Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 10 January, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CRR No.67 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 67 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: January 10, 2013
Sanjay Kumar
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
CRM No.1356 of 2013 For the reasons recorded in the Criminal Misc. Application, the same is allowed. Delay of 51 days in filing the criminal revision is condoned.
CRR No. 67 of 2013
Present criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner against judgment dated 21.08.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and judgment of conviction dated 01.09.2011 and order of sentence dated 03.09.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First CRR No.67 of 2013 (O&M) 2 Class, Faridabad, has been upheld, vide which the petitioner has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 65 and 66 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment as follows:-
Under Section Period Fine 420 IPC Two years Rs.1,000/- 467 IPC Three years Rs.2,000/- 468 IPC Two years Rs.1,000/- 471 IPC Two years Rs.1,000/- 65 I.T. Act Two years Rs.1,000/- 66 I.T. Act Two years Rs.1000/-
In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, NIT, Faridabad moved a complaint dated 17.02.2003 before the Police stating that the petitioner was deputed by M/s Virmati Software and Telecommunication Ltd. to maintain the Software System supplied by them to the bank. He was also looking after Software System of certain other banks. In connection with rendering such services, the petitioner was having access to their accounting system which was computerized and was also in a position to enter into ledgers and various other accounts. While reconciling the accounts, certain discrepancies were pointed out by the officials of the bank and in that process, it was revealed that the accused-petitioner, who was having SB CRR No.67 of 2013 (O&M) 3 Account No. 36698 in his personal name in their bank, manipulated the entries by forging and fabricating certain entries from one account to another, from the computer system by handling the software and got the entries pertaining to the amount of the the bank in his favour and illegally and wrongfully, withdrew a total amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the bank and thus caused wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the bank. The amount has been fraudulently credited in his saving bank account by him by transferring figure from P/L Interest Paid on SB Acount knowingly and intentionally and subsequently the said amount of Rs.7,00,000/- has been withdrawn in his favour. The forgery was committed by him on 4.1.2001 and 7.7.2002 for Rs. 3 lacs and Rs. 4 lacs respectively reflected as 7.1.2002 and 2.7.2002 showing "By clearing" in his account by crediting the said amount. The said Bank came to know regarding the fraud committed by the accused on 08.02.2003. Thereafter, the accused was approached and his brother-in-law having same name Mr. Sanjay Bhatia who was having due knowledge of said fraud came to the bank and requested the bank that the accused was not available at that moment and he requested for some time to deposit the said amount and accordingly he came again in late hours on the same day and deposited Rs.1,50,000/- as part payment and gave letter in his own handwriting and requested the bank not to initiate any action and also requested some time to deposit the balance amount. He also deposited allotment and possession letter of his property as a security. On receipt of the complaint, a case bearing FIR No. 198 dated 20.02.2003, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, CRR No.67 of 2013 (O&M) 4 469, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 65, 66 and 72 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 was registered against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused- petitioner was presented in the Court. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused-petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW1 SI Kartar Singh, PW2 Uma Kant Narang, PW3 Net Ram, PW4 Shivas Kaviraj and PW5 Sanjay Kumar Bhatia.
Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. He denied the same and pleaded innocence.
The learned trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid vide judgment and order dated 01.09.2011 and 03.09.2011 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 21.08.2012. Hence, this criminal revision.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as the complainant and eye witness were inimical to the petitioner as they were having a dispute with the petitioner about 15/16 years prior to the occurrence. Learned counsel CRR No.67 of 2013 (O&M) 5 further contends that there is no direct evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence in question, therefore, no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
From perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, it transpires that the allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner has manipulated the computerized Bank account i.e. the interest entries and thereby cheated the complainant bank by forging electronic record in order to cause wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to himself to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/-. It has come in the documentary evidence on record that the petitioner has forged the entries in the bank record and had thereby withdrawn a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-.
The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, observed as under:-
"10. The material witnesses of this case are PW-2 Uma Kant Narang,PW-3 Net Ram and PW-4 Shivas Kaviraj, who all have supported the prosecution case. PW-2 Uma Kant Narang and PW-3 Net Ram have stated that M/s Virmati Software & Telecommunication Ltd. has appointed Mr. Sanjay Bhatia to maintain the Software system of Bank of Baroda and to corroborate this fact the attendance register of Sanjay Kumar Bhatia has been placed on record as Ex.PW3/A which has been proved by PW-3 Net Ram.
11. Further, the documents Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/3 CRR No.67 of 2013 (O&M) 6 show that the accused Sanjay Bhatia has opened an account No.36698 in their branch. The account statement of said account has been placed on record as Ex.PW2/F wherein an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- have been shown to be deposited on 7.1.2002 and 2.7.2002 vide cheque nos. 165215 and 755913. In this regard, PW-2 Uma Kant stated in his examination-in-chief that the cheques were shows to be of different bank and upon enquiry it was found that they were never presented in Vijaya Bank. In this regard, perusal of Ex.PW2/H1 reveal that there was forgery in the entries of interest of the bank as the actual interest was Rs.40,44,188/- but the sheet which was forged and posted showed the interest of Rs.44,44,148/- and this differential of Rs.4,00,000/- has been deposited in the account of the accused Sanjay Bhatia bearing A/c No. 36698 on 2.7.2002 as evident from Ex.PW2/F. Similarly, in respect of 7.1.2002, the actual interest calculated sheet Ex.PW2/H2 shows that the interest was Rs.37,82,393/- while the forged sheet posted Ex.PW2/H3 shows the interest as Rs.40,82,393/- and this differential of Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited in the account of accused on 7.1.2002 as evident from Ex.PW2/F. The slip Ex.PW1/G1 to Ex.PW1/G12 shows that the said amount has been withdrawn by the accused and also evident from his statement of account Ex.PW2/F.
12. Since the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- were deposited in the account of accused and he withdrew the same, it clearly emanates that the accused had cheated the bank and forged the electronic record to cause wrongful gain to himself and wrongful CRR No.67 of 2013 (O&M) 7 loss to the bank.
13. Further, PW-5 Sanjay Bhatia son of Suraj Parkash Bhatia had admitted his application Ex.PW2/C whereby he handed over possession letter of House No. 826 GF, LIG Housing Board Colony, Sector 21-D, Faridabad as well as the fact that he tendered the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on behalf of the accused Sanjay Bhatia so of Sh. Yash Pal Bhatia.
14. In this manner, the accused had cheated the bank and forged the electronic record to cause wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to himself. The prosecution, thus, has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts, the ingredients of Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
15. Furthermore, clearly the accused has tampered with the computer source document and he has also altered in the information which resided in the computer resource and by doing so he committed the offences under Sections 65 and 66 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000. At the same time, it is pertinent to mention that although accused was having secured assess to electrical record of the bank and he forged the entries and cheated to cause wrongful gain to himself but there is no such breach of confidentiality by disclosing the information to any other person and as such he is acquitted of offence under Section 72 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000."
The learned Trial Court was wholly justified in convicting the accused-petitioner and the learned Appellate court, as can be clearly seen, had not committed any error in upholding the conviction of the accused CRR No.67 of 2013 (O&M) 8 petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of any evidence and could not point out any infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below. The findings of guilt, reached against the accused-petitioner does not, thus, suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual and does not therefore, warrant interference by this Court in exercise of this Court's revisional jurisdiction.
In view of the above, there is no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Dismissed in limine.
January 10, 2013 [Paramjeet Singh] vkd Judge