Bangalore District Court
State By Sanjaynagara P.S vs No.1 And 6 Are on 17 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 17th Day of March 2021
Present: Sri.Jayaprakash D.R B.A., LL.M
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.5641/2004
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 5641/2004
2. The date of commission 2001
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant State by Sanjaynagara P.S.
4. Name of the accused A1. Ramanujam, Senior
Administrative Officer,
Sugarcare Breeding Institute,
Coimbatore - 641 007, T.N.
A6. Srinivas, Branch Manager,
Sri.M.Visveshwaraiah Co
operative Bank Ltd.,
Subramanyanagara Branch,
Bangalore.
5. The offence complained of U/s. 420 r/w 34 of IPC
or proved
2 C.C.No.5641/2004
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
7. Final Order Acting U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.
accused No.1 and 6 are
acquitted
8. Date of such order 17032021
For the following:
JUDGMENT
This case is arising out of charge sheet submitted by the Police Inspector of Sanjaynagara PS against the accused No.1 and 6 for an offence Punishable U/Sec. 420 r/w 34 of IPC. The police have not filed charge sheet against the accused No.2 to 5 shown in the private complaint.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
The accused No.1 is the Chief Administrative officer of Indian Veterinary Research Institution and accused No.6 is 3 C.C.No.5641/2004 the Manager of Vishwaraiah Cooperative Bank and CW1 to 21 were the D Group employees of IVRI. It is the allegation that in the month of August 2001 accused No.1 along with accused No.6 promising to arrange loan for purchasing of home appliances in Vishwaraiah Coopeative Bank obtained signatures on loan documents, delivery challan and other documents from CW1 to 21 and accused No.1 has given salary certificate showing the excess salary of CW1 to 21 and accused No.6 has created documents showing that loan was sanctioned to purchase home appliances in favour of CW1 to 21 and amount is drawn in the name of CW23 and they have not supplied home appliances as promised by them. When CW1 to 21 raised dispute they have given Rs.10,000/ each and obtained signature on the receipt stating that entire 4 C.C.No.5641/2004 amount is paid to them. Hence, it is alleged that the accused have committed the offence punishable u/s 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
3. In pursuance of summons the accused No.1 and 6 have appeared before the court and they are enlarged on bail. The provision of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. was complied by furnishing charge sheet and its enclosures to the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. Accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the allegation against the accused prosecution has examined in all 8 witnesses and got marked 3 documents in its favour. Out of PW1 to 8 evidence of PW2, 3, 5, 6 were discarded as they did not subject themselves for cross examination. In spite of repeated issuance of process to CW3, 6, 7, 11 to 16, 18 to 28 the prosecution has failed to secure their presence. Hence, they were dropped from 5 C.C.No.5641/2004 examination. CW9 and 17 are dead. The provision u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was complied by recording the statement of accused. The accused have denied the incriminating evidence against them and submitted that they have no defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. The point that would arise for my consideration in this case are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 being the Chief Administrative officer of Indian Veterinary Research Institution and accused No.6 being the Manager of Vishwaraiah Co operative Bank have cheated CW1 to 21 who were the D Group employees of IVRI by 6 C.C.No.5641/2004 promising that they will arrange loan for purchasing of home appliances and obtained signatures on loan documents from CW1 to 21 and they have given Rs.10,000/ each to CW1 and 2 and obtained signature on the receipt stating that entire amount is paid to them and used the excess amount of loan sanctioned thereby accused have committed the offence punishable u/s 420 r/w 34 of IPC?
2. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following:
7 C.C.No.5641/2004
REASONS
8. Point No.1: It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 is the Chief Administrative officer of Indian Veterinary Research Institution and accused No.6 is the Manager of Vishwaraiah Cooperative Bank and CW1 to 21 were the D Group employees of IVRI. It is the allegation that in the month of August 2001 accused No.1 along with accused No.6 promising to arrange loan for purchasing of home appliances in Vishwaraiah Coopeative Bank obtained signatures on loan documents, delivery challan and other documents from CW1 to 21 and accused No.1 has given salary certificate showing the excess salary of CW1 to 21 and accused No.6 has created documents showing that loan was sanctioned to purchase home appliances in favour of CW1 to 21 and amount is drawn in the name of CW23 and they have 8 C.C.No.5641/2004 not supplied home appliances as promised by them. When CW1 to 21 raised dispute they have given Rs.10,000/ each and obtained signature on the receipt stating that entire amount is paid to them. Hence, it is alleged that the accused have committed the offence punishable u/s 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
9. In order to prove the allegation against the accused prosecution has examined in all 8 witnesses and got marked 3 documents in its favour. Out of PW1 to 8 evidence of PW2, 3, 5, 6 were discarded as they did not subject themselves for cross examination.
10. Before appreciating the evidence with respect to allegation against the accused, it is important to note that investigating agency has filed charge sheet only against accused No.1 and 6 and accused No.2 to 5 shown in the 9 C.C.No.5641/2004 complaint are dropped in the charge sheet. Accused No.1 is the Senior Administrative Officer of Indian Veterinary Research Institute and accused No.6 is the Branch Manager of Vishveshwaraiah Cooperative Bank Ltd. The specific allegation against the accused are that by using their official capacity they have induced complainant's and other employees that they will get loan of Rs.20,000/ each from the Vishveshwaraiah Coopeative Bank Ltd., and made them to apply for loan and they have distributed Rs.20,000/ each as loan. However, after 6 months complainant and other employees received notice from the arbitrator wherein huge amount was shown as loan sanctioned and they have mis appropriated rest of the amount and cheated the complainant and other employees of IVRI, Hebbal.
10 C.C.No.5641/2004
11. In this back ground I have gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses. PW1 in his chief examination has given evidence inconsonance with prosecution case. However, in the cross examination he has admitted that "It is true to suggest that before lodging the complaint I had received notice from arbitrator. It is true to suggest that I received the said notice since I committed default in repayment of the loan. I did not appear before the arbitrator." Further admitted that "I had paid Rs.10,000/ for the bank towards repayment. But I did not bring that to the notice of the arbitrator. Before the arbitrator I did not say that I did not borrow any loan." From the above admissions it is very clear that PW1 even after receipt of notice from the arbitrator he has not appeared before the arbitrator and he has specifically admitted that he has committed default in 11 C.C.No.5641/2004 repayment of said loan. Further, PW1 has admitted that when they apply for salary certificate they have to give written requisition to Section Officer and Section Officer plays important role in preparation of salary certificate. This admission shows that the accused No.1 is not the sole authority who involves in preparation of salary certificate. Further PW1 has admitted that the amount of Rs.20,000/ was paid to him by some broker and not by accused No.1 or 6. This aspect also raises doubt with respect to role of accused No.1 and 6. PW1 further admitted that "ನನನ ತಗದನಕಕಕಡ ಈ ಎಕಬತನತ ಸವರ ರಕ. ಲಕಲನ ನನನ ಸಕಬಳದಕದ ತಕಗಳನ-ತಕಗಳನ ಡಡಕನ ಆಗ ಪತರ ಮರನಪವತಯಗರನತತದ. ಈ ಎಕಬತನತ ಸವರ ರಕ. ಸಲಕಕ ನನನ ಸಕಬಕದಕದ ಕಡತವಗನತತದದ ಬಗಗ ನನಗ ಗಕತತತನತ." This shows that he has repaid entire Rs.80,000/ of loan which he has availed, what is 12 C.C.No.5641/2004 important is not the repayment but he admits that he has availed said loan of Rs.80,000/. Further, PW1 has also admitted that he has not challenged the award passed by the arbitrator and action taken by bank for recovery of said loan amount. These admissions of PW1 raises doubt with respect to allegation against accused No.1 and 6.
12. Further, PW4 in the cross examination has admitted that "ವಲತನ ಪ ಪ ಮಣ ಪತ ತ ನಲಡನವ ಸಮಯದಲ ಅದನನ ನ ಸಕನ ಆಫಲಸರ, ಅಡಷನಲ ಅಡಡನ ಸಸ ಪಟವ ಆಫಲಸರ ಅವಗಳನನ ನ ಪರಶಲಲನ ಮಡನತತರ ಎಕದರ ಸರ. ಸಲನಯರ ಅಡಡನ ಸಸ ಪಟವ ಆಫಲಸರರವರನ ಕಲವಲ ವಲತನ ಪಪ ಮ ಣ ಪತ ತಕಕ ಸಹ ಮಡನತತರ ಎಕದರ ಸರ. " This admission of PW4 shows that accused No.1 being the Senior Administrative Officer only signs the salary certificate which is prepared by his sub 13 C.C.No.5641/2004 ordinates. Further, PW4 has admitted that "ನನನ ಜಕತ ಸನಮರನ 35 ಜನ ನಕರರನ ಸಹ ಅರರ ಸಲಸದದ ರನ ಎಕದರ ಸರ . ದಖಲತಗಳಗ ನನಲ ಸಹ ಮಡರನತತಲ ನ ಎಕದರ ಸರ ." Thereby PW4 has admitted that he has applied for loan to purchase home appliances and along with him about 35 others have also filed application for grant of such loan. Further, PW4 has admitted that "ಮದದ ಸತಕ ಗರರನ ಮಡದ ಆದಲಶದ ವರನದದ ಮಲಲಡ ನವ ಸಲಸಲಲ . ನನನ ಮದದ ಸತ ಗ ರರ ಮನಕದ ನ ಹಕತರನಗಸಲನ ಬದದ ನಗದನಕದನ ಹಜರಗ ನನನ ಪಡದನಕಕಕಡ ಸಲವನನ ಹಲಳಕ ಕಕಟಸದ ನ ಎಕದರ ಸರ ." This admission shows that PW4 has admitted his liability to pay the loan and he has also admitted that "ನನನ ಸಲ ಪಡದನಕಕಕಡನ ಪತರಯಗ ಮರನಪವತಸದನ ಎಕದರ ಸರ ." This admission shows that PW4 has admitted that he has availed such loan amount. This admissions of PW4 also raises doubt about the prosecution case.
14 C.C.No.5641/2004
13. Similarly, PW3 in his cross examination admits that he has repaid entire loan amount after receiving of notice from the arbitrator. If PW3 had not taken the loan amount of Rs.80,000/ he could have protested the claim made before the arbitrator. Further, in the cross examination PW3 has admitted the brokers by names Satish, Manju and Venu have taken their signatures on the documents and after availing loan he has not enquired about brokers. This admission also raises doubt about the role of accused No.1 and 6.
14. Even PW7 in his cross examination admits that some broker has obtained signature on the documents and brokers have given the amount after sanctioning the loan. Further, he has admitted that he has repaid the same and he has not preferred any appeal against the award of the arbitrator. Similarly, PW8 in his cross examination has admitted that the 15 C.C.No.5641/2004 signatures on loan applications are obtained by agents. Further, he has admitted that "ನನಗ ಮಕಜಕರದಕತಹ ಸಲವನನ ನ ನನನ ಕನಕನನಬದದ ವಗ ತಲರಸದನ ಎಕದರ ಸರ. " By this admission he has admitted not only repayment of loan but also admits that said loan was sanctioned to him.
15. When entire evidence of prosecution witnesses is appreciated it is very clear that all the witnesses have admitted that they have availed loan but not Rs.80,000/ as claimed by bank. All the prosecution witnesses have admitted that they have signed the relevant loan documents. When that being so it is difficult to hold that the prosecution witnesses have not applied for loan of Rs.80,000/ but for loan of Rs.20,000/ only. There are two possibilities. When that being so said benefit of doubt should go in favour of accused No.1 16 C.C.No.5641/2004 and 6. In this case, it is the allegation against the accused No.1 that he has issued salary certificate showing the higher amount as salary, even though CW1 to 21 were getting lower amount as salary so as to facilitate sanctioning of higher loan amount. However, in this case, prosecution has not marked the genuine salary certificate of CW1 to 21 and alleged salary certificate showing excess salary which were produced before the bank.
16. Another crucial aspect in this case is that said loan was granted to purchase home appliances. The allegation by the investigating authority is that said home appliances were shown to have been purchased from one Srinidhi Agency. Whether these witnesses have purchased home appliances from Srinidhi Agency or not is a crucial aspect that would have been thrown light on the prosecution case. However, 17 C.C.No.5641/2004 CW23 who is the Proprietor of Srinidhi Agencies is not secured and examined by the prosecution. Non examination of CW23 is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
17. In view of the above discussion more than a reasonable doubt arises with respect to allegation made against the accused No.1 and 6. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to hold that accused No.1 and 6 have committed the offences alleged against them. Of course, a suspicion arises against the accused No.1. However, suspicion will not replace the proof. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and 6 have committed the offences alleged against them. Accordingly, I hold point No.1 in the Negative.
18. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following: 18 C.C.No.5641/2004
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 6 are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/sec. 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused No.1 and 6 and there surety bonds stand canceled after the expiry of appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer transcribed and computerized by her, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 17th day of March 2021.) (Jayaprakash D.R.) VIII Addl. CMM, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Ramaiah
PW2 : Poojappa DISCARDED
PW3 : Kondaiah K.M. DISCARDED
PW4 : Puttaswamy
PW5 : R.Sadashivaiah DISCARDED
19 C.C.No.5641/2004
PW6 : Balakrishna DISCARDED
PW7 : Narayanappa A
PW8 : T.S.Mallikarjuna Aradhya
2. Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW1
Ex.P3 : Statement of PW2
3. Witnesses examined for the defence:
NIL
4. Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.20 C.C.No.5641/2004
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 6 are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/sec.
420 r/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused No.1 and 6 and there surety bonds stand canceled after the expiry of appeal period.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore