013,
Ex.P8, Attendance register for the period
1-9-2009 to 31-12-2012,
Ex.P9, Attendance register for the period
1-1-2013 to 30-9-2013,
Ex.P10 to
Ex.P21, 12 original debit slips,
Ex.P22, Covering letter,
Ex.P22(a), Signature of P.W.5,
Ex.P23, Certified copy of keys movement
register,
90 C.C.No.24993/2015
Ex.P24, Complaint,
Ex.P24(a), Signature of P.W.8,
Ex.P25 to
Ex.P28, Branch adjustment symbols,
Ex.P29, 69 entries in branch adjustment
register,
Ex.P30, First Information Report,
Ex.P31, Vigilance report,
Ex.P32, Key movement register;
List of material object :NIL
List of witnesses examined for defence:- NIL List of documents marked for defence:- NIL 1st Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
91 C.C.No.24993/2015(Judgment pronounced in the Open Court vie separate judgment) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 409, 468, 477(A) of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stand canceled automatically.
I ACMM, Bengaluru.