Bangalore District Court
Central Bureau Of vs J.P.Narasimha Murthy on 19 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES, BENGALURU.
HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF XLVII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE
FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU.
Dated 19th day of December, 2018.
PRESENT:
S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI, B.A. LL.B.,
XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge & Special Judge for C.B.I.Cases,
Bengaluru.
Holding Concurrent Charge of XLVII
Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
SPECIAL CRIMINAL CASE No.155/2005
COMPLAINANT: Central Bureau of
Investigation,
A.C.B., Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
-VERSUS-
2 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
ACCUSED : 1 J.P.Narasimha Murthy,
S/o.D.Jayaram,
Dismissed from Government
Service,
Aged 51 years,
r/o.No.77,4th Cross,
Yelechanahally,
Kanakapura Road,
Bengaluru-78.
(By Sri C.V.Nagesh /
Sri E.R.G.Naidu, Advocates)
2 Ravindra Poojari,
Aged about 43 years,
r/o.No.12, II Floor,
Najappa Building,
J.P.Nagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri K.M.Chandra
Prasad,Advocate)
3 K.P.Narayanan @ N.K.Prasad
S/o.Hiranmaya Prasad,
r/o.7/2, 1st Main,
Puttaiahana Palya,
9th Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru-560 069.
(Case abated since dead)
4 Vishal Kohli,
S/o.Avinash Kohli,
Aged 43 years,
r/o.No.198, 10th Cross,
3 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
Basaveshwar Nagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri V.A.Rama Sharma,
Advocate)
5 Suresh Pandurang Shinghi,
S/o.Late Pandurang
Sadyappa Shinghi,
Aged 48 years,
r/o.Post Aigali,
Athani Taluk,
Belgaum District.
(By Sri Channa Keshav,
Advocate)
6 David Sagairaj,
S/o.Late D.Joseph,
Aged 46 years,
Dismissed from services of
Canara Bank, Bengaluru.
r/o.No.106, 4th Floor,
Mallappa Layout,
Babusab Palaya,
Bengaluru-78.
(By Sri Mahesha M.,
Advocate)
7 Lokesh H.
S/o.Hanumantharaya
Gowda,
aged 28 years,
r/o.No.237, 1st Cross,
BEML Layout, 4th Stage,
4 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
Rajarajeshwari Nagar,
Bengaluru-98.
(By Sri T.Narayana Gowda,
Advocate)
8 Manjunath R.
S/o.T.Ramanna,
Aged 29 years,
r/o.No.60, M.H.Street,
Keshava Rao Park,
Basavangudi,
Bengaluru.
(Case abated since dead)
9 R.Raju,
S/o.Ramu,
Aged 38 years,
r/o.No.169, 11th Cross,
23rd Main, Basaveshwar
Nagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri R.Vidya Sagar,
Advocate)
Tabulation of Events
1. Date of Commission of : During July-October
Offence 2003
5 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
2. Date of Report of Offence : 31.12.2003
3. Date of Arrest of accused : A-4 on 20.11.2004
A-5 on 16.4.2005
A-7 on 3.8.2005
4. Date of release of accused : A-4 on 27.11.2004
on bail
A-5 on 17.5.2005
A-7 on 12.8.2005
5. Period of undergone in : A-4 - Five days in
custody Police Custody from
20.11.2004 to
25.11.2004 and
Two days in JC on
26.11.2004 &
27.11.2004.
A-5 - Four days in
police custody from
16.4.2005 to
18.4.2005 and Twenty
eight days in JC from
19.4.2005 to
17.5.2005.
A-7 - Two days in
police custody on
3.8.2005 and
4.8.2005 and Seven
days in JC from
5.8.2005 to 12.8.2005
6 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
6. Name of the complainant : Source information
7. Date of commencement of : 21.7.2010
Evidence
8. Date of closing of Evidence : 2.5.2018
9. Offences complained of : Under Sections 120-B
read with 419, 420,
468 and 471 Indian
Penal Code and
Section 13 (2) r/w.13
(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
10. Opinion of the Judge : As per final order
(S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI)
XLVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Bengaluru.
Holding Concurrent Charge of XLVII
Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
7 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet has been filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Bengaluru against the accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offence punishable under Sections 120B read with Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the case was registered on the basis of Source Information received by CBI/ACB, Bengaluru, after two Criminal Cases were registered by P.S.Madiwala, Bengaluru City, Bengaluru in Crime No.1297/2003 dtd.24.10.2003 and Crime No.1417/2003 dtd.22.11.2003, on the basis of two separate complaints given by Sri K.Muthuselvan, the then Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), Sub-Accounts office, Bommasandra, Bengaluru. It is stated in the first Complaint dtd.24.10.2003 about amount of Rs.69,87,360/- from different Cheques in 8 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 the names of different persons misused by accused No.2 and in the second complaint dtd.21.11.2003 said to be continuation of first complaint, it has been stated that the accused No.3 has misused two Cheques amount and another Cheque encashed by Prasad Rao by opening an account furnishing Electricity bill issued by BESCOM for address proof. Further, alleged that some of the cheques pertaining to said Office were missed, out of those missed cheques, 12 cheques were forged and presented at various Banks in Bengaluru got encashed to the extent of Rs.69.87 lakhs and were credited to the accounts of 10 persons mentioned as accused in Crime No.1297/2003 registered by Madiwala Police Station.
3. Subsequently, the case is registered in R.C.No.33(A)/03-BLR, stating that Shri Durgaprasad was working as Assistant Provident Commissioner and in-charge of EPFO, Sub-Accounts office, Bommasandra, Bengaluru for the period during July-October 2003. According to investigation, during the period from 2.7.2003 to 9 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 21.10.2003, 25 Cheques of EPFO of the said Office were fraudulently encashed in the names of some of the accused persons, under his forged signatures, thereafter those cheques were encashed in the respective bank accounts of various accused persons, and they were utilized the proceeds of the same.
4. The Investigating Officer during investigation has made out that for many of the Bank accounts, the accused persons were shown as account holders, which were later found fictitious. The accused were not subscribers of EPF scheme and they defrauded the EPFO by getting forged cheques issued in their names used by way of encashment in view of Criminal Conspiracy and they have fraudulently utilized the proceeds and cheated the EPFO. It was found that many cheques fraudulently encashed were in the custody of accused No.1 J.P.Narasimhamurthy, who was working as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) and also in-charge of the Cash Section of EPFO, Sub-Accounts office, Bommasandra, Bengaluru from 13.5.2003. 10 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
5. Out of above mentioned 25 Cheques of EPFO, proceeds of 5 cheques were benefited to accused No.3 are bearing Nos.432210 dated 14.7.2003 for Rs.37,500/-, 433515 dated 14.7.2003 for Rs.3,09,007/- collected from Shree Thyagaraja Co-operative Bank, Banashankari II Stage Branch, Bengaluru, two cheques bearing No.823383 and 827683 dtd.29.7.2003 for Rs.2,58,750/- and Rs.37,500/- respectively collected from Deepak Sahakarai Bank Ltd., another cheque No.907833 dtd.21.8.2003 for Rs.7,31,350/- in the name of K.P.Narayanan from Bharat Co-operative Bank Ltd, Jayanagar branch, and cheque No.823563 dtd.7.7.2003 for Rs.35,650/- in the name of N.K.Prasad through SBI, Kumaraswamy Layout Branch, Bengaluru. The accused No.2 Ravindra Poojari has benefited from the cheques Nos.907828 dtd.14.8.2003 for a sum of Rs.3,48,950/- and No.907835 dated 5.9.2003 for Rs.4,87,350/- collected from Karnataka Bank Ltd., Sarakki Branch, Bengaluru. Accused No.5 through the cheque No.443428 dtd.21.8.2003 has benefited Rs.2,70,800/- 11 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 collected from Maratha Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Belgaum.
6. Further, the fictitious persons namely G.Ramesh, Dileep M.B., Manoj K., Mohan Gowda, Paramesh Kumar, Prasad Rao, Balasubramanyam, Shankacharcharya, Chetan Rao, Praveen Rao and Suresh M. were shown as beneficiaries from other Cheques out of total 25 Cheques. Those Cheques are shown in their names are bearing No.907829 dtd.7.8.2003 for Rs.3,22,350/-, collected from Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bengaluru, Cheque No.907843 dtd.27.8.2003 for Rs.4,70,159/- from the account No.00780150600 of fictitious person Dileep M.B. from ICICI Bank, Malleswaram Branch, cheque No.907830 dated 2.9.2003 in the name of Manoj K. for Rs.7,52,350/- from Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bengaluru, Cheque No.907839 dated 2.9.2003 for Rs.5,40,000/- in the name of Mohan Gowda from ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru, Cheque No. 907845 dated 27.8.2003 for Rs.4,60,989/- from ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, 12 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Bengaluru, Cheque No.823308 dtd.29.8.2003 for Rs.13,27,150/- in the name of Prasad Rao from A/c.No.37712 drawn on Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bengaluru, Cheque No.907841 dtd.3.9.2003 in the name of Balasubramanyam for Rs.7,80,586/- from ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru, Cheque No.907842 dtd.3.9.2003 for Rs.8,20,000/- in the name of Shankaracharya from the same Branch, Cheque No.439189 dtd.21.8.2003 for Rs.7,59,159/- in the name of Chetan Rao from Citi Bank, Bengaluru, Cheque No.439190 dtd.21.8.2003 for Rs.9,81,459/- in the name of Praveen Rao from the same Bank and Cheque No.442469 dtd.25.7.2003 for Rs.3,17,700/- in the name of Suresh M. from the A/c.No.37450 from Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bengaluru respectively.
7. Further, it is alleged the persons namely Shivaramu and Vijay Kumar said to be utilized encashing forged EPF Cheque No.907848 dtd.27.8.2003 for Rs.5,92,890/- and cheque No.443264 dtd.14.8.2003 for 13 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Rs.4,12,860/- respectively. One Arun opened an account in Canara Bank, Chikkabidarakallu Branch and withdrawn two missing EPF Cheque No.433516 for Rs.3,56,624/- and Cheque No.431668 for Rs.3,65,000/- and credited the proceeds of the same in his account and withdrawn subsequently. Though he was found genuine person his whereabouts would not be traced out by the CBI. Further, one of the stolen EPF Cheque No.907844 dtd.27.8.2003 for Rs.6,80,386/- encashed by accused No.4 and he himself had utilized the proceeds. Cheque Nos. 433516 and 431668 dtd.14.7.2003 for Rs.3,56,624/- and Rs.36,500/- benefited in the name of Arun S. collected from Canara Bank,Chikkabidarakallu Branch through A/c.No.16850. The Cheque No.442469 dtd.25.7.2003 for Rs.3,17,700/- benefited to Suresh M. collected from Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bengaluru from his A/c.No.37450.
8. The above-mentioned 25 cheques amount alleged to be benefited by accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and some of above mentioned fictitious persons which has been debited 14 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 from the two bank accounts of EPFO pertaining to the fraudulent encashment under the forged signatures of the then APFC, S.Durgaprasad and caused loss of Rs.1,21,380,49.00 to the E.P.F. Organization.
9. The investigation reveals that accused No.1 being Upper Division Clerk had taken over the charge of Cash Section of EPFO, Sub-Accounts Office, Bommasandra, Bengaluru, from Smt. R.Poornima, DEO, on 19.5.2003 vide office order dtd.13.5.2003 issued by the then APFC, Durgaprasad. He was continued in the said post till 1.10.2003 and on the same day suspended by the EPFO. The accused No.1 on the same day took charge of six different cheque books from R.Poornima, as per the charge list, bearing Nos.427901 to 429100 of 1200 Cheque leaves, 432301 to 434300 of 2000 cheque leaves 823501 to 823600 of 100 cheque leaves, 827701 to 828500 of 800 cheque leaves, 429101 to 430300 of 1200 cheque leaves and 430301 to 432300 of 2000 cheque leaves. She had also handed over five cheque books of 400 leaves, which were 15 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 also fraudulently encashed by the accused persons. Out of the above said cheque leaves, five cheques were fraudulently encashed by forging signatures of Durgaprasad and encashed the cheques amount by other accused persons. The stolen cheque Nos.433515 and 433516 were also fraudulently encashed subsequently.
10. The above mentioned 25 cheques were being issued in favour of accused Nos.1 to 5 and in the name of others were encashed the cheque amounts. The cheques containing 50 cheque leaves from 907801 to 907850 was used for making the claims through Money Orders, out of which, 27 cheques from Nos.907801 to 907827 were used for the preparation of genuine claims by the EPF. However, out of the remaining 23 cheques, 12 cheques were fraudulently encashed for different amounts drawn on various Banks in the names of accused Nos.2, 3 and other fictitious persons on different dates, the details of the same are mentioned in the charge list.
16 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
11. The Cheque book containing 400 leaves from 439101 to 439500 was utilized by accused No.1, 198 cheque leaves from the said Cheque book were used for settling genuine claims, two cheque Nos.439189 and 439190 were shown as missed and fraudulently encashed. Accused No.1 himself had made entries regarding Cheques issued in the names of Venkatachalapathy and Ramani B., which were fabricated in the names of Chetan Rao and Praveen Rao and the Cheques were encashed through fictitious account opened in the in the same Bank. He had also fed false information in the computer system of EPFO, Sub-Accounts Office, Bommasandra, Bengaluru. Though the claims of Venkatachalapathy and Ramani B. were settled through another cheque No.434496 dated 17.7.2003 by Money Order Batch No.76 dtd.17.7.2003, clubbed the same along with six other similar claims. Accused No.1 had similarly manipulated other transaction relating to Cheque No.432210, encashed by accused No.3, but entry dated 10.7.2003 made showing the said cheque was issued to Venkatachalapathy on 3.7.2003 for Rs.294/-. 17 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 However, in the Remittance Register entered name of Venkatachalapathy with seven other claimants as they were settled through Cheque No.439296 on 17.7.2003. Accused No.1 being public servant, was also looking after the Cash Section of the Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub-Accounts Office, Bommasandra Bengaluru was in possession of the Cheque books and cheque leaves entrusted to him on 19.5.2003, made use of all the Cheque leaves fraudulently.
12. Further the accused No.2 had deposited two alleged forged high value Cheques of the EPFO for Rs.3,48,950/- and Rs.4,87,350/- by using his SB Account in The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Sarakki Layout Branch, Bengaluru and encashed the amount to his account. He had withdrawn proceeds of said forged EPF Cheques on 3.10.2003 and utilized the proceeds of the same from his account on 28.8.2003. Further, fictitious SB Account was opened in the name of G.Ramesh, at the instance of accused No.6 David Sagairaj and forged PF Cheque for 18 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Rs.3,22,350/- was encashed in the said account. The proceeds of the said encashment of the EPF cheques were utilized by accused No.6 by influencing the Cashier in the Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bengaluru. The accused No.3 had facilitated accused No.2 to commit said fraud by enabling the encashment of six of EPF cheques through his accounts at SBI, Kumaraswamy Layout Branch, Bengaluru, The Deepak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Rajaji Nagar Branch, Bengaluru, Shri Thyagaraja Co-operative Bank Ltd., K.R.Road Branch, Bengaluru and The Bharath Urban Co- operative Bank Ltd., Jayanagar Branch, Bengaluru respectively.
13. It is revealed that Smt.Deepa Subramaniam had allowed accused No.4 to utilise her account No.5580769804 in Citi Bank, Bengaluru, for encashment of one of the stolen EPF Cheque dated 27.8.2003 for Rs.6,80,386/- and proceeds of the same were utilized by him. Further, the cheque was deposited into her account by accused No.8 - Manjunath, through pay-in-slip.
19 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
14. Prosecution alleged that the fictitious account has been opened in ICICI Bank, Malleswaram Branch, Bengaluru in the name of Dileep M.B., which was opened by a Marketing Executive of ICICI Bank, S.Ramakrishna, at the behest of his friend accused No.9 - R.Raju. Later forged EPF Cheque No.907843 dtd.27.8.2003 for Rs.4,70,159/- was credited into account and proceeds of the same were partly withdrawn by accused No.8 - Manjunath and accused No.4 - Vishal Kohli, which was found that account holder was fictitious individual. Further, accused No.8 had opened fictitious SB Account in Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch at the behest of accused No.6 and forged Cheque dtd.2.9.2003 for Rs.7,52,350/- was encashed through the said account.
15. It is further alleged that apart from the above account other fictitious accounts were opened in ICICI Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru in the names of Shivaramu and Vijay Kumar, whose addresses furnished in 20 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Account opening forms could not reveal later and whereabouts of these persons also not made known subsequently. Both of them were utilized the proceeds and forged EPF Cheques dtd.27.8.2003 and 14.8.2003 for Rs.5,92,890/- and Rs.4,12,860/- respectively. Other fictitious accounts were opened in ICICI Bank, Vijaya Nagar Branch, Bengaluru, in the names of Mohan Gowda, Paramesh Kumar, Balasubramaniam and Shankaracharya by a Marketing Agent of ICICI Bank namely Nagaraju, on the alleged instigation of accused No.9. The forged EPF cheques were encashed by all of them in their accounts and proceeds were utilized by accused Nos.4, 8 and Lokesh. Further accused No.4 had opened account in the name of Chetan Rao in Citi Bank, Bengaluru, by affixing his photograph in the Account opening form and second account was opened in Citi Bank, Bengaluru in the name of Praveen Rao and he had used the said fictitious account to encash the forged EPF cheques dtd.21.8.2003 for Rs.7,59,159/- and Rs.9,81,459/- respectively and the proceeds of the said Cheques were utilized subsequently. 21 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 He had used the account of Smt.Deepa Subramaniam and encashed the proceeds of stolen and fabricated EPF Cheque dtd.27.8.2003. The accused No.4 has made transaction in ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru in respect of four fictitious accounts, which were opened through accused No.8 on the basis of forged documents and 112 by using photographs of various persons. These Bank accounts were operated by accused Nos.4, 7 and 8 and proceeds of the Cheques were utilized by them. The forged EPF Cheques were presented through the said account by accused No.4 and accused No.5 also opened account in his name in Maratha Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Belgaum and facilitated encashment and withdrawal of the proceeds of missing and forged EPF Cheque dtd.21.8.2003 for Rs.2,70,800/-, who was said to be acted at the request of accused No.1.
16. Further, it is alleged that other four fictitious accounts were opened at Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bengaluru, in the names of K.Manoj, G.Ramesh, M.Suresh 22 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 and G.Prasad Rao were at the instance of accused No.6 and request made by accused No.1 with others. Accused No.7 also acted in connivance with accused Nos.4 and 8 while opening fictitious accounts at ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch and Malleswaram Branch of the same Bank. The amount of Rs.75,000/- had been withdrawn by accused No.7 from the fictitious account of Mohan Gowda opened in ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru. Accused No.8 also opened another fictitious Bank accounts in Citi Bank and ICICI Bank through accused No.4 and fraudulently issued EPF Cheques deposited by accused No.8. The proceeds of the said Cheque was utilized by him after the cheque was prepared in his own handwriting, later it was withdrawn from the accounts of Dileep M.B. and Paramesh Kumar. The account in Canara Bank, Chikkabidrukallu Branch, Bengaluru opened by Arun and he has credited two missing EPF Cheques for Rs.3,56,624/- and Rs.3,65,000/- and withdrawn the proceeds subsequently. Accused No.9 also instigated to open five fictitious Bank accounts in ICICI Bank, Vijaya Nagar Branch and Malleswaram Branch in the 23 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 names of G.Nagaraju and S.Ramachandra to impersonation of the account-holders by using photographs of other persons and forged documents.
17. The above mentioned illegal and fraudulent acts were supported by accused No.1 and an amount of Rs.1,21,38,049/- fraudulently debited from the account of EPFO, though none of the accused persons in whose names the Cheques were issued were the subscribers of EPF scheme. Therefore, alleged that the accused Nos.1 to 9 were dishonestly and fraudulently in view of Criminal Conspiracy between each other have committed fraud and cheated the EPF Organization.
18. However, during investigation as no materials found against S.Durgaprasad the then APFC and Smt.Deepa Subrmaniyam, they were not sent for prosecution. Further, the accused persons namely Shivaramu, Vijaykumar, Arun and Naveen Kumar K. were not traced out, therefore 24 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 permission sought under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. to continue further investigation against them.
19. After registering the case in R.C.No.33(A)/2003, on 16.10.2004, accused namely Narayan K.P. @ N.K.Prasad shown as accused No.4 was arrested and produced before the Court, thereafter remanded to police custody till 20.10.2004. Subsequently, he was remanded to J.C. and on 21.10.2004, he was granted bail on certain conditions, with a direction to appear before the Court after receipt of the summons. On 20.11.2004, accused Vishal Kohli, shown as accused No.6 was produced before court and given to police custody till 25.11.2004, subsequently, he was granted bail on 26.11.2004. The accused No.5 Suresh Panduranga Singhi was produced before the Court on 16.5.2005 and given to police custody till 19.4.2005, he was granted bail on 21.4.2005. Accused No.7 Lokesh and deceased accused No.8 Manjunath were arrested on 3.8.2005 and given to police custody on 11.8.2005 both of them were granted bail.
25 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
20. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 419, 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences before XXI Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
21. After taking Cognizance of the said offences against the accused Nos. 1 to 9, case was registered as Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 and summons issued to them, in response, they were appeared and represented through different counsel and granted bail on 9.12.2005.
22. After hearing both learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for accused Nos.1 to 9, the learned Presiding Officer of XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, has framed the charge against them for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B read with 419, 26 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read over and explained to them. The accused Nos.1 to 9 were denied the charges framed against them and claimed to be tried.
23. Subsequently, as per the Notification No.PSJ(CBI)/AOW/13/2012 dtd.7.6.2013 the case was withdrawn from XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, and made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.
24. The prosecution examined witnesses as PWs.1 to 38 and the documents are marked as Exs.P1 to P179. CWs.5, 14 and 30 were reported to be dead, therefore not examined by prosecution. In the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the documents for the accused marked as Exs.D1 to D6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances in the evidence read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 to 9 under 27 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 to 9 have denied the entire evidence and not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf and also not filed written statements under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C.
25. Heard, arguments of learned Public Prosecutor for prosecution and learned Counsel for accused Nos.1 to 9 on merits.
26. Perused the records.
27. The points that would arise for my consideration are:-
1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to7 and 9 with deceased accused No.3 have entered into Criminal Conspiracy during the period 2.7.2003 and 3.10.2003 to do an illegal act 28 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 of drawing amount from Employees Provident Fund in the office of EPF Organization Sub-Accounts Office, Bommasandra, Bengaluru by way of issuing 25 EPF cheques fraudulently by forging the signature of S.Durgaprasad, the then Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, and encashed from their respective bank accounts and utilized the cheques amounts, committed the offence punishable under Section 120B Indian Penal Code?
2) Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubts that in view of said Criminal Conspiracy during the said period accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 with other fictitious persons were fraudulently encashed 25 cheques of EPF Organisation and caused loss of Rs.1,21,38,049/- to the PF organization and 29 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 committed the offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code?
3) Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubts that accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 with accused No.3 cheated the EPF organization by impersonating accused Nos.7 to 9 as genuine account holders and received the cheques fraudulently, encashed the same for their utilization and committed the offence punishable under Section 419 Indian Penal Code?
4) Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubts that during the above said period in view of Criminal Conspiracy, the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to7 and 9 with deceased accused No.3 and 8 were forged the cheques of EPF 30 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 organization and used the same as genuine fraudulently and cheated the EPF organization and committed the offence punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code?
5) Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused Nos.1 and 6 being public servants as Upper Division Clerk in EPFO and Clerk in Canara Bank have abused their official position by corrupt or illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves and on behalf of other accused and committed Criminal Misconduct under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
6) What Order?
31 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
28. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point-1: In the Negative Point-2: In the Negative Point-3: In the Negative Point-4: In the Negative Point-5: In the Negative Point-6: As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
29. Point Nos.1 to 5 :- These points are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts. CBI has made allegation against accused Nos.1 to 9 regarding 25 Cheques of Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub-Accounts Office, Bommasandra, Bengaluru, were forged and utilized after creating fictitious persons and accounts. All the accused have fraudulently alleged to be withdrawn the cheques proceeds from various accounts issued in the names of some of the accused and caused wrongful loss of Rs.1,21,38,049/- to EPFO and committed the offence punishable under Sections 120B read with Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal 32 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Code and Sections 13(2) r/w.13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
30. The Prosecution in support of allegation has relied on evidence of officials worked in EPFO during the relevant point of time, Bank officials, Report filed by Assistant Director of Vigilance, Expert Opinion of GEQD and also on the various accounts opened in the names of fictitious persons. Therefore, the evidence deposed by all of them to be discussed in brief to come to proper conclusion.
31. PW1 - K.Muthuselvan, worked as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner at Sub-Accounts Office, Bommasandra, Bengaluru, from 2003 to 2005 has deposed about complaint given by him to Madiwala Police with respect to fraudulent withdrawal from EPF account of Sub- Accounts Office, on the basis of investigation made by the officers of the same office and another complaint filed by him which was registered by Madiwala Police. The attested 33 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 copy of the complaint dtd.24.10.2003 is marked as Ex.P1 and the copy of the complaint given by PW1 dtd. 21.11.2003 is marked as Ex.P2. He has stated about various sections in EPF office, such as, Accounts Section, Cash Section, Enforcement Section, Administration Section etc., out of which Cash Section particularly deals with payment of cheque amount and money orders. He has deposed about Scroll Register, Cash Book, Cheque Book, Stock Register and Despatch Journal maintained in Cash Payment Section and the Sub-Accounts Office maintained the account in SBI, Electronic City Branch, which was under the in-charge of Assistant Commissioner. According to him, Cheque books normally be issued to the Cashier in the Cash Section, the custodian of the cheques required to be filled up contents through computer as there were 300 to 400 cheques issued per day and entered in the Cash Register. He has particularly stated about the computer generated statement contained details of claimants, cheque numbers, amount paid through the cheque and 34 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 details of cheques issued for the day should be entered in the Cash Book.
32. He has further stated about the procedure of using Cheques as the authorised signatory of the cheques will call for approved claims through the Cash Section and the concerned caseworker. The caseworker used to receive the claims from the Accounts Section whenever payment was made through money orders when the amount is lesser than Rs.2,000/-, if any specific request made by the members, the employees used to remit the amount in SBI, Electronic City Branch and it was credited to EPF account. The receipt for receiving amount with Challan was being issued to show quantum of amount in each of the EPF account remitted by particular employer.
33. He has deposed about 5 accounts maintained in the EPF office, as Accounts Nos.I to X, XXI and XXII. Account No.I is the Employees Provident Fund Account, Account No.2 is Provident Fund Administration Account, 35 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Account No.X is Pension Fund Account, Account No.XXI is Employees Deposit Linked Insurance (EDLI) Contribution Account and Account No.XXII is EDLI Administration Account. After he took charge as Officer in-charge of Sub- Accounts Office, Bommasandra on 3.9.2003, one Durgaprasad was the then outgoing officer and normally any Officer in-charge was informing Bank regarding authorized signatory of his successor when he took charge as Officer, accused No.1 was working in Cash Section and his duty was to receive scroll along with authorised claims and after verification prepare cheques including covering under money orders and put up for signatures of authorised signatory. According to him, accused No.1 was case worker and custodian of the cheques, used to keep cheques in cupboard in office and one Shivakumar, Section Supervisor used to interact with Banks for collection of Bank Statements.
34. He has further stated that in the month of October-2003, he was called by the Branch Manager of 36 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 SBI, Electronic City Branch for confirmation of two cheques of EPF Office, after verification he found that those Cheques were not issued by the EPF Office. Therefore, as he got doubt about authenticity of those cheques which were encashed, the records of Bank, Statement and Cash Book Payments pertaining to said cheques called for verification. He had also verified Stock Register, Balance Cheque Stock Register and other documents available in the office and found that apart from two cheques mentioned above, some more cheques of EPF were also encashed without any related documents in the office, therefore, reported the same to Madiwala Police Station for further investigation.
35. He has identified Stock Register which contained the details of Cheque books received in bulk from State Bank of India, Electronic City Branch, Bengaluru marked as Ex.P3. Accused No.1 was the caseworker during the said period and he has not made entries relating to Cheque books received and issuance of Cheque book to the 37 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 concerned caseworker. The photocopy of the charge list under which accused No.1 has taken charge from R.Poornima, DEO (Data Entry Operator) is marked as Ex.P4. Further the Cheque books, entries relating to different Cheques issued in the name of different persons for different amounts identified and marked as Exs.P5, 6, 7, 9 to 30, some of the Cheques issued in the name of accused No.3 pertains to account of Money Order. He has also identified the handwriting of accused No.1 both in the Registers and Cheques issued in the name of accused No.3 and other persons.
36. In the cross-examination, he has clearly stated that he has reported the matter to superior officer namely N.A.Nair, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Grade-I and S.Narasimhan, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Grade-II and has denied for the suggestion that false evidence deposed by him on the basis of presumption. He is aware of the Manual of Accounting procedure as mentioned in Ex.D1. However, he has 38 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 denied further that accused No.1 is not concerned to the alleged offences as false complaint given to safeguard the officer Durgaprasad.
37. PW3 - N.A.Nair, worked as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Karnataka has deposed that Sub- Accounts Office, Bommasandra was under his control from February-2003 to August-2006. During the said period, if any fraudulent activities of the staff occurred within Karnataka, Departmental Head was to take initial action against them. He was made known about fraudulent transaction took in Bommasandra office and reported the same to CBI in the year 2004, through letter marked as Ex.P31 and his signature as Ex.P31(a). He has clearly deposed about the contents of the said letter written on the basis of information received from the Sub-Accounts Office, Bommasandra and also the internal investigation conducted in the office. He has clearly stated that accused No.1 was working in the said Office has made the fraudulent use of cheques by forging signature of concerned authorised 39 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 officer and withdrawn the amount through various accounts.
38. In the cross-examination he has stated that the cheques involved in the present case were not prepared, encashed and handled in his presence. Admittedly, during the said period, Sri Durgaprasad was the APFC in the Office and he was kept under suspension in respect of the transactions. He has denied for the suggestion that as per the investigation report, the said Durgaprasad was involved in all the transactions of the present case.
39. PW4 - M.Rajagopal, worked as Assistant Accounts Officer, Sub-Accounts Office, EPF Organization, Bommasandra is conversant with the procedures to be followed to entertain claim from EPF. He has deposed that subscriber of PPF can claim the PF amount on the cessation of his employment on transfer to another establishment who is also a member of EPF. The survivors of the subscriber, after his death can claim refund of the PF 40 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 amount, the subscriber during his life time can claim advance from his PF amount for personal reasons, such as marriage of daughter or son, dependent sisters, house purchase, site purchase, for medical treatment and loan for providing education to his children.
40. According to him, concerned case worker was scrutinizing application with reference to the records maintained in the office and if he is satisfied, the application was processing for further stage after making note in the worksheet and initials, forwarded to the section supervisor. After receiving application section supervisor was further scrutinizing the application, if found correct he was recommending for sanction of the claim by submitting it to Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO), thereafter AAO used to verify the application and authorize for payment, who was having power of financial limit upto Rs.50,000/-, if it exceeds he should have submit the file to Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. He has further stated about the Bommasandra office was a very small at the 41 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 relevant point of time, only Assistant Commissioner, the AAO was empowered to authorize claim for any amount.
41. He has identified the cheque books which were in the custody of Data Entry Operator namely Poornima R. and she has handed over custody of those cheque books to accused No.1, who was working as Upper Division Clerk, at the time of taking charge under Ex.P32. The computer generated statement contained portion in the handwriting of accused No.1 marked as Ex.P33, the handwritten portion marked as Ex.P33(a) shown at Q219. He has clearly stated that as per the charge list Ex.P32, the cheque books and cheque leaves bearing Nos.432301 to 434300 was also given to the custody of accused No.1. Since he was acquainted with the handwriting of accused No.1 as worked with him in Accounts Department, has identified his handwriting in the relevant documents.
42. PW17 - T.N.Shivakumar, who has joined EPF organization was promoted as Section Supervisor in 1998 42 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 and worked in the office of Sub-Accounts Office, EPF, Bommasandra from 3.4.2003. He has deposed that, during the said period, one S.Durgaprasad was the APFC in the same office and he was used to obtain Cheque books from the Bank. He has further deposed about normal practice adopted in the office that if whenever employee of the office going to Bank after receiving requisition slip used to issue Cheque books, thereafter employee was handing over the Cheque books collected from the Bank to Durgaprasad. Afterwards said Durgaprasad was making entries of the Cheque numbers of Cheque books in the stock register. This witness after became the Section Supervisor, Smt.Poornima R. was the caseworker entrusted with the responsibility of issuance of Cheque book and afterwards it was given to accused No.1.
43. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he has served in the Department for more than 39 years and the Employees Provident Fund scheme is introduced by Central Government for the benefit of the employees 43 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 working in Private Sectors. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner is the head of said Commission, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner being head of Branches is also called as in-charge officer and Accounts Officer was working under him. Further, the Head Clerk and Clerical staff including UDC, Lower Division and the Cashier were working in each Branch. He has identified the Manual of Accounting procedure, Rules and Regulations were framed according to the said Manual, marked as Ex.D1. He has stated that during the relevant point of time, Durgaprasad was working as APFC in the Bommasandra Branch, afterwards PW1 - Muthuselvan succeeded him. He has stated about the procedure followed as per Ex.D1 regarding Cheque Books have to be collected from the SBI designated as an official bank, thereafter the officer in-charge of that particular office is APFC would be the custodian of Cheque books. He has to verify all the Cheque leaves and to find out correctness of serial numbers. The Cheque books used to keep in safe custody in double locking system and one key was in the 44 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 possession of officer in-charge and another key was with the Cashier, usually Regional Office was maintaining duplicate keys. The officer was deciding requirement of cheques for use in a particular day on the basis of the entries made in the Scroll book and used to taken out number of cheques from the safe custody by using both keys after making entry in the Cheque book Stock Register. The Cashier used to fill up scroll sheet sent by the Accounts Section, thereafter, they were considering claim petition approved for payment on the basis of scroll sheet prepared by Account Section. After taking Cheque leaves from the safe custody they will be sending to computer section for taking print out in respect of the individual claimants. Thereafter, such printouts used for automatic process into the computer by the respective Accounts Section. The printout application along with Cash Book generated in the computer used to send to the Cash Branch, thereafter, Cashier used to make cross-verification of the entries and if he is satisfied genuineness of the entries, the Cheque leaves along with the Cash book entries sending to the 45 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Head Clerk, who was again verifying the entries and sending them to the Cashier. Subsequently, the Cashier used to take the same to the chamber of APFC along with the relevant cheque leaves and the authorised signatory would again cross verify the entries, put his signature if he is satisfied. He has denied that accused No.1 never worked as Cashier in the office and not given responsibility of issuance of Cheque books to him.
44. PW10 - Smt.Poornima R., has deposed that she joined EPF Organization as Lower Division Clerk on 13.12.1996 and she was working as Ad-hoc DEO in Sub- Accounts Office, EPF, Bommasandra in the year 2003. She was working in cash section from January-2002 to May- 2003 and after obtaining leave from 12.5.2003 to 14.5.2003 she resumed duty on 19.5.2003. On that day she noticed that accused No.1 was posted in the office as a Clerk, thereafter she enquired about him in the ADM Section and told that he was shifted to EDP (Electronic Data Processing) Section and asked her to report in the said 46 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Section. Afterwards, she has handed over the charge of earlier section to accused No.1, after preparing a charge list and the Cheque books in her cupboard also handed over to him. She has identified the Charge list Ex.P32 and Cheques Exs.P11, 12, 28 and 29 were part and parcel of Cheque books handed over to accused No.1 as per charge list.
45. In the cross-examination she has admitted EPF Officer was the custodian of the Cheque books when the office was located at Singasandra and she do not know who brought Cheque books to Bommanahally, when the office shifted from the previous place. She has shown ignorance about how many cheques were used and how many were remained unused as on the date, she was shifted to Singasandra to Bommanahally. However, she has affirmed that on the date of handing over charge as per Ex.P32, the charge of keys of the cupboard were also given to accused No.1. She being worked in the office at different Sections is aware of the procedure to be followed while 47 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 processing claim applications as to who can withdraw amount from their Provident Fund account, are retired or resigned from service, the nominees of the deceased employees and also the employees still working in the office.
46. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of Assistant Director of Vigilance - D.Samual John, who is examined as PW2. He has deposed that he worked as Assistant Director (Vigilance) under Deputy Director (Vigilance) South Zone in the Employee's Provident Fund Organization from April-2002 to June-2007 and he was in- charge of EPFO, Karnataka in the capacity of Assistant Director (Vigilance), investigating complaints made relating to irregularities in any office of the EPF at Karnataka, received by South Zone (Vigilance).
47. He had received complaint from Regional Office of EPFO, Bengaluru, in the year 2003 with respect to some fraudulent acts have taken place in the Sub-Accounts 48 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Office, Bommasandra, Bengaluru, was referred for investigation. Afterwards, he, along with his team investigated the same on 25.10.2003 and found 28 Cheque leaves were used properly and remaining 22 blank cheque leaves were stolen. It was further made out that out of said 22 stolen cheques, 12 cheques were fraudulently used and amount of Rs.69,00,000/- withdrawn with dishonest intention. The fraudulent acts were taken place when accused No.1 was looking after Cash Section and he was in the custody of Cheque books. The reconciliation statement was to be prepared every day and at the end of every month it was to be scrutinized as per the procedure. The total number of applications received every day was also maintained in office, out of it, the claims sanctioned and value of the claim along with total amount of number of cheques issued on each day was to be entered in the concerned register. However, the said procedure was not followed in the office during the fraudulent acts were taken place and the same were continued subsequently. 49 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
48. Further he has stated that the ledgers pertaining five accounts in respect of money orders were verified by him in which the entries relating to EPF loan, advances, partial withdrawal have to be entered in a chronological order in the account No.I. However, a separate cheque book used for issuing in favour of Post- master in respect of the payments to be made through Money Order to the claimants. The Cheque book containing 28 leaves were properly used, out of which, 22 leaves were found in tact and unused. But 12 unused cheque leaves were issued in favour of different beneficiaries who were fictitious persons in the subscribers of EPF.
49. Further during verification of documents in the Office, he has examined some of the officials and officers who were working in Cash Section and also submitted his report along with statements of said witnesses to the Deputy Director. The Officer Durgaprasad was present during the investigation in the office at Bommasandra, but accused No.1 was not present for recording his statement. 50 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
50. In the cross-examination he has admitted that Officer of EPF have to follow the Manual and Accounting procedure, which prescribes duties and responsibilities of EPF Officers. Further stated, the then EPF Officer was the custodian of the cheques at the relevant point of time. However, his evidence is based on investigation conducted in the office at Bommasandra and Report filed by him regarding fraudulent acts relating to misuse of cheque leaves after issuing in the names of fictitious persons and the amounts were withdrawn by those persons were done by accused along with other unknown persons.
51. The prosecution has also relied on the evidence of Bank officials of various Banks, to prove the amounts withdrawn under different cheques. PW8 - Munir Ahmed, worked as Manager, Scale-II in Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bengaluru, has deposed about he was Second Line Manager at the relevant point of time and used to clearing cheque or withdrawal slip drawn for a larger 51 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 amount. He has stated about the procedure of withdrawal of money from SB account, if it was more than Rs.25,000/- only through cheque or withdrawal slip, such payment was to be made only after it passed through the Manager of the Bank.
52. PW11 - E.Maben, has stated that he was working as Clerk in Ulsoor Branch of Canara Bank during 2002 and during August-September 2003, he was working as Cashier. He has identified withdrawal form dtd.19.8.2003 relates to SB A/c.No.37510 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and has made payment of the same marked as Ex.P35 and his initials as Ex.P35(a). He has identified another withdrawal form dtd.21.8.2003 of the same SB account for a sum of Rs.21,500/-, the payment also made by him across counter as he was Cashier on that day, which is marked as Ex.P36. Further, the payment of cheque bearing No.651282 dtd.27.9.2003 relates to SB A/c.No.37689 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- made by him marked as Ex.P37. He has clearly stated that accused No.6 52 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
- David Sagairaj being one of his colleague got the said withdrawal slips and Cheque encashed by tendering the tokens. When he asked for the reason for tendering tokens and collecting cash on behalf of account holder, he told him that account holder was his friend and as he was in hurry leaving tokens with him with instructions to get encashed. Accused No.6 himself has put signature on the document and received the cash. Therefore, he has believed the words of accused No.6, and paid the cash under the above mentioned different withdrawal slips and cheque without any further clarification.
53. In the cross-examination he has stated that Officer who passed the cheque put seal across cheque and mentioned "pay", afterwards the cheque slip passed to him. He has clearly stated that when he was cashier in the Bank, used to pay cash to party across counter on presentation of token after verification of the signature of passing officer on the cheques. He has not able to identify the signature in Cheque Ex.P35 and also not able to say about the signature 53 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 of the Officer who made endorsement as "pay" in Ex.P36 and seal of "cash paid" not affixed across instrument. However, he has stated that since signatures of account holder found in the documents Exs.P35 to 37, he did not insist accused No.6 to put signature on the reverse of said documents.
54. PW12 - Mariswamy, worked as Officer in Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bengaluru, has identified the withdrawal slip Ex.P35 and his signature marked as Ex.P35(b). He was looking after Inward department/Demand Draft department during the relevant point of time and one T.S.Anantha Raman was the Manager attending the customers in the cabin. He has also deposed that before passing withdrawal slips, he used to enquire the customers, since the accused No.6 was working in the same Bank told him that the customer of Ex.P35 was his friend, therefore he had passed the cheque without identifying the account holder.
54 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
55. PW13 - T.S.Anantha Raman, was in-
charge Senior Manager in Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch from 16.8.2002 to 27.8.2004, thereafter transferred to Canara Bank, Banashankari Branch, Bengaluru. He has stated about procedure of Bank to open SB account and which are all the documents to be submitted along with the application. He being in-charge of Senior Manager has to verify documents and specimen signatures of the account holders in the specimen cards. His duty was to make preliminary enquiry with the person whoever comes to Bank for opening account.
56. He has deposed that during preliminary enquiry, he has verified photos of the persons, documents of proof of address and signature of the introducer. Further, after making verification by the Savings Branch, the data from the application was to made in the computer and "ZZ" number given in the system as whenever that number was verified by the Supervisor, it was showing correct account number. He has identified accused No.6 - 55 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 David Sagairaj before the Court, who was working as Clerk in the Bank and deposed about Account opening form of one M.Suresh for A/c. bearing No.37450 was introduced by one Nateshan A. said to be a good friend of accused No.6. But the said Nateshan A., who was working as a Lineman in BSNL did not visit Bank personally and signed as an introducer shown in the document Ex.P41. The said document do not contain specimen signature card and photograph bears his signature marked as Ex.P41(a), signatures of Account holder M.Suresh marked as Ex.P41(b) and Nateshan marked as Ex.P41(c). The document pay-in-slip dtd.24.7.2003 for having deposited a sum of Rs.3,17,730/- is marked as Ex.P42 and the accused No.6 himself had posted the Cheque relating to it marked at Ex.P30 which is verified by Muniraman as shown in the said pay-in-slip.
57. In the cross-examination he has identified the Cheques Ex.P37, 53, 54, 58 to 60 said to be issued by the respective account holders of the same Bank were passed 56 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 after verifying signatures with specimen signatures. He has also categorically stated that the above referred accounts were authorized by the Officer in the Bank and all the accounts were opened only after following the procedure of the Bank. He being an Divisional Manager was aware of Banking rules and procedure and also transaction with regard to EPF Cheques issued in favour of the account holders of EPF directly with a covering letter.
58. Though in the chief examination he has stated that accused No.6 has opened account of Manoj with other seven accounts in the Bank and received Cheque book on behalf of Manoj, the same is contrary to his evidence deposed regarding no officials in the Bank were permitted to receive Cheque book or encash the Cheque amount on behalf of his friends or other known persons. He is very particular about the procedure of opening an account and issuing Cheque books along with withdrawing Cheque amount as per the rules were followed strictly in the Bank. However, he has clearly stated that all the withdrawal slips 57 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 relating to above mentioned accounts were favouring self indicates that the respective account holders themselves withdrawn the amount. Moreover, he being an officer in the Bank who has conducted preliminary enquiry has found many irregularities while authorizing the accounts opened in the names of above mentioned fictitious persons, in spite of that those accounts were authorized by the officers in the respective Banks. Therefore, even if the alleged encashment of Cheque amount by accused No.6 on behalf of Manoj or other fictitious accounts, it cannot be the proof of misuse of those Cheques amounts or abuse of his official duty as a public servant, who has admittedly filled the relevant documents as a Clerk in the Bank.
59. PW18 - Nikhilesh Melkote, worked as Branch Manager in ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru has deposed about documents handed over by him are the Account Opening Forms, Statement of accounts with other documents in the names of Balasubramanyam, Shankacharya and Paramesh are marked as Exs.P38 to 40, 58 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 respectively. He has identified another SB Account Opening Form of Mohan Gowda, marked as Ex.P63. The Demand Draft for Rs.5,40,000/- issued in favour of said Mohan Gowda through a Cheque drawn on SBI, it was given by applicant N.Shankar. Another Cheque issued for Rs.25,000/- favouring Vikas marked as Ex.P68, the said amount was paid in Cash to Vikas across the counter. The Cheque for Rs.75,000/- favouring Vikas marked as Ex.P66 and the said amount was paid to him, the Cheque for Rs.75,000/- favouring Lokesh marked as Ex.P67 and cash paid to him. He has further identified the application given by one Shankar for issuance of Bankers Cheque for Rs.7,80,586/- marked as Ex.P68 and Cheque for Rs.3 lakhs favouring Vikas marked as Ex.P69 and the Cheque for Rs.1 lakh issued in favour of said Vikas marked as Ex.P70. He has further identified application given by one Kumar for issuance of Bankers Cheque dated 18.10.2003 for Rs.8,20,000/- favouring Shankaracharya as per Ex.P71 and Cheques for Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.1 lakh favouring Vikas marked as Exs.P72 and 73. The Cheque dated 7.10.2003 59 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 issued for Rs.4,60,989/- favouring Paramesh Kumar identified as Ex.P74 and Cheque for Rs.75,000/-, Rs.75,000/- Rs.25,000/-, Rs.70,000/- on different dates favouring Vikas, Manju and Vikas respectively are marked as Exs.P76 to 79. The statement of accounts of above said persons are marked as Exs.P80 to 83. He has stated about procedure followed to open the accounts and passing of cheques after obtaining KYC documents. However, his evidence discloses that though he has not opened the accounts in the names of Balasubramanyam, Shankacharya, Paramesh and Mohan Gowda, only on the basis of documents he has deposed in respect of those accounts.
60. PW20 - Muniraju, worked as Clerk in Canara Bank, thereafter transferred to Chikkabidarakallu Branch, Jindal, Tumkur Road as an Officer has deposed about his nature of work, scrutinizing activities of the Branch and responsible for opening Current and SB Account as well as passing of Cheques, Deposit slips and pay-in slips. He has 60 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 stated about EPF Cheques were received in the Bank through registered post with particulars of customer, while passing the cheques for withdrawal by the customer, it was through self or drawee upto Rs.25,000/-. If the said amount exceeds, then the Officer or the Manager have to authorize the payment after verifying signature. If the withdrawal is from new account, it has to be marked on the Cheque as new account and payment was to be made after verifying the signature of account holder.
61. He has identified the Account Opening Form, Specimen Signature Card, Address proof documents, Statement of account, Payment Cheques and Credit slips pertaining to one Arun marked as Ex.P84. He has further stated photograph of customer Arun was taken while opening the account and the Clerk Susheelamma fed data in the computer and also written contents of said documents. Further, the specimen signature card Ex.P86 bears signatures of said Arun tallied with another signature put in the Application Form for opening the account. The 61 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 pay-in slip for Rs.3,56,624/- marked as Ex.P87 and another pay-in slip issued in the name of said Arun for Rs.36,500/- marked as Ex.P88. He has identified the payment Cheque for Rs.2,90,000/- dated 11.8.2003 marked as Ex.P89, which was received by Clerk Susheelamma and she herself issued token No.14 to the customer. He has identified her signature in the said document as he himself authorized payment of the cheque when it was presented for cash. Another Cheque issued for Rs.1 lakh marked as Ex.P90, which was received by one Thippeswamy, the Clerk who had issued token No.95. The said Cheque has been issued in the name of Pradeep and he has authorized the payment and paid the cash. The payment of Cheque dtd.18.8.2003 for Rs.3,000/- marked as Ex.P91, which was received by Susheelamma and payment has been made by him after tallying signature found in Account opening form with Specimen signature Card. However, when he has noticed the difference in both documents had enquired with account holder Arun, but after verifying his photograph, he himself informed that the style of his signature has been changed, 62 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 therefore after obtaining his signature, Cheque amount has been paid to him.
62. PW21 - Ramanuja Kulkarni, worked as Branch Manager, SBI, Kumaraswamy Layout Branch, Bengaluru has deposed about documents pertaining to N.K.Prasad forwarded to CBI Officer and has identified Covering letter, Account Opening Form of accused No.3, Pay-in slip and certified copy of Statement of Accounts marked as Ex.P92. Though the said account has not been introduced by any person, Branch Manager has made endorsement stating that the customer is Ex-Staff, mentioning his Provident Fund No.906808. The entry made regarding Cheque has been realized for Rs.35,650/- as per Ex.P93, through Cheque drawn on SBI, Electronic City, the same shown in Ex.P94 as per Ex.P94(a).
63. PW23 - P.Hanumappa, worked as Manager in Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch has deposed that he was looking after administration of the Branch and has deposed 63 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 about Account Opening Forms relating to Prasad Rao, Ramesh, Suresh and Manoj were verified by him. He has identified the signature of Manager, who has authorized opening of the said accounts marked under Exs.P55, 46 and 41 respectively. The Specimen Signature Card relating to Manoj identified under Ex.P50, though the Account Opening Form relating to said account not found in the Branch, his specimen signatures found in Ex.P50 were authorized by the then Officer Anantha Raman examined before the Court as PW13.
64. PW24 - Smt.K.Mangalam, worked as Clerk in Ulsoor Branch of Canara Bank has deposed that she was doing clerical work with supervisory duty whenever necessary. She has deposed about procedure followed while opening of Accounts by the customers, who were to give the details relating to their address proof, specimen signature with photographs with introduction by existing customer. The concerned Clerks have to feed the particulars of Account Opening Form in the system which 64 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 generates ZZ number to identify the customer number, was verified by the Supervisor, afterwards the system was generating the account number. The Account Opening Form relating to one Suresh M. identified under Ex.P41 was in the handwriting of accused No.6. After she has verified the same, written the account number, but she do not know about address written in Ex.P41. She has verified the signature of introducer after verifying the telephone bill Ex.P34 and made out address mentioned in the document. However, she has stated about photograph of customer was not stapled on the Account Opening Form at the time of submitting, but later it was found in Ex.P41. The customer namely M.Suresh has made initial deposit of Rs.500/- as per Ex.P42, which is in the handwriting of accused No.6 marked as Ex.P42(a). She has identified her handwriting in the withdrawal slips Exs.P43 and 44, the amount under which said to be received by Senthamarai Selvi. Further she has identified handwriting of accused No.6 in withdrawal slip and pay-in-slips marked as Exs.P45, 48 and
49. After going through difference in specimen signature 65 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 in Ex.P50, she has been brought to the notice of accused No.6, for which he has made known to her that both customer and introducer were his friends. Therefore, she believed his words and opened the account in the system and generated the account number. She has also identified the handwriting of accused No.6 in Pay-in slip dated 24.9.2003 for Rs.500/- Ex.P52 and Form of Declaration given by Suresh in Form No.60 for opening account as per Ex.P96. She has written the account number in the Specimen Signature Card pertaining to the same account marked as Ex.P97. In the cross-examination she has affirmed the entries made in the documents relating to Suresh, G.Ramesh and Manoj K. are in the handwriting of accused No.6.
65. PW25 - H.R.Mustaq Ahmed, worked in Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch, between 1980 to 2013 has deposed about four cheques of EPF office and four SB Accounts opened in the said Branch. He was deputed to conduct preliminary enquiry in respect of said accounts in which 66 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 fraudulent encashment of few EPF cheques had been taken in the same Branch by opening four SB accounts. During preliminary enquiry he found that all the said four SB Accounts were opened without following the procedure with the help of accused No.6, who was working as a Clerk in the same Branch. He has clearly stated that SB Account of Manoj was opened in the month of September-2003, and his photograph given along with application was missing in the Branch. Further without the request of account holder, Cheque book has been issued and collected by accused No.6, who himself had opened account in the system and it was checked by Supervisor. However, Supervisor did not verify the genuineness of the introducer, but the Senior Manager Anantha Raman permitted for opening of the account. The account of G.Paramesh opened during July- 2003 by accused No.6 and he himself fed data which was checked by Supervisor and same Senior Manager had permitted to open the account. The fabricated BESCOM bill was given as address proof and the details found in the said bill were pertains to accused No.6. The photograph of 67 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 the said customer was also missed from the Branch records. He has further stated that the SB Account opened in the name of Prasad Rao by accused No.6 and challans prepared for the initial deposit in the said SB Account. The stolen Cheque of EPF had also been encashed through his account, amount of Rs.8 lakhs had been withdrawn by Cheque leaf issued to the said account. The accused No.6 himself had collected the Cheque book for the said account of Prasad Rao by putting his initials in the concerned register. The address proof of account holder G. Ramesh was said to be given by fabricating BESCOM bill, SB account of Suresh was opened with the help of accused No.6 who himself fed the details in the Computer and the Supervisor checked entries in the system. However, the witness A. Nateshan who was said to be introduced for opening of account of Suresh is examined as PW22 and has denied that he had introduced Account holder for opening of said account in the Bank.
68 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
66. PW25 has further deposed about during the enquiry of above said fraudulent acts, he had made enquiries with the staff of Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch, the Sr.Manager Anantha Raman, Supervisor Smt.Mangalam, Officer Bavikatte, Clerk Shashikala and accused No.6. However, the accused No.6 said to be given statements as per Exs.P101 and 102, admitting that he had helped the above said customers for opening SB accounts in the Bank. After enquiring the matter in detail, he has submitted three reports to Canara Bank, Circle Office, Bengaluru as per Exs.P98 to 100, reporting statements of accused No.6 and officials Smt.R.Shashikala and K.Mangalam, details of payment passed under different Cheques by the officials and fraudulent transactions in opening of the accounts and Cheque withdrawals, bears his signatures marked as Exs.P98(a) to 100(a).
67. In the cross-examination he has identified the documents Exs.P34, 41 to 62 and 95 to 97 verified during the Internal Investigation, and identified signatures of 69 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 accused No.6 in Exs.P101 and 102 marked as Exs.P101(a) and 102(a).
68. PW26 - S.Chandrashekar, worked as Senior Manager at Bharath Co-Operative Bank Ltd., has deposed about certified copies of the SB Account Opening Form, Specimen Signature Card, Ledger Extract, Challan and withdrawal slips relating to accused No.3 were handed over to CBI. He has identified the Cheque for Rs.7,31,350/- presented by accused No.3 in his account which was cleared on 5.9.2003. Further he has identified SB Account Opening Form given by accused No.3 as per Ex.P103 and specimen signature card is marked as Ex.P104. One N.C.Narayana Gowda was introduced accused No.3 as mentioned in Ex.P105, the cheque dtd.21.8.2003 of SBI, Electronic City Branch for Rs.7,31,350/- marked under Ex.P106, which shows name of Account holder as N.K.Prasad and in brackets written as Narayan K. Prasad, who is accused No.3 had withdrawn the amount of Rs.2,10,000/- on 6.9.2003. He has identified the withdrawal slip Ex.P107 issued for 70 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Rs.5 lakhs as per Ex.P108. The statement of account relating to accused No.3 marked as Ex.P109 shows different amounts were transferred to his Loan accounts.
69. PW27 - C.Sadanand, worked in Personnel Banking Branch, Manipal Centre, Bengaluru has deposed about documents pertaining to specimen signature and handwriting of accused No.1 mentioned as S146 to S165 and his signature is identified in all the pages of Ex.P110 as 110(a) and his signature marked as Ex.P110(b). The signature and handwriting of accused No.8 R.Manjunath identified in the document Ex.P111 shown at S181 to S211 marked as Ex.P111(a) and his signature as Ex.P111(b). In the cross-examination he has denied for the suggestion that document Ex.P110 has been created for the purpose of this case.
70. PW29 - T.Prasad, worked as Branch Manager in ICICI Bank, Malleswaram Branch during 2005-06 has identified documents pertaining to customer namely Dilip 71 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 M.B. to Madiwala Police Station and the same are identified under Exs.P125 to 129. The Account Opening Form relating to SB Account of M.B.Dilip marked as Ex.P124 and the copies of Driving Licence and Electricity Bill produced along with the said application are marked as Exs.P124(a) and
(b).
71. PW30 - Ramachandra H.Gaddad, worked as Deputy Manager (Accounts), State Bank of India, Electronic City Branch, Bengaluru from 2003-2006 has deposed about his nature of work in the Bank relates to Opening of Accounts, Passing of Cheques, Short collections, DD purchases etc. and he was having unlimited power relating to passing of Cheques, amount of Cheques. He has identified Statement of Accounts relating to Account Nos.01100007605, 01100007606 and 01100007607 are marked as Exs.P140 to 142. He has clearly stated that those accounts were authorized by Assistant Provident Commissioner under Authorization letter and Specimen signature of the concerned officer. He himself has handed 72 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 over cheques of EPFO marked as Exs.P6, 7, 9 and 10 to 30 and stated that he has passed all the Cheques except Ex.P18. Subsequently, during 2003, the officials of ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, were enquired about issuance of said Cheques and he has informed after verifying the records of EPFO, those Cheques were issued. Thereafter, enquiry was made with EPFO, and found that Cash Book entries were not tallying and payments made in respect of those Cheques was without any confirmation.
72. He has identified the letter dtd.3.9.2003 issued from the office of EPFO by PW1 Muthuselvan as APFC to the Branch marked as Ex.P143. He has further stated that the proceeds of 25 Cheques was Rs.1,23,00,000/-, and identified the Statement of Accounts pertaining to EPF Account No.01100007605 marked as Ex.P140 and the relevant entries marked as Exs.P140(a) to (w). In the cross-examination he has categorically admitted that since the Cheques referred above were in order, he had passed 73 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 those cheques for payment, after verifying the signature of Authorized officer in the Specimen signature card.
73. PW37 - Dhamodhar P., worked as Officer in Karnataka Bank, Sarakki Layout Branch, Bengaluru has deposed about enquiry made by CBI Officer with regard to SB Account of accused No.2 and after verifying the records maintained in the Branch, he has given details in respect of his SB Account No.635 and identified those documents Exs.P178, 179, 120 to 123. He has stated about different transaction of Credit slips done by accused No.2 and identified Cheques issued by Provident Fund Officer in the name of accused No.2. The said Cheques marked as Exs.P15 and 20 were deposited through Credit slips marked as Exs.P122 and 123. He has identified the statement of account Ex.P179 and relevant entries marked as Ex.P179(a) and (b). He has clearly stated that said amounts were withdrawn by accused No.2 on different dates through Cheque Ex.P120, Withdrawal slip Ex.P121 and ATM transactions.
74 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
74. The prosecution has alleged about the fictitious persons, namely, G.Ramesh, Dileep M.B., Manoj K., Mohan Gowda, Paramesh Kumar, Prasad Rao, Balasubramanyam, Shankacharcharya, Chetan Rao, Praveen Rao and Suresh M. in whose names fraudulent accounts were opened in the Bank, to which, the fabricated EPF Cheques amounts were credited by the accused persons and caused wrongful loss to the E.P.F.O. In proof of the same, prosecution has examined the witness Narasimha Holla as PW9. He has deposed about petty business of condiments run by him at Bengaluru and M.Suresh was employed under him. He is very specific about that he was alone managing his business and had taken telephone connection for his shop and identified copy of telephone bill marked as Ex.P34. He has clearly stated that the residential address and telephone number mentioned in it pertains to him.
75. The prosecution has also examined different Account holders who have maintained their accounts in 75 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 different Banks in order to prove the alleged fraudulent act committed by the accused persons in those Banks. PW14 - Naveen Kumar Gayakwad, was residing in Bengaluru in the year 2004 has stated that he knew the person one Raju, the accused No.9, with whom he had no relationship or any business with him. However, he was doing screen-printing business and having account in ICICI Bank, Jayanagar Branch, Bengaluru, which was opened in the year 2002, but he did not give his photograph to any person for opening an account. He has identified the document in the Court file for which his photo was affixed and stated that the said application is not in his handwriting, the said document is marked for reference as Ex.P38. He is not aware of how his photograph used in the said document, as not knew the person namely Bala Subramanya, alleged as one of the fictitious person.
76. PW19 - Beeralingaiah, worked as Head Master in Government School, Bengaluru North, has stated that he was drawing salary through Canara Bank at 76 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Chikkabidarakallu Branch, Jindal Nagar, Peenya since 1987, during the said period one Arun had asked him to introduce to open SB Account, therefore he had gone to the Bank. But,he do not know the said Arun or his address and identified his signature in Account Opening Form Ex.P84 marked as Ex.P84(a).
77. PW22 - A.Nateshan, has identified Ex.41, Account Opening Form of Suresh and his signature as introducer marked as Ex.P41(d). He has stated that SB Account maintained by him in Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bengaluru and do not know the person who was asked him to put signature as introducer to open the said account. However he has stated that when he had been to the Bank, accused No.6 asked him to sign Account Opening Form of a person said to be his friend, which was blank when he put signature as introducer and written his account number.
78. The prosecution has examined independent witnesses as PWs.15, 16 and 17.
77 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
PW15 - Praveen K.C., was a Sales Executive also called as Customer Acquisition Team Member, has deposed about his nature of work in the Bank to open accounts directly in the names of customers. The Marketing Executives were directly approaching parties with application form for opening account and collecting the documents relating to ID proof, address proof etc., after comparing with the originals, they used to return application along with the copies of the documents to him. He was verifying the application with documents and submitting to the Manager, thereafter the Manager was also verifying the application and forwarding to Finance Section, where details of the application fed to the computer and account was to be opened. He has identified the documents related to three different account numbers, on the top of the same name mentioned as Praveen. Since those applications were verified by him, marked only for reference as Exs.P38 to 40. In the cross-examination he has stated that not put any initials to show that he himself had verified those documents along with the applications. 78 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
79. PW16 - Lola Krishna, Proprietor, Millennium Marketing Services, Malleswaram, has deposed that about business run by him since 13 years and object of the same was to get subscription for various magazines and to place orders with the Companies of the news magazines. The Agents for doing such type of services were also appointed by him to go to customers and appraise them for news magazines and obtain their subscription. He was doing marketing agency for news magazines and had been offered to do marketing agency for ICICI Bank, Malleswaram Branch, Vijayanagar Branch and Kumara Park Branch by the Manager of ICICI Bank, Malleswaram Branch. Therefore, he had appointed persons namely Nagaraj, Yuvraj, Katti with few others for marketing agency of ICICI Bank and they used to collect amounts from customers and submit Account Opening Forms to the respective Branch Managers. When he has confronted to Ex.P38, denied the signature in it which is similar to his signature. However, he has admitted the name and account number mentioned 79 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 in the column of introducer pertains to him, but he is not aware of the account holder of Ex.P38.
80. PW17 - T.Srinivasa, Telephone Operator at OCB Tax Section, Bengaluru has stated accused No.9 - Raju, as his nephew identified him in the CBI Office, who was enquired about account opened by him and photo was affixed to the Account Opening Form was of this witness and the same was enquired with accused No.9, for which he has admitted that he had opened account for accused No.4 Vishal Kohli and one Vivek, after taking Rs.1,000/- from them. However, he has stated not known said Vishal Kohli or Vivek, but identified the Account Opening Form Ex.P40 is in the name of Paramesh.
81. In the cross-examination he has admitted that CBI Officer did not enquire about accused No.4 or one Vivek in his presence after knowing about that they had opened the account through accused No.9. He has further stated no complaint given by him either to the Police Station or 80 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Bank for misusing his photographs to open an account in the Bank. Further except knowing about misuse of his photograph, he is not aware of the transaction for which his photograph has been misused.
82. The important witness is the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD), Y.Suryaprasad examined as PW28. He being an Expert of examining disputed and admitted writings and signatures, has deposed about the documents referred by SP, CBI/ACB, Bengaluru for examination and to give Opinion. According to him, the disputed documents contained handwriting of S.Durgaprasad shown at Q1 to Q48, as S1 to S34 and admitted writings as A9 to A14 and A17 to A29. The specimen writings of PW1 were shown as S35 to S60 and his admitted writings were shown as A1 to A8, A15 and A16.
83. He has further stated about the specimen writings of accused No.1 Narasimhamurthy shown as S61 to 81 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 S79, specimen writings of Sanjaysingh were shown as S80 to S98 and of accused No.6 J.David Sagairaj as S99 to S118. All the said documents were examined by him alongwith another Expert namely S.C.Lohia, who was Deputy Government Examiner and both of them have formed Opinion on 10.9.2004. Further he has taken some more specimen writings of accused No.1 along with the specimen writings of accused No.3, accused No.8, accused No.7, accused No.4 and accused No.2 respectively, apart from specimen writings of officials namely Mrs.Deepa Subramanyam and K.Anand for giving Expert Opinion.
84. He has identified the specimen writings of accused No.1 obtained in 20 pages at Ex.P110 shown as S146 to S165 admitted signatures of accused No.1 marked as Ex.P114. The specimen signature of accused No.2 obtained in 25 sheets and the specimen signature of accused No.3 in 42 sheets marked as Exs.P112 and 113 respectively. He has identified the letter dtd.29.3.2006 given by Narindar Singh, GEQD is marked as Ex.P115. 82 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
85. He has clearly stated the reasons for giving Opinion only on few writings of the accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 8 as explained in Supplementary Opinion Ex.P138. It is made out from the said Opinion that he was not able to give Opinion on the writings of accused No.2 marked as S1/1 to S25/1 which writings similarly stamped shown under Q173 to Q179 in his handwriting from the available documents. Further the writings marked S 55/1 to S78/1, S78/2 and S79/1 to S96/1 also wrote by the person which are similarly marked as Question 138 to 172 are in the handwriting of deceased accused No.3. Further, the writings marked as S146 to S154 and A1/1 to A6/1 in the handwriting of accused No.1 similarly in the handwriting found in Ex.P33 the EPF Cash book pertaining to Account No.I of EPFO shown as Q217 and signature of accused No.1 Q218 and handwriting portion Q219 with his signature in the charge list Ex.P32 shown as Q216, which are in the handwriting of accused No.1. The writings marked S187 to S202 and S205 to S211 are in the handwriting of person 83 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 whose handwriting found in the documents marked as Q53, Q54, Q55, Q58, Q60A, Q60B, Q91 and similar to Q130 are made out from the available documents were in the handwriting of deceased accused No.8.
86. PW28 being an Expert of examining the questioned documents, has clearly deposed about after examination of disputed and admitted writings with signatures which were verified and Opinion given regarding supplementary documents. However, it was not possible for him to express any opinion on other documents after comparing with materials referred by Investigating Officer. He has stated about the relevant documents referred by Investigating Officer, which were examined by him already marked through other prosecution witnesses as Exs.P6, 7, 9 to 30, 33, 33b, 35a to 37a, 38 to 42, 42a, 43 to 50, 52 to 61, 63 to 79, 93, 95, 96, 106 to 108. Those documents are relating to disputed writings and signatures of other accused and different persons on which he was not able to form any Opinion.
84 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
87. He has identified withdrawal form dated 19.8.2003 of Deepak Sahakari Bank Limited marked as Ex.P116, another withdrawal slip dated 26.8.2003 marked as Ex.P117. Further, the document Ex.P118 is the similar SB credit slip of the same Bank dated 16.8.2003 and the questioned signatures examined by him marked as Ex.P119. He has also examined writings in Cheque of Karnataka Bank Limited dated 26.8.2003 marked as Ex.P120, Debit voucher of said Bank dated 3.10.2003 also marked as Ex.P121. The Credit vouchers of the same Bank relates to different dates are marked as Exs.P122 to 125. The Cheques of ICICI Bank dtd.13.10.2003 examined by him are marked as Exs.P126 to 129. He has identified the document Ex.P130 relates to Thyagaraja Co-operative Bank Ltd., the Credit vouchers Exs.P131 and 132, withdrawal forms of the same Bank Exs.P133 and 134. Three deposit bills sent by investigating Agency for examination identified under Exs.P135 to 137. The Opinion given by him alongwith another GEQD Narendar Singh on supplementary 85 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 documents is marked as Ex.P138, his signature is marked as Ex.P138(a) and the signature of said Narendar Singh, identified by him and marked as Ex.P138(b).
88. In the cross-examination he has clearly admitted that no Opinion given in respect of specimen signature and handwriting of accused No.4 shown at S244 to 259 and specimen writings of accused No.7 shown at S212 to 243. Therefore, the allegation of forgery and misuse of EPF Cheques by them by prosecution is contrary to the evidence of Expert, who was not able to form Opinion on the questioned documents contained specimen writings and signatures of both accused Nos.4 and 7.
89. Prosecution has produced the evidence of Investigating Officers who have conducted the investigation partly and filed charge sheet against accused Nos1 to 9. PW32 - Y.Hari Kumar, worked as Inspector of Police and also Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/Bengaluru, has conducted investigation partly as per the Notification 86 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 issued by Government of Karnataka and Government of India dated 10.12.2003 and 30.12.2003, marked under Exs.P145 and 146 respectively. He has identified the signature of Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB namely A.P.Singh in the FIR Ex.P147 and the same is marked as Ex.P147(a). According to him, investigation was conducted by Inspector - Manjokumar from 31.12.2003 to 10.2.2004 and collected some documents were identified by him marked as Exs.P148 to P151. He has recorded statements of PW1 and PW30, thereafter collected the relevant documents from different Banks as per Exs.P152 and P153. He has also examined PW18 and others, collected documents Exs.P154 to P157, documents in the name of accused No.3 as per Exs.P120 to 123, documents relating to four fictitious accounts from Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch as per Exs.P41 to 52. The documents standing in the name of the accused No.3 from Thyagaraja Co-operative Bank, marked as Exs.P158 to P161 and from Deepak Sahakari Bank Limited marked as Exs.P162 to P165. The documents in the name of accused No.5 collected from 87 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Marata Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Belgaum, marked as Exs.P166 to P174. He has identified the copies of the documents with specimen handwriting of accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 8 and K.Anand sent for Expert Opinion by CBI/ACB/Bengaluru, through the letter dtd.24.10.2005 as per Ex.P175 and the details of Cash section relating to accused No.1 given through the Office order dtd.13.5.2003 marked as Ex.P176 and 177 along with documents relating to specimen signature card and statement of account relating to accused No.2 collected by his predecessor are marked as Exs.P178 and 179.
90. In the cross-examination though he has admitted that the Stock Register, Charge list, Attendance Register Sheets relating to accused No.1, who has taken over the charge of Cash Section of EPF, Bommasandra from one Poornima, as per Ex.P32, all the documents are not produced before the Court.
88 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
91. PW34 - Manoj Kumar, worked as Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Bengaluru has proceeded with investigation and recorded statements of PWs.1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 25, the then APFC Durgaprasad, thereafter obtained specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Nos.1 and 6. He has also identified the Cheques received from SBI, Electronic City Branch, as per Exs.P26 to P30 and stated that specimen handwriting and signatures of accused No.2 obtained in the presence of one Sheena. He has further deposed about examining other witnesses and recording of their statements and further statements on different dates and handed over case file to PW35 for further investigation.
92. PW35 - B.Suresh Kumar, worked as Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Bengaluru who has proceeded with further investigation after taking case file from PW34. He has deposed about examination and recording of statements of some of the prosecution witnesses. According to his evidence, he has arrested accused No.3 on 15.10.2004 and collected his specimen handwriting and 89 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 signatures in presence of independent witness - Rangaswamy. Thereafter, collected relevant documents relating to accused No.3 and others from AGM, SBI, Jayanagar Branch, Manager, Customer Care, City Bank, Chennai. Subsequently, he has handed over the file to Dy.S.P., Harikumar for further investigation.
93. The additional witness S.Venugopal is examined as PW38, worked as a Police Inspector, CBI/ACB/Bengaluru, and collected Certificates under Section 2A of the Banker's Books Evidence Act and Section 65B of Evidence Act. He has identified the statements of accounts marked earlier as Exs.P155, 156 and 157 and the and the Certificates under Section 65B of Evidence Act relating to those documents marked as Exs.P155(a), 156(a) and 157(a) respectively. He has further identified the statements of account of one Prasad Rao and the accused No.3 under Exs.P62, 165 and 161, the Certificates issued u/S.2A of Banker's Books Evidence Act and u/S.65B of Evidence Act, relating to those statements are marked as 90 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Exs.62(a), 165(a) and 161(a). The statement of account relating to accused No.2 is identified under Ex.P179 and the Certificate u/S.65B of Evidence Act relates to the same is marked as Ex.P179(c).
94. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that misuse of 25 E.P.F. Cheques by accused Nos.1 to 9 without knowledge of concerned EPF subscribers, encashed the same, deposited into their accounts and fictitious accounts opened in the names of different persons, from which financial loss of Rs.1,21,38,049/- caused to EPFO. Further, argued that since accused Nos.1 and 6 public servants, already dismissed, no Sanction is required, to prosecute against them. The accused No.1 who was in custody of Cheque leaves and Cheque books, has given some of the Cheque leaves in the name of different accused persons and other fictitious persons to withdraw and deposit the amounts, by way of forging the signatures of the then APFC Durgaprasad and subsequent Officers. In support of the same the evidence of PW1 relied on who has denied his 91 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 signatures in the Cheques Exs.P7, 20, 22, 24, 25 as the date of issuing those Cheques he was the APFC authorized to sign the Cheques. The evidence of prosecution witnesses how helpful in proof of offences committed by each of the accused has also mentioned in the written arguments and relied on the following Citations:
1) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nani Gopal Mitra Vs. The State of Bihar in 1970 AIR 1636, 1969 SCR (2) 411 decided on 15.10.1968, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has discussed on the Charge was defective and presumption raised under Section 5 (3) of the Act with regard to acceptance of illegal gratification other than legal remuneration and pecuniary advantage obtained by corrupt or illegal means, for which absence of sufficient particulars could not invalidate the charge though it may be a ground for asking for better particulars. Whenever Section 225 Cr.P.C. invoked it could not be said that Charge was defective.
Therefore, observed that presumption contained under Section 5(3) of the Act was a rule of procedural law and not a rule of substantive law and alterations in the form of procedure are always 92 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 retrospective in character unless there is some good reason or other why they should not be.
2) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh in Criminal Appeal No.357/2005, decided on 30.6.2014, The discussion made on obligation of accused to give explanation while recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. A denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant was a prime accused in the commission of offence.
3) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra in 1992 SCR(2) 502, 1992 SCC (3)106 decided on 10.4.1992, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the similar point on giving plausible explanation by the accused denying the case of the prosecution.
93 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
4) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi &... Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No.507/2008, decided on 14.9.2012, The observation made on Section 106 of Evidence Act which is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible for the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience.
5) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Harpal Singh@ Chhota Vs. State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal No.2539/2014 connected with Criminal Appeal No.388/2015 decided on 21.11.2016.
The observation made in this ruling regarding Criminal Conspiracy between the accused which can be established through circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators should not know each and every detail of the plot as they are co-participators in the main object thereof and it is also not necessary that all of them should participate from the inception of the stratagem till the end, the determinative factor, being unity of 94 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 object or purpose and their participation at different stages.
95. The learned Counsel for accused No.1 has submitted that the charges alleged against him under Sections 120B read with 419, 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are not proved by prosecution. Further, Section 19(1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 is not complied as no Sanction obtained to prosecute against him. The then APFC
- Durgaprasad alone is responsible for entire fraud committed in respect of EPF cheques as he was in the Office during the period from 2.7.2003 to 3.10.2003 and in- charge of the Cheques and Cheque books. The previous complaints filed alleging misappropriation of various EPF Cheques amount by the said Durgaprasad and others, as per the complaints registered by Madiwala Police station under Exs.P1 and 2 are pointed out apart from the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 95 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 1988 will not attract as no pecuniary advantage or any payment passed to his account as illegal gratification obtained either for himself or on behalf of others.
96. The learned Counsel in support of the arguments relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, 7, 10 and 31 and the Expert evidence placed through PW28, who has not verified the handwriting of Durgaprasad, whose signature alleged to be forged by accused No.1 in the EPF Cheques Exs.P6, 7, 9 to 30. Further, the evidence of PW1 elicited in the cross- examination also pointed out regarding he being successor of Durgaprasad as APFC was the sole authority in possession of Cheque books and Cheque leaves, which were not dealt by either Cashier or other Officials in the EPFO. However, it is admitted that out of 25 EPF Cheques, only 4 Cheques were handed over to him marked as Exs.P11, 12, 28 and 29 are not either forged or misused by him. It is pointed out that all the disputed 25 EPF Cheques were handed over to him by PW10 as the evidence elicited in the cross-examination of PWs,1, 2, 3 and 7 taken alongwith 96 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Exs.P6, 7, 9 to 30 contains the handwriting of accused No.1, which is not tallied with the entries and Cheques handed over to him under the Charge list.
97. In support of the arguments relied on the following Citations:-
1) (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 85 in the case of A.Subair Vs. State of Kerala.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the essential ingredients of offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, are factum of demand or request of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by the public servant, in absence of which no offence under the said Sections. The prosecution must prove through substantial evidence to establish the ingredients required for the offence under Section 13(1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. If no proof produced, accused liable to be acquitted.
2) (2007) 13 Supreme Court Cases 410 in the case of Radha Pisharassiar Amma Vs. State of Kerala. 97 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that if essential ingredients of conspiracy with a dishonest intention not made out against accused, the offence under 409, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code not proved, therefore, held as offence under Section Prevention of Corruption Act, not made out by prosecution.
3) ILR 2006 KAR 685 in the case of T.K.Sriramappa Vs. The State of Karnataka By Town Police Kolar.
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that the prosecution in proof of offence under Section 468 Indian Penal Code, has to establish the accused has committed forgery and he did so with an intention to use the forged documents for the purpose of cheating. If the prosecution able to establish forging of documents and use of it for the purpose of cheating, then accused is liable for being convicted.
4) Crl.R.P. 834/2015 in the case of B.A.Srinivasan Vs. Station House Officer and another decided on 8.8.2018.
98 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has discussed, the necessity of Sanction to prosecute against a public servant even if retired at the time of taking cognizance. The reference made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in different rulings has been considered regarding the offences punishable in accordance with Prevention of Corruption Act and other Indian Penal Code Offences, Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, is applicable and not Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
Further it has held that the amendment
brought to the provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act, in the year 2018 it is by
substitution and not insertion of a new provision. Therefore, Sanction was very much necessary even if the public servant against whom alleged the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, has retired, as on the date of cognizance, Sanction was necessary.
98. The learned Counsel for accused No.2 has submitted that the allegation made against him regarding misuse of two Cheques amount, but those Cheques have been misused by other accused persons. No supporting evidence placed by prosecution against him and pointed out 99 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 admission made by PW37 in the cross-examination along with the documents marked under Exs.D3 to D6. Therefore, accused No.2 is an innocent person and has not committed any offence.
99. The learned Counsel relied on Reportable ruling rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl.Appeal No.635/2006 in the case of Krishnegowda and others Vs. State of Karnataka by Arakalgud Police with Crl.Appeal No.1067/2006 between Nanje Gowda and another Vs. State of Karnataka, Arakalgud Police.
The said Appeals are allowed considering the evidence of prosecution and defence of accused, which were filed against the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 IPC and Sec 302 r/w 34 IPC and Section 324, r/w 149 IPC. The observation made in both the appeals that, "the Court should always make an endeavour to find the truth. A Criminal offence is not only an offence against an individual but also against the society. There would be failure of justice if 100 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 innocent man is punished. The Court should be able to perceive both sides, that is, the prosecution as well as the defence."
100. The learned Counsel for accused Nos.4, 5, 7 and 9 submitted regarding two complaints filed before the Court as per Exs.P1 and 2 and Notification issued under Exs.P146 and 147. The charge alleged against each of the accused not framed properly as no substantial Charge is framed for the offence of impersonation, cheating, forgery and use of the forged document as genuine punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. The evidence of each witness pointed out as placed only against accused No.1 and not against other accused persons.
101. The learned Counsel relied on the evidence of PWs.14, 15, 17, 18, 33 and 36 and explained how their evidence will not prove the alleged offences against accused Nos.4, 5, 7 and 9. It is also argued that Expert Opinion Ex.P138 will not reflect anything about forgery or impersonation of Cheques or other documents by accused 101 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Nos.4 and 9. The difference in names of accused No.5 mentioned in the relevant documents and his signature, on which, no opinion formed by GEQD also brought to the notice of the court.
102. The learned Counsel for accused Nos.4 and 9 relied on following Citations:
1) AIR 1955 - 274 decided on 25.1.1955 in the case of Nanak Chand Vs. State of Punjab.
The discussion made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relates to framing of charge for each offence and distinction between Sections 34 and 149 of IPC and specific charge for each of the offence is required as per Section 233 of Cr.P.C.
However, in view of observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned ruling cited for prosecution, the observation made in the present ruling is having lesser value in the eye of law.
2) Crl.R.P. 834/2015 in the case of B.A.Srinivasan Vs. Station House Officer and another decided on 102 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 8.8.2018, in which the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has discussed, the necessity of Sanction to prosecute against a public servant even if retired at the time of taking cognizance. The reference made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in different rulings has been considered regarding the offences punishable in accordance with Prevention of Corruption Act and other Indian Penal Code Offences, Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, is applicable and not Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that the amendment brought to the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, in the year 2018 it is by substitution and not insertion of a new provision. Therefore, Sanction was very much necessary even if the public servant against whom alleged the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, has retired, as on the date of cognizance, Sanction was necessary.
103. The learned Counsel for accused No.6 has submitted that allegation made he had facilitated for opening of four fictitious accounts and encashed three cheques. But, he was not an officer in the bank, working as 103 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 a clerk looking after the clerical work, therefore, he had no power of opening the accounts or passing of withdrawal forms or cheques. The Bank officials have followed the procedure as per the Manual, while performing their official duties.
104. In support of the arguments relied on the evidence of PWs.8, 9, 11 to 13, 23 to 25 and 32 relating to the alleged four fictitious accounts opened in the names of Suresh, G.Ramesh, Manoj and Prasad Rao. The irregularities found in opening of the accounts by giving false SB Accounts of introducers of said Prasad Rao, G.Ramesh and Manoj as well as the introducer of Suresh was not aware of him at the time of opening the respective accounts also brought to the notice of the Court. Further submitted that after obtaining the relevant documents collected during the period of fictitious accounts opened in the names of said persons, those were authorised by the then Manager Anantha Raman, therefore, no role of 104 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 accused No.6 in opening of the alleged fictitious accounts and he has not committed any offence.
105. I have verified the documents produced by prosecution and made out that the present case is based on FIR marked as Ex.P147 registered on 31.12.2003 on Source Information, which shows the name of S.Durgaprasad, the then APF Commissioner in the relevant column of suspected accused for the offence under Section 120B, 420,468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Annexure-I enclosed to the FIR shows names of 12 persons as accused including accused No.1 with accused Nos.2, 3 and others. Further, prior to that on 24.10.2003, FIR registered by Madiwala Police Station as per Ex.P148 in respect of fraud committed in respect of Government Cheques drawn on SBI, Electronic City Branch, Bengaluru by accused No.2 relating to two Cheques bearing Nos.907828 dtd.24.8.2003 for Rs.3,48,050/- and Cheque No.907833 dtd.5.4.2003 for Rs.4,87,350/-. Apart from that, the names of other 10 105 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 persons mentioned, from whose accounts different Cheques were realized by accused No.2. The details of Cheque numbers, dates, names of beneficiary and collecting bank with amounts also mentioned in the complaint. Further, another complaint in continuation of earlier complaint dtd.24.10.2003 given another complaint on 21.11.2003 as per Ex.P151, on the basis of which, FIR registered as per Ex.P150. In the said subsequent complaint allegation made against accused No.3 and one Prasad Rao for fraudulent withdrawal and forgery of Government Cheques. However, in the complaint Ex.P151, it is stated that fraudulent withdrawal from EPF Account by accused No.3 who has already encashed Cheque No.907833 dtd.21.8.2003 apart from the Cheques mentioned in separate list. The name and address of drawee shows one Prasad Rao who has maintained SB A/c.No.37712 in Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bengaluru, Cheque No.823308 dtd.29.9.2003 has been withdrawn the amount of Rs.13,27,150/-. In the said complaint allegation made that Cheque Nos.823383 and 827683 were removed from the Cheque book and encashed 106 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 in the Bank account of accused No.3. However, another complaint given by Regional P.F. Commissioner-I, Karnataka Region, namely N.A.Nair on 12.4.2004 marked as Ex.P31 shows, in total 23 Cheques were fraudulently withdrawn from EPF Account for different amount and the Cheques issued in the names of accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 8 and other persons. The said complaint given to Inspector of ACB, Bengaluru to take suitable action in respect fraudulent withdrawal of the amounts from EPF Accounts.
106. After going through the above mentioned FIRs, which are registered only against accused Nos.2 and 3 and other different persons who are not made as accused in the present case, it is not possible to make out any proof particularly against each of the accused from the available oral and documentary evidence. Because allegation made by prosecution that accused No.1 was in the custody of alleged Cheques said to be caused wrongful loss to EPFO, in total a sum of Rs.1,21,38,049/-. But admittedly, the Cheque books and blank Cheque leaves with concerned 107 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 registers were in the custody and possession of APFC as admitted by PW1, who was the succeeding Officer of Durgaprasad and also gave complaint under Exs.P148 and 149, the copies of which marked as Exs.P1 and 2.
107. I have already pointed out that Cheque leaves and Cheque books handed over to accused No.1 under charge list Exs.P4 and 32, which were marked subject to objection. Admittedly, the then APFC Durgaprasad and other succeeding officers were verified the Stock Register maintained as per Ex.P3 and found correctness of the Cheque leaves and Cheque books. The Manual marked under Ex.D1 clearly says about procedure to be followed by EPFO with regard to maintaining those Cheque books and Cheque leaves as they are security documents with concerned Registers relating to Employees Provident Fund claims. Therefore, heavy burden casted upon the prosecution to prove that how many Cheque books and Cheque leaves containing particular numbers were handed over to accused No.1 under the charge list and how many 108 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Cheques are misused during the charge of the same given to him till his transfer to another Section or Office.
108. It is true, PW1 has denied his signature in disputed Cheques marked as Exs.P20, 22, 24 and 25, alleged to be forged by accused persons. But it is to be verified that those Cheques were given to the custody of accused No.1 under the charge list. Because Ex.P20 Cheque bearing No.907835 dtd.5.9.2003 for Rs.4,87,350/- issued in the name of Ravindra P. for SB A/c.No. 6354 at Karnataka Bank Ltd., Sarakki Branch, Ex.P22 is bearing No.907839 dtd.2.9.2003 for Rs.5,40,000/- in the name of Mohan Gowda for the account maintained in ICICI Bank Ltd, Vijayanagar Branch, Ex.P24 Cheque bearing No.907842 dtd.3.9.2003 for Rs.8,20,000/- issued in the name of Shankaracharya for the account maintained in ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch and Ex.P25 Cheque bearing No.907841 dtd.3.9.2003 for Rs.7,87,586/- issued in the name of Balasubramanyam maintained in ICICI Bank Ltd., Vijayanagar Branch. If charge list under Exs.P4 or 32 are 109 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 taken into consideration, then the Cheque Numbers starting from digit 907 are not handed over to accused No.1.
109. However, it is necessary to point out the Office Order dated 13.5.2003 Ex.P176, under which accused No.1 was transferred to Cash Section in the place of Smt. R.Poornima, DEO, who is examined before the Court as PW10. Ex.P177 is the Incumbency Details of Cash Section shows accused No.1 was given Task of Cheque writing and dispatch of Cheques from 13.5.2002 till 1.10.2003. However, the said date 13.5.2002 may be typographical error as the Office order Ex.P126 itself is dtd.13.5.2003 under which accused No.1 transferred and posted to Cash Section in the place of Poornima.
110. The prosecution apart from the above Office Orders also relied on copies of Charge list Ex.P4, the Xerox copy and Ex.P32 is the carbon copy of the same bears signatures of both accused No.1 and PW10. It is true, Ex.P33 is the Cash book relating to Account No.I shows 110 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Cheque numbers issued towards claim settlement of EPF in the names of various persons and the entries made in the handwriting of accused No.1,which is confirmed by Expert after comparing his specimen and disputed writings and the same noted in the Expert Opinion Ex.P138. However, the proof of handwriting of accused No.1 in Ex.P33 is no way proves the offences alleged against him with regard to forgery and misappropriation of various cheques amount under disputed EPF Cheques.
111. It is made out the details of fraudulent withdrawals of EPF Cheques by accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 8, which are mentioned in the complaint given by Regional P.F. Commissioner to the Inspector of ACB dated 12.4.2004 as per Ex.P31. The Cheque numbers mentioned in the said complaint, were said to be withdrawn on different dates alleged to be the custody of accused No.1 given as per the Office Order Ex.P177. It is true, the custody of only some of the Cheque books and Cheque leaves pertains to Account Nos.I and X handed over to him on 19.5.2003, as per 111 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Ex.P32 and he was entrusted the work of writing the Cheques and discharging the same from 13.5.2003 till 1.10.2003. Therefore, his handwriting and entry made in Cash book as per Ex.P33(a) and signature Ex.P33(b) are questioned and referred for Expert Opinion which corroborates the same as are in the handwriting of accused No.1, which is not disputed by him. No doubt, the officials of EPFO have identified the handwriting of accused No.1 in some of the Cheques, were subsequently encashed by other accused and different persons for the total amount of Rs.1,30,742/- However, the proof of his handwriting will not establish the alleged forgery of signature of either the then EPFO Durgaprasad or PW1. Though accused No.1 said to be given charge of the Cheque leaves containing 25 disputed EPF Cheques, prosecution alleged about only four cheques forged and encashed in the name of other accused persons, subsequently misappropriated the said Cheques amount. However, prosecution has failed to establish that the Cheques issued in the names of accused Nos.2, 3 and 8 as well as other various persons are not the EPF 112 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Subscribers. In absence of the said proof, it cannot be imagined that the EPF Cheques alleged to be forged by accused No.1 and got issued in the names of accused Nos.2, 3 and 8 and other fictitious persons, later misappropriate the said Cheques amount. Moreover, the EPF Cheques being treated as security documents were periodically checked and verified by the concerned EPFC by putting signatures as could be made out from Stock Register Ex.P3. Moreover, the Senior Officer of the Bank PW30 has stated that after verifying Cheques of EPFO, except Ex.P18 he has passed other Cheques Exs.P6, 7, 9 to 30 as the signatures found in those Cheques tallied with the signatures of Officers found in specimen card. He has also compared the signatures of authorized person before passing of the Cheques. Therefore, it implies that the disputed EPF Cheques were signed by the then EPFO Durgaprasad and subsequently by PW1 as his successor in the office. The Expert PW28 also stated that the disputed cheques does not bear the signature of Durgaprasad. The said important evidence elicited in the cross-examination of 113 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 PW28 certainly establish that no forgery of signatures of said Durgaprasad or PW1 in the disputed EPF Cheques as alleged by the prosecution.
112. No doubt, the disputed signature of accused No.1 in the charge list Ex.P32 shown at Q216 compared with his admitted writings said to be similarly found to his questioned writings. It is relevant to point out that under the said Charge list, he has taken the charge of Cash Remittance Register, MO Top sheet Register, Stock Register, MO Claims, the respective blank Cheque leaves of A/c. Nos.I and X with dispatch files. The blank Cheque leaves relating to A/c.No.I mentioned as Nos.427901 to 429100 and 432301 to 434300 and 823501 to 823600 and for A/c.No.X from Nos. 429101 to 430300, 430301 to 432300 and 827701 to 828500 respectively. Therefore, it indicates that the above said alleged Cheque leaves which were misused by accused No.1 by way of forgery and using it as genuine documents were not at all handed over to his possession as on the date of charge handed over by PW10. 114 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
113. The prosecution though alleged that accused No.1 out of the above said Cheque leaves, five Cheques were fraudulently encashed by forging the signature of Durgaprasad, the then APFC, has not placed any corroborative materials either by oral or placing documentary evidence. Moreover, as per Charge list, only two Cheques bearing Nos.433515 for Rs.3,09,007/- and No.433516 for Rs.3,56,624/- were said to be stolen on 14.7.2003, issued in the names of accused No.3 N.K.Prasad and one Arun. Subsequently, accused No.3 fraudulently encashed the Cheque for Rs.3,09,007/- through his Bank Account No.648 at Shree Thyagaraja Co- operative Bank, Banashankari II Stage, Bengaluru on 5.8.2003. The Cheque No.433516 was fraudulently encashed through the Bank A/c. No.16850 of Arun in Canara Bank, Chikkabidrakallu Branch, Bengaluru on the same day.
114. It is true, prosecution alleged that Cheque Nos.439189 and 439190 shown as missing Cheques were 115 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 fraudulently encashed by accused No.1 by making false entries in the Statement of Account relating to EPF A/c.No.01100007605 marked as per Ex.P140 and relevant entries dtd.11.9.2003 as per Ex.P140(l) for Rs.7,59,159/- and entry dtd.6.9.2003 for Rs.9,81,469/- marked as Ex.P140(j). However, those Cheques were said to be issued to the persons namely Venkatachalapathy and Ramani, but the Cheques Exs.P26 and 27 shows issued in the names of alleged fictitious persons namely Chetan Rao and Praveen Rao, got encashed through fake accounts opened in Citi Bank. However, it is alleged that accused No.1 has himself made fraudulent entries in the relevant documents and fed false information in the computer system of the EPFO. The accused No.1 has admitted about Cheques Exs.P11, 12, 28 and 29 were possessed by him, out of which two Cheques issued in the name of accused No.3 and remaining two Cheques were issued in the name of Arun, which were later withdrawn after passing of those Cheques by the Senior Officer in the Bank. However, the Cheques Exs.P26 and 27 issued in the names of Chetan Rao 116 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 and Praveen Rao are disputed as not signed by PW1 as APFC subsequent to taking charge of Bommasandra Office. The disputed writings in those Cheques shown at Q37, Q38, Q39 and Q40 sent for Expert Opinion and no Opinion given by PW28 being an Expert of examining disputed writings.
115. It is true that the GEQD Report Ex.P138, shows specimen signatures of accused No.1 obtained in Ex.P110 shown at S146 to S165 are similar to his admitted signatures found in Attendance Roll Ex.P114 shown at A1/1 to A6/1. Those writings and admitted signature of accused No.1 are similar when compared to the writings found in Ex.P33(a) shown at Q217 and signatures Q218, Q219 Ex.P33(b) are similar to Q216 his signature found in charge list Ex.P32 and his writings and signature found in Remittance Register (Money Order) A/c.No.I of EPF A/c. shown at Q220 and Q221. However, the handwriting of accused No.1 found in Ex.P33 is not disputed as the entries made by him relates to different Cheques issued for different amounts in the names of EPF Subscribers of EPFO. 117 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Moreover, the entries made in the Ex.P33 though referred in the Expert Opinion as are in the handwriting of accused No.1, it is no way concerned or related to the allegations made against him for the alleged offences as per the charge sheet.
116. The relevant Registers and Cheques were in possession of accused No.1 as per Exs.P4 and 32, under which, he had also taken charge of the Cheque books contained 100 leaves bearing Nos.823301 to 823400 as per Ex.P5, out of which some of the Cheques were misused as those were got issued in the names of various persons for different amount without any authentication or permission by the higher authority. It is true, PW1 has pointed out different Cheque leaves alleged to be misused by the accused No.1 were issued in the names of accused No.3 and Prasad Rao under Exs.P6 and 7, in which the questioned writings shown at Q3, Q4, Q47, Q48. The Cheque No.827683 for Rs.37,500/- also issued in the name of accused No.3 as per Ex.P9 contained questioned writings 118 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 shown at Q1 and Q2. The Cheque No.907844 for Rs.6,80,386/- as per Ex.P10 shown in the name of Deepa Subramanyam said to be signed by Durgaprasad, the then APFC, in which questioned writings shown at Q5 and Q6. The Cheques Exs.P11, 12 and 18 said to be issued in the name of accused No.3 also contained questioned writings shown at Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q21 and Q22. It is made out from the Cheques Exs.P13 to 17, 19 to 30 alleged to be issued in the names of Vijay Kumar, G.Ramesh, accused No.2 Ravindra Poojari, S.Suresh, Dileep M.B., Manoj K., Ravindra P., Shivaramu, Mohangowda, Paramesh Kumar, Shankaracharya, Balasubramanyam, Chetan Rao, Praveen Rao, Arun and Suresh M. were said to be signed by the concerned APFC also contained questioned writings sent for Expert Opinion.
117. At the cost of repetition, it is to be pointed out that the charge of all the above-mentioned cheques were not handed over to accused No.1. Though the EPF Cheques were issued not only in the names of accused No.2, 3, but 119 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 also in the names of different persons are signed by the then APFC, whose signatures not disputed either by official who passed the Cheques or by the GEQD. He being an Expert after examining disputed and admitted writings, admitted the signatures of Durgaprasad in the disputed Cheques referred for Expert Opinion. Only on the ground that the Cheques issued in the names of accused Nos.3 and one Arun, as were in the custody of accused No.1, he cannot be alleged to be forged the signature of said officer or PW1, in absence of important proof for forgery. Moreover, the disputed writings in all the above Cheques said to be issued by EPFC contained specimen writings and signatures, on which, Expert Opinion sought by the prosecution, along with the admitted writings of then APFO Durgaprasad and PW1 being his successor. But the important point made out before this Court that the Opinion given only on the specimen writings and signatures of accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 8 found in some of the documents and no Opinion given regarding specimen writings of Durgaprasad, PW1 and other accused persons. 120 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
118. Apart from that, it is verified from Ex.P3, the Stock Register at page No.26, it is mentioned for A/c.No.I (M-O) the Cheque Nos. from 0907801 to 0907850 in total 50 Cheque leaves marked at Ex.P3(c), subsequently the same has been certified by the APFC has verified and blank Cheque books and blank Cheques held in stock as on 20.11.2000. It is also made out from the Stock Register that there was periodic physical verification of Cheque books and Cheque leaves by the then APFC and subsequent APFCs who assumed charge and certified the correctness of the same. Moreover, the prosecution has not explained as to how the accused No.1 possessed those Cheque leaves and misused for encashment by making arrangement to issue in the names of accused persons and others for different amount. The important aspect is no supporting documentary evidence placed by prosecution to prove the signature of the then APFC Durgaprasad or PW1 has been forged by accused No.1. The important point to be noted that though the handwriting and signatures of 121 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 both the said Durgaprasad and PW1 were referred for examination and Opinion, no Opinion given by the Expert on their admitted writings and disputed signatures, when compared with the specimen writings of accused No.1.
119. It is true, prosecution alleged that the Cheques amount under Exs.P15 and 20 said to be encashed by accused No.2 without any claim. In support of the same relied on documents Exs.P120 to 123, 178 and 179. However, the Cheque Ex.P15 bearing No.907828 dtd.14.8.2003 for Rs.3,48,950/- issued in the name of accused No.2 and Ex.P20 bearing No.907835 dtd.5.9.2003 for Rs.4,87,350/- in his name and both Cheques were of SB A/c.No.6354 at Karnataka Bank Ltd., Sarakki Branch, Bengaluru. Those Cheque Numbers also comes within the 50 Cheques relates to A/c.No.I (M-O) which were noted in the Stock Register and subsequently personally verified and found correct by the then APFC. It is important to point out that the said two Cheques were also not given to the possession of accused No.1 under the above charge list. 122 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Therefore, prosecution has to establish that accused No.2 in view of Criminal Conspiracy with accused No.1 and other accused persons got issued Cheques in their names and encashed the amount, misused for their personal use even though they are not EPF Subscribers. But no such materials placed by the prosecution to prove that accused No.2 is not the EPF Subscriber and committed the alleged offences in view of Criminal Conspiracy with other accused persons.
120. PW37 worked as Officer in Karnataka Bank, Sarakki Layout Branch has identified the documents relating to SB A/c.No.6354 and the Cheque withdrawal slips, Credit Slips, Account Opening Form and Statement of account identified under Exs.P120 to 123, 178 and 179 respectively are in the handwriting of accused No.2. He has also deposed about the Cheques Exs.P15 and 20 for Rs.3,48,950/- and Rs.4,87,350/- issued by APFC in the name of accused No.2. Afterwards, the said Cheques amount were deposited into the account of accused No.2 through the Credit slips Ex.P122 and P123, thereafter, the 123 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 amounts were credited to his account as per the entries shown in Ex.P179 as per Ex.P179(a) & (b). It is true, PW37 has identified the handwriting of accused No.2 in the documents Exs.P120 to 123 under which the accused No.2 said to be withdrawn the above said Cheques amount on different dates. However, the disputed signatures in the Cheques Exs.P15 and 20 were not proved as forged by accused No.1 and got issued in the name of accused No.2 for encashment.
121. The prosecution has though alleged the deceased accused No.3 has also fraudulently encashed the EPF Cheques under Exs.P6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 without any claim and relied on the documents Exs.P162 to 165. However, those Cheques are bearing No.823383 dtd.29.7.2003 for Rs.2,58,750/-, No.827683 dtd.29.7.2003 for Rs.37,500/-, No.907844 dtd.27.8.2003 for Rs.6,80,386/- and No.432210 dtd.14.7.2003 for Rs.37,500/- and No.433515 dtd.14.7.2003 for Rs.3,09,007/- are issued in the name of accused No.3 124 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 N.K.Prasad for different SB Accounts maintained at Deepak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Sri Thyagaraja Co-operative Bank, out of which Cheque bearing No.907844 dtd.27.8.2003 issued in the name of Deepa Subramanyam. The questioned writings in all the Cheques with admitted writings of accused No.3 referred for Expert Opinion and the Expert was able to give Opinion only with respect to his specimen writings obtained in Ex.P113 which are similar to Q138 to Q172, which are different documents produced before the Court, such as, pay-in-slips and withdrawal slips. Therefore, without any supporting reliable documents the allegation made against him cannot be accepted as true. Moreover, subsequent to framing of charge he was reported to be and case abated against him.
122. Though the prosecution alleged encashment of Cheques amount by accused Nos.4 and 9 from the account of ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch in fictitious names as per documents under Exs.P13, 22 to 25 and relied on evidence of PWs.15, 17, 18 and 36, no corroboration in their 125 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 evidence made out in proof of the alleged offences committed by them. The cheque Nos.443264 dated.14.8.2003 for Rs.4,12,860/-, issued in the name of Vijay Kumar for his account maintained in ICICI Bank, Indiranagara Branch, No.907839 dtd.2.9.2003 for Rs.5,40,000/- in the name of Mohana Gowda, 907845 dtd.27.8.2003 for Rs.4,60,989/- in the name of Paramesh Kumar, 907842 dtd.3.9.2003 for Rs.8,20,000/- in the name of Shankaracharya and 907841 dtd.3.9.2003 for Rs.7,80,586/- in the name of Balasubramanyam, all these four Cheques drawn at ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, respectively. However, the disputed writings in all the Cheques were referred for Expert Opinion, but no Opinion given on those disputed writings after comparing the specimen writings of accused Nos.4 and 9.
123. It is true, the Welcome Kits, admittedly received by accused No.4 from accused No.9 after paying required amount towards each of the account opened by him. Therefore, the question certain will arise as to how 126 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 the above said Cheques impersonated by both of them and in what manner they were misused by producing as genuine documents remained without any explanation or clarification.
124. Further, the prosecution alleged the fraudulent account opened by accused No.5 in Marata Co- operative Urban Bank Ltd., Belgaum and relied on the evidence of PWs.32, 33 and documents Exs.P162 to 172, the name of accused No.5 itself differently shown in charge sheet and said documents. Moreover, evidence of PW32 who has deposed about documents related to four fictitious accounts as per Exs.P41 to 62, documents standing in the name of accused No.5 Ex.P166 to 174 and documents relating to the account of accused No.3 as per Exs.P158 to 165 along with other documents Exs.P175 to 179 nothing deposed against accused No.5. Likewise, evidence of PW33 also deposed with respect to documents collected by him relating to accused No.5 S.Suresh from Marata Co- operative Bank, Belgaum and not regarding fraudulent 127 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 withdrawal of amount by using the fictitious accounts. The only Cheque Ex.P16 said to be misused by him is bearing No.443428 dtd.21.8.2003 for Rs.2,70,800/- issued in the name of S.Suresh drawn at the above said Bank at Belgaum, is however supported by the oral evidence as the said S.Suresh himself had withdrawn the said amount and not by accused Nos.4 or 9. The documents Exs.P166 to 174 are covering letter pertaining to SB A/c.No.38252, Statement of Account and Xerox copies of the Challans of Marata Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., and Special instructions card relating to the said account standing in the name of accused No.5, cannot be considered as proof of alleged offences said to be committed by him.
125. Further accused No.6 said to be opened the accounts in the name of fictitious persons and encashed the amounts under EPFO Cheques Exs.P7, 10, 14 and 30. In support of the same evidence of PWs.22 to 25 with documents Exs.P41, 46, 50 and 55 relied on in support of Cheques brought by accused No.6 and encashed the 128 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 amount, as per the evidence of PWs.11 and 12. However, their evidence deposed regarding accused No.6 himself had withdrawn the Cheques amount on behalf of respective customers by saying that they are his friends. The Cheque Ex.P7 is bearing No.823308 dated 29.9.2003 for Rs.13,27,150/- issued in the name of Prasad Rao for his account maintained in Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch has been signed by the then APFC, Durgaprasad whose signature questioned and no opinion formed by the Expert. The Cheque Ex.P10 in the name of Deepa Subramanyam already mentioned above said to be misused by accused No.3. The remaining Cheques Ex.P14 bearing No.907829 dtd.7.8.2003 for Rs.3,22,350/- issued in the name of G.Ramesh, Ex.P19 Cheque No.907830 dtd.2.9.2003 for Rs.7,52,350/- issued in the name of Manoj K. and Ex.P30 No.442469 dtd.23.7.2003 for Rs.3,17,730/- issued in the name of Suresh M., all these Cheques were said to be relating to their accounts at Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bengaluru misused by him. However, the evidence of PWs.22 to 25 though deposed about Exs.P41, 50, 46 and 129 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 55 the fictitious accounts said to be opened by accused No.6, it is not corroborated with the evidence of PWs.11 and 12. The withdrawal slips Exs.P35, 36 and 37 will not prove the amounts under those documents encashed by accused No.6 with fraudulent intention. Because if he had not given the said amounts to respective account holders, they should have complained about non-receiving of the different amounts mentioned in the above documents relating to their accounts. However, prosecution relied on the statements given by him under Exs.P101 and 102 before official witness PW25, in which he has admitted opening of accounts and withdrawing the amounts on behalf of customers and others. But, whether the said statements will be considered in proof of alleged offences against him without any corroboration in the evidence of prosecution is to be verified by this Court.
126. The prosecution alleged that the accused No.8 has opened fictitious account and encashed Cheque amount under Ex.P17 by using documents Exs.P125 and 130 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
127. The said Cheque bearing No.907843 dtd.28.7.2003 for Rs.4,70,159/- issued in the name of Dileep M.D. is supported by pay-in-slip and Cheque of ICICI Bank, Malleswaram Branch dtd.13.10.2003 said to be in the handwriting of accused No.8, which was verified by the Expert and given Opinion stating that his specimen writings obtained in Ex.P111 found similar writings in questioned documents noted as Q53 to Q55, Q58, Q60A, Q60B, Q91, and Q130, as mentioned in the Expert Opinion Ex.P138. However, the same is not corroborated with the oral evidence of official witnesses who have deposed regarding the respective account holders encashed the amount under the different Cheques.
127. The important aspect is documents relating to the alleged fictitious accounts were authorized by the officers of the respective Banks only after verifying the documents by the officials from the clerical cadre to Officer level who have authenticated passing of all the documents after comparing the signatures and photographs. However, 131 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 the irregularities found in the several banks were reported to the head office by PW13, being in-charge Senior Manager in Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch, who was also, conducted Preliminary Investigation along with another Officer PW25 - H.R.Mustaq Ahmed. Both of them have found several irregularities in the accounts opened in the names of fictitious persons. According to PW13, one of the said accounts was authorized by him and other accounts were authorised by Supervisor and other Officers in the Bank. He himself has stated about procedure followed in the Bank while opening account of new customers after scrutinizing the documents with address proof and photograph affixed on the Account Opening Form with other documents along with details of SB Account of person who introduces him for opening an account.
128. In connection with the above accounts it is made out in the evidence of PW23, who was looking after administration of the Bank in the same Branch that he has verified the documents collected in the name of Prasad Rao, 132 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Ramesh, Suresh and Manoj and all the accounts opened in their names were authorized by the then Manager, PW13 - Anantha Raman. However the documents relating to those persons if verified, as deposed by official witnesses, it can be made out the fraud committed by the introducers themselves at initial stage of opening accounts in the Bank. Because, the document Ex.P41 relates to Suresh M. said to be introduced by A.Natesan whose SB account number shown as 35753. But, the said Natesan himself had denied the signature put for introducing Suresh M. and said that he has not at all seen him. The Account Opening Form relating to G.Ramesh Ex.P46 relates to the SB A/c.No.37510, who was introduced by one Arokya Swamy and his SB Account number shown as 11563. But on verification, it was made out that the said SB account relates to one Mrs.Lalitha. Further Ex.P55 relates to Prasad Rao for Account No.37712 said to be introduced by Murali bearing SB A/c.No.35108, but the said SB Account number pertains to one Sanjeeva Bhandari. The Account Opening Form of Manoj for the Account No.37689 is not produced before the Court. 133 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 However, Ex.P50 Specimen Signature Card of said Manoj bears his signature also questioned and his account also authorised by the Officer in the Bank. Therefore, for all the above mentioned irregularities the Bank officials including Senior Officers are responsible who are answerable to their higher authority.
129. For the above mentioned reasons, it can be said the accounts opened in the names of above said four persons are not fictitious as the oral and documentary evidence of prosecution itself establish that the Bank Officers including Senior Manager who had conducted preliminary investigation has himself authorized for opening of the accounts in their names without obtaining proper documents relating to their address proof and details of introducers. The said irregularities committed by the Officers in the Bank clearly go to establish negligence on their part while authorizing the documents for opening accounts in their names, who are to be held responsible for encashment of all EPF Cheques related to EPFO. 134 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
130. The important aspect made out from the Reports submitted by PW25 as per Exs.P98 to 100 says about fraudulent transactions occurred in SB A/c.Nos.37689 and 37510 at Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch relates to K.Manoj and G.Ramesh. The evidence of Officials of the same Bank shows that accused No.6 had fed the details of their accounts in the Computer and he himself had received Pass Book and Cheque book for Manoj. The evidence of one of the Clerks worked in the same Branch Smt.K.Mangalam also says about accused No.6 took active part in opening of the account of K.Manoj in the Branch. However, the evidence of other official witnesses placed in proof of identifying handwriting of accused No.6, nothing deposed about his involvement or participation in committing fraud. Because all the four accounts of fictitious persons were authorized by Senior Manager and Officers in the Bank. Therefore, only after getting authentication from the Officers, the details of account number fed in the 135 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Computer not only by accused No.6 but also by other Clerks in the Bank.
131. The Investigation Report Ex.P99 reflects the alleged fraudulent transaction in SB A/c.No.37689 of Manoj and 37510 of G.Ramesh, the details mentioned are relating to Cheque No.907829 dated 7.8.2003 for Rs.3,22,350/-. The said amount was withdrawn from the Account No.37510 of G.Ramesh by loose leaf Cheques dtd. 19.8.2003 for Rs.3 lakh and Rs.21,500/- dtd.21.8.2003. The amount of Rs.7,52,350/- withdrawn from the SB A/c.No.37689 of Manoj K. through Cheque No.907830 dated 2.9.2003. The total amounts were withdrawn on different dates under different Cheques dtd.27.9.2003 Rs.3,50,000/-, on 28.9.2003 Rs.3,25,000/- and on 1.10.2003 Rs.75,000/-. The handwriting of all the Clerks, Cashier and accused No.6 found in the documents relating to Cheque for Rs.7,52,340/-, SB Challan, Credit slip and other forms of both accounts.
136 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
132. Another Investigation Report filed under Ex.P100 is with respect to the transaction of SB A/c.No.37712 relates to Prasad Rao and SB A/c.No.37450 of Suresh M. After verification of documents, PW25 has made out that false information given by introducer mentioning as to SB Account number of another person. The transaction of Prasad Rao has been verified by the Officer Bavikatte and of Suresh M. was verified by Smt.K.Mangalam the Supervisor. The Report further says about amount of Rs.2 lakh, Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.3,50,000/- withdrawn from the account of Prasad Rao through Cheques issued in favour of Satish G. It is also mentioned that all the Cheques were passed by PW13 Sr.Manager, Anantha Raman and Ashokvardhan. The Cheque for Rs.3,17,730/- in the credit of Suresh M. verified by Manjunath, Muneer Ahmad and he himself has passed for payment of withdrawing Rs.2 lakh and Rs.1 lakh and another Officer Bavikatte passed the Cheque for Rs.7,500/-. In the same Report, conclusion was given as the fraudulent transaction found in both the above mentioned accounts is 137 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 a part and parcel of conspiracy, to encash the funds from EPFO, Bommanahally and the irregularities made by the Officers also mentioned in detail. It is relevant to point out that the names of Anantha Raman, Ashokvardhan, Senior Manager Muneer Ahmad, Manjunath has been mentioned in the Report stating that they could have taken caution while passing Cheques of high value in the newly opened four accounts. Therefore, the Report given by PW25 suspecting collusion of outside persons with the employee of Ulsoor Branch, recommended for referring the matter to Police for further investigation, the irregularities made out by the Officers and other Clerks in the Bank also part and parcel of the fraudulent transaction taken in respect of EPF Cheques relating to EPFO, Bommasandra, Bengaluru.
133. It is relevant to point out that the Investigating Officer during the investigation has collected the documents, the Registers, Cheque books, Cheque leaves etc. However, the charge of the same said to be handed over to accused No.1 from the official Poornima as 138 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 on 19.5.2003 as could be seen from copy of charge list Ex.P4 and carbon copy of the same Ex.P32. The important point is to be decided as to whether disputed 25 EPF Cheques Exs.P6, 7, 9 to 30 were given to the custody of accused No.1 or not under the said charge list. However, the doubt regarding the same is not proved by prosecution with reliable and corroborating oral and documentary evidence.
134. The prosecution alleged that accused No.9 has influenced to open an account by Marketing Executive of ICICI Bank and he has forged the EPF Cheque No.907843 dtd.27.8.2003 for Rs.4,70,159/- and credited the amount in his account and proceeds of the same were partly withdrawn by accused Nos.8 and 4 though got issued in their names. It is made out that fictitious SB A/c.No.37689 was opened in the name of accused No.8 in Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch at the instigation of accused No.6, who has alleged to be forged the PF Cheque No.907829 139 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 dtd.2.9.2003 for Rs.7,52,350/- and encashed the said amount to the said account.
135. Further, the deceased accused No.3 alleged to be facilitated accused Nos.1 and 2 in purporting fraud on EPFO by enabling encashment of six forged Cheques through his SB A/c.No.18206 at SBI, Kumaraswamy Layout Branch, The Deepak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Rajajinagar Branch through SB A/c.No.15628, Shree Thyagaraja Co-operative Bank Ltd., through SB A/c.No.648 and SB A/c.No.20082 maintained in Bharath Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jayanagar Branch, Bengaluru. Further, Smt.Deepa Subramaniam was alleged to be allowed by accused No.4 to utilize her Account No.5580769804 maintained in Citi Bank, Bengaluru for encashment of one of the stolen EPF Cheques No.907844 dtd.27.8.2003 for Rs.6,80,386/-. However, subsequently, accused No.4 had utilized proceeds of the said Cheque, which was deposited into her account by another accused No.8 Manjunath through pay-in-slip. The documents placed before the Court reveal that account 140 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Nos.0169050610 and 16901509611 were opened in ICICI Bank, Indiranagar Branch, in the names of Shivaramu and Vijay Kumar. But their addresses furnished in Account Opening Forms could not reveal about their whereabouts subsequent to opening of the accounts in the Bank. However, it is alleged that the accounts opened in their names were utilized by encashing EPF Cheque Nos.907848 dtd.27.8.2003 for Rs.5,92,890/- and Cheque No.443264 dtd.14.8.2003 for Rs.4,12,860/- and proceeds of the same were withdrawn by the account holder by using ATM Cards.
136. The prosecution alleged about fictitious accounts opened in the names of different persons in different Banks by affixing photographs of present accused in the Account Opening Forms. The four fictitious accounts said to be opened in ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru specifically mentioned in the names of Mohan Gowda, Paramesh Kumar, Balasubramanayam and Shankaracharya. The said fictitious accounts were alleged to be opened by Marketing Agent of ICICI Bank due to the 141 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 instigation of accused No.9 said to be his friend. However, the photographs affixed to the Account Opening Forms relates to other individuals who are examined before the Court as prosecution witnesses. It is alleged that the accused No.4 with accused No.7 and accused No.8 withdrawn the proceeds of the fictitious accounts opened in different names of individuals, particularly mentioned the account No.55886576803 opened in the name of Chetan Rao in Citi Bank, affixing his photograph in the Account Opening Form. It is further alleged that the accused No.4 had opened second account in the same Bank in the name of Praveen Rao and used both fictitious accounts to encash the forged EPF Cheques for Rs.7,59,159/- and Rs.9,81,459/-, thereafter proceeds of the same utilized by him.
137. The accused No.5 namely Suresh Panduranga Shinghi has alleged to be opened an account in his name in Maratha Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Belgaum and facilitated encashment and withdrawal of proceeds of a 142 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 missing and forged EPF Cheque No.443428 dtd.21.8.2003 for Rs.2,70,800/-. However, the fictitious accounts said to be opened in the names of K.Manoj, G.Ramesh, M.Suresh and G.Prasad Rao at the instigation of accused No.6 with the request of accused No.1 and others is contrary to the oral and documentary evidence of prosecution which is already discussed above in detail.
138. The prosecution has alleged that accused No.7 has opened fictitious account at ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch and Malleswaram Branch of same Bank, withdrawn an amount of Rs.75,000/- from the fictitious account of Mohangowda of Vijayanagar Branch. Further, two missed EPF Cheques for Rs.3,56,624/- and Rs.3,65,000/- were subsequently found in the account of one Arun in Canara Bank, Chikkabidrukallu Branch, Bengaluru and proceeds of the same withdrawn by him. However, the said Arun found to be a genuine person by CBI and his whereabouts were not made out subsequently. Further alleged about fictitious accounts opened in ICICI Bank, Malleswaram Branch by one 143 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Nagaraju and S.Ramachandra at the instigation of accused No.9 by using photographs of other persons, but the same is not substantiated with supporting oral and documentary evidence.
139. The prosecution has in proof of above mentioned allegations relied on the documents, Cheque book Ex.P5 and Cheques alleged to be forged as signed by the then APFO, Durgaprasad and subsequent APFOs, which were disputed and marked as Exs.P6, 7, 9 to P30. The Cheque book Ex.P5 contained Cheque Nos.823301 to 823400, the relevant entry relating to seven Cheques bearing Nos.823301 to 823307 marked as Ex.P5(a), entry relating to Cheque Nos.823312 to 823314 marked as Ex.P5(b) and entry relating to Cheque No.823315 marked as Ex.P5(c). The contents of different Cheques issued for different amounts in the name of accused No.3, Prasadrao, Vijaykumar, Deepa Subramanyam and other different persons for different accounts were marked as Exs.P6, 7, 9 to P30. The questioned writings and signatures of the then 144 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 APFO, Durgaprasad and others referred for Expert Opinion for comparison of admitted writings and signatures. It is relevant to point out that the Cheques bearing Nos.823383 and 433515 dtd.29.7.2003 and 14.7.2003 issued in the name of accused No.3 for an amount of Rs.2,58,750/- and Rs.3,09,007/-, another Cheque issued in his name for Rs.37,500/- is identified under Ex.P9. Further, the Cheque for Rs.4,12,860/- issued in the name of Vijay Kumar marked as Ex.P13 also contained disputed writings. The Cheque for Rs.3,22,350/- issued as per Ex.P14 in the name of G.Ramesh who is said to be a fictitious person. Further, the Cheque dtd.17.8.2003 for Rs.3,48,950/- issued as per Ex.P15 in favour of accused No.2 Ravindra Poojari and another Cheque dated 21.8.2003 issued for Rs.2,70,800/- in favour of S.Suresh, who is alleged as accused No.5. Further, the Cheque for Rs.4,70,159/- issued in favour of Dilip M.B. as per Ex.P17 and Cheque for Rs.7,31,350/- issued in favour of accused No.3 Narayan K.P. under Ex.P18. The Cheque for Rs.7,52,350/- issued in favour of Manoj K. and another Cheque for Rs.4,87,350/- in favour of 145 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 accused No.2 Ravindra Poojari marked as Exs.P18 and 20 respectively. The Cheques Exs.P21 to 30 said to be signed by APFC are issued in favour of Shivaramu, Mohangowda, Paramesh Kumar, Shankaracharya, Balasubramanyam, Chetan Rao, Praveen Rao, Arun and Suresh M. for different amounts. The questioned writings in all the disputed Cheques Exs.P6, 7, 9 to 30 are marked by indicating the letter 'Q' referred for Expert examination.
140. The documents marked through official witnesses under Exs.P38 to 41 are Account Opening Forms pertaining to various accounts shown in the names of Balasubramanyam, Shankaracharya, Paramesh and Suresh M. respectively. The writings including signatures of introducers in those documents also disputed and referred for Expert opinion. The signature of introducer for the accounts of Suresh M.and G.Ramesh under Ex.P46 bears signature of one Arogya Swamy also disputed apart from Specimen Signature Card relating to him, in whose account an amount of Rs.3,22,350/- shown in Pay-in-slip Ex.P49. 146 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Further, the Account No.37689 opened in the name of accused No.8 Manjunath alleged to be at the instance of accused No.6 as per the documents Exs.P50 to 54. The oral evidence of prosecution produced before the Court shows that accused No.6 himself had acknowledged for receiving Cheque book on his behalf as per Ex.P51 and received the payment in Cash as per the Pay-in-slip Ex.P52 shown in the name of Manoj K. for Rs.7,52,340/-. The amount of Rs.3,25,000/- shown in Cheque issued by Manoj in favour of one Rajesh M. as per Ex.P53 and amount of Rs.75,000/- shown in Ex.P54 issued by said Manoj in favour of said Rajesh M. However, the Account Opening Form of one Prasad Rao also disputed marked as Ex.P55. The Cheques Exs.P58 to 60 issued in favour of Satish G. on different dates for Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.3,50,000/- respectively. However, in Pay-in-slip Ex.P61, amount of Rs.13,27,150/- is shown, but no date is mentioned. The SB Account opened in the name of Mohan Gowda as per Ex.P63 and Application Form to issue DD for Rs.5,40,000/- favouring him marked as Ex.P64. 147 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
141. The official witnesses identified the Cheques Exs.P65 and 66 issued in the name of Vikas for Rs.25,000/- and Rs.75,000/- and another Cheque in the name of Lokesh for Rs.75,000/- as per Ex.P67 and Cheque for Rs.7,80,586/- in favour of Balasubramanyam under Ex.P68. However, the Cheques Ex.P69 and Ex.P70 are issued in favour of Viaks for Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-. The Cheques Exs.P72 and 73 are issued in his name for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively apart from Cheque issued for Rs.8,20,000/- in favour of one Shankaracharya as per Ex.P71. Further, Ex.P74 is the Application Form for issuance of Banker's Cheque for Rs.4,60,989/- favouring Paramesh Kumar is identified along with another Cheque issued in the name of Vikas and Manju marked as Exs.P75 to 79.
142. The issuance of Cheques in favour of above mentioned persons has been shown in the Statement of Accounts of their respective accounts marked under 148 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Exs.P80 to 83. The account opened in the name of one Arun and the documents relating to him are identified by the official witnesses marked under Exs.P84 to 89. Those documents are Pay-in-slips for Rs.3,56,624/-, Rs.36,500/- and Self-cheque for Rs.2,90,000/-. Further, Ex.P91 relating to said Arun shown the amount of Rs.3,000/- withdrawn through Self-cheque. The Account Opening Form given by N.Krishna Prasad as per Ex.P92 supported with certified copy of Statement of Account under Ex.P94. The Pay-in- slip issued in the name of N.K.Prasad for Rs.36,650/- also questioned and referred for Expert Opinion. Further, the documents relating to account of one Suresh M. identified under Exs.P96 and 97, who was alleged to be submitted Form-60 in the form of Declaration to open S.B.Account in the Bank and his specimen signature also obtained.
143. However, the documents produced before the Court establish that the deceased accused No.3 had also opened SB Account No.20082 as per Ex.P103 supported by his Specimen Signature Card marked as Ex.P104. The 149 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 specimen signature card of introducer N.C.Narayana Gowda marked under Ex.P105. The document Ex.P106 Pay-in-slip dated 4.9.2003 shows the amount of Rs.7,31,350/- credited to the account of accused No.3. Further, the withdrawal slip Ex.P107 shows another amount of Rs.2,10,000/- shown in the name of accused No.3 who was the account holder. Likewise, the withdrawal slip Ex.P108 also shows name of accused No.3 as an account holder has withdrawn amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 7.9.2003. The Statement of Account pertaining to account of accused No.3 marked as Ex.P109, the documents Exs.P116 to 119 entered in his name contains the withdrawal form of M/s.Deepak Sahakari Bank Ltd. and SB Credit slip of the same Bank.
144. The Credit Vouchers relating to Shree Thyagaraja Co-operative Bank Ltd., also questioned which are in the name of accused No.3 for different amounts credited to his S.B. Account No.648 as per Exs.P131 to 134. The specimen signature card of accused No.3 pertaining to said account marked as Ex.P158 and the related documents 150 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 contained his specimen signatures, Challans marked as Exs.P159 to 161. Further, his Specimen Signature Card relating to A/c.No.15628 at Deepak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Bengaluru and Challans related to the said Bank along with Statement of Account of the same Account marked as Exs.P162 to 165. His specimen signatures found in Ex.P113 referred for Expert and the Opinion given on disputed writings Q138 to Q172 are similar to the specimen signatures shown under S 55/1 to S 78/1, S 78/2, S 79/1 to S 96/1.
145. The prosecution has relied on Statement of Account pertaining to EPF Account No. 01100007605 which contained different vouchers marked under Exs.P140(a) to (w) for encashment of huge amount on different dates. Other Statements of Account pertaining to EPF Account Nos. 01100007606 and 01100007607 marked as Exs.P141 and 142 shows entries Exs.P142(a) and (b) relates to encashment of amount of Rs.37,500/- and Rs.36,500/- by accused No.3. However, the Statement of Account 151 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 pertaining to M.B.Dilip under Ex.P144 shows different entries made regarding encashment of amount by him under different cheques. The questioned writings in the above documents also referred for Expert Opinion. The specimen signature of accused No.3 obtained in 42 sheets marked as Ex.P113 shown as S 55/1 to S78/1, S78/2 and S79/1 to S96/1 found to be similar in the questioned writings marked as Q138 to Q172.
146. It is true, the Opinion given by Expert on admitted and disputed writings and signatures of accused No.2 found in different documents referred for examination. His specimen writings and signatures in Exs.P120 to 123 shown as Q173 to 179 were examined by the Expert PW28, after comparing his writings in Ex.P112 has opined that they are similar to the questioned writings Q173 to Q179. The same has been mentioned in the Supplementary Opinion with reasons as per Ex.P138 and 138(c). He has clearly explained in the said Opinion as to the specimen writings and signatures of accused No.2 in all the 152 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 documents referred for examination found similar in the writings shown as S1/1 to S25/1 in Ex.P112 and categorically stated that accused No.2 himself had written the questioned writings at Q173 to Q179.
147. But the handwriting Expert has not given any Opinion on the disputed documents relating to Dileep M.B. marked as Exs.P124 to 127. The Cheques of ICICI Bank dtd.13.10.2003 said to be issued by said Dileep M.B. to Vishal for Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as per Exs.P128 and 129 also contained questioned writings shown as Q61 to Q64, on which also no Opinion formed by GEQD.
148. The evidence of PW32 shows that as a Inspector of Police and Dy.S.P. CBI, during investigation he has collected the documents relating to accounts opened in the names of Vijay Kumar, Shivaramu, Praveen Rao, Chetan Rao and Deepa Subramanyam marked as Exs.P152 to 157. He has also deposed about four fictitious accounts standing in the names of Manoj K., Prasad Rao, M.Suresh 153 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 and G.Ramesh as per the documents Exs.P41 to 62 and the specimen signatures and handwritings of accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 8 and one K.Anand referred for GEQD for examination as mentioned in the letter Ex.P175. However, the Expert Opinion given under Ex.P138 is only on some of the documents contained specimen writings and signatures of accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 8. The same are shown at Annexure-II of Ex.P175 as Q53, Q54, Q55, Q58, Q60A, Q60B, Q91 and Q130, at Sl.Nos.26, 27, 28, 38 and 52, Q138 to Q172 shown at Sl.Nos.56 to 70, Q173 to 179 at Sl.Nos.71 and 72, Q216, Q218 and Q221 shown at Sl.Nos.99, 100 and 102. He being an Expert after examination of other disputed writings shown in the Annexure-II was not able to form any opinion on the Questioned documents alleged to be contained specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Nos.4, 6 and 7.
149. The allegation made against accused No.4 that he had opened an account in the name of Chetan Rao in Citi Bank by affixing his photograph in the Account Opening 154 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Form and had opened a second account in the same Bank in the name of Praveen Rao and used both the fictitious accounts to encash forged EPF Cheque Nos.438189 dtd.21.8.2003 for Rs.7,59,159/- and Cheque No.438190 for Rs.9,81,459/- respectively and utilized the proceeds of the same. It is also alleged that he had used the account of Deepa Subramanyam to enable for the encashment of proceeds of the third stolen and fabricated EPF Cheque No.907844 dtd.27.8.2003 by submitting the copies of DL and Electricity Bill to open the accounts. The documents Exs.P35 to 37 discloses the above-said two Cheques amounts were shown in the deposit slips questioned and shown as Q129 to Q131 and the documents relating to Praveen Rao and Chetan Rao also contained questioned writings shown at Q132 to Q136, Q137 and Q133 and Q135 respectively. But the prosecution has not placed any corroborating evidence in support of the said allegation made against accused No.4 relating to the fictitious accounts opened in the name of above-mentioned persons 155 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 and utilized the proceeds of alleged forged EPF Cheques amount subsequently.
150. Further, the prosecution has also relied on the evidence of PW17 who had deposed about accused No.4 and 9 who were said to be opened an account, but he is not aware of said account opened by affixing his photograph. However, the said witness has identified accused No.9 and his photograph affixed in the Account Opening Form relates to ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Bank and clearly stated about information given by accused No.9 that the said account had been opened for one Vishal Kohli, who is present accused No.4. But PW17 was not able to identify accused No.4 or one Vivek, in whose name that account has been opened through accused No.9. Therefore, this Court is not able to make out any reliable proof against accused Nos.4 and 9 as no corroboration in the evidence of PW17 to prove the allegation made against them. Moreover, the Investigating Officer has not enquired with PW17 about accused No.4 or Vivek, therefore it is not able to make out 156 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 how the account was opened by accused Nos.4 and 9 in the name of PW17 by misusing his photograph.
151. Further PW36 being an executive of Millennium Marketing Service has also not identified accused No.4 in whose favour Welcome kits were handed over by him after taking Rs.2,500/- for each account. However, he has admitted and stated before the Court that accused No.4 was not known to him personally and also not aware of the transactions made by him after opening of four accounts in the Bank.
152. It is already pointed out that as per the charge sheet the allegation made against accused No.5 is that he had also opened an SB A/c.No.38252 in Marata Co- operative Urban Bank Ltd., Belgaum as per the covering letter dtd.20.8.2005 marked as Ex.P166 and the Statement of Account relating to said account and five Xerox copies of Challan marked as Exs.P167 to 172, the Statement of Account pertaining to said SB Account marked as Ex.P173 157 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 shows an entry made for being an amount of Rs.2,70,800/- withdrawn by him as per Ex.P173(a). However, the said amount covered under the Cheque No.443428 of EPFO, Bengaluru in the name of payee S.Suresh entered in the outward BC Register of Marata Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Main Branch, Belgaum, marked as Ex.P167 and 167(a). The Xerox copy of Special Instruction Card also issued in the name of S.Suresh as per Ex.P174 bears his signatures. But the name of accused No.5 is shown in the charge sheet as Suresh Pandurang Shinghi, whereas the address of S.Suresh mentioned in the Statement of Account Ex.P173 is different from the address of accused No.5 shown in the charge sheet. There is also difference between the signatures of accused No.5 in the plea, when compared to signature of S.Suresh found in Ex.P174. The important aspect is the Investigating Officer has not verified and clarified about said S.Suresh, when the name of accused No.5 differently shown in the charge sheet. It is also made out that the accused No.5 Suresh Pandurang Shinghi, was also taken for police custody by the 158 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Investigating Officer for three days at initial stage in connection with above said EPF Cheque, which was alleged to be stolen by him. However, the witness PW33 who worked as Branch Manager and in-charge General Manager of Marata Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Belgaum is also not identified the accused No.5 before the Court. He has clearly admitted that the documents relating to the above mentioned accounts said to be opened by accused No.5 are in the name of S.Suresh, who himself had withdrawn the amount of Rs.2,70,800/- drawn on UTI Bank by APFC, Bengaluru received by Bank through Cheque dtd.29.8.2003 on different dates as per the entry made in the Statement of Account Ex.P173. PW33 has clearly admitted that the above accounts were not opened by accused No.5 in the Bank in his presence.
153. The evidence of PWs.11, 12, 13, 22 and 24 deposed in support of the documents and they have identified the handwriting of accused No.6 in the documents Exs.P30, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 55, 56, 95 and 96. The 159 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 witness PW11 as a Cashier identified the accused No.6 being his colleague in the Bank, who himself got the encashment of amounts of Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.21,500/- relates to SB A/c.No.37510 of G.Ramesh and amount of Rs.3,50,000/- of SB A/c.No.37689 of Manoj K. through different withdrawal slips Exs.P35 and 36 and a Cheque Ex.P37. PW11 has specifically stated that accused No.6 himself got encashed the amounts in their names on the information that he is aware of them and they are known persons to him. Further, the witness PW12 also identified the accused No.6 who was said to be requested him to pass the Cheque of his friend, therefore, he had passed the withdrawal form Ex.P35 for Rs.3 lakhs. PW13 was in- charge Senior Manager in the Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch has identified the handwriting of accused No.6 in the documents Ex.P30, Cheque for Rs.3,17,730/- and pay-in- slips Exs.P48 and 49. Further he has stated about the account No.37689 was opened by accused No.6 in the name of Manoj as per Ex.P50 and has collected the Cheque book in respect of the said account from the official 160 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Shashikala by acknowledging as per Ex.P51. The account No.37712 of Prasad Rao was also opened by him as per Ex.P55 which was verified by Officer Bavikatte and collected the cheque book pertaining to the said account. He has stated the details of Ex.P61 pay-in-slip for a sum of Rs.13,27,150/-, fed into the system by accused No.6. It is also made out that in connection with irregularities found in misusing EPF Cheques in the Bank, for which Internal Investigation was done and disciplinary action was taken against accused No.6 and he was punished. Though he has stated earlier that accused No.6 has encashed the amount under the above withdrawal slips and Cheque, has admitted in the cross-examination that the said withdrawal slips were favouring self and the different amounts under those documents withdrawn by the respective account holders. Therefore, the said admission go to establish that the accused No.6 as a public servant has not involved in alleged Criminal Conspiracy and misuse of alleged EPF Cheques as well as misappropriation of different Cheque amounts.
161 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
154. Further, PW22 also identified accused No.6 and stated that he has put signature as a introducer to the Account Opening Form Ex.P41, of a person not known to him on the say of accused No.6 that he was his friend and his signature is identified as Ex.P41(d). PW23 has identified the said document relates to one Suresh M. of A/c.No.37450 and also other account numbers opened in the names of Prasad Rao, Sanjeev Bhandari, G.Ramesh and all the said accounts were authorized by the then Manager
- Anantharaman. Further, PW24 being a Clerk in the same Branch of Canara Bank worked with accused No.6 has identified his handwriting in Exs.P41, 42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 35, 52, 95, 60 and 96.
155. The important aspect is the disputed writings found in the above documents said to be in the handwriting of accused No.6 has been identified by the witnesses are marked Exs.P30, 35, 36, 41, 41(c), 42, 42(a), 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 95 and 96. The disputed 162 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 writings shown as Q45, Q46, Q209, Q210, Q180, Q181, Q182, Q184, Q185, Q188, Q202, Q203, Q201, Q207, Q208, Q206, Q212 to Q214, Q215, Q189, Q190, Q191, Q192, Q194, Q195, Q198, Q211 and Q183 were referred for Expert examination and his Opinion. However, PW28 as an Expert of examining the questioned documents, after examination of the above questioned documents with others has clearly stated that it was not possible to give opinion on the handwriting of accused No.6 found in above mentioned documents. Therefore, he has not stated anything about specimen writings and signatures of accused No.6 in the Supplementary Opinion given under Ex.P138.
156. Though the prosecution alleged about accused No.7 H.Lokesh acted in connivance with accused Nos.4 and 8 in opening of fictitious accounts in ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch and Malleswaram Branch, Bengaluru, respectively and withdrawn the amount of Rs.75,000/- from the fictitious account of Mohan Gowda from ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch and relied on the evidence of PW18, 163 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 nothing placed in proof of the said allegation. The evidence deposed by him shows Ex.P67 the Cheque No.509162 issued for Rs.75,000/- in the name of accused No.7 Lokesh Cash was paid to him on 10.10.2003. The writings in the said document were disputed and shown as Q126 and Q127, on which, no Opinion was able to form by the Expert after comparing the specimen handwriting and signature of accused No.7. Except the said evidence, no other materials available before the Court to come to conclusion that he had helped the accused Nos.4 and 8 to open the alleged fictitious accounts in the respective Banks.
157. The allegation made against accused No.8 is also with respect to his participation in opening fictitious accounts in ICICI Bank through accused No.4 and one of the fraudulent EPF Cheques was deposited by him in the fictitious account of Dileep M.B. at ICICI Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bengaluru and received proceeds of the said Cheque. It is also alleged that he had also forged withdrawal forms and Cheques prepared by himself in his 164 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 own handwriting by affixing his signatures, withdrawn the amount from the accounts relating to Dileep M.B. and Paramesh Kumar. In proof of the said allegation, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW18 who has deposed about Cheque Ex.P74 dated 7.10.2003 issued for Rs.4,60,989/- favouring Paramesh Kumar, in which the disputed writings shown as Q83, Q84 and Q85. Further, PW28 has not able to form any Opinion regarding disputed writings found in Account Opening Form Ex.P124, Credit voucher and Cheques prepared as per Exs.P125 to 128 shown at Q53 to Q60, Q60(a) and Q60(b) and he was not able to say in whose handwriting those documents were written. Though PW29 as a Manager of ICICI Bank identified the documents Exs.P125 to 129, pay slips and four Cheques relating to Dileep M.B., said to be opened the account by enclosing copies of Driving Licence and Electricity Bill as per Exs.P124 (a) and (b), not deposed any evidence against accused No.8. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.18 and 29 will not prove the allegation made against accused No.8 relating to EPF Cheques issued fraudulently 165 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 and he himself prepared those Cheques and received the proceeds of the same from the accounts of Dileep M.B. and Paramesh Kumar. The said allegation is not substantiated by any supporting oral and documentary evidence as there is no corroboration in the evidence of PWs.18 and 29. It is true, the Opinion given by Expert, no doubt, establish that the specimen writings of accused No.8 found in Ex.P111 at S181 to S221 are similar to writings shown as Q53, Q54, Q55, Q58, Q60(a), Q60(b), Q91 and Q130. However, the proof of handwriting of accused No.8 in various documents will not prove the allegation made against him as to proceeds of the above said Cheques were utilized by him through the fictitious accounts.
158. The allegation made against accused No.9 that he had opened five fictitious accounts in ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch and Malleswaram Branch in the names of G.Nagaraju and S.Ramachandra and had facilitated impersonation of the account holders by using photographs of other persons and forged documents. However, it is 166 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 already discussed above the oral and documentary evidence placed against accused No.9, who was alleged to be misused the photograph of PW17 along with accused No.4, which is not supported by any corroborative oral and documentary evidence. The alleged impersonation by accused No.9 with accused No.4 is not made out by the Expert who has examined the Questioned writings of accused No.9 in the disputed documents. Because, PW18 being Branch Manager of ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch has clearly spoken about verification of KYC documents in the Bank at the time of opening of account and not explained how the photograph of PW17 was collected by accused No.9 and misused it. Moreover, PW17 himself has deposed that he was not aware that how his photograph was used by both accused Nos.4 and 9 for opening an account in the Bank.
159. The learned Counsel for accused No.1 has submitted regarding non-obtaining Sanction to prosecute against him, in view of Prevention of Corruption 167 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 (Amendment) Act 2018, it is necessary to prosecute against the public servants, as observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Revision Petition No.824/2015 dtd.8.8.2018.
160. However, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that accused No.1 was a public servant working as UDC at EPFO, Bommasandra, Bengaluru and accused No.6 was working as a Clerk at Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch and both of them were dismissed from service before filing charge sheet. Therefore, as Section 19(1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 is not amended, Sanction is not necessary to prosecute against accused Nos.1 and 6.
The said Section reads as, 19 (a)-----
(b)-----
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. 168 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
Therefore, in view of the same as Clause-C which is not amended is relates to any other public servant, refers to accused No.1, for whom the authority competent to remove him from office, Sanction is not necessary.
161. Further, learned Public Prosecutor pointed out Sections 6 and 6A of General Clauses Act, 1897,which is very important to be taken into consideration, reads as follows:
6. Effect of repeal. - Where this Act, or any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not-
6(A) Repeal of Act making textual amendment in Act or Regulation - Where any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act repeals any enactment by which the text of any (Central Act) or Regulation was amended by the express omission, insertion or substitution of any matter, then, unless a different intention 169 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 appears, the repeal shall not affect the continuance of any such amendment made by the enactment so repeated and in operation at the time of such repeal.
162. The observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of L.Narayana Swamy Vs. State of Karnataka and Others in Criminal Appeal No.721/2016 decided on 6.9.2016 also relied reads as, "Sanction was not needed as the Appellants, at the time of taking cognizance, were not holding the post which is alleged to have been misused."
163. The meaning of Substitution as pointed out by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Govardhan M. Vs. The State of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.38144/2011 connected with W.P. No.60233/2011 and W.P. No.24173-24174/2012 decided on 12.9.2012, wherein observed as "When the legislature expressly has made these rules prospective in nature, the Court by way 170 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 of interpretive process ignoring the legislative intention cannot make it retrospective either on humanitarian consideration or on any consideration as was done by the Tribunal. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court is illegal."
164. The prosecution has alleged the accused Nos.1 to 9 dishonestly and fraudulently entered into Criminal Conspiracy with each other and accused No.1 had facilitated the above-mentioned 25 EPF Cheques to accused Nos.2 to 8 and others made them to deposit the forged Cheques in genuine Bank accounts and also fictitious accounts opened in the Banks as they were facilitated by accused No.6 being Clerk in Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch and accused No.9 working at ICICI Bank at Vijayanagar and Malleswaram Branch, Bengaluru, thereafter the forged Cheques proceeds were withdrawn by accused Nos.2 to 8 and others which resulted in the financial loss of Rs.1,21,38,049/- to EPFO. In order to prove the said offences, the prosecution must establish that accused No.1 being public servant in the 171 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 capacity of UDC who was in custody of disputed 25 EPF Cheques which were later forged by him and issued in the names of accused thereafter through genuine accounts and fictitious accounts opened at the instigation of accused No.6 and accused No9 who were working in different Banks, by reliable and corroborative evidence. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish all the offences beyond reasonable doubts by supporting direct or circumstantial evidence.
165. The offences alleged against accused No.1, 2, 4 to 7 and 9 are punishable under Sections 120B read with 419, 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, to prove the said offences, the ingredients of each offence shall be produced by prosecution are as follows:
For the offence under Section 120B Indian Penal Code Prosecution must prove:
(i) That the accused agreed to do or caused to be done an act, 172 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
(ii) That such act was illegal or was to be done by illegal means,
(iii) That some overt act was done by one of the accused in pursuance of the agreement.
The object of the agreement is to do an unlawful act, and not to do a lawful act by unlawful means, it is sufficient to specify the unlawful object without specifying the means adopted by all or any of the conspirators to gain that object.
It is not sufficient to convict a person for Criminal Conspiracy merely to prove that he had been associating with the other accused at a certain place and on his arrest endeavored to extricate himself from being accused of something connected with the conspiracy, and the prosecution cannot complete what is necessary in order to show that he was a person who connected with others by proving that he was friendly with the other accused and chain of link between all the accused by each event taken during the alleged period.
However, the above required ingredients for Criminal Conspiracy are not produced by prosecution. 173 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
166. For the offence under Section 419 Indian Penal Code, Charge should be framed in relation to the person cheated.
It is true, the learned Counsel for accused No.4 to 7 and 9 submitted that the substantial Charge is not framed by this Court in respect of impersonation, therefore, the Charge framed against accused Nos.2 to 5 and accused Nos.7 to 9 who were said to be pretended as genuine account holders of Provident Fund Account in the Organization and cheated the Organization by impersonation and received the Cheques fraudulently, thereafter encashed subsequently.
167. But the evidence of prosecution placed regarding alleged fictitious accounts opened in the names of different persons, only after the documents produced by them were accepted and authorized by the Senior Officers in the Bank. Therefore, in absence of corroboration in the evidence it cannot be said that accused Nos.7 to 9 174 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 pretended genuine account holders of Provident Fund Account in view of Criminal Conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 5. Moreover, the prosecution has not placed the documents relating to genuine PF account holders, in spite of that Cheques Exs.P6, 7, 9 to 30 were issued in the names of accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 8 and different persons, which were subsequently passed by the concerned Cashier and payments made through the respective accounts opened in the Bank, as there was no suspicion regarding handwriting and signatures of the then APFC and subsequent officers found in those disputed Cheques. Moreover, in absence of proof relating to admitted signatures of then APFC, Durgaprasad and PW1, as no Opinion given on the disputed signatures found in the said Cheques, it is difficult for the Court to come to conclusion that who has forged signatures in those Cheques. Therefore, even in the absence of substantial Charge, the entire Charge reveals about alleged impersonation by the accused Nos.2 to 9, which is not corroborated by any substantial materials.
175 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
168. For the offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code, There must be evidence of mens rea on the part of the accused that the act was deliberate and intentional. The prosecution must prove that the act was deliberate and intentional, systematic series of frauds and the dishonest fraudulent intention to be made out with corroboration.
169. For the offence under Section 468 Indian Penal Code, the ingredients must be proved by prosecution are:
(i) That the accused has committed forgery,
(ii) That he did so with an intention that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating.176 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
However, in proof of forgery, the Opinion given by Hand Writing Expert is required to be proved in accordance with law.
170. For the offence under Section 471 Indian Penal Code the ingredients required to be proved are:
(i) That the document was forged one
(ii) The accused person used such
document fraudulently and
dishonestly
(iii) That the accused used the document in question as genuine one.
(iv) That the accused knew or had reason
to believe that it was a forged
document.
The proof for the said offence required is separate
evidence of user of each document and forgery of each document, when there is no evidence to show that accused knew the Cheque to be forged and then used it, no offence under Section 471 Indian Penal Code.
177 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
171. For the offence under Section 13(2) read with S.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
(a)-----
(b)-----
(c)-----
(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 person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or
(e)-----
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 178 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
172. The evidence of prosecution is silent about dishonest and fraudulent intention of use of any property which has been misappropriated as a public servant by corrupt or illegal means as well as pecuniary advantage obtained for himself or for any others without any public interest. There is no corroboration in the evidence of officials of EPFO against accused No.1 who was working as Upper Division Clerk and evidence of Bank officials does not say anything about misuse of official power by accused No.6 who was a Clerk in the Bank, subsequently both of them misappropriate the disputed Cheques amounts for their own use. Therefore, in absence of important proof of obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest by both of them, the question of criminal misconduct committed by them does not arise for consideration.
173. However, the Expert Opinion and the evidence of handwriting Expert, without any corroboration in the evidence of other official and independent witnesses, 179 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 prosecution cannot depend solely on the Expert Opinion in proof of the alleged offences under Sections 468, 420 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. Moreover, it is already pointed out that PW28 being a GEQD was able to give Opinion only on some of the specimen writings and disputed writings of accused Nos.1, 2 and deceased accused Nos.3 and 8, only in Exs.P110, 112, 113 and 114 respectively. All the disputed and admitted writings of accused Nos.1 to 9 though referred, he could be able to form any Opinion on those writings, which are certainly goes against the case of prosecution for the offences of forgery and misuse of forged documents for their wrongful gain.
174. The prosecution has failed to produce the important proof regarding who are all EPF subscribers of EPFO, therefore, it cannot be alleged that accused Nos.2 to 5, 7 to 9 though they are not members or subscribers of EPF, have fraudulently and dishonestly withdrawn the Cheques got issued in their names and also in the names of alleged fictitious persons. Because the Cheques relating 180 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 to EPFO cannot be issued in the names of strangers who are not EPF subscribers, that too, without verification of relevant documents relating to the names and other details of EPFO subscribers. The earlier complaints given under Exs.P1 and 2 and subsequently given in the year 2014 as per Ex.P31 itself creates doubts regarding who are all the real offenders committed the forgery and fraudulently misused the EPF Cheques by opening fictitious accounts in the various banks.
175. It is true, accused No.1 said to be given possession of the Cheque books and blank Cheque leaves mentioned in the Charge list Ex.P4, which has been strongly objected by him, therefore, prosecution ought to have placed reliable proof regarding forgery of Cheques by accused No.1 during the said period from 13.5.2003 to 1.10.2003. No doubt, the evidence of PW10 shows that she has handed over charge of Cheque books and Cheque leaves including the keys of almirah, in which Cheque books were usually kept as they are security documents to 181 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 accused No.1. But no explanation offered by prosecution as to how those Cheques were signed by the then APFC and subsequent officer which were later passed by the bank officials without rising any objection, that too, after verification of specimen writings and signatures in the Specimen Card.
176. Further, there is no evidence regarding when actually the accused No.1 has met other accused persons, where and in what manner all of them hatched a plan for doing illegal act as alleged by prosecution. It is true, there cannot be any direct evidence for Criminal Conspiracy, which can be made out only through circumstantial evidence, but no such evidence placed before the court. Therefore, the alleged Criminal Conspiracy between accused Nos.1 to 9 to do an illegal act cannot be accepted.
177. However, there are some irregularities certainly have been taken while issuing EPF Cheques in the Office of EPFO and at the time of passing those Cheques for 182 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 encashment and verifying the documents by officers while authorizing for opening new accounts in the Bank. However, if any Cheques handed over to accused No.1 mentioned in the charge list were misused subsequently, then the higher authority of EPFO can very well take suitable and appropriate action against him, if he found negligent or not diligent while dealing with those Cheques. Likewise, if any negligence on the part of Bank Officials or officers while performing their duties in accordance with Manual maintained in the Bank, then certainly their higher authority can proceed against them for taking suitable action for their illegal acts. The Court will not curtail the powers given to the higher authorities of EPFO and various Banks to follow the procedure and take proper and appropriate action against the officials who have committed the mistakes and who were not due diligent while performing their official duties in the respective offices.
178. The prosecution has not produced any documents to show that accused Nos.1 and 6 being public 183 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 servants, after fraudulent and dishonest intention made other accused and fictitious persons to encash the EPF Cheques and for utilization of said amount, for their personal use. Because the alleged accounts said to be opened in the names of fictitious persons were authorized by PW13 - T.S.Anantha Raman, who was the in-charge Senior Manager in Canara Bank, Ulsoor Branch during the relevant point of time. Apart from all these aspects, the prosecution has not at all produced any documents in proof of the disputed 25 EPF Cheques amounts either deposited to the accounts of accused No.1 or accused No.6 and subsequently both of them misused the amount for their personal use.
179. Therefore, after detail perusal of the oral and documentary evidence with dictum of law rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in many of the rulings discussed above, as no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for the alleged offences committed by accused 184 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7 and 9 punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 419, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, since case abated against accused Nos.3 and 8 as they deceased subsequently, I am of the opinion that prosecution has utterly failed to prove the said offences beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, I answer point Nos.1 to 5 in the negative.
180. Point No.6:- For the above discussed reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
: ORDER :
Acting Under Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, accused No.1 -
J.P.Narasimha Murthy, accused No.2 - Ravindra Poojari, accused No.4 - Vishal Kohli, accused No.5 - Suresh Pandurang Shinghi, accused No.6 - David Sagairaj, accused No.7 - Lokesh H. and accused No.9
- R.Raju are hereby acquitted for the offences 185 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 punishable under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Case against accused Nos.3 -
K.P.Narayanan @ N.K.Prasad and 8 -
Manjunath R. stands abated since they
reported to be dead subsequently.
The bail bonds executed by accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7 and 9 under Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. shall be in force, till the completion of Appeal period.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court today on 19th day of December, 2018.) (S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) XLVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Bengaluru.
Holding Concurrent Charge of XLVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.186 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution :-
P.W.1 K.Muthuselvan C.W.1
P.W.2 D.Samual John C.W.2
P.W.3 N.A.Nair C.W.3
P.W.4 M.Rajgopal C.W.4
P.W.5 Jayashree Nair C.W.6
P.W.6 Srikumar P. C.W.7
P.W.7 T.N.Shivakumar C.W.8
P.W.8 Muneer Ahmed A.M. C.W.11
P.W.9 Narasimha Holla C.W.12
P.W.10 Smt.Poornima R. C.W.9
P.W.11 E.Maben C.W.16
P.W.12 Mariswamy C.W.13
P.W.13 T.S.Anantharaman C.W.15
P.W.14 Naveen Kumar Gayakwad C.W.19
P.W.15 Praveen K.C. C.W.17
P.W.16 Lola Krishna C.W.20
P.W.17 T.Srinivasa C.W.23
P.W.18 Nikhilesh Melkote C.W.25
P.W.19 Beeralingaiah C.W.24
P.W.20 Muniraju C.W.28
P.W.21 Ramanuja Kulkarni C.W.33
187 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
P.W.22 A.Nateshan C.W.36
P.W.23 P.Hanumappa C.W.37
P.W.24 Smt.K.Mangalam C.W.40
P.W.25 H.R.Mustaq Ahmed C.W.38
P.W.26 S.Chandrashekar C.W.29
P.W.27 C.Sadanand C.W.42
P.W.28 Y.Surya Prasad C.W.45
P.W.29 T.Prasad C.W.34
P.W.30 Ramachandra H.Gaddad C.W.10
P.W.31 Rangaswamy C.W.44
P.W.32 Y.Harikumar C.W.41
P.W.33 Vinayaka Kashinath Jadav Addl.
Witness
P.W.34 Manoj Kumar Addl.
Witness
P.W.35 B.Suresh Kumar Addl.
Witness
P.W.36 G.Nagaraj C.W.18
P.W.37 Damodhar P. C.W.31
P.W.38 S.Venugopal Addl.
Witness
2. List of witnesses examined for the accused :-
- NONE -188 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
3. List of documents exhibited for the prosecution :-
Ex.P.1 Attested Copy of the Complaint dated 24.10.2003.
Ex.P.2 Complaint dated 21.11.03 given by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner/O.I.C. Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.1.
Ex.P.3 Stock Register
Ex.P.3(a) Entry in Page-49 at Sl.No.45 relating to
Ex.P.5.
Ex.P.3(b) Entry in Page-50 at Sl.No.40 relating to
Ex.P.8
Ex.P.3(c) Entry in Page-26 relating to 50 Cheque
Leaves bearing Nos.907801 to 907850.
Ex.P.3(d) Entry dated 3.4.03 at Page-63.
Ex.P.3(e) Entry dated 3.4.03 at Page-62.
Ex.P.3(f) Entry dated 18.7.03 at Page-64.
Ex.P.3(g) Entry at Page-63.
Ex.P.3(h) Entry at Page-64.
Ex.P.4 Photo Copy of the Charge List handed over by
Smt.Poornima to Sri.Narasimha Murthy. (Marked subject to objection) Ex.P.5 Cheque Book contained 100 Leaves bearing Nos.823301 to 823400.
Ex.P.5(a) Entries relating to 7 Cheques bearing Nos.823301 to 823307 of Mr. Sunil Dominic in 189 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Record Slip.
Ex.P.5(b) Entries relating to Cheque bearing Nos.823312 to 823314 of Mr.Durga Prasad. Ex.P.5(c) Initial of P.W.1 in Entry pertaining to Cheque No.823315.
Ex.P.6 Cheque bearing No.823383 dated 29.7.03 of Rs.2,58,750/-.
Ex.P.7 Cheque Leaf bearing No.823308 dated 29.9.03 of Rs.13,27,150/-.
Ex.P.8 Cheque Book contained 100 Leaves bearing Nos.827601 to 827700.
Ex.P.8(a) Portion of Cheque Record Slip relating to Cheque Nos.827601 to 827606 initialed by Mr.Sunil Dominic.
Ex.P.8(b) Portion of Cheque Record Slip relating to Cheque Nos.827611 and 827612 initialed by Mr.Durga Prasad.
Ex.P.8(c) Portion of Cheque Record Slip relating to Cheque No.827614 initialed by P.W.1.
Ex.P.9 Cheque No.827683 dated 29.7.03 in the name of Sri.N.K.Prasad for a sum of Rs.37,500/- (part and parcel of Ex.P8) Ex.P.10 Cheque for a sum of Rs.6,80,386/- in the name of Smt.Deepa Subrmanyam.
Ex.P.11 Cheque No.432210 dated 14.7.03 of Rs.37,500/- in favour of A-3 issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. Ex.P.12 Cheque No.433515 dated 14.7.03 of Rs.3,09,007/- in favour of A-3 issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. 190 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Ex.P.13 Cheque No.443264 dated 14.8.03 of Rs.4,12,860/- in favour of Sri.Vijay Kumar issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Ex.P.14 Cheque No.907829 dated 7.8.03 of Rs.3,22,350/- in favour of Sri.G.Ramesh issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Ex.P.15 Cheque No.907828 dated 17.8.03 of Rs.3,48,950/- in favour of Sri.Ravindra Poojari issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Ex.P.16 Cheque No.443428 dated 21.8.03 of Rs.2,70,800/- in favour of Sri.S.Suresh issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Ex.P.17 Cheque No.907843 dated 27.8.03 of Rs.4,70,159/- in favour of Sri.Dilip.M.D. issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Ex.P.18 Cheque No.907833 dated 21.8.03 of Rs.7,31,350/- in favour of Sri.Narayan.K.P. issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Ex.P.19 Cheque No.907830 dated 2.9.03 of Rs.7,52,350/- in favour of Sri.Manoj.K. issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
191 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005Ex.P.20 Cheque No.907835 dated 5.9.03 of Rs.4,87,350/- in favour of Sri.Ravindra.P. issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Ex.P.21 Cheque No.907848 dated 27.8.03 of Rs.5,92,890/- in favour of Sri.Shivaramu issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Ex.P.22 Cheque No.907839 dated 2.9.03 of Rs.5,40,000/- in favour of Sri.Mohan Gowda issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Ex.P.23 Cheque No.907845 dated 27.8.03 of Rs.4,60,989/- in favour of Sri.Paramesh Kumar issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Ex.P.24 Cheque No.907842 dated 3.9.03 of
Rs.8,20,000/- in favour of
Sri.Shankaracharya issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Ex.P.25 Cheque No.907841 dated 3.9.03 of
Rs.7,80,586/- in favour of
Sri.Balasubramanyam issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Ex.P.26 Cheque No.439189 dated 21.8.03 of Rs.7,59,159/- in favour of Sri.Chetan Rao issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Ex.P.27 Cheque No.439190 dated 21.8.03 of Rs.9,81,459/- in favour of Sri.Praveen Rao issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
192 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005Ex.P.28 Cheque No.433516 dated 14.7.03 of Rs.3,56,624/- in favour of Sri.Arun issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. Ex.P.29 Cheque No.431668 dated 9.7.03 of Rs.36,500/- in favour of Sri.Arun issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. Ex.P.30 Cheque No.442469 dated 23.7.03 of Rs.3,17,730/- in favour of Sri.Suresh.M. issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Ex.P.31 Letter dated 12-04-2004 by Regional PF Commissioner-I (PW3) requesting the CBI to expedite the investigation relating to fraudulent withdrawals from EPF accounts maintained at SBI, Electronic City, Bengaluru. Ex.P.31(a) Signature of P.W.3 Ex.P.32 Charge List dtd.13.5.2003 for Cheque books and Cheque leaves with Registers handed over by Poornima to accused No.1 on 19.5.2003.
Ex.P.33 EPFO Cash Book (Bank) pertaining to Account
No.I for the month of July-2003 dated
30.7.03.
Ex.P.33(a) Handwritten portion of accused No.1 in the said statement.
Ex.P.33(b) Handwritten portion of accused No.1 at the end of said statement (Page No.9.) Ex.P.34 Xerox copy of the Telephone Bill. Ex.P.35 Withdrawal Form dated 19.8.03 for a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs.
193 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005Ex.P.35(a) Initials of P.W.11.
Ex.P.35(b) Signature of P.W.12.
Ex.P.35(c) Portion of Signature overlaps the signature of the Account Holder.
Ex.P.36 Withdrawal Form dated 21.8.03 for a sum of Rs.21,500/-.
Ex.P.36(a) Initials of P.W.11.
Ex.P.37 Cheque No.651282 dated 27.9.03 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in the name of Anand P. issued by Manoj K. Ex.P.37(a) Initials of P.W.11.
Ex.P.38 Account Opening Form of ICICI Bank by Balasubramanyam.
Ex.P.39 Application pertaining to Account No.015901501896 of Shankaracharya.
Ex.P.40 Application pertaining to Account No.015901501828 of Paramesh.
Ex.P.41 Account Opening Form of Sri.Suresh.M. Ex.P.41(a) Signature of P.W.13.
Ex.P.41(b) Signature of Sri. Suresh.
Ex.P.41(c) & Signatures PW22 - Sri.Nateshan.
(d) Ex.P.42 SB Paying-in-Slip dated 15.7.03 for initial deposit of Rs.500/-
194 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005Ex.P.42(A) SB Paying-in-Slip dated 24.7.03 for Rs.3,17,730/-.
Ex.P.43 Withdrawal Slip dated 26.7.03 for a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs relates to the SB Account of Suresh.
Ex.P.44 Withdrawal Slip dated 31.7.03 for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- relates to the SB Account of Suresh.
Ex.P.45 Withdrawal Slip dated 5.8.03 for a sum of Rs.7,500/- relates to the SB Account of Suresh.
Ex.P.46 SB Account Opening Form of Sri.G.Ramesh. Ex.P.46(a) Signature of P.W.13.
Ex.P.46(b) Signature of Account holder G.Ramesh. Ex.P.46(c) Signature of Sri.Arogya Swamy. Ex.P.47 Specimen Signature Card with signatures of G.Ramesh.
Ex.P.48 Paying-in-Slip of Rs.500/- for the credit of SB Account of G.Ramesh Ex.P.49 Paying-in-Slip dated 15.8.03 for the credit of SB Account of G.Ramesh for a sum of Rs.3,22,350/-.
Ex.P.50 Specimen Signature Card with specimen signatures of Manoj.
Ex.P.50(a) Signature of P.W.13.
195 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005Ex.P.51 Acknowledgement given by Sri.David Sagairaj for having received the Cheque Book.
Ex.P.52 Pay-in-Slip dated 24.9.03 for a sum of Rs.7,52,340/- in the name of Manoj K. Ex.P.53 Cheque dated 28.9.03 in favour of Rajesh.M. issued by Manoj for a sum of Rs.3,25,000/-. Ex.P.53(a) Signature of P.W.13.
Ex.P.54 Cheque dated 01.10.03 issued in favour of Sri.Rajesh.M. signed by Manoj for a sum of Rs.75,000/-.
Ex.P.54(a) Signature of P.W.13.
Ex.P.55 Account Opening Form of Prasad Rao. Ex.P.55(a) Signature of Prasad Rao.
Ex.P.55(b) Signature of P.W.13.
Ex.P.56 Specimen Signature Card with signatures of Prasad Rao.
Ex.P.56(a) Signature of P.W.13.
Ex.P.57 S.B.Paying-in-Slip for having made an initial deposit of Rs.500/- by Prasad Rao.
Ex.P.58 Cheque No.654101 dated 11.10.03 in favour of Satish.G. for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.P.59 Cheque No.654102 dated 14.10.03 in favour of Satish.G. for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. 196 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Ex.P.60 Cheque No.654103 dated 17.10.03 in favour of Satish.G. for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. Ex.P.61 Paying-in-Slip dated nil for a sum of Rs.13,27,150/- for the credit of A/c of Prasad Rao.
Ex.P.62 Statement of Account dated 30.11.03 of Prasad Rao.
Ex.P.62(a) Certificate U/s 2(A) of Bankers Books Evidence Act and Section 65 of Evidence Act. Ex.P.63 SB Account Opening Form of Mohan Gowda dated 23.9.03.
Ex.P.64 Application Form dated 7.10.03 for issue of DD of Rs.5,40,000/- favouring Mohan Gowda. Ex.P.65 Cheque No.509161 dated 29.9.03 for Rs.25,000/- favoring Vikas.
Ex.P.66 Cheque No.509163 dated 10.10.03 for Rs.75,000/- favoring Vikas.
Ex.P.67 Cheque No.509162 dated 10.10.03 for Rs.75,000/- favoring Lokesh.
Ex.P.68 Application Form dated 18.10.03 for issue of Banker's Cheque for Rs.7,80,586/- favouring Balasubramanyam.
Ex.P.69 Cheque No.509697 dated 22.10.03 for Rs.3.00 Lakhs favoring Vikas.
Ex.P.70 Cheque No.509698 dated 20.10.03 for Rs.1.00 Lakh favoring Vikas.
197 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005Ex.P.71 Application Form dated 18.10.03 for issue of Banker's Cheque for Rs.8,20,000/- favouring Shankaracharya.
Ex.P.72 Cheque No.509710 dated 20.10.03 for Rs.2.00 Lakhs favoring Vikas.
Ex.P.73 Cheque No.509709 dated 22.10.03 for Rs.1.00 Lakh favoring Vikas.
Ex.P.74 Application Form dated 7.10.03 for issue of Banker's Cheque for Rs.4,60,989/- favouring Paramesh Kumar.
Ex.P.75 Cheque No.509137 dated 13.10.03 for Rs.75,000/- favoring Vikas.
Ex.P.76 Cheque No.509139 dated 13.10.03 for Rs.75,000/- favoring Manju.
Ex.P.77 Cheque No.509138 dated 13.10.03 for Rs.75,000/- favoring Vikas.
Ex.P.78 Cheque No.509136 dated 29.9.03 for Rs.25,000/- favoring Vikas.
Ex.P.79 Cheque No.509140 dated 12.10.03 for Rs.70,000/- favoring Vikas.
Ex.P.80 Certified Copy of Statement of Account of Paramesh for the period from 17.12.02 to 8.11.03 reflecting the payments of cheques Exs.P.75 to Ex.P.79.
Ex.P.81 Certified Copy of Statement of Mohan Gowda for the period from 17.12.02 to 8.11.03 reflecting the payments of cheques Ex.P.65 to Ex.P.67.
198 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
Ex.P.82 Certified Copy of Statement of Balasubramanyam for the period from 26.03.03 to 8.11.03 reflecting the payments of cheques Ex.P.69 and Ex.P.70.
Ex.P.83 Certified Copy of Statement of Shankaracharya for the period from 26.03.03 to 8.11.03 reflecting the payments of cheques Ex.P.72 and Ex.P.73.
Ex.P.84 Account Opening Form of Arun.
Ex.P.84(a) Signature of P.W.19.
Ex.P.84(b) Signature of Account Holder Arun. Ex.P.85 Copy of Telephone Bill submitted for address proof of Arun.
Ex.P.86 Specimen Signature Card of Arun. Ex.P.86(a) Specimen Signature of Account Holder. Ex.P.86(b) Signature of Arun obtained by PW20 Ex.P.87 Paying-in-Slip dated 5.8.03 of Arun for Rs.3,56,624/-.
Ex.P.88 Pay-in-Slip dated 4.8.03 of Arun for Rs.36,500/-.
Ex.P.89 Self Cheque No.492097 dated 11.8.03 for Rs.2,90,000/- of Arun.
Ex.P.89(a) Signature of Arun.
199 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005Ex.P.90 Cheque No.492092 dated 7.8.03 for Rs.1.00 Lakh in favour of Pradeep R. by Arun.
Ex.P.91 Self-Cheque No.492098 dated 18.8.03 for Rs.3,000/- of Arun.
Ex.P.92 Account Opening Form of N.Krishna Prasad. Ex.P.93 Paying-in-Slip dated 5.7.03 for Rs.36,650/- of N.K.Prasad.
Ex.P.94 Certified Copy of Statement of Account of Krishna Prasad N. Ex.P.94(a) Entry dated 8.7.03.
Ex.P.95 Paying-in-Slip dated 21.9.03 for Rs.500/-
Credit of Manoj K. Ex.P.96 Form-60 pertaining to SB Account No.37450 of Suresh.
Ex.P.97 Specimen Signature Card with signatures of Suresh M. Ex.P.98 Preliminary Investigation Report dated 29.10.03 submitted by P.W.25 to Canara Bank, Circle Office, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.98(a) Signature of P.W.25.
Ex.P.99 Investigation Report dated 7.11.03 submitted by P.W.25 to Canara Bank, Circle Office, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.99(a) Signature of P.W.25.
Ex.P.100 Investigation Report dated 01.12.03 submitted by P.W.25 to Canara Bank, Circle Office, Bengaluru.
200 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005Ex.P.100(a) Signature of P.W.25.
Ex.P.101 Statement dated 29.10.03 given by David Sagayaraj (A-6) to P.W.25.
Ex.P.101(a) Signature of David Sagayaraj. Ex.P.102 Statement dated 22.11.03 given by David Sagayaraj (A-6) to P.W.25.
Ex.P.102(a) Signature of David Sagayaraj (A-6) Ex.P.103 SB Account Opening Form pertaining to Account No.20082 of N.K.Prasad.
Ex.P.103(a) Signature of P.W.26.
Ex.P.104 Specimen Signature Card with signatures of of N.K.Prasad.
Ex.P.105 Specimen Signature Card with signatures of Introducer-N.C.Narayana Gowda.
Ex.P.106 Pay-in-Slip dated 4.9.03 for Rs.7,31,350/-
Credit of A-3.
Ex.P.107 Withdrawal Slip dated 6.9.03 for Rs.2,10,000/- of A/c.holder A-3.
Ex.P.108 Withdrawal Slip dated 7.9.03 for Rs.5 Lakhs -
A/c.holder A-3.
Ex.P.109 Statement of Account for the period from 1.1.03 to 31.12.03 of A-3.
Ex.P.110 Document pertaining to Specimen Signature and Handwriting mentioned as S-146 to S- 165 (20 Pages) of A-1 201 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Ex.P.110(a) Signature of A-1.
Ex.P.110(b) Signature of PW27.
Ex.P.111 Specimen Signatures and handwriting of R.Manjunath shown at S-181 to S-221.
Ex.P.111(a) Signature of Manjunath.
Ex.P.111(b) Signature of PW27.
Ex.P.112 Specimen Signatures and handwriting of accused No.2 shown at S1/1 to S25/1.
Ex.P.112(a) Signature of P.W.34 in the Last Page. Ex.P.112(b) Signature of Sheena in the Last Page. Ex.P.113 Specimen Signatures and handwriting of N.K.Prasad mentioned as S.55/1 to S.78/1, S.78/2 and S.79/1 to S.96/1 (42 Sheets). Ex.P.113(a) Signature of P.W.35 in the Last Page. Ex.P.113(b) Signature of R.Ranga Swamy in the Last Page.
Ex.P.114 Admitted Signatures of accused No.1 6 sheets of Attendance Roll of EPFO mentioned as A-1/1 to A-6/1.
Ex.P.115 Letter dtd.29.3.2006 by the GEQD to SP
CBI/ACB information given regarding
Supplementary Opinion dtd.24.2.2006.
Ex.P.116 Withdrawal Form dated 19.8.03 of
M/s.Deepak Shakari Bank Limited with
202 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
marking Q-155 to Q-157 of accused No.3
Ex.P.117 Withdrawal Form dated 26.8.03 with marking
Q-158 to Q-160 of accused No.3
Ex.P.118 SB Credit Slip dated 16.8.03 of M/s.Deepak
Sahakari Bank Limited with marking Q-151 and Q-152.
Ex.P.119 SB Credit Slip dated 16.8.03 of M/s.Deepak Sahakari Bank Limited with marking Q-153 and Q-154 of accused No.3.
Ex.P.120 Self Cheque dated 28.8.03 of Karnataka Bank Limited with marking Q-176 to Q-179 of accused No.2 for Rs.3,26,950/-.
Ex.P.121 Debit Voucher dated 3.10.03 of Karnataka Bank Limited with marking Q-173 to Q-175 for Rs.4,64,000/- of accused No.2 Ex.P.122 Credit Voucher dated 26.8.03 of Karnataka Bank Limited with marking Q-171 of accused No.2.
Ex.P.123 Credit Voucher dated 5.9.03 of Karnataka Bank Limited with marking Q-172.
Ex.P.124 Account Opening Form of Dilip M.B. relating to ICICI Bank dated 16.9.03.
Ex.P.124(a) True copy of Driving Licence enclosed to the said form.
Ex.P.124(b) True copy of Electricity Bill enclosed to the said form.
203 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005Ex.P.125 Pay-in-Slip of Dilip M.B. relates to ICICI Bank for Rs.4,70,159/-.
Ex.P.126 Cheque dated 13.10.03 of ICICI Bank by Dilip M.B. to Manju for Rs.50,000/-.
Ex.P.127 Cheque dated 13.10.03 of ICICI Bank by Dilip M.B. to Manju for Rs.45,000/-.
Ex.P.128 Cheque dated 13.10.03 of ICICI Bank by Dilip M.B. to Vishal for Rs.25,000/-.
Ex.P.129 Cheque dated 13.10.03 of ICICI Bank by Dilip M.B. to Vishal for Rs.50,000/-.
Ex.P.130 Letter by accused No.3 to Shree Thyagaraja Co-operative Bank Ltd., relates to discount of Cheque/DD amount bears the handwriting of A-3.
Exs.P.131 & Credit Vouchers dated 8.2.02 and 2.8.03 of 132 Thyagaraja Sahakari Bank Ltd., for being deposited a sum of Rs.3,600/- and Rs.3,09,700/- by accused No.3.
Exs.P.133 & Withdrawal Forms of Thyagarajanagara 134 Sahakari Bank dated 5.8.03 and 2.8.2003 for being withdrawal of Rs.3,09,000/- and Rs.37,000/- by accused No.3.
Ex.P.135 3 Xerox Copies of Deposit Slips in single sheet showing three Cheques bearing Nos.439189 for Rs.7,59,159/-, No.907844 for Rs.6,80,386/- and No.439190 for Rs.9,81,459/-.
Ex.P.136 Xerox Copy of personal details of Praveen Rao.
204 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005Ex.P.137 Xerox Copy of personal details of Chethan Rao.
Ex.P.138 Supplementary Opinion dtd.24.2.2006 by P.W.28 with Narindra Singh.
Ex.P.138(a) Signature of PW28.
Ex.P.138(b) Signature of Sri.Narindra Singh Ex.P.138(c) Reasons for Supplementary Opinion No.H-
204/2004 dated 24.02.2006.
Ex.P.139 Remittance Register.
Ex.P.139(a) Relevant entries at Page No. 1830. Ex.P.140 Statement of Accounts pertaining to EPF Account No.01100007605.
Ex.P.140(a) Entry at Page-5 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.3,17,730/-
Ex.P.140(b) Entry at Page-2 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.3,09,007/-.
Ex.P.140(c) Entry at Page-2 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.3,56,624/-.
Ex.P.140(d) Entry at Page-12 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.3,22,350/-.
Ex.P.140(e) Entry at Page-48 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.2,58,750/-.
Ex.P.140(f) Entry at Page-14 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.37,500/-.
Ex.P.140(g) Entry at Page-19 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.4,12,860/-.
Ex.P.140(h) Entry at Page-12 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.3,48,950/-.
205 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005Ex.P.140(i) Entry at Page-5 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.7,31,350/-.
Ex.P.140(j) Entry at Page-10 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.9,81,450/-.
Ex.P.140(k) Entry at Page-26 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.2,70,800/-.
Ex.P.140(l) Entry at Page-64 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.7,59,159/-.
Ex.P.140(m) Entry at Page-28 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.6,80,386/-.
Ex.P.140(n) Entry at Page-45 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.4,31,350/-.
Ex.P.140(o) Entry at Page-15 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.7,52,350/-.
Ex.P.140(p) Entry at Page-10 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.5,92,890/-.
Ex.P.140(q) Entry at Page-10 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.4,87,350/-.
Ex.P.140(r) Entry at Page-4 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.5,40,000/-.
Ex.P.140(s) Entry at Page-4 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.4,60,989/-.
Ex.P.140(t) Entry at Page-17 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.13,27,150/-.
Ex.P.140(u) Entry at Page-16 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.8,20,000/-.
Ex.P.140(v) Entry at Page-16 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.7,80,586/-.
Ex.P.140(w) Entry at Page-6 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.35,650/-.
Ex.P.141 Statement of Account pertaining to EPFO P.F. A/c.No.2 - 01100007606.
206 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005Ex.P.142 Statement of Account pertaining to EPFO A/c No.10 - 01100007607.
Ex.P.142(a) Entry at Page-3 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.37,500/- by A-3.
Ex.P.142(b) Entry at Page-3 regarding encashment of Cheque for Rs.36,500/-.
Ex.P.143 Letter dated 3.9.03 by APFC S.D.Prasad with specimen signature of Muthuselvam (PW1). Ex.P.144 Statement of Account pertaining to the Account of Dilip M.B. Ex.P.145 Notification dated 10.12.03 issued by Government of Karnataka for prosecuting against accused Nos.1, 2 and others.
Ex.P.146 Notification dated 30.12.03 issued by Government of India to prosecute against S.Durgaprasad, accused Nos.1 to 3 and others.
Ex.P.147 FIR dated 31.12.03.
Ex.P.147(a) Signature of Sri.A.P.Singh, S.P. CBI/ACB.
Ex.P.148 Xerox copy of FIR.
Ex.P.149 Xerox copy of Complaint dtd.24.10.2003
Ex.P.150 FIR dated 22.11.2003
Ex.P.151 Copy of the Complaint dated 21.11.2003.
Ex.P.152 Account Opening Form of M.Vijay Kumar
relates to ICICI Bank.
207 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
Ex.P.153 Account Opening Form of Shivaramu relates
to ICICI Bank.
Ex.P.154 Letter dtd.12.9.2005 issued by Citi Bank.
Ex.P.155 Statement of Account of Praveen Rao.
Ex.P.155(a) Certificate u/S.65B of Evidence Act Ex.P.156 Statement of Account of Chetan Rao. Ex.P.156(a) Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act Ex.P.157 Statement of Account of Smt.Deepa Subramaniam.
Ex.P.157(a) Certificate u/S. 65B of Evidence Act Ex.P.158 Specimen Signature Card of Thyagaraja Co-
operative Bank, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru with specimen signatures of Accused-3.
Ex.P.159 Challan of Thyagaraja Co-operative Bank, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru for being deposited Rs.540/- towards SB account of accused No.3.
Ex.P.160 Letter by accused No.3 to Manager of The Thyagaraja Co-operative Bank Ltd., to change his residential address.
Ex.P.161 Statement of Account of accused No.3 relating to Account No.648 of Thyagaraja Co- operative Bank, Banashankari, Bengaluru. 208 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Ex.P.161(a) Certificate u/S.2(A) of Bankers Book Evidence Act.
Ex.P.162 Specimen Signature Card with signatures of Accused-3 pertaining to Account No.15628 of Deepak Sahakari Bank Limited, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru dtd.10.11.1995 Ex.P.163 Account Opening Form by Accused-3 to open an Account in Deepak Sahakari Bank Limited, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.164 Challan in the name of accused No.3 relating
to Deepak Sahakari Bank Limited,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.165 Statement of Account of accused No.3
pertaining to Account No.15628 of Deepak Sahakari Bank Limited, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.165(a) Certificate u/S. 2(A) of Bankers Books Evidence Act.
Ex.P.166 Letter dated 20.08.2005 by Manager of
Marata Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.,
Belgaum, addressed to Dy.S.P., CBI,
regarding enquiry of accused No.5 S.Suresh pertaining to SB Account No.38252.
Ex.P.166(a) Signature of P.W.33.
Ex.P.167 Statement of Account pertaining to SB Account No.38252 of the Accused-5 at Marata Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Belgaum. Ex.P.167(a) Relevant entry dated 29.08.03. 209 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005 Ex.P.168 to Xerox copies of Five Challans of Marata Co- 172 operative Urban Bank Limited, Belgaum of different dates.
Ex.P.173 Statement of Account pertaining to SB Account No.38252 of the Accused-5 of Marata Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Belgaum. Ex.P.173(a) Entry dated 10.09.03 - Rs.2,70,800/-. Ex.P.174 Xerox copy of Special Instructions Card with signatures of accused No.5 S.Suresh and introducer relating to SB Account No.38252 at Marata Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Belgaum.
Ex.P.175 Xerox copy of Letter dated 24.10.05 sent by SP, CBI to GEQD.
Ex.P.176 Office Order of APFC dated 13.5.03. Ex.P.177 Incumbency Details of Cash Section. Ex.P.178 Details of accused No.2 with specimen signatures furnished to Karnataka Bank Limited, Sarakki Layout Branch, Bengaluru. Ex.P.179 Statement of Account relating to the Accused-
2 of Karnataka Bank Limited, Sarakki Layout Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.179(a) Relevant Entries at Page-4 dtd.27.8.2003 and and (b) 1.10.2003.
Ex.P.179(c) Certificate u/S.65B(4) of Evidence Act. 210 Spl.C.C.No.155/2005
4. List of documents exhibited for the accused :-
Ex.D.1 Manual of Accounting Procedure of EPFO.
Ex.D.2 Manual of Instructions of Current and Savings Bank Accounts.
Exs.D.3 to Different Portions in the Statement of P.W.37 6 recorded by the CBI Officer under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
(S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) XLVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Bengaluru.
Holding Concurrent Charge of XLVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by SAKE HARIDAS PUSHPANJALI DEVI DN: cn=SAKE HARIDAS
SAKE HARIDAS PUSHPANJALI
PUSHPANJALI DEVI,ou=HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA,o=GOVERNM
DEVI ENT OF
KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka
,c=IN
Date: 2018.12.19 16:33:59
IST