Bangalore District Court
Satish Chandra Kumar vs A. Stanli Keerthi Raj on 13 September, 2024
1
C.C.No.13318/2012
KABC030135032012
Presented on : 25-05-2012
Registered on : 25-05-2012
Decided on : 13-09-2024
Duration : 12 years, 3 months, 19 days
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT.
SRI. SIDDARAMA.S. M.A, LL.M.
III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
AT BENGALURU CITY.
C.C.No.13318/2012
State by J.C.Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Represented by Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused Sri.Stanley Kirthiraj
S/o Late. A.F.Arokiadass,
U.D.C.Minister of Defence,
(D.G.Q.A.) Defence Institute Of
Quality Assurance,
S.K.Garden, Benson Town Post,
Bengaluru City,
Residing at No.21,
2
C.C.No.13318/2012
B Type House, Robertson Pet Road,
Frazer Town,
Bengaluru - 560 005.
(Represented by Sri.E.K., Adv,)
Name of the Sri.Satish Chandra Kumar.
Complainant :
Date of offence 01.04.2008 to 31.12.2008
Date of offence reported 24.02.2009
Date of Commence of 24.03.2016
Evidence
Date of Closure of 04.04.2024
Evidence
Offence Committed 408, 468 and 420 of IPC
Opinion of Judge Found not guilty
Complainant by Learned Senior Assistant Public
Prosecutor
Accused by By Sri.E.K., Advocate
(SIDDARAMA.S.)
III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
AT BENGALURU CITY.
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of J.C.Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable Under section 408, 468 and 420 of IPC. 3
C.C.No.13318/2012
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-
It is the case of the persecution is that the accused was working as a First Division Clerk (Cashier) in D.G.Q.A., Defence Institute of Quality Assurance office Bengaluru. The accused was fraudulently forged the signature of CW-5 and CW-7 in between from 01.04.2008 to 30.12.2008 and misappropriated an amount of Rs.6,28,000/- and thereby he has committed offences punishable under sections 408, 468 and 420 of IPC.
After completion of the investigation the P I of J.C.Nagara police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused person U/Sec.408, 468 and 420 of IPC.
3. Thereafter, the complainant has lodged the complaint in J.C.Nagara Police station. In turn they have registered the case under Crime No.0040/2009. Thereafter, police visited the spot, drew the mahazar, secured in the presence of the Accused person subsequently was enlarged on bail. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, I.O. has submitted the charge sheet against the Accused for the above said offences. After filing the charge sheet, Court has taken 4 C.C.No.13318/2012 cognizance of the offences against the Accused and has issued summons to him.
4. The accused has appeared before the court through his counsel. Copy of the prosecution papers were furnished under Section 207 of Code of Criminal procedure. Thereafter, heard both side, the charges against the accused was framed for the offences punishable U/Sec.408, 468 and 420 of IPC. Read over and explained to the accused was pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution have examined the witnesses as PW-1 to PW-8 and got marked the documents as Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-23. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is duly recorded.
6. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the deposition and documents.
7. After hearing the parties and on perusal of records, the following points arose for my consideration. 5
C.C.No.13318/2012
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was working as a cashier in D.G.Q.A., Defence Institute of Quality Assurance office Bengaluru from 01.04.2008 to 30.12.2008 and he forged the signature of the CW-5 and CW-7 with respect to bill and he misappropriated an amount of Rs.6,28,000/- for his own use and thereby accused has committed offence punishable under section 408 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above said date, place and time the accused person for the purpose of gaining the money he forged the signature of CW-5 and CW-7 with respect to bill an amount of Rs.6,28,000/- and thereby accused has committed an offence punishable under section 468 of IPC?
6
C.C.No.13318/2012
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above said date, place and time the accused person for the purpose of cheating the CW-1 he forged the signature of CW-5 and CW-7 with respect to bill an amount of Rs.6,28,000/- and used the said amount for his personal use and thereby accused has cheated the complainant and committed an offence punishable under section 420 of IPC?
4. What order?
8. Heard the arguments and perused the materials available on records.
9. My findings to the above points are as follows:
POINT No.1 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.2 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.3 : In the NEGATIVE.
7
C.C.No.13318/2012
POINT No.4 : As per final order, for the
following:-
REASONS
10. Points No 1 to 3: These points are inter-linked with each others and required similar type of appreciation of evidence, Hence, they are taken together for common discussion.
11. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined witness, the PW1 is the complainant. The PW-2 is the Controller of Quality Assurance. The PW-3 is the Retired Brigadian. The PW-4 is the Retired Additional Director Ministry of Defence. The PW-5 is the Retired Junior Civilian. The PW-6 is the Retired Bregadian. The PW-7 and PW8 are Investigation Officers.
12. It is the case of the persecution is that the accused was working as a First Division Clerk (Cashier) in D.G.Q.A., Defence Institute of Quality Assurance office Bengaluru. The accused was fraudulently forged the signature of CW-5 and CW- 7 in between from 01.04.2008 to 30.12.2008 and 8 C.C.No.13318/2012 misappropriated an amount of Rs.6,28,000/- and thereby he has committed offences punishable under sections 408, 468 and 420 of IPC. After completion of the investigation the P I of J.C.Nagara police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused person U/Sec.408, 468 and 420 of IPC.
13. To bring the home the guilt of accused person the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 408 of IPC.
Sec. 408 of I P C Reads as follows:
Section 408 : Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant.- Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.9
C.C.No.13318/2012 Essential ingredients:- an offence under this section has following essential ingredients ;
1. Accused was a clerk or servant.
2. Accused was entrusted with certain property or he had dominion over certain property which was not his own.
3. He committed criminal breach of trust for the said property.
14. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 420 of IPC.
Sec. 420 of I P C Reads as follows:
Section 420 : Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby
dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part 10 C.C.No.13318/2012 of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
1. Essential ingredients are as follows;
1. Accused cheated the complainant.
2. Accused did so dishonestly.
3. Thereby induced the complainant:
(i) to deliver some property to accused or to some other person.
(ii) to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security or anything which was signed, 11 C.C.No.13318/2012 sealed, and which was capable of being converted into valuable security.
2. One of the ingredients of cheating as defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code is existence of an intention of making initial promise or existence thereof from the very beginning of formation of contract.
S.V.L. Murthy v. State Rep. By CBI, Hyderabad, 2009 (4) Supreme 399 : 2009 (7) JT 385 : (2009) 6 SCC 77 : (2009) 2 SCC (Crl) 941 : AIR 2009 SC 2717.
3. To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly include the person deceived (I) to delivery any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being coverted into a valuable 12 C.C.No.13318/2012 security). Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, 2009 (6) Supreme 470 : 2009 (11) JT 533 :
2009 (4) Crimes 13 : (2009) 3 SCC (Crl) 929.
15. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 468 of IPC.
Sec. 468 of I P C Reads as follows:
Forgery for purpose of cheating.-
Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Essential ingredients are as follows;
(i) Document in question is forged
(ii) Accused forged it.
13
C.C.No.13318/2012
(iii) In forging he intended that it shall be used for cheating.
16. The PW1 is the Deputy Director General, who has deposed in his chief examination that he knew the accused person. He was working as a Cashier in Defence Institute of Quality Assurance Bengaluru, he was the custodian of financial matters documents like cash book, cheque book and other relation document in connection with the financial matters. He used to handle cash. He further deposed that DIQA made a surprise visit during the surprise cheque, it was found that account pertaining to consolidated bank statement did not tally with the DIQA cash book entries, cheque book entries, cheque book register entries. Further found that 19 cheque slips were found in the drawer of the accused. Out of 19 cheque leafs 18 cheque leafs dated were not entered in the register. During the surprise check 13 found some draft stationery articles in the drawer of the accused. The balance showed by the surprise team did not tally with the balance indicated in the consolidated bank statement. After consultation with his head office he filed the present complaint against the accused. 14
C.C.No.13318/2012
17. The PW-1 deposed in his cross examination that the misappropriation was happened during 01.04.2008 to 31.12.2008. He don't know the accused join their office in the year 1994 as a Lower Division Clerk as Typist. He has not verified as to whether he has produced the documents to show that the accused was appointed as a cashier in his office. Cashier custodian of all the cash books and day books pertaining to the cash transactions. He admitted that the accused is not a supervision officer he is only a clerk. He admitted that there must be supervision officer to watch the work of clerk. He admitted that on every day evening clerk has report to his supervision officer about the day to day transactions immediately. He admitted that the supervising officer will verify the day to day transaction as reported by the concerned clerk. He admitted that in the complaint he has not mentioned about the said fact. He admitted that cashier is not a supervising officer. He admitted that since the bank accounts are computerized they will get day to day information about the transactions.
15
C.C.No.13318/2012
18. The PW-2 is the controller of quality assurance, fire fighting equipment, who has deposed in her chief examination that when she was working as Additional Director at that time the accused also was working there and his post as UDC and working as cashier. He was responsible for preparing bills for payment and being the cashier he was to maintained cash book. Further she deposed that after joining her duty of two weeks she came to know that there was a complaint cum one retired of official of DICA that he did not get his retirement benefits. She felt that the account were not properly in order. She was ordered to do an account audit by the director. During the audit certain irregularities were came out. Further she deposed that there were variations between the bank statements and what he had written in the cash book. She further deposed that he had misappropriated an amount of more than Rs.6 lakhs.
19. That on 23.02.2017 PW-2 examined in further chief and request of the accused counsel cross examination adjourned. But, the cross examination of PW-2 not done by the accused counsel.
16
C.C.No.13318/2012
20. The PW-3 and 4 were turned hostile to the prosecution case and not supported to the prosecution case. During the course of cross examination by the learned Sr. APP nothing has been elicited by their mouth.
21. The PW-5 is the Retired Junior Civilian who has deposed in his chief examination that he knew the accused person before court. The Additional Director of the department M.K.Khan super annunciation benefits were to come after his retirement. He came to the office and informed that his money had not arrived for that reason one committee was appointed. According to that committee report the money was misused. Further he deposed that it was found that at about Rs.6 lakhs misused from 01.04.2008 to December 2008.
22. The PW-5 deposed in his cross examination that he don't know from which year the accused was working but when he came in 2007 the accused was working in the cash department, generally those who work in the cash department have to report how much money has been received and how much money has been spent every day. But the accused did not do that. He don't know if their office will know that if they 17 C.C.No.13318/2012 don't give the invoice every evening. He don't know exactly on which date Khan asked that he had not received his pensions as he said in the chief examination no one directly told him about misappropriation of money except that the witnesses replied that the Khan had called him from Chennai in the month of October. He don't know who misused the money. He don't know how the money misused in which way. He further deposed that as per his information the accused directly gave the cash.
23. The PW-6 is the Additional Director of DIQA who has deposed in his chief examination that during the year 2005 to 2009 accused was working as UDC (Cashier and Clerk). He was also working as a Additional Director of Administration during his tenure the accused had misappropriated about Rs.6 lakhs.
24. The PW-6 in his cross examination he deposed that three persons were working the cashier branch. He don't remember that how many persons were working in the cash branch. He himself and Sri.Mohan Kumar the Admin officer has joined account both of them were required to sign the 18 C.C.No.13318/2012 cheque. The cashier and account officer shall maintain and submit the transaction details everywhere.
25. The PW-7 is the investigation officer who has deposed in his chief examination that on 24.06.2011 he received the case records from CW-9 for further investigation that on 09.12.2011 he received the employment certificate and duty entrustment certificate from the CW-1. The said document marked as Ex.P-21 and Ex.P-22 and his signature is marked as Ex.P-21(a) and Ex.P-22(a). That on 04.04.2012 the CW-2 submitted the report about not being able to submit the audit report.
26. The PW-7 in his cross examination he deposed that after getting the case record from CW-9 he tried to get hold of the accused that could not be found. Even though the accused was granted anticipatory bail by the court and appeared before him. It is not correct that he did not investigate him. It is not true that he filed the false charge sheet against the accused person.
19
C.C.No.13318/2012
27. The PW-8 is the investigation officer, who has deposed in his chief examination that he received the case records from CW-8. After he continued the investigation. That on 29.03.2010 he received the statement of CW-1 to CW-5. Due to the transfer, he transfer the case records to the CW-10 for further investigation.
28. The PW-8 in his cross examination he deposed that the PW-8 admitted that on 24.02.2009 the FIR was submitted. That on 29.03.2010 he received the statement of CW-1 to CW-5. He did not received any documents from the CW-1 to CW-5 at the time of received the restatement.
29. In the instant case the PW-1 deposed in his cross examination that he don't know the accused join their office in the year 1994 as a Lower Division Clerk as Typist. He has not verified as to whether he has produced the documents to show that the accused was appointed as a cashier in his office. Cashier custodian of all the cash books and day books pertaining to the cash transactions. He admitted that the accused is not a supervising officer he is only a clerk. He admitted that there must be supervising officer to watch the 20 C.C.No.13318/2012 work of clerk. In the instant case the PW-3 and 4 turned hostile to the prosecution case and they were not supported to the prosecution case. During the course of cross examination by the learned Sr.APP nothing has been elicited from their mouth. The PW-5 deposed in his cross examination that he don't know if their office will know that if they don't give the invoice every evening. He don't know exactly on which date Khan asked that he had not received his pensions as he said in the chief examination no one directly told him about misappropriation of money except that the witnesses replied that PW-6 deposed in his cross examination that he don't remember that how many persons were working in the cash branch. He himself and Sri.Mohan Kumar the Admin officer has joined account both of them were required to sign the cheque. PW-8 deposed in his cross examination that he did not received any documents from the CW-1 to CW-5 at the time of received the restatement.
30. In this case, the prosecution has failed to elicit anything favorable to it to prove the allegations 408, 468 and 420 of IPC. When these being the facts, I am of the opinion that 21 C.C.No.13318/2012 in total the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of the same, this court hold Point No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
31. Point No.4: For the reasons stated and finding given to point No. 1 to 3, the following is made.
ORDER The accused person is not found guilty for the offences punishable under section 408, 468 and 420 of IPC.
Acting under section 248(1) of code of criminal procedure the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences Punishable under section 408, 468 and 420 of IPC.
Bail bond and surety bond executed by him stands canceled.
(Directly dictated to the stenographer on computer, typed by him, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of September, 2024).
(SIDDARAMA.S.) III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU CITY.
22
C.C.No.13318/2012 ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 : Sathish Chandra Kumar S/o S.Chandra Kumar; PW-2 : S.Radha W/o Soundara Rajan; PW-3 : Ravi Muniswamy S/o Muniswamy; PW-4 : M.K.Khan S/o Late.M.A.Khan; PW-5 : V.G.Mohana Kumara S/o Late.Govindappa; PW-6 : Brigadier P.K. Hoogen S/o Narendranath Hoogen; PW-7 : M.Nagaraja S/o Muniswamappa; PW-8 : N.Tanvira Ahamed S/o Nisar Ahmed.
2. List of witnesses examined for the defense:
- NIL -
3. List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P-1: Complaint dated 19.02.2009; Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of PW-1;
Ex.P-2: Copy of State Bank of India statement; Ex.P-2(a) : Signature of PW-2;
Ex.P-3: Letter dated 20.02.2009 to the SHO of JC Nagar PS issued by Ministry of Defence; Ex.P-3(a): Signature of PW-1;
Ex.P-4: Copy of State Bank of India statement; Ex.P-4(a): Signature of PW-2;
Ex.P-5: Copy of State Bank of India statement; Ex.P-5(a): Signature of PW-2;
Ex.P-6: Copy of State Bank of India statement;23
C.C.No.13318/2012 Ex.P-6(a): Signature of PW-2;
Ex.P-7: Copy of State Bank of India statement; Ex.P-7(a): Signature of PW-2;
Ex.P-8: Copy of State Bank of India statement; Ex.P-8(a): Signature of PW-2;
Ex.P-9: Copy of letter dated 15.06.2009; Ex.P-9(a): Signature PW-2;
Ex.P-10: Certified copy of counter coil of the cheque; Ex.P-10(a):Signature of PW-2; Exs.P-11 to 19: Copy of cash book extracts details; Ex.P-11(a) to 19(a): Signature of PW-2; Ex.P-20: Statement of Sri.M.K.Khan; Ex.P-21: Letter dated 17.11.2011; Ex.P-21(a):Signature of PW-7; Ex.P-22: Copy of Daily Order Part II dated 10.12.2001; Ex.P-23: Letter dated 04.04.2012; Ex.P-23(a):Signature of PW-7.
4. List of documents exhibited for the defense:
- NIL -
5. List of Materials objects exhibited for the prosecution:
- NIL -
(SIDDARAMA.S.) III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU CITY.