Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 10 January, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CRR No. 65 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 65 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.1348 of 2013 For the reasons recorded in the Criminal Misc. Application, the same is allowed. Delay of 50 days in filing the criminal revision is condoned.
CRR No. 65 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. 65 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 Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, 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 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 condensing the files, 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 Account No. 16202 in his CRR No. 65 of 2013 (O&M) 3 personal name in their bank, manipulated the entries by forging and fabricating certain entries from one account to another, in the computer system by handling the software and got the entries pertaining to the amount of the the bank in his favour and knowingly and intentionally withdrew the amount from the bank. As per enquiry, it has been revealed that the accused by carrying out forgery, fabricating the entries in the computer system of the bank, illegally and wrongfully, withdrew Rs.3,20,000/- from the bank and thus, caused wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the bank. The forgery was committed by the accused on 05.07.2001 and 02.01.2002 for Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively. They came to know regarding the fraud committed by the accused on 07.02.2003 and when records were placed before him, the accused confessed and admitted his guilt in writing on 07.02.2003 and deposited the amount of Rs.3,20,000/- and requested the bank authorities not to initiate further action in this regard. On receipt of the complaint, a case bearing FIR No. 114 dated 24.02.2003, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 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 Ravinder Kumar Gupta, PW2 Fakir Chand, Sr. Manager, Bank of Baroda, CRR No. 65 of 2013 (O&M) 4 PW3 Harish Ahuja, PW4 Ravinder Kaul and PW5 Shivas Kaviraj, Investigating Officer.
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 about 15/16 years prior to the occurrence. Learned counsel 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 Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner had deposited the whole amount to the bank on the very same day and no loss was caused to the bank, so, the ingredients of the offences are not made out.
I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for CRR No. 65 of 2013 (O&M) 5 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.3,20,000/-, though the said amount has been deposited by him later on. 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.3,20,000/-.
The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, observed as under:-
"12. In this regard, a careful perusal of the profit loss account statements Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/G reveal that in respect of the entries on 5.7.2001, the actual interest calculation as evidence from Ex.PW2 was Rs.11,61,210/- but by forging the entries the accused has posted the statement of interest on that day of the amount of Rs.12,81,210/- as evident from Ex.PG2/G and the differential amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was got deposited by accused in his account on 5.7.2001. Similarly, in respect of 2.1.2002, the actual interest calculated as evidence from Ex.PW2/A is Rs.17,22,029/- while the accused by forging the entries posted the interest as Rs.19,22,029/- as evidence from Ex.PW2/F and the difference of Rs.2,00,000/- has been deposited by him in his account on 2.1.2002. The fact of deposition is duly reflected in the account statement Ex.PW1/D and, therefore, clearly CRR No. 65 of 2013 (O&M) 6 accused has forged the entries (amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/-) on 5.7.2001 and 2.1.2002 and deposited in his account.
13. Further, the documents Ex.PW1/H to Ex.PW1/S show that the accused has withdrawn the said amount which he got deposited in his account fraudulently.
14. Moreover, the letter Ex.PW1/C has been placed on record wherein the accused has admitted his guilt. The signatures on Ex.PW1/C of accused are similar to the specimen signatures existing on account opening form of the accused Ex.PW1/F. In this manner, the prosecution has been able to prove the entire chain of evidence.
15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused during the course of arguments has referred to the cross examination of PW1 Ravinder Kumar Gupta wherein he has stated that no password was allotted to Sanjay. However, no doubt, password is given to an employee but during the cross examination PW-1 Ravinder Kumar Gupta, it has also surfaced that although password was not given to the accused but for maintaining the software, the employee used to feed the password and allow the accused to operate the software and in this manner accused used to have access to all those files to which only the employee of the bank could have. Moreover, as the amount was deposited in the account of accused and he has withdrawn it, therefore, there is no force in said argument.
16. Further, the learned counsel for the accused has in particular referred to the cross examination of PW-2 Fakir Chand and PW-4 Ravinder Kaul, Manager, wherein they have stated that the bank did not suffer any loss nor any forged documents was made by Sanjay. No CRR No. 65 of 2013 (O&M) 7 doubt, no loss was incurred by the bank as itself admitted in the complaint submitted on 7.2.2003, the accused has admitted his guilt and thereafter deposited the amount of Rs.3,20,000/- in the bank but the question on the basis of which the guilt of the accused in the present case is to be determined is whether the dishonest intention existed on the date when he forged the entries on 5.7.2001 and 2.1.2002.
17. As discussed above, clearly dishonest intention existed on 5.7.2001 and 2.1.2002 as by forging the entries he got t he amount of Rs.3,20,000/- deposited in his account and thereafter withdrew the same. The fact that, later on, he deposited the amount of Rs.3,20,000/- does not have any bearing as the offence had already been committed. Rather, by returning the amount of Rs.3,20,000/- upon his statement Ex.PW1/C, the accused has admitted his guilt.
18. In the light of the above discussion, the accused had cheated the bank and forged the electronic record to cause wrongful loss to 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. However, in respect of Section 406 IPC, no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove that there was the entrustment of the said amount to the accused and as such, he is acquitted for the offence under Section 406 IPC.
19. 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 & CRR No. 65 of 2013 (O&M) 8 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 petitioner. Leanred counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any misreading or non-reading 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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments.
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