K V Ranga Ramu vs The State Of Karnataka By Delhi Special ... on 27 May, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 5]

Karnataka High Court

K V Ranga Ramu vs The State Of Karnataka By Delhi Special ... on 27 May, 2011

Bench: V.Jagannathan

:NTHEHKH&COURTQFKAmwuAKAAT§ANQAg3&§ §

Dated the 27m dajgjQ'f"I\?iay 5301. if 
:BEFQRE{" 1 _ #
HGNBLE MR.JUSTIC:i?_: V.J;4XC};"aNE\§;{3§'i5§fiA.1\{V 
CREMENAL APPEALV.:§gg;4_VV580"-i A2304 ;
BETWEEN :  _  --.    
K.V.Ranga Raina '  
Aged about 53 years, ' 'M _  
S/0 K.V.\fenkat_acha1a,_  V  
Kohinoor O1,1vt..I;~"1<;:.:,'1se;;  Roaci,
Basavanaguigli, B3_r;ga1of'§:%58Q Q04} ' ' 
        V ' ,..AppeHant:
_ ____  _ _Shjéuf1vka"1 Advocate far
 Ai\='I_/S E/I.T_.4Naf;aiah & Associates. )
The Staie 'of Karnataké:-,. V'
3:1}? Dalhi 5:3;.,)e<:%i:5:£ 'E?01i,r:€%'..Estab1ish:nemE,
.1}, Beliarjg, _Rbad§ ' Bangalore,
    H  -----  ...Respor1der1t
'~      Sri C.H.Jadhav, Advocate. )
  Appea} filed under Section 374 sf ihe

  the judgmerzi dated 30.3.2004 passed by
au:}§§;AddL CA: &:S&L &;spL Judge§br<3BEcases

 "S;::_::g2Vi1'0r&§ in SpI.C3.C¢N<3. 32/8?, Canvicting and

 ~ S'enfer;cing the appei1ar1f,--a<:Cus€:«:i for the offencsa as

  ___§~,taE€d therein.

"E'hi5=: apgaai comizzg :32 £232" hsaréngg {hiss  the

<:z>z::*':: §E§ii?€§"€§ t%:s::% f<>§<3v:é::§.i§ :



Fx)

JUDGMENT

T he appellant herein was one of the V' xxghe faced trig} in f€Sp€'CT :3?

under Sections 1208, $23,488';--- ;_i';-:1 anV§ee'eee::;7%*?A i.P.C. as well as under Seeti€;:§;;'.Fi(2)h:*e2aﬁV§f£ En' the Prevention of Corrupiien )Aei:,*.,._ 'ii;i.a1 eeurt convicted Ad and A3. offences under the P.C,Act5 xffégu _ 3 sentenced to undergo and to pay a fine of of payment of fine, :0 undefgo six more months. A~1 am} A-3 were' aisc'i'<:O12,;yie€ed and se11'::en<.:ed to "£11"1€.€:":1"'g'O three--vyeare§ 3 fine of Rs.10,00Q,v/~ for the Qff'<31:1ee7piiAr;ish2LE$ie und.er Section 128-8, and similar £é.r'iie:j'<:=eM 'eV$a':f1i"_<j.:r passed against A»: and A3 in resgseef C§f__'C0f1"}f§Cf§i{)fi for the offence punishable under Seeticxn 4}2Ci"§:>f1~ihe LPG.» Furiher, A4 and A3 were also A eefjtégieted far the effenees punishabie under Seetions $88' 55?} and %7?«§§ Qf ihe E.P.{:. and were S€I'£§€i'}:'Z€é t0 Vfigzderggfe three yeaars §<I';,E. 212253 "{5} pay 3 fifiﬁ {sf 1 Cu Rs.1(),OO0/- in respect of each one 0f the aforememioned offences. Default sentences were also passed.

.2. 5%} died during pendeney of the ' by him before this C{)UI"{ and, as; far_aSf,A9.2 Elie' Veezzeeffieed; the case was split up andjthe preeent appefsig U'ier€:f<51e,"', is only in respect Qf A»-8, Whvé'VVh as_ caH2ed«_Vi1%1":qu:estion his eorivietion and senten__<:"'e.

3. The ea$e_f(;f_ is that, A~1 (since ifivssistant Divisional Manager.ie_:¥A'~%§'rie:3ta1'-ffxevufaxivcev"iiiompany Ltd. and A52 (aganﬁést split up) was the Surveyor and the that, A-1, during the period 19.8'§v...tQ«'M&}' 1984; while working as the 'ASs-isA'ta.:it~ ' 've.I:3'ivisi0na} Manager (Administratien) in GArientia1'I»f:s.:3rance Company Ltd, Bangaiere Divisional Ofﬁ<::ee 'e';ntered into 2. criminai eonspiraey with 5&2 and ":_ ' def} Certain iﬁega} acts and all of them had agreeé ' 13> ebiain dishenestijy' <32' frauduleryzljg bezzefiés fer then':

i§'i§£i£~3i"ﬁ'§,1§Th 21$ sseareraé eéaim zzgapiiztzziiens were preeeseeé 3%.

&§:,(»»"""

gm».

Au} which were in respect of damages and the loss was assessed by A~2 Surveyor and it was {sand after thorough investigation that the claim applieatie_:1>s"i5?l:ieh were processed by A4 with the assista:1ee.--e.f all in respect cf fictitious perser_:s:..,a:_1d El-"tell'ela.i':nl'l:lei:.l:e:_s""

were not available but the ani--.o11;f1_"t~ir: lllrespeefl fictitious names were all b}?*A~l. wi»:h.help of-ll A--2, and A3 also joined .}X%'i-:angli§A~2 and made a false Claim Van bearing No. CAM 457éa::a th:e'e'sa;£:: xi¢hj:lcle#'l'wa§i»lllactuail stood in the nameiof T he alnounts 'VhiChla.'«V€vF€??'§ll1ll§3iI§' to A3 were in respect of theivlelaifnslfeéllewing names :

En fineeriiz >*CilaimsA:._ " V . 1) _V_Krisl'ma...Indeustries » Rs.--49,000 ' " 1 Lathe Works ~ Rs.40,4OO i:ii} "'A M General Engg. Werks ~ Rs.4Q,70{}

iv) <5 ljzipiter Flour Mills -- Ref;-1,825 " A f V' Qaftle Claim :

respee? ef a Holstein Cew - Rs: 12,969 Meter Qlaims in {'63 ee: ef :

5':

R 52w I/;


4a.E4



i) Mrs. Nalini --    '

ii] M1:'.S.A§A:z,€€:m " "' 2

car

an Mrs.Na1ir1i   R 

iv} 3{v1r.MuraEiX?asudeVan;_  --

V} Mrs. MathuraNa1ini 'E1?s;'23,300 "

vi) Mrs. M.K.Prave€:;ai I R'§.25,00Q

vii) iV1rs.M.K.PraVeé:i1 §{i._ L. : Rs.20,9{)O viii} Mr.s.A.Bas1:h_-... ;;. Rs.26,500

ix) Mr. : ~ Rs.1z;,1o0 X} Mr. ~ Rs.13,€300

4. A~39 therefore, were tried for the af§r<>:f1é':ji'iCfi1<2ﬁ"_.»L.;§ffences and the details of the af0:;ér11e11ti0n'e.d_"Claims and the amounts have formed 1;h':3-- CSu--bsta:ice afivéimiihe charge against the accused. As 2%-;2V'\?J§is.._'aE5's::<§:f1ding, the casé: was split up against him Thus, Ad and A3 xazere alone tack part in §1':€':f:'::211 which endgd in their C3r1vie:ti<):1 as msntizmed C?8Li'":*i€fg ~--fix Tbs: trial itﬁtéfig af€s:~3r the :;1f<::res3.ié accussd nsi:

gjiijadizlgg gtgiiiiyg czzileé upésn Ehé pI'€>S€{7ui§CvT'§ m eséabiish 5;"/r' _,x //»,a.

(7 . ;

its ease and accordingly, the prosecution _e:2<_amined P.Ws.i to :28 and Exsex to 1?u13e{a) w§:'fe After z*ee<:>rding ef the aeeuseé staten3e_:2.tV %.I::%:

aeeused denying the preseeuViion":;ase, -i'<,':efe--:f;::Ve"'Vws{:3 reeerded and on behalf of the prezsefii appe,£i:€:f1': i.e:-F D.WI 1 was examined.

6. The iearned tria}.3L1e_dg;e, eareful appreciation of the xroluminegs :v,.<'3¥'a1 testimony 0f the taking note of the defelizegi through D.W.1, uItirrive1te1__y'_A .ti_'1eWpr0secuti0n had brought home in respect: of the Gffenees with -§x7:{1iC1"{ tﬁey.'?ste':>d 'eharged. Accordingly, they were * ee::3%ié'ied"Maend senfenced.

"?, ASsé:_:IiAf'1g the Conviction and sentence passed A43 has preferred this appeal and E have '1e:e2grdv "1earnes:i Counsel Shri Shankarappa for the "'V:§Vz§:é;i2eEZ21:1t and learned eozmsel Shri C.H.Jadhav for the " " ":Tr*es:pendenfe~€iB§ azid perueeé the reeereris sf ﬁhe {gees gee V 6 '1 I

8. The learned eounsei fer the appellant argu:ed: t.hat a Careful perusal of the evidence on record-3§Ve'u1:i*---.gG'..:e Show that the main ezﬁprits we:'e»V£a~1 5%-3 has nothing 130 do with the ai1e§ged_-A~efi'e<riee$.' Va:id':a}_} deeumetnts which haV€fb§€1"1 Eeiied fhe°. pmsecution to contend thatuufheb eaid were all fabricated d0eumen'Le _'eh the iheLei§.ef«.x§*hiehAfe1se claims were macie, were the were all Created by AMI and There is also no evidence _ha'§iiS:uhmitted any claim form net ally, Therefore, when the witneefse-5' _ pr:c:>'s-eCL1'i:i0r: do not say in their evi<:':er1eeV-- eebQu'é'A?3V fabricated any document or hag; 'eohnieeci and A~:2, the tried court could not '- ehvaive eerm?i:i:ted A3:

Ahei:-he=r submission made by the learned Counsel £013 '£:he,e..;V3f:»e11a::t is that the eniy evidenee against the Aa'p--;_3ne11ent is that he received a Cheque from A": and the ehegue was eheaehed by him; Exeeptihg the eaid V' "eihggie traheeetéeh heiween 5%} and 2&3, there is he s:}€he:" hzzzizeriaé 12:: itehheet A3 zaztith the zzéiegeé effeheee §f'::=~ M,/' and; therefore, the tzriai court could not hax§§:__'C:;r:viVr:£'<>§i A43 3153 aleng with 23.1. K

18. Yet anether submission pig? '£}i'e;w.£e$£f::::e%ii ceunsei for the appe11a:1i_:s thafﬂiia resprs-§--f;i. c3f motor claims, though the of §€:>1§%é'r:>;£ p ¥é:§s§ns are rnentianed in the c.:§:;2_§31ai_1i'i;'_'§§}'§. {£1956 barring that if A~3, being th'é$ bf persons, the claim dQCum€i§ ts_ aria therefare, can be said tq «}1é:§{e1:Alik;f.§en Agiwxxfith the assistance Qf A-2v.__ ";§::§;g:§<:erned, he was never in the p§ictuféA'VvA;th€'r.;%§ HQ evidence to Show that in respeéf' __(3f_ tihﬁg" "made Concerning fictitious p€I'$0I1S, to play either in submitting the " V' p1'*:3;30:;:a.1 farms <_i>f"ihe claim farms. Merely because A43 hé§;};i)é:<_{_s M 3. close relative of A~1, and A43 had ':'s:~:.i<éive;t§ éﬁééque for Rs.1e'i1>,10{)/~ from ﬁr}, the trial :::9{iri; net have convicted A-8, the appsilant " ., hengin,"

.. i. As far as {he sigﬁaiurs ef 2&3 in thrs pmpgsal fem":

is €2G1'1{3?3§'3i'1€§, the $Li§§1'1§S§§iGi"i mgdﬁ is; that? the trig} %« f':?7"W 9 court has placed reliance on E;><;.P~67 and had opined that the signature feund at E>:.P--87{a) is that of the appeltant. In this connection it is arguee1_;th'2:_tt'-tvhe signature of A43 was not subjected to expetrte and the trial eeurt Comic? not hen;e»_takehV"tt1e'_jVhtirc;fe:1 comparing the signature fOuﬂd"a'iI'1I':E3'i.P:%37A{E?t} signature feuhd in the "{z;:"};e.1ath" ar1e:i .c}ieque= V Ex.P--2?'. Therefore, the :2:-ppI'c.>'::i&:h,.AA<>f.i§the trial court in the matter etgnatutres of A-3 is erroneous at1{i::'cQnt§fétf§f of law laid down in 'R counsel argued that e.ppe11t:1nt be set aside and he be acciuittted; V' 123 ;'O1it thee-ethexr hétntit the subrnission of the learned resp0n<:ient~CBI is that, the learned trial j.u.'d_ge "hét«e._eVé51*efuH§: considered the entire evidence en ree€>rd.-._ét:1:t:"'has rightiy concluded that A~3 also jetned i28.:}dsVV"'v;rith ,e~1 and A2 and thus, the Insurance "£T3eh'1'§3a:1y was put te 1938 due ta the fraudtzlent acts ef "513 the accused pereene, Refertiﬁg tie the ﬁefehee evizietzaée pieced hy .z%-3§ it argueé that the €i€f€§:{?S ef M) AB was that, he being a Close relative of A-1, requested A~1 tie get him a vehieie and, in that connection, A51 was given 123,153,000/~ by A3 and it was this amo:4::1t"-xﬁateh P;-I had returned to A-3 through the this 15 the defence theory, the__E.e21:'nec_i'.e<i:iue9:;se'1"' that, the cheque in quesstion wrhiehiﬁvae et:t.eé.3he'd:%e:3 was for RS.1-4,100/~ and"ﬁ_e't...V_f0r thirst' itself goes to Show that theVAetietenee..theei*y-- CT.0€t.:s§ not have any legs to stench 13, It is "the:_"s{ea*1V3.'e'*e<):nteXt that, if at all A51 had :givief':'«:VA;';3' .eh'eqttjeVV'te\vards the amount which Ad Ahéd_2té;.1s«:e:3 _:f:;}:;1 :33, there was 110 necessity for A» te' heme.hgttieh""th'e"'.eheque which belongs to the inegiratjee and nothing prevented A»? from personal cheque. This also goes to Show that hands with A--1 and A3 and, therefere, thhe'-tria¥1:1.ee£1:"t rightiy com-ieted A43 along with Aw I. As far ae the signature of AB is concerned, the fetartzed eezineet fer the :*esper:deet;~C§E3E arguect that, 3 Ex.P~£§'?{2:} is the prepeeeé ferm and the Ségfiéiiélfé en it 5':

1:

'z is that of A3) and none else' The signature found on E§x.P~€37(a} also tallies with the signature of A43 fojand in the vakalath as well as the sigoafure fo::nelv--.:i_i1"'fVl1e Cheque and the overleaf at Ex.P«2?'.

judge took note of all these factors the fimtling recorded against A~3 said "

perverse in nature for th§s.,_f:'Gurt £o.__ir1{erfefeV4'iVith the" View taken by the trial co«m"'t.«.."L_:'- *l'hoerefofe;---{he learned Counsel for the respo4iieT_e1:f->{ZlVBl -that the appeal be dismissed. . _

15. Having--iﬁ_:5hg:us2"lie_af§j' .bfm{h 'sides, as the appellant before thislAA'Co:1:jftV3'«is anéil A4 having died and the ease ha'v.iIig,bee.nV maagainst A~2, all that this Court williflaxze to fi»:7,.e"out from the judgment of the trial court is 'tghve conviction of A-3 can be sustained in the f_a'eeV.of'vtlie_ e:5§CEe:1ee on records

16. l ~.Ef';i'on§ what has been argued by both sidee and the evieieooe which is aleo not in dispute in zespeet of one aispeet is thai, the eheqzie for Ra. Ma 10%?/'~ was giver: by 1539:, 'Lo £8 aaci "Urge eaid eizeqaze wag aleo eneaehed by , /:3 A3. The evidence ef the bank officer also confirms this fact. Now, the further aspect to be exan1ined is whether A3 had joined hands with the other in eemmitieixag the alleged offences and eenspireei with the ether two aeex/teed ;i'fi"Veiieeijegriiigtfxat the Insurance Company is put"':.:o1'fiI;éneiaI" »<; 'Ls.e7i5<:> the fraudulent and dis1'i:§i'1eSt £13?

persens.

17. T he learned the evidence in respeee and the Said ehseussioxig.VV.js?:.44_f§W:;e f1fo:m :Vpe1ragraphs~45 to 47 of his ef the reasene given by the {he above paragraphs goes to shofpr that.' 1:3[1A<;" 'f{ri£L 1 jedge has found adequate and " eefiviri'ei:3g"e.Videnee against A»-3. For instance, it has {_>bS_e:{"Ve§' learneei trial judge at paragraphw45 of hié"}ud_§3'fI:e:f1{ iihet E:x:.P»~8? ie the policy deeket arm EXP»- éﬁia) is ;;he proposal in reepeet ef A-3 and E><.P~67(b} is ' "'f_Ee"§§re:*I:ium reeeipt, E2:><;.P~68{e) is the policy, E::.P»€:38{e} '""§'e emiry in the eéeire regieéer eed E:>:.?~8§ is eessed by 2%~'E {er 2: ef Re.E%,£GGf~ eed ﬂee eezzeé 3:353 5:130 m';/,, 2% V/'& 2 2 /* ' I3 observed that it is clear from E:>;:.P~96 that the _veh1_e1e CAM 457' stood in the name of one Mohan A--:3 has received cheque fer Rs.1i§§1QQ/~ J the eheque was also not that:"(5f' fvir;._$2V%ae'«' b cheque ef the Oriental Insurance'.CeIhha1ij,f§ ' not given any proposal form""heQr had :ne;C%_;eV"ahy" elaimg' there would not have 1;.)xeer1'..£tr15%'V§;--Ce'2::.ei0n to issue a cheque in the name' Company. T he trial Court who signs in English, fa_1j1;~.;(i1::.'1v:'v()"1f;e£Vi:(:e that the cheque was ies1_;e'CI'* and not by A-1 in hie £3-ersr_3r1a 1'--n'0 amount was due by the Insurance C0IIip3;i:j z td"~:¥§.¥3, A~3 would not have received thegehequeh ffaghh IV;

triad judge has 21133 observed at 'p3'f'ag§a.ph'§_f-Q6 ef his judgment that even 3. euggestieh was *~§x1::.*:, £0 P.W,}2 tea the effect that the documents pehgaihihg to A3 were destreyed and this iteeif goes to '::ehew ihaf; same §§B.f1S8:{f3iiGI} exieted between {he V' '"h3s1:s:*ahs::e C<1}§}'i§ai"2:§£' and $»w3. Apart ffﬁfﬁ the aforesaid eheerizatiehrzg i'/he Eeameé trig} jzzeigge has aiee hcﬁed 21*:

paragraph«4'7 of his judgment that AA 1 , while' we-rirjrzg as Assistant Divisional Manager of the it':stir::1:.ete V' Company. issued the eheque te' 'A43« §§-'£i'.vai3--{ji ' AWQQ with the intention of eiiieaiihg ti":,e'~.1¥:;st;j5::1:iV<:e Company, had fabrie2t:e_ei"'~..eb the and' fraudulently eertifiecﬁthe {§ar:i"agestA'and"Aprepgired false disbursement vouchers "in? ::'r€511§¥_€:jt"' ,ef the claim submitted by " V %

19. the learned trial judge has from the View point of the clefeheeh by A8. D.W.i was examineeféh defence version and the said is nerie etmhevr than the father of AMS and he has V' tiepeseti itéihis evidence in the examit1.atien~in~ehief that sisters husband and A-3 eame tar) the htgtjse in search of jet} and Could not get any job and "th'er: A-3 requested Aw} to get him a vehicle and fhetjeafter the ameunt was so celleeted from D.W.1's Vggzmther in a sum of Rs.5,QGO/'~ arid {we ef the sons ef u M'HI;}c¥%?¥E else eentriheted R~stiS§Q€3G/-- aed thus, AME :'e<::eive€i §5.;QGQ/~ ends the sekti .21z::s::r2,2::t was givetz te .» \: 3' E lb A~1 by A3 to get a vehicle. Subsequerxtly, A-I ﬁid. not get the vehicle nor remm the money and and A3 went to the heuse efA~1 and 1 that time, A-1 tcaid that he xvcf:;1Id»:::S;e:;_ueejj two or three days and $ubseque:v1t1§;_ A--1 :1 <:Ei1e'quVe..L to A3 and the same xxza.3"V"e:fV cashe<ii._f;:w§?~;§«3;v_ In the eeurse of his CFOSS~€§ia¥I1iI§'2§&i€§in£,:' Sfeted that, when A~3 paid was not present and that on the say of A~3 that 5';%:>é§),/A; A» 1.

alse' Cannot 'accepted as a probable one because, if . ALE reeeivedv 15,000/» from A-3, then the natural part cf A»} ought to have been to give

- te A3 and net Rs. 14, 100,/--. S€COI1{ﬂ}?' nit is §'h$€IW'€§ by the Eearned trial judge that the cheque also 3:101: the Cheque of A»«} but ii was the Insurance __€f§o::2.pe;r2y'$ cheque. in ether wariis, the cheque ef the h"1S'iii'Ei§}{';€ Company was given by ﬁx»? 'ac: 2&3. 'E'§1ere§::>z'e, 2% 5 /:7;/2") /".

? 3 16 the trial court had no hesitation in rejecting the defence theory put forward by A-3.

21. Coming to the signature part of the aEg1§ft1et1f.j'§D.£ forward by the learned counsel for the trial court has also considered in great detail with regardh) Seet-:T{.)i91~--73 Qfthde E1\zi'£§iehee'g Act as well as the decision he-fetred to by the Itearned couneteitt, the trial court. The learned in this regard that the been denied by the aeeueeg'the"'§sVi'gnature found in the eheqtte EX.P~67[a}, as We}! as in the 'V.§1Ra1ath_AVate :_é£H._Ti<I'entieal and are by the same pereoiz '1\7v'hi1e; observing that the court should netj Vdagpen Hmttsetf the task of comparing the I the learned trial judge has meted that, fQF"<..3.v."}i},13i»;{€{i purpose, the Court can eempare the eignatu-hes and as A3 hag not disputed the receipt ef A' 'tttheeheque frem A-1 and had get it €F1€aSh€{£§ the trial ht -~-eeurt $53.3 ef the afiew that the Siggttateye feehd at Ext?» §?'{a} prtépeeei fzérth that, at £3 arid izezée eiee. ﬁg,/' E?

22. In my view, the reaseniaegé given by the learned trial judge in accepting the signature on Ex.F'~6'F.{a) as thai of A43 is in accordance with the eviciermié earmot be termed as unreasonable mar"-_ihe-..fi12hd'ir:§T;§ V' recorded can be termed as pervzeraehm r'riatureV._" 2

28. After a Careful ar1aIyeV_ié5--~.g>f the thee' learned trial judge haa of his judgment that the placed by the proseeuticm by the accused A-1 to A43 were parties. conspired together to heip Zeaeh" the Insurance Company and A~3,VV'L>ehi::g a-e1er3e'r'elatiVe 0fA~1, therefore, was also '_ pa,rii,ef__iAthe Cer1Vsp.i._r_aey planned and, referring to the law ' Eai'd.eEe§5m Apex Ceurt with regard to the evidence ap;jreeiatiV5j_n.e:'§n eases of conspiracy, the Eearrzed trial guage has ebserved that, If a epeeifie incidenr of eheating aasafsévpreved beyond doubt against any af the accused, {haaia werild furrgish ihe bee: eerreberaiiozz of the effeeee at 05 ziémapiraejg heearase, eer2spira:::§z wag {he ree': aha §:%$ 13 specific instances were the fruit. The 1ea1€f:ex:_i~«._i:fia1 judge has 3150 observed by referring to the policy in reepeei of the vehic1e_,CAM was respeet ef this vehicie that A~3v'Wae"'pe;id'ooR 3A; 5*1.'£_)}I way of Cheque by A»1s'a1i;d Case"

conspiracy, it is not neeessa'i3:.ti3at a:i'~o\}ei't 31;: need to be done in furthe"1'f:1r1e:--Ae of " ...__t},_1'e'.e _ conspiracy and conspiracies are noi_he;i:ehe__d ;in-"'eVp'e~f:V..but are secretly piarmed. '

24. For:thea§ore'éaid"ofea_s'o1is,'I em of the View that the eoncfijsioix-.tfe_ac}§:'ed b'y, Lhe tfiéxi Court in convicting A-3 also aiong on the evidence on record andihe eﬁciriiitted and the defeénee theory of Am?» 5 V .. ._ 2 feeds to the'g"1'o'uvnd in View of its improbabiiity. As see any good ease made out by the zg:s;oe}Ia;:3.--t '(hie Court to interfere with the conviction of the' 3;:-£oe1'1é:.nt5 As far as sentence is concerned i have heard the '§earr:edVeo1::1.se1 for the epgoeﬂarxi as 'weii as me learned {:e:zr:ee§§f<:>r {he ree;;>endeIﬁ:~CBE ans? tzzking mete es? ihe I9 magniuéxde of the offences alleged and the Insurance Company, being a public sector institution, bazsingjput to 1035 by {ha fraudulent; acts 0fA~1 :0 A43, in 135,; sentence imposed by the triai C{}L1I'f,_.,E_l;1v_é{) require any modification.

26. For tha above reason§§._Jf'1<1¢ ap p€:§iiai$ Since the appeﬁant isV__sVéLA'ivd_ be.'O'r1..I;;aiA1ff he shall surrender forthwith to undargo the sentence imposed up'01:--I:i:ﬁ _a,1f1d ;i;hé%". tfiai Court shall also take :1€:_€:éé:";3a1'y é.teps" t0"s$C':i'1"e..t}1e presénce of A3 so that hé (ﬂit {:I"Vlé: 'Sf3f1'C€'ﬁ¢€V iI}i1pOS€d upon him, jﬁdgraeigt shall be sent forthwith to the trméﬁ u<:c'>urt' {pf séﬁ .....

'c1§::%/- " ' "

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court