Bangalore District Court
State By Cbi/Spe vs No.1: A.Sheshagiri Rao (Abated) on 5 April, 2021
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU
(CCH-4)
Spl.CC.No.77/2003
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF APRIL, 2021
PRESENT: Smt. Manjula Itty, B.A.L., LL.B.,
XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge & Principal Special Judge for CBI
Cases, Bengaluru
Complainant: State by CBI/SPE, Bengaluru
(By Sri.Chenthil Kumar,
Senior Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused No.1: A.Sheshagiri Rao (Abated)
Accused No.2: Sri.G.Ananth Kumar,
Age 44 years,
S/o K.V.Gopal Raju,
R/o No.2, 1st Floor,
5th Cross, I Main,
Prashanth Nagar,
Bangalore-79
(By Sri.Ganesh Kumar, Advocate)
2 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
Accused No.3: Shyam M. Ganglani,
Age 52 years,
Present Address:
No.77, High Street,
High Street Plaza,
10-10, Singapore
Permanent Address:
No.125, Cunningham Road,
Bangalore-52
(By Smt.M.Gayathri, Advocate)
Accused No.4: Sri.P.Krishnappa,
Age 47 years,
S/o Late M.Puttaswamappa,
R/o No.39, I 'E" Main,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
Girinagar,
Bangalore-85.
( By Sri.B.J.Prakash Singh, Advocate)
3 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
During the year
Date of offence 2001
Date of report of offence 30.6.2003
Date of arrest of accused
Not arrested
No.1 to 4
Date of release of
Not applicable
accused on bail
Total period of custody Not applicable
Sri.K.Venkataramaiah, DGM,
Name of the complainant Canara Bank, Circle Office,
Bangalore.
Date of commencement
26.5.2005
of recording evidence
Date of closing of
18.2.2017
evidence
Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468
and 471 Indian Penal Code and
Offences complained of Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
Accused No.2 - Not guilty
Opinion of the Judge Accused No.3 Found guilty
Accused No.4 - Not guilty
4 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
Sri.Chenthil Kumar,
State represented by
Senior Public Prosecutor
A2 by Sri.Ganesh Kumar,
Advocate
A3 by Smt.M.Gayathri,
Accused defended by
Advocate
A4 by Sri.B.J.Prakash Singh,
Advocate
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE, Bengaluru has submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that accused No.1, Sri.A.Sheshagiri Rao (since deceased) was working in the capacity of Senior Manager in Canara Bank, Basavanagudi branch, 5 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Bangalore during the period 1998-2001 and during his tenure as Branch Manager in the year 2001 he entered into criminal conspiracy with accused No.2 Sri.G.Ananth Kumar, accused No.3 Sri.Shyam M.Ganglani and accused No.4 Sri.P.Krishnappa who were private persons in the matter of closing Foreign Currency Non-Resident Deposit (FCNR deposits in short) No. FCNR 45/2001 which stood in the names of Sri.Vijay N.Mansukhani and his family members before its maturity by creating forged letters/applications as if requested by the depositors and withdrew proceeds of the deposits to the tune of Rs.1,34,44,019/- .
3. The further prosecution case is that, on the actual date of maturity of the FCNR 45/2001 the depositor Vijay N.Mansukhani sent a request letter to transfer the proceeds of the deposit to 6 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 the Global Trust Bank, Mumbai and he also annexed the Deposit Receipt No.2058354 of FCNR 45/2001 which was sent to him by the bank. Then the bank realized the fraudulent acts committed by the accused persons and by the above dishonest and fraudulent acts of the accused persons, the bank incurred a wrongful loss of Rs.1,34,44,019/- and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons. Thus, a complaint was registered and after investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet before this case against accused No.1 to accused No.4 for offences punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( PC Act in short).
7 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
4. Copy of the charge sheet was furnished to the accused persons as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. in short) and after hearing the prosecution and the accused persons, my learned predecessor-in-office framed charges against the accused on 25.10.2003 for the offence punishable under section 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused has examined 22 witnesses as PWs1 to 22 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P112. Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of defense. During the trail was progressing, after the closure 8 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 of prosecution evidence accused No.1, the sole public servant in this case expired and hence, case against him got abated. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.2 to accused No.4 were questioned under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. who denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. Accused No.3 and accused No.4 filed their written statement under section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. and the accused persons did not chose to adduce oral evidence on their behalf. After closure of evidence, I have heard final arguments addressed by Sri. Chenthil Kumar, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and also the arguments of Sri.Ganesh Kumar, the learned counsel for accused No.2, Smt.M.Gayathri, the learned counsel for accused No.3 and Sri.B.J.Prakash Singh, the learned counsel for accused No.4. 9 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor in his arguments submits that, accused No.1 being a Senior Branch Manager of the Basavanagudi Branch, Canara Bank, Bengaluru misusing his official position as a Branch Manager in conspiracy with accused No. 2 to 4 has siphoned Rs.1,34,44,019/- which was deposited by PW20 who is an NRI residing in the United Kingdom without the knowledge of PW20 by creating forged documents and deposited in the account of accused No.3. He further submits that, PW20 had made deposits from London in Great Britain Pound Sterling and accused No.1 had facilitated accused No.3 who was in acute financial crisis to withdraw the deposit amount by creating forged documents with the help of accused No.2 and accused No.4 and thereby, they all have 10 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 committed the alleged offence. He further submits that, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the criminal activities done by all the accused persons with the help of documents and also by producing witnesses to that effect. As the next limb of his arguments he submits that, accused No.1 after opening new FCNR deposit on the instructions of PW20 with No. FCNR 45/2001 which is marked as Ex.P25, instead of sending the original deposit certificate to PW20 had handed over the same to accused No.3 who misused the same by forging the signatures of original depositors and withdrew the deposit amount before the maturity period. Later, accused No.1 managed to obtain a blank certificate stationary from Canara Bank, Mayo Hall Branch and printed the details of the original certificate by forging the signatures of bank 11 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 officials and also by affixing his signature and the same was sent to the original depositors PW20 and this said fake certificate seized from the custody of the bank is also produced by the prosecution before this court and marked as Ex.P24. The signatures of PW20, his wife and his son who are the original depositors of the FNCR 45/2001 were forged by accused No.3 and accused No.1 allowed accused No.3 to obtain the fruits of the deposits and accused No.1 also allowed accused No.3 to open fake bank accounts jointly in the name of PW20 and accused No.3 for which accused No.4 was the introducer and thereby, facilitated the proceeds of Ex.P25 to be transferred to the fake accounts created for this purpose and thereafter, the amount was transferred from that fake account to the individual account of accused No.3. 12 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Advancing his arguments he submits that, the deposition of PW20 before this court clearly proves the fraudulent acts committed by the accused persons and the Ex.P2, P3, P4 which are the accounts of accused No.3 maintained with the Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch and Ex.P5, P6 statements of accounts pertaining to these bank accounts also prove the withdrawal of proceeds of Ex.P25 by accused No.3. The evidences of witnesses such as PW5, PW6, PW7 also proves the fraudulent acts committed by the accused persons as accused No.1 to 4 have forged the signatures of these witnesses in Ex.P24 fake deposit certificate which was sent to PW20. His further submission is that, the Investigating Officer had sent the admitted signatures and the questioned signatures of accused No.2 and accused No.3 for obtaining 13 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Expert Opinion from Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (the GEQD in short) and the GEQD certificate Ex.P53, P54, P55, P56 coupled with the oral testimony of PW18 the GEQD also clinchingly proves the prosecution case. He further states that, all the witnesses were elaborately cross-examined by the learned respective counsel appearing for accused No.1 to accused No.4, but none of them could shake the prosecution case in any way. Lastly it is the submissions of the learned Senior Public Prosecutor that, from the cumulative reading of the documents along with the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt its case and hence, all the accused persons deserve to be punished for their culpable activities with the 14 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 highest punishment prescribed under law for the offences charged against them.
7. The learned counsel for accused No.2 in his final arguments submits that, the prosecution case is pointed on accused No.1 primarily targeting as the principle accused and the role of accused No.2 as alleged by the prosecution is of a conspirating partner who facilitated the commission of offence. His further submission is that, from the entire reading of the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses it can be seen that, only four witnesses speak about accused No.2. The evidences available on record are totally scattered and the main allegation with respect to accused No.2 is that, he had gone to Palani to fetch the proceeds of the matured FCNR deposit No. 8/2000 to Bengaluru which is totally 15 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 denied by accused No.2 and not even a single witness or material is produced by the prosecution to prove this aspect except a bare allegation in the charge sheet. Advancing his arguments he submits that, Ex.P5 and P6 accounts statements are produced before this court to show that, money from the fake accounts created by accused No.3 has been transferred to the accounts of accused No.2, but neither Ex.P5 nor Ex.P6 are legally admissible documents since, these are Xerox copies of accounts statements which is not attested as per Bankers' Book Evidence Act nor the computer printout is accompanied by the certificate as contemplated under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that, the prosecution allegation is that, accused No.2 is a Chartered Accountant working for accused No.3, 16 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 but prosecution has not produced any document to show that accused No.2 is a Chartered Accountant. In fact accused No.2 is an Art worker who had supplied his art works to accused No.1. Above all the identity of accused No.2's account details were not produced during investigation nor they were produced before this court as a part of prosecution records to show that accused No.2 is the person which is found mentioned as 'Kumar and Ananthkumar' in Ex.P5 and P6. He further submits that, Ex.P66 is the Internal Investigation Report prepared by PW4 and based on that report Ex.P16 complaint is lodged by the Deputy General Manager of Canara Bank. The contents of either Ex.P16 or Ex.P66 cannot be looked into since based on Ex.P66 Internal Investigation Report, Ex.P16 complaint was prepared and in turn based on that Ex.P16 17 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 complaint, FIR is registered and hence, those two documents can be given regard to consider that they have set the criminal law into motion. It is the prosecution case that, accused No.2 had account with Canara Bank and he had loan transactions with Canara Bank which is totally untrue allegation and the prosecution has not produced any documents to show that accused No.2 had any account with Canara Bank. It is further argued by the learned counsel for accused No.2 that, prosecution has made an attempt to prove the previous statements of certain witnesses said to have been given to PW4 who conducted internal investigation and the statements recorded by PW4 and given to PW4 by bank officials are produced before this court and got marked. These statements have no evidentiary value since they are hit by Sec.161 18 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 and 162 of the Cr.P.C. and also they are hear-say evidences. The person who recorded the statement is not a witness.
8. He further vehemently argued and attacked the Ex.P53 to 56, Expert Opinion Reports given by PW18 on the ground that, they cannot stand on its own and they can only be considered as a corroboratory piece of evidence. If there are other evidences to prove the forgery, then the opinion of the expert can be used to corroborate the same. But, here in his case there is not even a single document produced by the prosecution to show that, accused No.2 had forged signatures of anybody and during investigation accused No.2 was asked to imitate the signatures and handwriting found in the questioned documents and those imitated 19 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 signatures and handwritings of accused No.2 were considered as specimen signatures and writings of accused No.2 and then, it is said to have been compared with questioned documents and opinion is given by the GEQD which is totally unacceptable. Ex.P12 and P13 cheques are produced by the prosecution to prove the involvement of accused No.2 into this case, but the cheques bear names of one Ananthkumar and one Kumar. The prosecution has not marked the signatures found in the reverse of the cheques to prove that the person named in the cheque has withdrawn the money. The signature on the overleaf was not sent for Expert Opinion and these aspects would not prove that, accused No.2 had in fact received money and therefore, the evidences adduced to that effect is inadmissible. It is his further argument that, the 20 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 procedure adopted by the Investigating Officer in collecting the signatures and sending the disputed signatures of the accused persons and that of PW20 seeking opinion form the GEQD is also not as per law. The Investigating Officer did not obtain three sets of signatures to send them to GEQD. Instead of comparing the questioned signatures and writing with admitted signatures and writing and specimen signatures and writings, the Investigating Officer collected only specimen signatures and writings and the GEQD also did not insist on the relevancy of admitted signatures and writings before pronouncing his opinion on questioned signatures and writings.
9. As a next limb of this arguments he states that the prosecution has tried to prove the statement of accused No.2 said to have been given before one Sri.Narayan Rao and the said 21 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Narayan Rao is not cited as a witness in this case and the alleged statement is marked at Ex.P60 through PW4 who conducted internal investigation and he states that he received the statement said to have been given by accused No.2 and recorded by Narayan Rao, from Narayan Rao and he handed over the statement to the Investigating Officer of this case. The contents of Ex.P60 also does not stands proved as the giving of such a statement is wholly denied by accused No.2 as he was not under obligation to give such statement to anybody and hence, he prays to acquit accused No.2.
10. The learned counsel for accused No.3 has tried to impress upon this court that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of charges leveled against accused No.3 is only imaginary and without any basis and she 22 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 submitted her arguments at length taking the defence of alibi states that, as on the dates of the alleged period of fraudulent transactions, accused No.3 was not at available in India and she places reliance on the copies of Passports of accused No.3 to demonstrate that accused No.3 was staying in Singapore and Dubai at the relevant period of time. She further submits that, there is absolutely no evidence against accused No.3 in the entire reading of the prosecution records to bring accused No.3 into this case. Expatiating her contention the learned counsel contends that, accused No.3 did not know PW20 at all and this is admitted by PW20 himself in his substantive evidence before this court. She further argues that, the prosecution allegation is that accused No.3 had maintained three different accounts with the Canara Bank Basavanagudi 23 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 branch, but the prosecution has not produced any document to show that the accounts were actually opened by accused No.3. She further states that, the fraudulent account No. SB NRE 56193 which is alleged to have been fraudulently opened by accused No.3 in the joint name of accused No.3 and PW20 and the account No.SB NRE 56142 alleged to have been opened by accused No.3 in his individual name were not in fact opened by him. He had no knowledge of opening of these accounts and accused No.1 who was the bank manager during that period have fraudulently opened these accounts in the name of accused No.3 and PW20 without the knowledge of either of accused No.3 or PW20. Her further submission is that, the account No.NRE SB 56037 said to have been opened by accused No.3 with the Canara Bank, 24 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Basavanagudi Branch is admitted but the documents produced by the prosecution i.e., Ex.P4 are denied by accused No.3 as the signatures and Ex.P4 are fake documents since the address and phone numbers mentioned in Ex.P4 does not belong to accused No.3 and therefore, treating the signature found in Ex.P4 as admitted signature of accused No.3 and comparing the same with the signatures found in account No.SB NRE 56193 and 56142 cannot be accepted. Her further submission is that, several documents pertaining the account details and FCNR certificates were seized from the custody of bank by the Investigating Officer, but those documents were not sent to obtain the opinion of GEQD at the earliest point of time and hence, those documents surround with the cloud suspicion and hence, cannot be relied upon. Her 25 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 further submission is that, none of the witnesses who were bank officials examined before this court have deposed that, accused No.3 had come to the bank counter to obtain money and nobody has seen accused No.3 physically except the signatures on cheque. Advancing her arguments she further submits that, after opening SB NRE 56037, accused No.3 went to Singapore and accused No.1 in connivance with other accused persons did all the other mischief at the back of accused No.3 by skipping over all the procedures of banking laws and committed the offence. It is her arguments that, accused No.3 had no role in transferring the FCNR maturity amount from Canara Bank, Palani Branch to Basavanagudi Branch at Bengaluru. She further argues that, Ex.P2 account opening form of SB NRE 56193 shows that the same was signed at London on 26 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 4.4.2001 and PW9 who was the bank manager of Canara Bank, Girigaon Branch, Mumbai deposed before this court that, he saw accused No.3 personally at Mumbai on 4.4.2001 as there is an account opened by accused No.3 with Canara Bank, Girigaon Branch, Mumbai as account No.35375. Prosecution has not produced any document to show that, such an account was opened by accused No.3 except the oral evidence of PW9. Therefore, from the conjoint reading of the evidence of PW9 and the prosecution documents it emerges that, accused No.3 was present on 4.4.2001 in Mumbai, in Bangalore and also in London which is practically impossible and hence, the prosecution story of accused No.3 opened accounts on the said date at Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru and Girigaon Branch, Mumbai are false in toto. Her further 27 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 argument is that, even though the Investigating Officer had the local address of accused No.3 with him, he did not conduct any search at the residence or office premises of accused No.3 in Bengaluru and accused No.3 was not arrested during the investigation period. She submits that, from the entire prosecution records there is no oral or documentary evidence to prove the involvement of accused No.3 in this case except the Handwriting Expert's Report which is inadmissible in evidence as it has to be viewed with suspicion because from the evidence of PW21 the Investigating Officer, it is clear that the documents were sent to Handwriting Expert by the Investigating Officer through one Ramesh and this Ramesh is not a witness in this case and hence, the material sent for obtaining opinion itself surrounds with cloud of suspicion. She 28 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 further submits that, accused No.4 in his 313 (5) Cr.P.C. statement has stated that, he had signed blank account opening form and therefore, it is clear that, he did not see accused No.3 affixing his signature either in Ex.P2 or P3 account opening forms. Even though accused No.4 states that he had acquaintance with accused No.3 as Ex.P2 and P3 are disputed by accused No.3 his acquaintance with accused No.4 has no relevance in this case. The Investigating Agency has compared the signatures of accused No.3 found in the questioned documents Ex.P2 and P3 without obtaining his admitted signatures of accused No.3 and hence, the opinion of GEQD will take no relevance to support the prosecution case. Her further case is that, taking undue advantage of the absence of accused No.3 in India, accused No.1, accused No.2 and accused 29 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 No.4 misused the documents which were available with accused No.1 pertaining to accused No.3 and hence, accused No.3 deserves to be acquitted as he is totally innocent in this case.
11. The learned counsel for accused No.4 argues that, the name of accused No.4 was not found in the FIR but a name of one Daftri Krishnappa is found mentioned in FIR. The name of accused No.4 popped up only at the time of submitting the charge sheet of this case and the only allegation against accused No.4 in this case is that, he introduced accused No.3 to open accounts at the Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch. He further submits that, the stand of accused No.3 that on 4.4.2001 accused No.3 was not present in India is abruptly taken only after 30 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 the demise of accused No.1. Accused No.1 died after the completion of recording of prosecution evidence and from the entire reading of cross- examination conducted by accused No.1 on the prosecution witnesses, there is not even a single suggestion which shows that accused No.3 had taken a defence that he was not present in India during the relevant period of time. He further advances his arguments and submits that, accused No.3 had given a cheque of 11,60,000 UAE Dinar in favour of PW20 which was subsequently dishonoured by the bank shows that, accused No.3 was very much present in India during the time of alleged fraudulent transaction had taken place. He submits that, accused No.3 is known to accused No.4 right from 1994 and accused No.3 has sold property to accused No.4. Also accused No.4 has been made 31 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 as one of the Directors of M/s Chestersfield International Pvt. Ltd., a Company run by accused No.3 and his family members in the year 2000 and in the year 2002 accused No.4 retired from the Directorship of the Company. As accused No.4 had acquaintance with accused No.3, he had introduced accused No.3 to open accounts with Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch as accused No.4 was holding account with the said branch right from 1999. For the only reason accused No.4 introduced accused No.3 to open account, that itself is not sufficient to prove criminal conspiracy as against accused No.4 for the criminal activities committed by accused No.1 and accused No.3. His further argument is that, accused No.4 did not participate in any transaction and as accused No.3 and accused No.4 had association with each other, accused 32 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 No.3 had authorized accused No.4 as per Ex.P27 authorization letter he collected cheque book for and on behalf of accused No.3 which accused No.4 did and handed over to accused No.3 and the said cheque book contains 20 leaves from No.337861 to 337880. It is the allegation of the prosecution that, accused No.4 misused the cheque leaves and withdrew money from the fraudulent account created in the name of accused No.3. From the records of the prosecution it is clear that, the amount drawn by accused No.4 via cheque are not the cheque leaves of the above said cheque book. The amount withdrawn by accused No.4 was from the cheque leaves of the individual account of accused No.3. His prime argument is that, if accused No.4 had really misused the cheques and obtained money from the account of accused 33 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 No.3, he should have filed complaint before appropriate authority since the allegations that accused No.4 obtained is of more than Rs.12 lakhs. He further argues that, accused No.3 had handed over cheques to accused No.4 to get it encashed from the bank which he did and handed over the money so withdrawn to accused No.4. It is not the case of the prosecution that, accused No.4 has received any money for himself either from account No.56412 or 56193. The learned counsel projects an argument that, from the entire prosecution records the only allegation against accused No.4 to rope accused No.4 into this case along with other accused persons is that, he introduced accused No.3 to open an account with the Canara Bank and he withdrew amount from the account of accused No.3 on the cheque drawn by accused No.3 in favour of 34 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 accused No.4 and there are no evidence to prove conspiracy against accused No.4. Lastly it is the submission of the learned counsel for accused No.4 is that, this court has got jurisdiction to try accused No.2 to accused No.4 only on the basis that, accused No.1 a public servant was also involved in this case. Even though case against accused No.1 got abated the prosecution sanction order issued against accused No.1 if found invalid, this court loses its jurisdiction to try accused No.1 and consequently, the trial as against accused No.2 to accused No.4 also vitiates and from the thorough reading of the Ex.P1 Prosecution Sanction Order it is clear that it is issued by a person who is not competent to accord sanction to prosecute accused No.1 and also the order is mechanically signed without application of mind and on this ground also 35 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 prosecution case fails and hence, he prays to acquit accused No.4.
12. On the basis of the charges framed as against Accused No.2 to 4 the following points arise for consideration:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Ex.P1 Prosecution Sanction order is issued by the Competent Authority of accused No.1 and it has been issued after due application of mind?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, in March 2001, the FCNR 45/2001 bearing deposit receipt No.3737442 in the name of PW20 and his family members was not sent to PW20 and thereafter another deposit receipt on deposit receipt No.2058354 was prepared by forging the signatures of bank officials who had 36 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 signed the original FCNR 45/2001 and the fake FCNR Deposit certificate was sent to the depositor, and the proceeds of the original deposit was siphoned by accused No.3 after forging the signatures of the original depositors thereby accused No.3 committed offence of forgery punishable under section 467 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused No.3 by forging the signature of PW20 opened a joint account No.SB NRE 56193 in his name with PW20 and he produced two applications purportedly the request letters in the name of PW20 and his family members forging the signatures of PW20 and his family members requesting the bank to break the FCNR 45/2001 account and to transfer 50% of the proceeds to the joint account No.SB NRE 56193 fraudulently opened and further 37 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 authorized accused No.1 to open new deposits FCNR No.49/2001 and 50/2001 for the remaining 50% of the proceeds and thereafter, accused No.3 forged letters and application purported to have been given by PW20 and his family members and requested the bank to break the FCNR 49/2001 and transfer the proceeds to the joint account No.SB NRE 56193 and further, accused No.3 made a request letter authorizing accused No.4 to receive cheque book of joint account No.SB NRE 56193 and using the cheque leaves so obtained withdrew the amount transferred to the joint account No.SB NRE 56193 and thereby accused No.3 committed offence of forgery punishable under section 467 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused No.3 used the forged letters and applications for the purpose of 38 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 cheating and thereby withdrew a sum of Rs.1,34,44,019/- from the FCNR 45/2001 belonging to PW20 and thereby accused No. 3 committed offence under section 468 and 471 of IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy during the above said period accused No.3 withdrew the proceeds of deposits in FCNR 45/2001 belonging to PW20 and wrongfully caused loss to the depositor and bank to the tune of Rs.1,34,44,019/- and making corresponding wrongful gain to himself and thereby accused No.3 committed offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC?
6) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused No.2 had filled the account opening forms for opening the fraudulent account SB NRE No.56193 39 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 and further the applications for issuance of cheque book by accused No.3 authorizing accused No.4 to receive was written in the handwriting of accused No.2 and thereby accused No.2 committed offence of forgery punishable under section 467 of IPC?
7) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy during the above said period out of Rs.1,34,44,019/- siphoned off from the proceeds of deposits in FCNR 45/2001 belonging to PW20 accused No. 2 obtained an amount of Rs.5,25,000/- and thereby accused No.2 committed offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC?
8) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy during the above said period introduced 40 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 accused No.3 to open a fake account in the joint name of accused No.3 and PW20 and thereby facilitated accused No.3 to siphon the deposit amount and out of Rs.1,34,44,019/- siphoned from the proceeds of deposits in FCNR 45/2001 belonging to PW20 accused No. 4 obtained an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- and thereby accused No.4 committed offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC?
9) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused No.2 to 4 entered into criminal conspiracy with the Accused No.1 (since deceased) in the matter of fraudulently closing FCNR deposits which stood in the names of Sri.Vijay N. Mansukhani and his family members before its maturity by creating forged letters/applications as if requested by the depositors and withdrew Rs.1,34,44,019/- and cheated the bank using forged letters and 41 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 documents and thereby accused No.2 to 4 have committed the offence of criminal conspiracy which is punishable under Section 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code?
10) What Order?
13. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative
Point No.3 : In the Affirmative
Point No.4 : In the Affirmative
Point No.5 : In the Affirmative
Point No.6 : In the Negative
Point No.7 : In the Negative
Point No.8 : In the Negative
Point No.9 : In the Negative
Point No.10: As per final order, for
the following:
REASONS
42 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
14. Admittedly, the accused No.1 was a public servant who was holding the post of Senior Branch Manager at the Basavanagudi branch, Canara Bank, Bengaluru and hence, to prosecute accused No.1 Prosecution Sanction Order from Competent Authority of accused No.1 under section 19 of the PC Act is essential, since, grant of proper sanction by the competent authority is sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence. However, accused No.1 expired during the course of trial of the case and the case against him got abated. But, accused No.2 to 4 who are private individuals are tried together in this case along with accused No.1 only on the basis that, accused No.1, a public servant was also involved in this case. Even though case against accused No.1 got abated 43 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 the prosecution sanction order issued against accused No.1 if found not valid, this court looses jurisdiction to try accused No.1 and consequently, the trial against accused No.2 to 4 also vitiates. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for accused No.4 that the Ex.P1 prosecution sanction order produced by prosecution has to be looked into first before proceeding further with the merits of the case holds sufficient force. Hence, I am constrained to look into the validity of the prosecution sanction order issued against accused No.1.
15. Two components have to be established before accepting a sanction order. First one is competency of the sanctioning authority and the other one is the application of mind by the sanctioning authority. Ex.P1 is the sanction order issued by PW1 Sri.M.S.Nayak, 44 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 General Manager, Personal Wing, Canara Bank, Head Office, Bengaluru. The learned counsel for accused No.4 has not disputed with respect to the competency of PW1 issuing Ex.P1 Prosecution Sanction Order, but he strenuously opposes the admissibility of the order on the ground that, it lacks application of mind by the sanctioning authority. He submits that, all the documents pertaining to this case were not placed before the sanctioning authority for his perusal and without looking into the entire documents of this case PW1 has signed Ex.P1 sanction order mechanically and hence, the Ex.P1 order is not a valid order under the eye of law.
16. The sanctioning authority was examined as PW1 before this court and he in his 45 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 deposition before this court states that, the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Bengaluru had made a requisition to him to accord prosecution sanction to prosecute accused No.1 with copies of complaint, FIR, the statement of witnesses, copies of documents collected by the CBI etc., and he after perusal of all the documents, since he found that there was a prima facie case for prosecuting accused No.1, he issued Ex.P1 sanction order dated 14.5.2003. PW1 was cross- examined by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and counsel for accused No.4. The learned counsel for accused No.1 did not dispute either the competency or the application of mind by PW1 in issuing the Ex.P1 order, but the learned counsel for accused No.4 extensively cross- examined PW1 and from his cross-examination it can be seen that, he has not disputed the 46 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 competency of PW1 and his cross examination is limited only with respect to the opening of account by accused No.4 and introduction of accused No.4 to open account by accused No.3 with Canara Bank and he suggested that, PW1 had issued the sanction order without applying his mind which the witness denied. It is contended by the counsel for accused No.4 that, PW1 had not properly appreciated the facts of the case and without applying his mind he had issued the Ex.P1 prosecution sanction order. To validate his argument, he has relied on the decision reported in AIR 2014 S.C page 2369 (P.L. Tatwal V/s State of Madhya Pradesh) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the if order of sanction shows that it suffers from non-application of mind it has to be set aside. 47 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
17. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor by way of torpedoing and pulverizing the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for accused No.4 would set forth in his argument that, the contention of the learned counsel for accused No.4 will not sustain as the sanction order is valid and the accused No.1 has not disputed the competency of PW1 in issuing the sanction order and the Ex.P1 sanction order shows that PW1 was provided with all the documents pertaining to this case and he has issued sanction order after perusing all the documents and this has been reiterated by PW1 in his substantive evidence given before this court and hence, Ex.P1 sanction order is a valid one.
18. Before going to the validity of the Ex.P1 sanction order, I am persuaded to look into 48 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 some of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard relied by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor as he drew my attention to the following case laws:
(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.S. Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2005)4 SCC 81 has held that:
"the sanction order should speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all the particulars were placed before the sanctioning authority for due application of mind. In case the sanction speaks for itself then the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is apparent by reading the order".
(ii) In State of Maharashtra through C.B.I V/s Mahesh G. Jain reported in (2013) 8 49 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 S.C.C. Page 119, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"Grant of sanction is irrefragably a sacrosanct act and is entitled to provide safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigations. Satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is essential to validate an order granting sanction".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that "Minor irregularities or technicalities are not to be given Everstine status". The Hon'ble Court has culled out certain principles with respect to the sanction order which are as under:
a) It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
50 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
b) The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the materials placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances has granted sanction for prosecution;
c) The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the materials were placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the materials placed before it.
(iii) In Manzoor Ali Khan Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2015)2 SCC 33 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "a fine balance has to be maintained between need to protect a public servant against malafide prosecutions on the one hand and the 51 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 object of upholding the probity in public life in prosecuting the public servant against whom prima facie material in support of allegation of corruption exists on the other hand."
(iv) In P.V. Narasimha Rao Vs. State (CBI/SPE) 12 reported in (1998) 4 SCC 626 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "requirement of sanction u/s 19 (1) of PC Act is a matter relating to procedure and the absence of sanction does not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court."
19. Here, in this case, the prosecution has produced and marked the sanction order Ex.P1 sanction order which clearly shows that, all the materials were placed before PW1 and he after perusal of the documents placed before him, satisfying himself that, there is a prima facie 52 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 case available against the first accused and recording the same in his Ex.P1 sanction order, he has signed the order. From the light of the above discussed decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused No.4 and from the prosecution evidence adduced in this case, it can be safely concluded that there was sufficient material before the sanctioning authority and the Ex.P1 prosecution sanction order is issued by the Competent Authority after applying his mind and hence it is not possible to agree that the Ex.P1 prosecution sanctioning order is in any way vitiated and hence, the point No. 1 is answered in the Affirmative.
Points No.2 to 9:
53 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
20. Now I proceed to discuss the merits of the case and for the sake of convenience and in order to avoid repetition of facts of the case, I have chosen to discuss Points No.2 to 9 together.
21. As per the prosecution the motive and mode of draining off the deposit account of PW20 by the accused persons is as under:
a) During 2001 accused No.3 was badly in need of funds and was requesting accused No.1 to arrange some funds and hence, accused No.1 permitted accused No.3 to open Ex.P4, NRE SB 56037 account on the introduction of accused No.4, Proprietor of M/s Srinivasa Enterprises in February 2001 and using this account as introducer another account Ex.P3, NRO SB 56142 in March 2001 with Basavanagudi branch was also opened. In the end of March 2001, Ex.P48, 54 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 the FCNR deposit No.8/2000 which stood in the names of Sri.Vijay N. Mansukhani and his family members with the Canara Bank Palani branch, Tamil Nadu was transferred to the Basavanagudi branch from Palani branch on maturity on request of the depositor Sri. Vijay N. Mansukhani who was staying in London with his family for opening a new FCNR deposit with the Canara Bank Basavanagudi branch and after opening Ex.P25, new FCNR 45/01, for 2,67,659.38 UK Pound Sterling for one year period with maturity date 28.3.2002 for maturity value of 2,82,842.03 UK Pound Sterling, the Deposit Receipt No.3737442 of the FCNR deposit was handed over to accused No.2, without entering in Dispatch Register, by violating bank norms instead of sending to depositors directly under acknowledgement.
Thereafter, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, 55 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 accused No.1 managed to get blank Deposit Receipt No.2058354 of Mayo Hall Extension Counter of Langford Town Branch, Canara Bank, Bangalore wherein the details of FCNR 45/2001 were filled and sent the same to Sri.Ramesh B. Kothari, agent for depositors as if issued by Basavanagudi branch by forging the signatures of bank officials of Basavanagudi branch who had signed on the original Deposit Receipt No.3737442 wherein the signature of 'Supervisor' and 'printed by' found in Ex.P24 deposit receipt were forged and accused No.1 kept a copy of covering letter addressed to Ramesh B. Kothari and a copy of account opening form in FCNR 45/01 by forging signature of Sri.T.R.Prakash, the then manager who signed on the Deposit Receipt No.3737442. Further on 12.4.2001 accused No.1 allowed accused No.3 to open Ex.P2, a joint 56 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 account No.SB NRE 56193 along with the depositor's name Vijay N. Mansukhani, whose deposits were lying with the bank, by forging the signature of Vijay N. Mansukhani and accused No.4 was the introducer of the said account. Thereafter, on 24.4.2001 accused No.3 in SB NRE 56193 made Ex.P27, request to bank for issuance of a cheque book authorizing accused No.4 to receive the same and accused No.1 instructed the bank staff to issue cheque book by authorizing on the letter to comply the same and therefore, a cheque book having 20 leaves with No.337861 to 337880 was given to accused No.4 on behalf of the account holder by taking his signature on the Cheque Book issuing register.
b) Thereafter, on 25.4.2001 accused No.1 gave Ex.P38 and 39, two NRI applications filled in the names of Vijay N. Mansukhani, Priya V. 57 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Mansukhani and Deepak V. Mansukhani with his signatures on the applications, Ex.P25, FCNR 45/01 Deposit Receipt No.3737442 and Ex.P18, letter purportedly from Vijay N. Mansukhani said to have been received through Ex.P20, airway bill giving instructions to the bank to break the deposit prematurely and further instructed the bank staff to transfer 50% proceeds equally to by opening two new FCNR deposits and transfer the balance 50% amount to SB NRE 56193 account as per the depositor's purported request letter and accused No.1 had signed on the Deposit Receipt for having authorized for closure. Thereafter, Rs.44,83,305/- each was transferred for opening two new deposits FCNR 49/01 and 50/01 as per Ex.P41 and 42 credit slips and balance Rs.89,61,550/- was transferred to SB NRE 56193 account as per Ex.P40 credit slip and 58 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 all the vouchers were authorized by accused No.1. Thereafter, the two deposit receipts were kept in the double lock along with other security items in the bank itself. The depositor's signature on these applications and request letter to break the deposit were forged.
c) Since the deposit amount was in foreign currency i.e., GBP, BAR was raised as per Ex.P87 & P88 credit slip for Rs.1,79,33,178/- to transfer from Foreign Department, Madurai Canara Bank to Foreign Department, Bengaluru.
d) Again on 18.5.2001 accused No.1 gave Ex.P26 FCNR No.49/2001 deposit receipt and Ex.P19, letter purportedly from Vijay N. Mansukhani and a slip with his signature for authorizing to close the deposit before maturity to the concerned section of the bank and told Sri.V.Krishna Murthy, Supervisor to close the 59 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 FCNR deposit and to transfer the proceeds to SB NRE 56193. On refusal of V.Krishna Murthy, accused No.1 himself operated the computer system using his own password and closed the deposit and transferred the proceeds to SB NRE 56193 account and the debit and credit slips were signed by accused No.1. The depositor's signatures on these applications and request letter to break the deposit were forged. After transferring the proceeds to SB NRE 56193 by closing FCNR Deposits, accused No.3 who opened this account jointly with depositor Vijay N. Mansukhani without the latter's knowledge by forging latter's signature had further transferred the funds from this account to his NRO SB 56142 and other accounts by issuing cheques and thereafter withdrew the funds. Out of the total funds Rs.1,34,44,019/- withdrawn, Rs.5,45,000/- 60 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 had gone in favour of accused No.2 and Rs.12,20,000/- was gone in favour of accused No.4.
22. A request letter dated 22.3.2002 was received at Basavanagudi Branch enclosing FCNR deposit receipt Ex.P24 on maturity to send the proceeds to Global Trust Bank Ltd., Nariman point, Mumbai. Then the misappropriation came to light and internal investigation by the bank was ordered. Later Canara Bank had to make good the loss to PW20 and the maturity amount as per Ex.P25 FCNR 45/2001 was given to PW20, thus caused wrongful loss to the bank to the tune of 2,82,842.03 Pound Sterling which was equivalent to Rs.1,34,44019/-.
61 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003Transfer of FCNR 8/2000 from Canara Bank Palani branch to Bangalore Basavanagudi branch:
23. It is admitted fact that the proceeds of FCNR 8/2000 belonging to PW20 and his family members which matured on 27.3.2000 was transferred to Basavanagudi branch on the instructions of PW20 himself. What made him to transfer the same to Basavanagudi branch is the question to be probed. PW11, PW16 and PW17 are the witnesses prosecution relay upon to prove the allegation that the deposit from Palani was brought to Bangalore as a part of conspiration by the accused persons.
24. PW17, Narendra Lohia in his evidence before this court deposes that he is doing business of mobilizing NRI deposits and if a sum of Rs.1 crores or more are mobilized he will get 62 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 commission of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and in the year 2001 his friend C.K.Singh who is also doing the same business contacted him and requested him to mobilize deposit for Basavanagudi branch of Canara Bank and hence, he contacted PW11, Ravindra Sanghvi of Mumbai who was also doing the same business who in turn sent his colleague Vijay N.Mansukhani's matured deposit receipts of more than 3,00,000 US Dollars from Palani branch to Bangalore and he further deposes at that relevant point of time accused No.1 Sheshagiri Rao was the manager at Basavanagudi branch.
25. PW11, Ravindra Manilal Sanghvi's evidence is that he was enquired by PW17 Narendra Lohia about availability of some funds for the Canara Bank Basavanagudi branch and hence, he passed the information to one of his 63 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 friends Ramesh Kothari who informed him that a deposit of Vijay N.Mansukhani is maturing at Palani branch. He further deposes that he passed this information to PW12, Mabel D'Souza who was working at the NRI cell of Canara Bank Khar branch, Mumbai and she gave the address of Canara Bank Basavavnagudi branch to him which he passed on to PW16. Later in the year 2002, PW16 informed him that some fraud had taken place in Basavanagudi branch.
26. PW16, Ramesh Khothari deposes that PW11 has approached him and requested him to send the FCNR deposit of PW20 which got matured to Basavanagudi branch and hence, he on instructions of PW20 endorsed on the reverse of the Ex.P48 deposit receipt pertaining to FCNR8/2000 and the same was sent to 64 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Basavanagudi branch. Later, he received Ex.P24 deposit receipt from Basavanagudi branch. On maturity PW20 gave the receipt to Global Trust Bank and the said bank had requested the Canara Bank to transfer the maturity amount to it but the Basavanagudi branch informed that the deposit has been closed. He further states that he had not given any instructions for premature closure of the deposit. In his cross examination he denied the suggestions that the deposit was transferred from Palani to Bangalore without the instructions of PW20 and he further states that at that time PW20 was in Mumbai.
27. Therefore it is clear from the oral testimony of these witnesses that C.K.Singh was the person who asked to mobilize fund to Basavanagudi branch. Even though this C.K.Singh is cited as CW10 in the charge sheet 65 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 witness list he was not examined by the prosecution. Hence, on whose instructions the amount got transferred to Basavanagudi branch from Palani branch and was there any criminal motive behind that transfer of fund is not established by the prosecution. But it is clear from the evidence of these witnesses and the evidence of PW20 that on the instructions of PW20 the proceeds of FCNR 8/2000 were transferred to Basavanagudi branch for opening a new FCNR for one year and therefore, the transfer of deposit amount from Palani to Basavanagudi branch was legally done. Deposit Receipt Ex.P24 and Deposit Receipt Ex.P25 pertaining to FCNR BKD 45/2001: 66 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
28. PW10 Venkataramaiah was working as DGM at Canara Bank, Circle Office, Bengaluru and he deposes before this court that, during 2002 he got information regarding fraudulent transactions which had taken place in Basavanagudi Branch and as a part of his duties he ordered for internal investigation and after conclusion of internal investigation when the report was submitted to him and when he found abnormal transactions which had deviated from normal banking practice he prima facie found that the bank had suffered loss and reputation and hence, he lodged Ex.P16 complaint before the SP, CBI.
29. PW20 Vijay Mansukhani is the de facto complainant of this case and he in his evidence before this court deposes that, he was residing in London from 1974 doing business there along 67 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 with his wife Priya Mansukhani and son Deepak Mansukhani and he was having FCNR deposit at Palani Branch of Canara Bank and he identified Ex.P48 FCNR 8/2000 deposit receipt having deposited by him for 2,51,836.56 Great Britain Pound and the said deposit matured on 29.3.2000 and hence, he got the amount transferred to Basavanagudi branch of Canara Bank and the maturity amount was 2,67,659.38 Great Britain Pound and the transfer was done through his financial consultancy of Mumbai Sri.Ramesh Kothari. He also identifies Ex.P35 Xerox copy of account opening form along with Ex.P31 account opening form signed by him, his wife and his son when FCNR 8/2000 was opened at Palani Branch. His further evidence is that, he received Ex.P24 fixed deposit receipt bearing No:2058354 in respect of 2,67,659.38 Great 68 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Britain Pound (GBP) dated 30.3.2001 which was deposited for a period of one year and the maturity date was 28.3.2002 and the maturity amount was 2,82,842.03 GBP. On maturity he, his wife and his son affixed their signatures on the reverse of Ex.P24 with a request to Canara Bank to deposit the maturity amount proceeds in the Global Trust Bank at Mumbai. After a few days he received information from Global Trust Bank that, the Canara Bank Basavanagudi branch had prematurely closed and encashed the fixed deposit. He categorically deposes that, he had never given any instructions to Canara Bank Basavanagudi branch for premature closure of his fixed deposit or transferring the proceeds of the same to anywhere else. On receiving information he flew down from London to Bengaluru and the Canara Bank Basavanagudi 69 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 branch officers showed him documents requesting purported to be signed by him for prematurely closing the deposits. He further deposes that, he did not know any person by name Shyam Gangalani and he never opened any account in the joint name of himself and the said Shyam Gangalani at any point of time and he had never met such a person at any time. He denied the signatures found in Ex.P2 account opening form of NRE SB 56193 said to have been signed by him. He also denied the signature in Ex.P18 letter said to have been written by him and he also denies the signatures of his wife and his son said to have been signed the Ex.P18 letter. He also denies Ex.P19 letter purported to have been written by him, his wife and his son to accused No.1. He also denies the Ex.P20, P21 and P22 Airway bills said to have been sent by 70 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 him to Canara Bank Basavanagudi Branch and he also deposed that the addresses mentioned in those air way bills were not his address. When he was shown Ex.P25 FCNR 45/2001 deposit receipt printed on CMDB 3737442 he deposes that, he never received the same and the signatures on the reverse side of Ex.P25 purporting to be of his, his wife's and his son's were not signed by them and he specifically states that those signatures are all forged signatures. When Ex.P26 FCNR 49/2001 printed on 3737649 standing in the name of himself, his wife's and son's was shown to him, he deposes that he never received the said deposit receipt and he further deposes that he had never authorized Canara Bank Basavanagudi branch to open the said deposit account. When Ex.P38 account opening form with respect to FCNR 49/2001 was shown to him he 71 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 deposes that he or his wife of their son had not affixed their signatures in the said document at any point of time and those signatures are also forged. When Ex.P33, P40, P41, P42 and P45 pay- in-slips of Canara Bank Basavanagudi branch were shown to him he says that, he had never authorized anyone to transfer the amount to anybody as per the slips. He further states that, the amount deposited by him was paid to him with interest by the Canara Bank Basavanagudi branch after a few months.
30. In the light of the evidences of PW10 and PW20 the documents produced by the prosecution such as Ex.P24 and Ex.P25 deposit receipts with respect to FCNR No.45/2001 are to be closely looked into. In Ex.P24 and Ex.P25 the signatures of supervisors and the bank official 72 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 who had printed it, are to be analyzed to find out which one of these deposit receipts is genuine and which one is fake. PW6 R.Shashi has signed as Supervisor and PW7 Smt.Geetha S. Pai has signed above the words "printed by" in both Ex.P24 and P25 and the signature of the manager of the bank is also found in both the documents. On the reverse of both the documents there are signatures of PW20, his wife and his son. On the reverse of Ex.P24 there is an endorsement which reads thus: 'Please act accordingly to our letter dated 21.3.2002 attached herewith'.
31. PW6 Smt.R.Shashi who was working as Special Assistant at Canara Bank during relevant period of time when examined before this court deposes that, her duties as Special Assistant were opening and closure of deposit accounts 73 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 both domestic as well as FCNR deposit account. Her further deposition is that, on 30.3.2001 the bank received a letter from Palani branch of Canara Bank for opening one FCNR account in Basavanagudi branch along with one Xerox copy of FCNR account opening form which is marked as Ex.P30 and it was informed that the Palani branch had closed FCNR 8/2000 standing in the name of PW20 and two others and requested the Basavanagudi branch to open a new account in Basavanagudi branch with the proceeds of the closed FCNR 8/2000 and as such she opened FCNR 45/2001. Since they did not receive the money of the proceeds of FCNR 8/2000, she informed the matter to accused No.1 and accused No.1 asked her to raise Branch Adjustment Requisition (BAR). She further clarifies that, in domestic accounts the customer 74 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 will usually come to the branch and in case of FCNR deposits, customer do not come to the counter and they receive requisition only through the bank managers. In the account opening form the photograph of account holder has to be affixed but the account opening form she received did not contain the photographs and hence, she brought it to the notice of accused No.1 who informed her that he would secure a fresh application with photographs and he also told her that, he knew the customer. She identified Ex.P32 the Debit Slip for Rs.1,79,33,178/- signed by accused No.1 for authorizing the raising of BAR by making the debit. Thereafter, PW7 Geetha S.Pai prepared the credit challan which was also approved by accused No.1. Then the printout of Ex.P25, the original deposit certificate was taken and she 75 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 affixed her signature at the Supervisor's column along with her signing power number and she forwarded Ex.P25 to Second Line Manager Mr.Prakash who also affixing his signature in it, returned the Ex.P25 to her. It is her further statement that, thereafter she made entry in Ex.P34 delivery book (stock and stationary) and since the party was not available she filed Ex.P25 which had to go to the double lock on the same evening. When she was shown Ex.P24 the FCNR 45/2001 receipt she categorically states that, the signature found in supervisor's column was not her signature and also the stationary on which the receipt is printed does not belong to Basavanagudi Branch and she categorically states that, Ex.P24 was not issued by Basavanagudi branch and Ex.P25 was the receipt 76 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 which was issued by Basavanagudi branch for opening of FCNR 45/2001.
32. PW7 Smt.Geetha S. Pai in her deposition before this court deposes that, she was working as clerk between 1996 and 2002 at the Basavanagudi Branch of Canara Bank and during March 2001 she was working at Deposits Section and her duty was to open domestic deposits as well as FCNR deposits and closures of the same. She used to prepare credit and debit slips. She identifies Ex.P32 and Ex.P33 debit and credit slips pertaining to the opening of FCNR 45/2001 and she further states that those were prepared by her and PW6 had given Ex.P30 and P31 for preparing the opening of FCNR account and later Ex.P32 and P33 were authorized by accused No.1. She also identifies Ex.P25 FCNR 77 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 45/2001 which is printed on Sl.No.CDMB 3737442 and after initialing the same it was handed over to PW6 Smt.Shashi. When Ex.P24 FCNR 45/2001 printed on another stationary was shown to her, she denied the signature which is marked as Ex.P24(b) purported to be signed by her. Her further evidence is that, PW14 Sri.V.Krishnamurty, the Supervisor of the bank had given her Ex.P18 letter written by PW20, Vijay N.Mansukhani the depositor of FCNR No.45/2001 to accused No.1 along with Ex.P25 FCNR 45/2001 certificate. She was also given with two applications Ex.P38 and P39 which are NRE SB account opening form for FCNR 49/2001 and FCNR 50/2001 and as per the instruction in Ex.P18 letter, she closed FCNR 45/2001, bifurcated the proceeds into FCNR 49/2001 and 50/2001 for sum of 66,915 UK Pound sterling 78 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 each and an amount of 1,33,829.38 UK Pound Sterling was credited to NRE SB 56193 which was standing in the joint names of accused No.3 and PW20 Vijay Mansukhani. Thus, the total sum of 2,67,659.38 UK Pound Sterling which was opened in FCNR 45/2001 was bifurcated, 50% of the proceeds was credited to NRE SB 56193 and the remaining 50% was split into two parts and new FCNR 49/2001 and 50/2001 were opened. Her further statement is that, while closing Ex.P25 she prepared credit slip dated 25.4.2001 in SB A/c 56193 for a sum of Rs.89,61,550/- and she identified her handwriting in the credit slip and the same was marked Ex.P40 wherein accused No.1 has authorized the same. She also prepared credit slip for FCNR 49/2001 for Rs.44,83,305/- which was also prepared in her handwriting and the same was also marked as Ex.P41. She further 79 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 deposes that, thereafter Ex.P26 FCNR 49/2001 deposit receipt was prepared by her and in the same manner another deposit receipt for FCNR 50/2001 was also prepared.
33. Her further evidence is that, later PW14 Krishnamurthy had given her a letter bearing inward seal of the bank along with Ex.P26 deposit receipt and Ex.P19 application which showed that the depositors requested accused No.1 to close one of the two deposits and hence, as per Ex.P43 authorization given by A1 she was asked to close the FCNR 49/2001 prematurely, but as earlier two BARs were not yet realized she was scared to close the deposit prematurely and hence, A1 himself opened the computer system, using his password and closed the FCNR No:49/2001 account. After that on 80 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 instruction of accused No.1 she prepared other slips pertaining to the same. She identified debit and credit slips and she further deposes that, a sum of Rs.44,82,469/- was credited to NRE SB account 56193 from the proceeds of FCNR 49/2001. The learned counsel for accused No.2 and accused No.4 did not choose to cross- examine this witness and this witness has been cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and accused No.3 in length and the they have failed to create any dent in her evidence as stated in the examination-in-chief.
34. PW14 Krishnamurthy who was a clerk at the Basavanagudi branch of Canara Bank deposes that, FCNR 45/2001 dated 30.3.2001 was due for maturity on 28.3.2001 but on 27.3.2001 they received a letter to break the 81 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 deposit prematurely and to transfer 50% of the proceeds to NRE account No.56193 and the remaining 50% to be deposited equally in two separate fixed deposits. His further evidence is that, on verification of the documents he found differences in the signatures of account holder in the letter and account holder in the account opening form and there were other defects in the account opening form and hence, he contacted accused No.1 and as per the direction of accused No.1 and on authorization of accused No.1 he closed the account. His further evidence is the same as the evidence of PW7 with respect to the closing of FCNR 45/2001 and opening of two new FCNRs and transfer of 50% of the proceeds of FCNR 45/2001 to NRE SB A/c No.56193 and hence to avoid repetition of the same, it is not reiterated here.
82 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
35. PW15 P.R.Prakash who was working as Second Line Manager in Canara Bank Basavanagudi branch during 2000-2001, also deposes in the same line as that of PW7 and PW14. He identifies his signature in Ex.P25 printed on CDMB 3737442 which is marked as Ex.P25(d). When Ex.P24 was shown to him he denies the signature said to have been signed by Manager in Ex.P24 and he categorically states that, Ex.P24 was not issued from the Basavanagudi branch of Canara Bank. His further deposition that Ex.P24 printed on CDMB 2058354 does not pertains to their branch. He also states that, Ex.P38 and P39 account opening forms were not authorized by him for opening the accounts. When Ex.P51 the Xerox copy of letter sent to Mr.Ramesh Kothari the financial consultant of 83 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 PW20 is shown to him he denies the same and he also states that, the signature purported to be of his in the said letter was forged by somebody and it was not signed by him. He further states that, his signing power No.28066 found in Ex.P51 is not in his handwriting.
36. PW13 Sri.C.Mahesh who was working as in-charge Manager during 1997-2003 at Mayo Hall Extension Counter of Canara Bank, the counter which was attached to Langford Town Branch of Canara Bank, in his evidence before this court states that, they were getting stationeries such as Deposit Receipts, Cheque Books and other securities and vouchers for the bank from Langford Town Branch and when Ex.P24 FCNR 45/2001 deposit receipt printed on CDMB No:2058354 was shown to him he 84 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 identified the same as that was the stationary received by them from Langford Town Branch and Ex.P24 was part of 200 blank receipt stationary received by them. He further deposes that, during July 2001 inspection, the bank came to know that CDMB receipt No:2058354 and 2058355 were missing from the double lock safe of their Extension Counter and later, the receipt CDMB 2058355 was found in a torn condition and hence, they canceled the same making necessary entry in the deposit receipt issuing register and in the internal investigation with respect to missing of the stationary it came to the conclusion that the receipt CDMB 2058354 might have been destroyed. He further deposes that, later he received information from Senior Manager of Langford branch that, the missing receipt was used fraudulently in Basavanagudi 85 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 branch of Canara Bank. He in his cross- examination deposes that, he and one Chandrashekhar were the joint custodians of blank CDMB and he also deposes that, he did not lodge any complaint before the police with respect to the destruction and missing of CDMB receipt. He also states that, in the CDMB receipt branch name will be there in a printed manner and Ex.P24 shows the printing as "Basavanagudi, Bengaluru 560004".
37. PW16 Ramesh B. Kothari who was the finance consultant working at Mumbai and family friend of de facto complainant Vijay Mansukhani/PW20 in his substantive evidence before the court deposes that, one of his friends Ravindra Sanghivi requested him that Ex.P48 FCNR deposit of Vijay Mansukhani opened in 86 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Palani branch of Canara Bank, which had matured to be transferred to Basavanagudi branch and hence, as per the instructions of Vijay Mansukhani he made endorsement on the reverse of Ex.P48 and the FCNR deposit was sent to Basavanagudi branch of Canara Bank for opening new FCNR BKD 45/2001 for a period of one year. Subsequently, the bank had sent him Ex.P24 deposit receipt. On maturity Vijay Manshukhani gave the said receipt to Global Trust Bank to transfer the proceeds of the same to that bank and later it was found that the said deposit was closed prematurely without the knowledge of the depositor.
38. Therefore, from the evidence of PWs 6, 7, and 15 it can be seen that they have categorically stated that, the signatures found in 87 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Ex.P24 purporting to have been signed by them respectively as the person who printed the receipt, supervisor and manager are not their signatures. The said signatures of PWs.6, 7 and 15 were marked as Q16, Q17 and Q18 respectively and were sent for comparison with that of their admitted signatures to obtain expert opinion by the Investigating Officer of this case after obtaining their specimen signatures. The specimen signatures of PW15 was marked as A6 which is found in Ex.P57, the specimen signature of PW6 is marked as A7 which is found in Ex.P37 and specimen signature of PW7 is marked as A8 and it is found in Ex.P46. The opinion of PW18, the Handwriting Expert which is as per Ex.P53 report that, the person who wrote A7 specimen signature (PW6) did not write the Q17 questioned signature of PW6 found in Ex.P24 deposit receipt. 88 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 It is further opined by PW18 in his report that, the person who wrote A8 specimen signature (PW7) did not write the Q16 questioned signature of PW7 found in Ex.P24 deposit receipt. He further gives opinion that, the person who wrote A6 specimen signature (PW15) did not write the Q18 questioned signature of PW15 found in Ex.P24 deposit. PW18 has given reasons for his opinion in Ex.P55 giving out the manner of writing, the movement of curvatures, gap between letters, etc., to substantiate his opinion in Ex.P53 to confirm that the writings of PWs 6, 7 and 15 found in Ex.P24 did not match with their specimen signatures.
39. It is the evidence of PW20 that, he received Ex.P24 deposit receipt and he did not receive Ex.P25 receipt. He had affixed his 89 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 signature on the reverse of Ex.P24 for claiming the proceeds of the deposit amount on maturity. The signatures found on the reverse of Ex.P25 seeking premature closure of deposit receipt were not signed by him. The Investigating Officer had sent his signatures and the signatures of his wife and son found in Ex.P24 and P25 to the expert for comparison. The signatures of PW20, his wife and his son found in Ex.P25 were marked as Q1 and the signatures of PW20, his wife and son found in Ex.P24 were marked as A34 and sent for comparison. The opinion given by PW18 in Ex.P53 report is that, the person who wrote A34 did not write Q1. The admitted signatures of PW20, his wife and his son which are found in Ex.P52 request letter seeking for closure of FCNR 45/2001 which are marked as A1, A2, A3 were also compared with Q1 and the opinion is that, 90 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 the writings made in admitted signatures A1 to A3 are different from the writings of Q1. The testimony of PW13 that the stationary on which Ex.P24 is printed had went missing from Mayo Hall extension counter of the Canara Bank also corroborates with the evidences of other witnesses. So, testimony of these witnesses have convincingly laid credence to the prosecution case corroborating their versions with respect to the expert opinion report and hence, it is clear that, Ex.P24 is the fake receipt which was sent to PW20 and Ex.P25 is the original deposit certificate pertaining to FCNR 45/2001.
40. Admittedly, the FCNR 45/2001 was prematurely closed and the proceeds were transferred to joint account of accused No.3 and PW20 and two new FCNR deposits were opened. 91 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 It is the case of PW20 that, he did not open any account jointly with accused No.3 and he did not make any application for premature closure of FCNR 45/2001 and also he did not authorize for opening of new FCNR deposits.
41. There is signature of PW20 in the account opening form Ex.P2 purported to have been opened in the joint name of PW20 and accused No.3 and PW20 has denied affixing his signature in the said form. He also denies the sending of request which is marked as Ex.P18 wherein the signature of himself, his wife and his son are also found seeking for premature closure of FCNR 45/2001 and transfer of proceeds to NRE SB 56193. His signature in Ex.P2 is marked as Q12 and the signatures of PW20, his wife and his son found in Ex.P18 are marked as Q6. Further he 92 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 also denies the signatures of himself, his wife and his son found in Ex.P38 account opening form for FCNR 49/2001 to be his, his wife and his son and the same are marked as Q8. He also denies the signatures of himself, his wife and his son found in Ex.P39 account opening form for FCNR 50/2001 to be his, his wife and his son and the same are marked as Q10. These signatures were also sent by the Investigating Officer for expert opinion along with the admitted signatures of PW20 and the opinion says that, the writings found in questioned documents are not that of PW20, his wife and his son. The expert opinion corroborates the oral testimony of PW20 that he did not sign Ex.P2, P18, P19, P38 and P39.
42. Therefore, the question arises who has forged the signature of PW20 in Ex.P2 account 93 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 opening form, Ex.P18 request letter to prematurely break the fixed deposit, Ex.P38 and P39 account opening forms of two new FCNR 49/2001 and FCNR 50/2001 and Ex.P19 request letter to break the FCNR 49/2001. Here, name of accused No.3 Shyam Ganglani is found as joint account holder with PW20 and PW20 in his evidence has stated that, he do not know any person by name Shyam Gangalani and denied the signature in Ex.P2 which corroborates with the opinion of PW18, the GEQD. But the learned counsel appearing for accused No.3 tries to impress this court that, all the mischievous acts and fraudulent acts were done by accused No.1 who was the bank manager of Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch who knew that accused No.3 was absent in India and taking the advantage of his absence in India accused No.1, 94 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 2 and 4 have manipulated and forged the signatures of accused No.3 and have committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution. All deeds were done at the back of accused No.3 and hence, accused No.3 has no knowledge about the alleged opening of joint account NRE SB 56193 and individual account NRE SB 56142.
43. But, in his lengthy cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.3 to PW20 questions relating to the deposit at Palani branch was asked and authenticity and genunity of Ex.P48 FCNR 8/2000 deposit receipt, the signature of PW20 in it were challenged and the defensive suggestions put to PW20 was that PW16, Ramesh Kothari was the person who was responsible for all the misdeeds and illegal acts. Not even a single suggestion pointing accused 95 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 No.1, the bank manager is found in either cross- examination of PW20 and also from the line of cross-examination of other prosecution witnesses also no finger is pointed against accused No.1 by accused No.3. It is only after the death of accused No.1, the defence of accused No.3 changed pin-pointing accused No.1 as the person who had manipulated the accounts.
44. Ex.P49 and Ex.P50 are verified Xerox copies of passport and visas of accused No.3 and PW20 respectively. Ex.P49 and Ex.P50 contains the signature of accused No.3 which was submitted along with Ex.P2 account opening form for opening joint account in the name of accused No.3 and PW20. These signatures are marked as Q3 and Q4 by the Investigating Officer. The signature of accused No.3 found in Ex.P2 account 96 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 opening form is marked as Q13. Ex.P3 and P4 are account opening forms of NRE SB 56142 and 56037 standing in the name of A3.
45. Ex.P3 account is denied by accused No.3 and it is submitted on behalf of accused No.3 that, this account was opened without his knowledge. Ex.P4 account is admitted by him but he states that, the account opening form produced and marked as Ex.P4 is forged one and the signature in the account opening form is denied by him. It is pertinent to note here that, the signature of accused No.3 in Ex.P3 and P4 account opening forms were sent for comparison as admitted writings to compare the signatures of accused No.3 found in disputed documents such as Ex.P2 account opening form, cheques and Ex.P27 request letter for issuance of cheque 97 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 book authorizing accused No.4. The signatures in Ex.P4 account opening form pertaining to account No.56307 which account is admitted by accused No.3 is marked as A11 and signature of accused No.3 in account opening form of account No.56142 is marked as A12. Accused No. 3 had never denied his these two accounts during trail and not even a single question or suggestion is found in his entire cross-examination to any of the witnesses questioning the veracity of these two accounts. Only during the final argument stage of the case Ex.P3 account is challenged that too after the demise of accused No.1. Accused No.3 has also admitted Ex.P4 account No.56307 in his written statement he gave before this court under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. and he further states that, he opened the said account as accused No.1 insisted him for the same. Ex.P4 98 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 shows accused No.4 as the introducer for the said account. Ex.P62 is the specimen signature card of accused No.3 pertaining to NRE SB 56037, the admitted account of accused No.3. Ex.P63, P64 and P65 are cheques and pay-in-slips which bears the signature of accused No.3. Ex.P104, P105, P106, P107, P108, P109, P110 and P111 are cheques bearing the signature of accused No.3. The signature of accused No.3 in Ex.P62 and P4 are the signatures admitted by accused No.3. These were marked as A9, A11 and A12 by the Investigating Officer for comparing with the disputed questioned writings. Signature of accused No.3 in copy of passport and visa submitted for opening joint account No.NRE SB 56193 are marked as Q3 and Q4 by the Investigating Officer, his signature found in Ex.P2 account opening form of account No.56193 is 99 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 marked as Q13 and his signatures in the authorization letter addressed to the Bank Manager for issuance of cheque in account No.56193 are marked Q19, Q19/1 and Q20. His signatures in cheques from account No.56193 are marked as Q21, Q23, Q25, Q27, Q29, Q30 and Q31. These were sent by the Investigating Officer to handwriting expert for opinion and Ex.P54 report of PW18 shows that, the admitted writings A9 and A11 of accused No.3 is written by the same person who wrote questioned writings marked as Q3 found in copy of passport of accused No.3, Q13 account opening form of NRE SB 56193, Q19 and Q19/1 request for cheque book, Q21, Q23, Q25, Q27, Q29, Q30 and Q31 signatures on cheques drawn from account No.56193. He has given the reasons for his opinion as per Ex.P56.
100 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
46. Therefore, the signature said to have been of accused No.3 in Ex.P2 account opening form of NRE 56193 is proved to be of accused No.3 and the signature purported to have been of PW20 in the said Ex.P2 account opening form is not signed by PW20. Hence, at this juncture, it is necessary to analyze the acts of introducer to the said account.
47. As per prosecution case, accused No.4 had signed as introducer to the said account and Ex.P2 shows for Srinivasa Enterprises, Proprietor has signed this and admittedly accused No.4 is the proprietor of Srinivasa Enterprises. Accused No.4 has submitted his written statement under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. and in his statement he admits that, he had opened an account No.2401 101 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 which was subsequently changed to Current Account No.6006 with the Canara Bank, Basavanagudi branch and obtained loans and overdraft facilities for his business purpose. He further admits that, he had acquaintance with accused No.3 and he had real estate business dealings with accused No.3. He further states that, he had introduced accused No.3 before Canara Bank, Basavanagudi branch to open an account and he admits his signature in Ex.P2. He had signed blank forms on request of accused No.3. He also admits that, accused No.3 had drawn several self cheques on several occasions and requested him to encash the same which he did and handed over the amount to accused No.3. He did so, because he was staying at Girinagar which is near to Basavanagudi branch of Canara Bank. He also admits that, he was 102 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 authorized by accused No.3 to receive cheque book on behalf of accused No.3 and admits his signature in Ex.P27.
48. All the signatures found in prosecution records pertaining to accused No.4, such as in Ex.P2 account opening form, Ex.P27 authorization letter, endorsements on the reverse of self cheques drawn by accused No.3 from account No.56142 are admitted by accused No.4. Ex.P85 is the written statement given by accused No.4 to the bank during internal investigation and the same is collected by PW22 the Investigating Officer and the same is marked through PW22 Investigating Officer, wherein it can be seen that, A4 has stated the same facts which he has stated in his 313(5) Cr.P.C. statement. But, Sri.Narayan Rao, the person who had recorded the statement 103 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 is not cited as a witness and has not been examined, hence Ex.P85 statement has no relevance. Whether the statement of accused No.4 under Section 313(5) Cr.P.C. can be acted upon wherein he admits the prosecution allegations and points guilt towards other accused is to be looked into. Here, the statement of accused No.4 is not confession statement in nature. He admits certain facts such as signing Ex.P2 as introducer, encashing cheques and obtaining cheque books for and on behalf of accused No.3 on instructions of accused No.3. These admissions of accused No.4 can be used as against accused No.4 and it is best evidence as against the maker. Here the admission is clear and unambiguous. But to the question whether this can be used against accused No.3 and the answer would be in negative. Therefore, these 104 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 allegations that accused No.3 had authorized accused No.4 to receive cheque book, drawn self cheques to encash the same, requested accused No.4 to introduce him to open Ex.P2 account etc., have to be independently looked into without relying upon the admissions of accused No.4. The evidence on record shows that, PW20 has denied of opening joint account and he has also denied his signatures found in Ex.P2 account opening form of 56193, Ex.P18 and P19 request letters to prematurely break FCNR 45/2001 and FCNR 49/2001. It is proved before this court that, the signature of accused No.3 found in Ex.P2 account opening form was signed by accused No.3 himself as per the opinion of the handwriting expert found in Ex.P53 to P56 expert opinion report. Therefore, the cumulative reading of the evidence of PW20 and the evidence of PW18 105 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 handwriting expert along with the expert opinion report it is proved that, PW20 has not signed Ex.P2 account opening form but at the same time accused No.3 has signed the same as a joint applicant to the said account and now the admission of accused No.4 that, he had introduced accused No.3 to open the said account at Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch corroborates these facts.
49. Further on premature breakage of FCNR 45/2001, 50% of the proceeds have been transferred to the said joint account No.56193 and the remaining 50% have been split-up equally and two new FCNR deposits were opened. Later, one of the two FCNR deposits was again prematurely broken and the proceeds of the same were also transferred to the joint account No.56193. As observed above, the letters Ex.P18 106 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 and P19 purported to be sent by PW20 for prematurely breaking FCNR 45/2001 and FCNR 49/2001 are forged letters. Now, the account opening forms said to have been signed and sent by PW20 for opening two new FCNR after breaking FCNR 45/2001 is also denied by PW20. Therefore, the authenticity of these two documents is to be again verified to find out whether they are forged or genuine. Ex.P38 and P39 are account opening forms of FCNR 49/2001 and FCNR 50/2001 respectively. It is the evidence of PW20 that, he or his family members did not affix their signatures in any of the forms for opening new FCNR deposit accounts. The Investigating Officer during investigation got the signatures of PW20 and his family members found in Ex.P38 and P39 marked as Q8 and Q10 respectively and the same were sent for 107 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 obtaining expert opinion. PW18, the handwriting expert after comparing these questioned writings with the admitted writings of PW20, his wife and his son which were marked as A1 to A5 and A34, has given opinion in Ex.P53 report that the persons who wrote the admitted writings did not write the questioned Q8 and Q10 writings. He has also given his reasons for the opinion in detail in Ex.P55 that the questioned signatures on examination was revealed that, these signatures were slow and drawn in its execution and the line quality was also not free but characterized by hesitation at various places. He has pointed out the manner of writing of the letters 'S', 'u', 'k', 'h' and 'i' have dissimilarities with that of the above said letters found in the admitted writings. Therefore, the evidence of PW20 along with the expert opinion of PW18 and his Ex.P53 and P55 108 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 report has to be appreciated and the Ex.P38 and P39 are proved to be forged documents. Based on these forged documents Ex.P26 FCNR 49/2001 and FCNR 50/2001 have been opened and the proceeds of FCNR 49/2001 were also siphoned and transferred to Ex.P2 joint account No.56193 which was fraudulently opened to deal with the proceeds.
50. After fraudulently transferring the 50% of the proceeds of FCNR 45/2001 and the proceeds of FCNR 49/2001 to the fraudulently opened account No.56193, the proceeds were subsequently transferred to another account No.56142 standing in the individual name of accused No.3. Ex.P27 is the request letter sent by accused No.3 addressed to the Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch for issuance of cheque book for account No.NRE 56193. In the 109 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 said letter he has authorized accused No.4 to collect the cheque book on his behalf and he had attested the signature of accused No.4 in the said letter itself. Acting on the said letter cheque book with 20 leaves from No.337861 to 337880 was issued to accused No.3 which was collected by accused No.4. The evidence of PW5 Smt.Manjula Pravthiraj who was a clerk at the point of time at Canara Bank, Basavanagudi branch in her evidence before this court has stated that, she received Ex.P27 letter and she enquired accused No.1, the bank manager whether she could issue the cheque book as per the request, then, accused No.1 endorsed as 'Yes' in the said letter and affixed his signature below that, authorizing her to issue the cheque book. Therefore, she after making necessary entry in the Cheque Book Issuance Register handed over the cheque book 110 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 to accused No.4. The receipt of said cheque book from the bank is not denied by accused No.4 and he also does not deny Ex.P27 authorization letter issued to him by accused No.3. But accused No.3 totally denies Ex.P27 the letter alleged to have been written and signed by him. The signature of accused No.3 found in Ex.P27 which accused No.3 strenuously disputes was sent for obtaining expert opinion by the Investigating Officer after marking the same as Q19 and the expert PW18 after comparing the same with the admitted writings of accused No.3 marked as A11 and A12 has come out with an opinion in his Ex.P54 report that the person who has written the admitted writing has also wrote the questioned Q19 writings and also he has given the reasons in his Ex.P56 report that the questioned signatures have been freely written with speed, impulse and 111 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 there is no sign of imitation. He has further opined that, the questioned signatures have also been indicated by the smoothness, continuity and uniformity of stroke and all the questioned and admitted signatures are freely written and have natural variations among themselves, there was no imitation or disguise in them and hence, he concludes that both the admitted writings and the questioned writings are made by same person. Therefore, from the evidence of PW20 and considering the admissions made by accused No.4 with the expert opinion reports, it can be safely concluded that Ex.P27 authorization letter was signed by accused No.3 to receive the cheque book pertaining account No.56193.
51. After obtaining the cheque book the amounts were withdrawn from the said account 112 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 by using Ex.P7, P8, P9, P10 cheque leaves for Rs.45 lakhs, Rs.20 lakhs, Rs.19 lakhs and Rs.20 lakhs respectively drawn in the name of accused No.3 and a total amount of Rs.1,04,00,000/- was drawn from the said account in the name of accused No.3 and as per Ex.P11 an amount of Rs.50 lakhs has been drawn in favour of Sapna Impex Pvt. Ltd., and as per Ex.P12 and P13 cheques Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively has been drawn in favour of Ananthkumar G. and Kumar respectively. Hence, in total an amount of Rs.1,34,45,000/- has been withdrawn from 24.4.2001 to 18.6.2001 from the NRE account No.56193 and all the cheques are signed by accused No.3. His signatures found Ex.P7 to P13 cheques were marked as Q21, Q29, Q27, Q31, Q30, Q23 and Q25 respectively and these were compared with the admitted 113 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 signatures of accused No.3 and the opinion of the handwriting in his opinion report Ex.P54, PW18 states that, the writings found in Q21, Q23, Q25, Q27, Q29, Q30 and Q31 were written by the same person who wrote admitted A11 and A12 writings of accused No.3. He gives the same reason for his opinion as he has given with respect to the signatures of accused No.3 in Ex.P27.
52. The prosecution has produced Ex.P5 account statement pertaining to account No.56193 which shows that the 50% proceeds of FCNR 45/2001 i.e., Rs.89,61,550/- was transferred to the account on 25.4.2001 and on 18.5.2001 an amount of Rs.44,82,469/- was transferred to this account from FCNR 49/2001. Ex.P5 further reflects the amount withdrawn as 114 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 per the cheques mentioned above. The learned counsel for accused No.3 strenuously opposes relying upon the account statement on the ground that, Ex.P5 is a computer generated printout and as mandated under Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act, the same is not attached with the certificate authenticating the genunity of Ex.P5. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar P. V. v/s P. K. Basheer and others reported in (2014)10 SCC 473 that a digital evidence should necessarily be produced with a certificate mentioned under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and hence these evidences are inadmissible and hence, the contention of the learned counsel for accused No.3 sounds reasonable. In response to this the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submits that he does not want to rely upon Ex.P5 account 115 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 statements and that need not be given much weightage in appreciating the prosecution evidence and he further submits that, the prosecution relies upon the original documents such as cheque, pay-in-slips, credit and debit vouchers to prove that the amounts from FCNR 45/2001 and FCNR 49/2001 has been transferred to the account No.56193 and subsequently to account No.56142. He draws my attention to the Ex.P45 pay-in-slip which shows that, an amount of Rs.44,82,469/- from FCNR 49/2001 is withdrawn using pay-in-slips and credited to SB account No.56193. And Ex.P44 debit slip shows that, this amount has been raised using Branch Adjustment Requisition (BAR) as the proceeds of the earlier FCNR 45/2001 which was opened after closing Palani Deposit FCNR 8/2000 did not reach Bengaluru Foreign Department from Madurai 116 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Foreign Department of the Canara Bank. Ex.P40 is the document which is a pay-in-slip which shows an amount of Rs.89,61,550/- has been transferred to account No.56193 from FCNR 45/2001. Therefore, relying upon these original documents it can be concluded that the proceeds of FCNR 45/2001 and FCNR 49/2001 have been transferred to account No.56193 on 25.4.2001 and 18.5.2001 respectively. Therefore, the prosecution has proven its case to the hilt that an amount of Rs.1,34,44,019/- has been credited to account No.56193 and subsequently an amount of Rs.1,34,00,000/- has been withdrawn using Ex.P7 to P13 cheque leaves and the said cheque leaves bears the signature of accused No.3.
117 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
53. The proceeds of FCNR 45/2001 and FCNR 49/2001 thus credited to NRE 56193 were subsequently transferred to the individual account No.NRO SB 56142 standing in the name of accused No.3. The prosecution has produced Ex.P6 account statement and the learned counsel for accused No.3 opposes relying upon the said document as it is not accompanied by the certificate contemplated under Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act and hence, Ex.P6 cannot be relied upon to prove the same. But, the prosecution has produced Ex.P104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 and 111 cheque leaves drawn on account No.56142 signed by accused No.3. Out of these cheque leaves Ex.P106, 107 and 110 are drawn in the name of accused No.4 P.Krishnappa and the other cheques are self drawn cheques. The amount withdrawn vide 118 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Ex.P104 to P111 are Rs.4,50,000/-, Rs.10 lakhs, Rs.5,20,000/-, Rs.3 lakhs, Rs.1 lakh, Rs.5 lakhs, Rs.4 lakhs and Rs.1 lakh and the total amount of Rs.33,70,000/- is withdrawn using the cheques and using pay-in-slips Ex.P14 and P15 an amount of Rs.45 lakhs and Rs.19 lakhs respectively has been transferred to account No.56142. Using Ex.P63 and P64 cheque leaves drawn from account No.56142 an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1 lakh respectively were withdrawn. As per Ex.P60 and P65 pay-in-slips an amount of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs are withdrawn from account No.56142 by accused No.3. Therefore, from the above documents it is proved that, an amount of Rs.1,06,70,000/- has been withdrawn from account No.56142.
119 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
54. The prosecution allegations against accused No.2 is that he conspiring together with accused No.1 and 4 assisted them to siphon the deposit amount belonging to PW20 and for this purpose he had filled in his handwriting the Ex.P2 account opening form of NRE No.56193, Ex.P38 and P39 account opening forms pertaining to FCNR 49/2001 and FCNR 50/2001 and he is the person who had in his handwriting wrote Ex.P27 cheque request application pertaining to account No.56193 and he had filled several pay-in-slips to withdraw the money from the accounts. To prove these allegations the prosecution relies upon the expert opinion evidence of PW18 and Ex.P53 and P55 reports of the expert. The writings in Ex.P2 were marked by the Investigating Officer as Q14 and the writings in Ex.P27 are marked as Q20. The writings in Ex.P38 are marked as Q9, the 120 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 writings in Ex.P39 are marked as Q11, the writings in Ex.P15 pay-in-slip are marked as Q37 by the Investigating Officer and these were sent for comparison after obtaining specimen signatures and writings of accused No.4. The specimen writings of accused No.4 are found in Ex.P58 and these were marked as A13 to A18 by the Investigating Officer and sent for obtaining expert opinion. The Investigating Officer had obtained the specimen writings and specimen signatures of accused No.4 in blank account opening form and pay-in-slips which are marked as Ex.P90 to P102 and these were numbered as A19 to A31 and sent to the expert to compare with the disputed writings of accused No.2. The learned counsel for accused No.2 seriously objected the obtaining of specimen writings and specimen signatures A19 to A31 in Ex.P92 to 121 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 P102 as it amounts to forcefully asking accused No.2 for imitating the writings found in questioned documents and hence, the consideration of the writings and signatures in these documents as admitted or specimen signatures or writings of accused No.4 is per se illegal. The Ex.P53 and P55 report of PW18 handwriting expert concludes that, the questioned writings found in Ex.P2, P27, P38, P39 said to have been written in the handwriting by accused No.2 have been written by the same person who wrote A13 to A18, A19 to A33 the admitted specimen writings and writings of accused No.2. Even if the so called forcefully obtained imitated specimen writings A19 to A33 are eschewed from the records the other specimen writings i.e., A13 to A18 matches with that of the questioned writings of accused No.2. 122 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
55. But, from the entire reading of the prosecution records no witness especially the bank officials have spoken with respect to the fact that accused No.2 had approached the bank at any point of time and had withdrawn amount as per the prosecution allegation. The only evidence available against accused No.2 for his alleged indulgence in committing the crime and conspiration with other accused persons is the expert opinion report of PW18. The learned counsel for accused No.2 strenuously opposes in relying upon this evidence stating that, the expert opinion is only a corroborative piece of evidence and this cannot be relied upon unless and until there is any substantive evidence to prove the prosecution allegation as against accused No.2. To fortify and buttress his 123 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 submission he relies upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in "K.Varadaraja Pai V State by CBI".
56. It is well settled law that it would be hazardous to relay upon expert evidence without any independent evidence pointing out the guilt of accused. Here as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for accused No.2 there is not even a single piece of document produced by the prosecution except Ex.P53 and P55 report and neither there is any oral testimony of any witness pointing the culpability or involvement of the accused No.2 in this case. As law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Magan Bihari Lal Vs State of Punjab' reported in AIR 1977 1019 it is an unsafe to convict an accused on an uncorroborated opinion evidence and before 124 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 relying upon the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert the court has to look whether there is any other evidence connecting the accused in the case as opinion evidence by its very nature is weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction. Further, in Pandit Eshwari Prasad Mishra Vs Mohammed Isa reported in AIR 1963 1728 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the opinion evidence of an handwriting expert is never a conclusive evidence and in 'Murarilal Vs State of MP reported in AIR 1980 SC 531 the Hon'ble Supreme court cautioned that before relying upon expert opinion evidence corroboration should be sought. This was reiterated in 'SPS Rathod Vs CBI reported in AIR 2016 SC 4486 where it was held that corroboration is necessary to rely upon expert evidence.
125 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
57. Here, the disputed cheque leaves which are marked as Ex.P7 to P13 are drawn by accused No.3 and it is already proved that the signatures in the cheque leaves are of accused No.3 and encashed by accused No.3. Out of these cheques, two cheques are drawn in favour of one Ananthkumar G and one Kumar. And the prosecution failed to prove the person named in Ex.P12 cheque Ananthkumar G. and Ex.P13 Kumar is accused No.2. Even if it admitted that the said cheques were utilized by accused No.4, that itself is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that accused No.2 had conspired with the other accused persons in this case and committed the alleged offences. As per the prosecution allegation accused No.2 and 3 are known to each other for several years and prosecution contends 126 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 that accused No.2 was Chartered Accountant of accused No.3 and hence, they had financial dealings with themselves on the other hand the statement of accused No.4 is that he is an Art Worker and knew accused No.1 and 2 and he had sold his art work to accused No.1 and 3. Therefore, from these facts which are placed on record before this court it can be concluded that even in the extreme case if it found that the amount is withdrawn as per Ex.P12 and 13 cheques by accused No.2 and the writings on the Ex.P2 account opening forms, cheque request letter and pay-in-slips are that of accused No.2, these again can be considered as corroborative pieces of evidence which can support a substantive evidence if there is any against accused No.2. Corroborative evidence will never stands on its own and it is well settled law that 127 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 two or more corroborative pieces of evidence would not take place of substantive evidence. There should be a substantive piece of evidence which stands on its own and this can be supported by corroborative evidences on record. The prosecution allegation is that accused No. 2 had conspired with other accused persons in this case in commission of the crime charged against him and relies on the handwritings on the questioned documents, pay-in-slips and withdrawal of money through Ex.P12 and P13 cheques.
58. At this stage, this Court for better and fuller appreciation of the merits of the matter in issue and for understanding the concept of criminal conspiracy refers to said word as defined under section 120A of IPC and its relevancy as 128 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 contemplated under section 10 of Indian Evidence Act, the same are extracted here below:
120 A of IPC:- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done-
i. an illegal act, or ii. an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is desig- nated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agree-
ment to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation:- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object..
129 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
Things said or done by conspirator in refer- ence to common design:- Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the per- sons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. 130 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
59. Therefore, the primary requirement of criminal conspiracy is thus an unlawful agree- ment to commit an offence and generally, the offence of conspiracy is complete when the agreement is proved.
60. In the case of Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in AIR 1988 SC 1883 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "the fact that the accused were present at the gathering a short time before the shooting took place and talked to each other in isolation and avoided questions pertaining to their conversation was admitted as a prima facie evidence establishing the existence of a conspiracy." While in L.K.Ad- vani Vs. CBI reported in 1997 CrLJ 2559 (Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court refused to invoke provisions of section 10 of the Evidence 131 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Act where entries in a diary were neither self-ex- planatory nor showed existence of any conspir- acy even to the prima facie extent.
61. In Badri Rai Vs. State reported in AIR 1958 SC 953 our Hon'ble Apex Court held that "section 10 of the Evidence Act has been de- liberately inserted in order to make such acts and statements of the co-conspirators admissible against the whole body of conspirators because of the nature of the crime." The court further held that "a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness and hence, naturally it is not feasible for the prosecution to connect each isolated act or statement on one accused with the acts or statements of the others unless there is common bond linking all of them together." 132 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
62. Here in the case on hand merely because the questioned documents were written in the handwriting of accused No.2 , it could not be said that he conspired with the other accused persons in draining off the FCNR deposits belonging to PW20 since the prosecution failed to prove a meeting of minds or an agreement between the conspiring parties to do a criminal act. To draw an inference of conspiracy on the basis of this suspicion would be too farfetched. The questioned writings of accused No.2 are found in Ex.P2- account opening form of account No.NRE 56193, Ex.P7, 9, 12 and 13 cheques pertaining to the said NRE 56193, Ex.P14 and 15 pay-in-slips pertaining to account No. NRE 56142 belonging to accused No.3, Ex.P27- request letter for issuance of cheque pertaining to account NRE 56193, Ex.P38 and 39-account opening forms for 133 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 new FCNR deposits. Here it is pertinent to note that none of these documents have any mention of any of the FCNR accounts which were intended for premature closure by accused No.3. There is no other evidence brought out by any of the prosecution witnesses or documents other than the opinion evidence of handwriting expert PW18. But as far as the evidences on record as against accused No.3 there are documents and oral testimony of prosecution witnesses which clinchingly proves the prosecution allegation hence, expert opinion evidence of PW18 and his Ex.P53 to P55 reports can be used as corroborative pieces of evidences to connect accused No.3's involvement in this case. Since there are no other evidences oral or documentary to connect accused No.2 in this case, it is totally unsafe to rope accused No. 2 relying upon the 134 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 report of PW18 and to find him guilty of the offences in the role of a conspirator.
63. With respect to the involvement of accused No.4 in this case the only allegation against him is that, he in conspiration with other accused persons has introduced accused No.3 and PW20 to open an account No.56193. It is proved that, the signature of PW20 found in account opening form of 56193 is forged and hence, the prosecution allegation is that with the knowledge and with intention to drain off the proceeds of deposits belonging to PW20 this account No.56193 is opened with the aid of accused No.4 and thereby, he facilitated in the commission of crime as a conspirating partner and he also received money out of the proceeds of the deposits belonging to PW20. Here, accused 135 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 No.4 do not dispute with respect to the introduction of account opening and he in his statement before this court given under Section 313(5) Cr.P.C. states that since he had acquaintance with accused No.3 for the last several years before introducing him to open the alleged account with Canara Bank, Basavanagudi branch he had affixed his signature at the introducer's portion of the form and he was not aware that name of PW20 would be inserted. Here, the submission of the learned counsel for accused No.4 is that, merely because accused No.4 had introduced accused No.3 to open an account and merely because accused No.4 had received the cheque book based on the authorization letter of accused No.3, culpable mental state on accused No.4 cannot be attributed unless and until the prosecution 136 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 proves beyond doubt that accused No.4 had acted with mens rea to siphon the deposit amount. This submission of the learned counsel of accused No.4 has to be appreciated in the light of the authorities discussed above in case of accused No.2, since, he has not drawn any amount from the cheque leaves from the cheque book which was collected by him on instructions of accused No.3. The amounts drawn using these cheques was by accused No.3 himself. Ex.P104 to P111 cheques produced by the prosecution drawn from the account No.56142 belonging to accused No.3 are encashed by accused No.4 and the reverse of all the cheques bears the signatures of accused No.4 even though the payee of the cheques is shown as 'self'' i.e., accused No. 3 himself. Only Ex.P106, P107 and P110 show accused No.4 as payee. It is the 137 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 submission of the learned counsel for accused No.4 that, accused No.4 was instructed by accused No.3 to draw amount and to hand over to accused No.3 which was done by accused No.4. Here, this submission also sounds reasonable on the ground that in the written statement of accused No.4 submitted under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. before this court, his submission is that as he was staying at Girinagar which is near to Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch he was asked by accused No.3 to withdraw the money. Even if it admitted that as in the case of accused No.4 that using the cheques drawn by accused No.3 any amount is withdrawn from the bank, culpability cannot be fixed on the person who encashed the amount as per the cheques drawn in his favour unless there is evidence on record to show the meeting of 138 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 mind to commit any criminal act between accused No.3 and accused No.4. Therefore I an unable to draw any inference of conspiracy from this circumstance alone.
64. For these reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt the allegation of forgery, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using forged document as genuine and criminal conspiracy to commit offences as against accused No.2 and accused No.4 by adducing independent, cogent and reliable evidences and hence, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused No.2 and accused No.4.
65. As far as the allegation of forgery, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using forged 139 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 document as genuine as against accused No.3, prosecution has satisfactorily proved the guilt as against the accused No.3. But the main defence of accused No. 3 is that he was not in India during the time of alleged commission of crime and hence, he puts forth the plea of alibi and he produces the copy of his passport to establish his plea. The learned counsel for accused No.3 has also made suggestions to the prosecution witnesses during cross-examination that accused No. 3 was at Singapore and Dubai during the entire period of the alleged fraudulent transactions. From the bare furnishing of the copy of Passport of accused No. 3 would not itself give sufficient proof for his absence from India. Here accused No.3 has produced Xerox copy of a passport which has more than 55 pages and in each page there are more than three Visa 140 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 stampings and he could not point out specifically that during 2001 he was not present in India as alleged by the prosecution to commit the alleged fraudulent acts. It is trait law that suggestions cannot take the place of proof. A suggestive defence unless probabalised by any material in support thereof, cannot dislodge the testimony of witnesses. The accused has the right of silence and when he himself having broken the silence by taking up the plea of alibi is bound to prove the said plea. It is true, accused is not required to prove the defence with the standard of absolute proof and nonetheless he is required to produce acceptable and reliable evidence at least to probabalise the said defence and hence, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for accused No.3 that all the mischievous and fraudulent acts were done by accused No.1, 141 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 2 and 4 at the back of accused No.3 taking advantage of his absence in India.
66. Therefore, from the thorough scrutiny of evidences and the documents placed before this Court, the following facts can be summed up:
i. The proceeds of matured FCNR deposit No.8/2000 was transferred from the Canara Bank, Palani branch to Basavanagudi branch, Bengaluru on instructions of PW20 and a new FCNR deposit 45/2001 was opened for a period of one year.
ii. FCNR 45/2001 was printed on Ex.P25 deposit receipt CDMB 3737442 and signed by the bank officials PW6, PW7 and PW15. But this receipt was not sent to PW20, the depositor. 142 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 iii. Another false document was created on deposit receipt CDMB 2058354 purported to be FCNR 45/2001 by forging the signatures of bank officials PW6, PW7 and PW15 and this was sent to the depositor PW20. iv. A joint account NRE 56193 was opened in the name of accused No.3 and PW20 by forging the signature of PW20 by accused No.3 and a cheque book with 20 leaves were obtained by accused No.3 through accused No.4 to siphon the proceeds of the FCNR 45/2001.
v. Using the original deposit receipt Ex.P25, by forging the signatures of the depositors and by creating another false document Ex.P18, a request letter purportedly written by the depositors, the FCNR 45/2001 was prematurely closed within one month of its 143 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 opening and the 50% of the proceeds were transferred to the account NRE 56193. vi. Out of the balance 50% proceeds of the FCNR 45/2001, two new fixed deposits FCNR 49/2001 and 50/2001 were opened in the name of PW20 and his family members by forging their signatures in the account opening forms.
vii. Another false document Ex.P19 was created, which was a request letter purportedly written by the depositors of the new FCNR deposits requesting the bank for the premature closure of one of the new deposits within one month of its opening and hence, FCNR 49/2001 was closed and the proceeds were transferred to the account NRE 56193.144 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
viii. The amount thus transferred to NRE 56193 was then transferred using the cheque leaves obtained in that account by accused No.3 to his individual account NRE 56142 maintained with the Canara Bank Basavanagudi branch.
ix. Subsequently the crime proceeds to the tune of Rs.1,34,44,019/- were withdrawn from NRE 56142 by using cheques and pay-in- slips by accused No.3.
x. Canara Bank, Basavanagudi branch had to make good the loss caused to PW20 and his family members by paying the maturity amount in FCNR 45/2001 thus causing wrongful loss to Canara Bank and ultimately to the public to the tune of Rs.1,34,44,019/- and corresponding wrongful gain to accused No.3.145 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
67. Based on these oral and documentary evidences and relaying upon the authoritative decisions placed before me by the learned counsel for the accused and learned Senior Public Prosecutor, I hold that the prosecution has proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt by placing legally admissible, cogent reliable documentary evidence as well as oral evidences which are sufficient for this court to come to a conclusion that, accused No.3 has committed offences cheating, forgery, forgery for the purpose of cheating and using forged document as genuine. But, for the reasons and discussions made hereinabove the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.2 and 4 have committed the offence charged against them and accordingly, I answer Points No.2 to 5 taken for consideration in the 146 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Affirmative and Points No.6 to 9 in the Negative.
68. Point No.10: In view of my findings to the above points, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.3, Shyam M.Gangalani is convicted for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC. Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, he is acquitted of offence punishable under section 120(B) of I.P.C.
Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.2, Anathakumar G. and accused No.4 P. Krishnappa are acquitted of the offences punishable under section 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the IPC.147 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused No.3 stand canceled. The bail bond and surety bonds of accused No.2 and 4 other than the bonds executed under section 437A of Cr.P.C. stand canceled.
Case is posted to hear the accused No.3 on sentence.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 5th day of April, 2021) (Manjula Itty), XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.148 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Accused No.3 is present.
Smt.M.Gayathri, advocate and Sri.Aman Preeth Singh, learned advocates for the accused No.3 and Sri Chenthil Kumar, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor are present.
Sri.Aman Preeth Singh, learned advocate for accused No.3 submits that accused No.1 is suffering from age old ailments such as kidney damage, diabetic nethropathy. He is hypertensive with complicated diabetic nephropathy. He is also diagnosed idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and he is under treatment. He is having incurable fibrosis of lung matter.
He further submits that, before sentencing the accused No.3 this court has to look into the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the facts of this case and he also submits that, the court need not look into the gravity of the crime while sentencing the accused. He produces a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Brajendra Singh Vs State of MP wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has meticulously 149 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 examined the sentencing policy and he pleads this court to take a lenient view considering the age of accused No.3. He further submits that, he has faced the trial of this case for 19 years and he has never kept himself absent without the permission of this court during trial of this case even one day. He is well educated person and he will reform himself and on these grounds he may be awarded minimum sentences while imposing sentence on him.
The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submits that, the prosecution has proved the case against the accused No.3 beyond reasonable doubt. The accused No.3 has pleaded age and ailment as only ground for taking lenient view, it is not permissible and he has not shown any special circumstances which is peculiar to accused that entitles him for leniency of this court. He further states that, Penology Jurisprudence prescribed for several types of punishments.This includes Preventive, Retributive, Deterrent, theories of punishments. These also includes Restorative Theory wherein 150 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 the loss caused should be made good from the accused. Here, huge loss has been caused to Canara Bank and ultimately to the State.
Looking to the nature and gravity of the offences committed by accused No.3 against Canara Bank and causing huge loss to the Public Exchequer, accused do not deserve any lenient view while imposing sentence and prays to impose maximum sentence prescribed under law to the offence committed by him and also prays to impose maximum fine.
Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusing the evidence on record this Court has already held that, the accused No.3 has committed the offences punishable under the 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Emotional justice has no standing in the forum of right reason. The judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for accused no.3 is a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on Appeal from an order of judgement of conviction of accused to death sentence and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding appeal has also 151 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 discussed the quantum of sentence that should have been imposed on the accused of that case which is peculiar to the facts and circumstances of that case and hence, the said decision is not an authority to the facts of this case. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences committed by the accused No.3 and siphoning Rs.1,34,44,019/- to his own account which belongs to the Public exchequer, I am of the considered view that, the accused No.3 is not entitled for any leniency from this Court and also I am not inclined to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
SENTENCE Acting under section 248(2) Cr.P.C, the accused No.3 Shyam M. Gaglani is sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 5 (Five) years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) and in default to pay fine, he shall undergo 152 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 simple imprisonment for 6 (six months) for the offence punishable under section 467 of IPC.
The accused No.3 Shyam M. Gaglani is further sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) and in default to pay fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (three months) for the offence punishable under section 468 of IPC.
The accused No.3, Shyam M. Gaglani is further sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 5 (Five) years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) and in default to pay fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (Six months) for the offence punishable under section 471 r/w Sec.467 of IPC.
153 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
The accused No.3 Shyam M. Gaglani is further sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) and in default to pay fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (Three months) for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.
The period of detention already undergone by the accused No.3 during investigation if any, is set off as per Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
All substantive sentences imposed to accused No.3 shall run concurrently and the sentence of imprisonment in default to pay fine shall run consecutively thereafter.
154 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
Furnish free copy of the Judgment to the accused No.1 forthwith.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 5th day of April, 2021) (Manjula Itty), XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
155 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined by the prosecution:- PW.Nos. NAME PW.1 Sri. Manohar S. Nayak PW.2 Sri. T.N Bhat PW.3 Sri. V. Mohan PW.4 Sri. R.Guruprasad PW.5 Smt. Manjula Prithviraj PW.6 Smt. R. Shashi PW.7 Smt. K. Geetha. S Pai PW.8 Sri. M. P Ramalingam PW.9 Sri. Dilip S. Gawade PW.10 Sri. K. Venkataramaiah PW.11 Sri. Ravindra Manilal Sanghvi PW.12 Smt. Mabel D'Souza PW.13 Sri. C.Mahesh PW.14 Sri. V. Krishna Murthy PW.15 Sri. P.R Prakash PW.16 Sri. Ramesh B. Kothari PW.17 Sri. Narendra Lohia PW.18 Sri. Krishna Shashtri Pendyala PW.19 Sri. L. Chandrakanth PW.20 Sri. Vijay Mansukhani PW.21 Sri. M.V.S.S Shastri PW.22 Sri. M. Jayachandra Raju 156 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Exhibit Description
Numbers
Ex.P.1 Original sanction order dated 14.05.2003 (5
sheets)
Ex.P.1 (a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.2 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Br, NRE SB a/c
Opening Form i/r/o a/c No.56193 held in the joint names of Sham M. Ganglani and Vijay N. Mansukhani.
Ex.P.2 (a) Signature of A.1/ Br. Manager. Ex.P.2 (b) Signature found on the reverse side of 1 st sheet of Ex.P.2 (said to have been signed by PW.20.) Ex.P.3 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Br, SB a/c Opening Form i/r/o a/c No.56142 held in the name of Sham M. Ganglani Ex.P.3 (a) Signature of A.1/ Br. Manager Ex.P.4 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Br, NRE SB a/c Opening Form i/r/o a/c No.56037 held in the name of Sham M. Ganglani Ex.P.4 (a) Signature of A.1/ Br. Manager Ex.P.5 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Br, Statement of account i/r/o joint a/c NRE, SB a/c No. 56193. 157 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Ex.P.5(a) Relevant credit entry dated 25.04.2001 for Rs. 89, 61, 550/-
Ex.P.5(b) Relevant credit entry dated 18.05.2001 for Rs.44, 82, 469/-
Ex.P.6 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Br, Statement of account No. 56142 held in the name of Shyam M. Ganglani. (2 sheets) Ex.P.7 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch cheque No.337867 dated 18.05.2001 for Rs.45 Lakhs issued by A.3 in favour of Shyam M. Ganglani from the a/c of SB, NRE 56193.
Ex.P.7 (a) Signature of A.3 Ex.P.8 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch cheque
No.337862 dated 24.04.2001 for Rs.20 Lakhs issued by A.3 in favour of Shyam M. Ganglani from the a/c of SB, NRE 56193.
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of A.3 Ex.P.9 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch cheque
No.337866 dated 27.04.2001 for Rs.19 Lakhs issued by A.3 in favour of Shyam M. Ganglani from the a/c of SB, NRE 56193.
Ex.P.9 (a) Signature of A.3 Ex.P.10 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch cheque
No.337863 dated 24.04.2001 for Rs.20 Lakhs issued by A.3 in favour of Shyam M. Ganglani from the a/c of SB, NRE 56193. Ex.P.10 (a) Signature of A.3 Ex.P.11 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch cheque No.337861 dated 24.05.2001 for Rs.30 Lakhs issued by A.3 in favour of Sapna Impex Pvt. 158 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Ltd from the a/c of SB, NRE 56193.
Ex.P.11 (a) Signature of A.3 Ex.P.12 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch cheque
No.337868 dated 31.05.2001 for Rs.25,000/- issued by A.3 in favour of Anantha Kumar G. from the a/c of SB, NRE 56193.
Ex.P.12 (a) Signature of A.3 Ex.P.13 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch cheque
No.337869 dated 18.06.2001 for Rs.20,000/- issued by A.3 in favour of Kumar from the a/c of SB, NRE 56193.
Ex.P.13 (a) Signature of A.3 Ex.P.14 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch Pay-in
-slip dated 18.05.2001 for Rs.45,00,000/- crediting the amount to the a/c Number 56142 held in the name of Shyam M. Ganglani by depositing cheque at Ex.P.7. Ex.P.15 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch Pay-in-
slip dated 27.04.2001 for Rs.19,00,000/- crediting the amount to the a/c Number 56142 held in the name of Shyam M. Ganglani.
Ex.P.16 Original complaint along with covering letter dated 05.04.2002 from DGM, Canara Bank, Circle Office, BLR to CBI (4 sheets). Signature of Sri.Venkataramaiah DGM, Ex.P. 16(a) Canara Bank, Circle Office, BLR.
Ex.P.16(b) Covering letter dated 05.04.02 Ex.P.16(b-1) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P. 17 Statement of Sri. Vijay N. Mansukhani dated 159 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 05.04.2002 given before internal investigator (2 sheets) Ex.P. 17(a) Skipped Ex.P. 17(b) Signature of PW.20 found on 1st Page Ex.P.18 Letter dated nil bearing inward seal dtd 23.04.2001 addressed to the Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Br., Bengaluru. Ex.P.18(a) Signature said to have been made by PW.20 Ex.P.18(b) Signature said to have been made by wife of PW.20 Ex.P.18(c) Signature said to have been made by son of PW.20 Ex.P.19 Letter dated nil bearing inward seal dtd 16.05.2001 addressed to the Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Br., Bengaluru. Ex.P.19(a) Signature said to have been made by PW.20 Ex.P.19(b) Signature said to have been made by wife of PW.20 Ex.P.19(c) Signature said to have been made by son of PW.20 Ex.P.20 DHL shipment Airway Bill bearing Sl.No. 3057332121 Ex.P.21 DTDC Airway Bill bearing Sl.No. 1324304 Ex.P.22 DHL shipment Airway Bill bearing Sl.No. 3057338491 Ex.P.23 Covering letter of Global Trust Bank Ltd dated 22.03.2002 addressed to Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Br., signed by the authorized signatory.
160 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003Ex.P.24 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch deposit receipt bearing a/c No.FCNR BKD/45/01 dated 27.03.2001 (printed Sl.No. CDMB 2058354) held in the name of Vijay N. Mansukhani and two others Ex.P.24(a) Signature found in the supervisor's column (said to have been signed by PW.6) with employee code of PW.6 Ex.P.24(b) Initials written as "G p" and marked as Q.16. Ex.P.24(c) Signature of PW.15 Ex.P.24(d) Signature of PW.20 Ex.P.24(e) Signature of wife of PW.20 Ex.P.24(f) Signature of son of PW.20 Ex.P.24(g) Endorsement made on the reverse side of Ex.P.24 Ex.P.25 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch deposit receipt bearing a/c No.FCNR BKD/45/01 dated 27.03.2001 (printed Sl.No. CDMB 3737442) held in the name of Vijay N. Mansukhani and two others.
Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.25(b) Initials of PW.7 Ex.P.25(c) Signature of A.1 Ex.P.25(d) Signature of PW.15 Ex.P.25(e) Signature said to have been made by PW.20 161 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Ex.P.25(f) Signature said to have been made by wife of PW.20 Ex.P.25(g) Signature said to have been made by son of PW.20 Ex.P.26 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch deposit receipt bearing a/c No.FCNR BKD/49/01 dated 25.04.2001 (printed Sl.No. CDMB 3737649) held in the name of Vijay N. Mansukhani and two others.
Ex.P.26(a) Initials of PW.7 Ex.P.26(b) Signature of A.1 Ex.P.26(c) Signature of PW.14 Ex.P.27 Letter dated 24.04.2001 from Shyam M.
Ganglani addressed to the Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Br., BLR authorising P. Krishnappa to collect cheque book Ex.P.27 (a) Endorsement and signature of A.1 Ex.P.27 (b) Signature of A.4 Ex.P.28 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch attested extract of cheque book issue register page No.201.
Ex.P.28(a) Relevant entry dtd 04.04.2001 showing issuance of cheque leaves No. 337861 to 337880 Ex.P.28(a-1) Signature of A.4 Ex.P.29 Statement of Smt. Manjula Prithviraj given before internal investigator 162 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Ex.P.29(a) Signature of Smt. Manjula Prithviraj Ex.P.30 Canara Bank, Palani Branch letter dated 27.03.2001 addressed to Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Br., Bengaluru., regarding transfer of FCNR BKD 8/2000 dated 29.03.2000 Ex.P.30(a) Writings of PW.6 as "FCNR BKD 45/2001"
Ex.P.30(b) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P.31 Xerox copy of FCNR a/c Opening Form
bearing a/c No. FCNR BKD /8/2000 received along with Ex.P.30 Ex.P.31(a) Signature of PW.20 Ex.P.31(b) Signature of wife of PW.20 Ex.P.31(c) Signature of son of PW.20 Ex.P.31(d) Signature of PW.20 on the reverse side Ex.P.31(e) Signature of wife of PW.20 on the reverse side Ex.P.31(f) Rubber stamp seal as "PLEASE DO NOT CREATE LIEN OR CHARGE AGAINST THIS A/C"
Ex.P.32 Canara Bank debit slip dated 30.03.2001 for Rs. 1,79,33,178/-.
Ex.P.32 (a) Signature of A.1 Ex.P.32 (b) Initials of PW.6 Ex.P.33 Canara Bank credit slip dated 30.03.2001 for Rs. 1,79,33,178/-.
Ex.P.33 (a) Signature of A.1
163 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
Ex.P.33 (b) Initials of PW.6
Ex.P.34 Attested copy of Page No.162 of the stock
and stationary register / delivery Book. Ex.P.34 (a) Relevant entry dtd 31.03.2001 Ex.P.35 Xerox copy of the FCNR a/c opening Form dtd 27.03.2001 which contains 3 Photographs Ex.P.35(a) Seal and signature found in Ex.P.35 Ex.P.35(b) Rubber stamp seal as "PLEASE DO NOT CREATE LIEN OR CHARGE AGAINST THIS A/C"
Ex.P.36 Statement of PW.6 given before the internal investigator dated 02.04.2002 Ex.P.36(a) & Signatures of PW.6
(b) Ex.P.37 Sheet containing Specimen signatures of PW.6 Ex.P.38 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Br, NRE SB a/c Opening Form i/r/o a/c No.FCNR BKD / 49/01 dated nil held in the joint names of Sri. Vijay N. Mansukhani and two others.
Ex.P.38(a) Seal and signature in page No.2 of Ex.P.38
Ex.P.38(b) Signature of A.1
Ex.P.38(c) Signature said to have been made by PW.20
Ex.P.38(d) Signature said to have been made by wife of
PW.20
Ex.P.38(e) Signature said to have been made by son of
PW.20
Ex.P.39 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Br, NRE SB a/c
164 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
Opening Form i/r/o a/c No.FCNR BKD / 50/01 dated nil held in the joint names of Sri. Vijay N. Mansukhani and two others.
Ex.P.39(a) Seal and signature in page No.2 of Ex.P.39
Ex.P.39(b) Signature of A.1
Ex.P.39(c) Signature said to have been made by PW.20
Ex.P.39(d) Signature said to have been made by wife of
PW.20
Ex.P.39(e) Signature said to have been made by son of
PW.20
Ex.P.40 Canara Bank Credit slip dtd 25.04.2001 for
Rs.89,61,550/- for credit of SB a/c Number 56193.
Ex.P.40(a) Signature of A.1 Ex.P.40(b) Signature of PW.14 Ex.P.41 Canara Bank Credit slip dtd 25.04.2001 for
Rs.44,83,305/- for credit of amount to FCNR BKD 49/2001.
Ex.P. 41(a) Signature of A.1 Ex.P. 41(b) Signature of PW.14 Ex.P.42 Canara Bank Credit slip dtd 25.04.2001 for Rs.44,83,305/- for credit of amount to FCNR BKD 50/2001.
Ex.P. 42(a) Signature of A.1 Ex.P. 42(b) Signature of PW.14 Ex.P.43 Slip dtd 18.05.2001 signed by A.1 with writings "permitted to close before maturity".
Ex.P.43(a) Signature of A.1
Ex.P.44 Canarabank Debit slip dtd 18.05.2001 for Rs.
165 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003
44,82,469/-.
Ex.P.44(a) Signature of A.1
Ex.P.45 Canara Bank Credit slip dtd 18.05.2001 for
Rs. 44,82,469/- for transfer of fund to SB a/c 56193.
Ex.P.45(a) Signature of A.1
Ex.P.46 Sheet containing Specimen signatures of
PW.7
Ex.P.47 Statement of PW.7 given before the internal
investigator dated 02.04.2002.
Ex.P.47(a) Signatures of PW.7
Ex.P.48 Canara Bank, Palani Branch deposit receipt
bearing a/c No.FCNR BKD/08/2000 dated 27.03.2000 (printed Sl.No. CDMB 2149129) held in the name of Vijay N. Mansukhani and two others.
Ex.P.48(a) Endorsement found on the reverse side of Ex.P.48 Ex.P.48(b) Signature of Vijay N. Mansukhani Ex.P.48(c) Signature of Vijay N. Mansukhani Ex.P.49 Attested xerox copy of Singapore Passport of Sham M. Ganglani (A.3) Ex.P.49 (a) Signature of A.3 Ex.P.49 (b) Signature of PW.9, seal and endorsement Ex.P.50 Attested xerox copy of Indian VISA of Sham M. Ganglani (A.3) 166 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Ex.P.50 (a) Signature of A.3 Ex.P.50 (b) Signature of PW.9, seal and endorsement Ex.P. 51 Xerox copy of letter issued from Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, addressed to Mr. Ramesh B. Kothari Ex.P. 51(a) Seal, Signature with employee code Ex.P.52 Letter dated 21.03.2002 addressed to Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch signed by Vijay N. Mansukhani.
Ex.P.52(a) Signature of Vijay N. Mansukhani Ex.P.52(b) Signature of wife of PW.20 Ex.P.52(c) Signature of son of PW.20 Ex.P.53 Expert's opinion No.CH-92 of 2003 dated 27.05.2003 (2 sheets) Ex.P.53(a) Signature of PW.18 Ex.P.53(b) Signature of Sri. C. H. Gandhi Ex.P.54 Supplementary Expert's opinion No.CH-92 of 2003 dated 24.06.2003.
Ex.P.54(a) Signature of PW.18
Ex.P.54(b) Signature of Sri. C. H. Gandhi
Ex.P.55 Reasons for opinion dated 27.05.2003
relating to Ex.P.53 (5 sheets)
Ex.P.55(a) Signature of PW.18
Ex.P.56 Reasons for opinion dated 24.06.2003
relating to Ex.P.54.
Ex.P.56(a) Signature of PW.18
Ex.P.57 Sheet containing Specimen signatures of T.R
Prakash stamped and marked as A.6 (1 sheet) 167 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Ex.P.58 6 Sheets containing Specimen writings of G. Ananth Kumar stamped and marked as A.13 to A.18.
Ex.P.59 19 pages/Sheets containing Specimen Signatures etc of Sri. G. AnanthKumar stamped and marked as A.19/1, A.20, A.20/1, A.21, A.21/1, A.22, A.22/1 and A.23 to 33. Ex.P.60 Questioned Signatures marked and stamped as Q.5 and Q.5/1 found in statement given by G. Ananthkumar (2 sheets).
Ex.P.61 Questioned writings stamped and marked as Q.33 which is found in Credit Slip dtd 31.05.2001 for Rs. 5 Lakhs (D.37) Ex.P.62 Admitted signatures marked and stamped as A.9 found in Canara Bank specimen signature card relating to NRE a/c No.56037 Ex.P.63 Admitted signature marked and stamped as A.10 found in Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Br., Cheque No.73256 dated 27.03.2001 for Rs.1,50,000/- issued from the a/c bearing No. 56142.
Ex.P.64 9 cheques contains blue enclosed signatures marked and stamped as A-35 to A-43 Ex.P.65 Blue enclosed signature stamped and marked as A.44 found in credit slip dated 18.03.2001 for Rs.15 Lakhs (D. 67) Ex.P.66 Preliminary investigation report dtd 31.03.2002 in (5 sheets) Ex.P.66(a) Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.66(b) Signature of R. Parthasarathi 168 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Ex.P.67 Statement of A. Shashagiri Rao dtd 31.03.2002 given before internal investigator (4 sheets) Ex.P.67(a) Signature of A. Sheshagiri Rao Ex.P.68 Investigation report dtd 09.04.2002 in (6 sheets) Ex.P.68(a) Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.68(b) Signature of R. Parthasarathi Ex.P.69 Statement of Sri. V. Krishnamurthy dtd 2.04.2002 given before internal investigator Ex.P. 69(a) Signature of Sri. V. Krishnamurthy Ex.P.70 Statement of Sri. T.N Pai dtd 02.04.2002 given before internal investigator Ex.P. 70(a) Signature of Sri. T.N Pai Ex.P.71 Statement of Sri.T.R. Prakash dtd 02.04.2002 given before internal investigator Ex.P. 71(a) Signature of Sri.T.R. Prakash Ex.P.72 Statement of Sri. M.Krishnappa dtd 02.04.2002 given before internal investigator Signature of Sri. M. Krishnappa Ex.P. 72(a) Ex.P.73 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch letter dated 26.03.2001addressed to Canara Bank, Palani Branch Ex.P.73(a) Signature of A-1 Ex.P.74 Govt. of Karnataka notification dated 29.07.2002 issued as per Sec. 6 of DSPE 169 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Act Ex.P.75 Original FIR in R.C No. 21(A)/2002 Ex.P.75(a) Signature of PW.22 Ex.P.76 Original search list dated 23.08.2002 Ex.P.76(a) Signature of PW.22 Ex.P.76(b) Signature of A.1 Ex.P.77 Original search list dated 23.08.2002 Ex.P.77(a) Signature of W.Gladys Jayanthi, P.I, CBI Ex.P.77(b) Signature of Sri. M. Krishnappa Ex.P.78 Original nil search list dated 23.08.2002 Ex.P.78(a) Signature of Jayakumaran Nair, P.I, CBI. Ex.P.78(b) Signature with acknowledgement of Smt. Dakshayini, W/o Anantha Kumar Ex.P.79 Original nil search list dated 23.08.2002 Ex.P.79(a) Signature of J.S. Waraich, Dy.Sp. CBI. Ex.P.79(b) Signature with acknowledgement of Sri.P. Krishnappa (A.4) Ex.P.80 Original search list dated 23.08.2002 conducted search at the office premises of A.4.
Ex.P.80(a) Signature of J.S. Waraich, Dy.Sp. CBI. Ex.P.80(b) Signature with acknowledgement of Sri.P. Krishnappa (A.4) Ex.P.81 Master sheet cum Attendance Register for Locker No. 237 of Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch in the name of P. Krishnappa Ex.P.82 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Br., Access Log Report, dtd 18.05.2001.
170 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003Ex.P.83 Receipt memo dtd 04.10.2002. Ex.P.84 Written Statement of A.1 (A. Sheshagiri Rao) dtd 31.03.2002 given before internal investigator Ex.P.85 Written Statement of A.4 (P. Krishnappa) (6 sheets) given before internal investigator Ex.P.86 Pay-in-slip dtd 31.05.2001 for Rs.5 Lakhs pertaining to a/c No.56142 (D.37) Ex.P.87 Canara Bank credit slip dtd 07.06.2001 for Rs.1,81, 78, 426/-
Ex.P.88 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, FD advice bearing IBA No.6278 dtd 21.07.2001 for Rs.1,79,33,178/-
Ex.P.89 Canara Bank, Circle Office, Bengaluru letter dtd 29.08.2002 along with list addressed to CBI.
Ex.P.90 Specimen writings of G. Ananthkumar
marked as A-19 by the I.O during
investigation.
Ex.P.91 Specimen writings of G. Ananthkumar
marked as A-20 by the I.O during
investigation.
Ex.P.92 Specimen writings of G. Ananthkumar
marked as A-21 by the I.O during
investigation.
Ex.P.93 Specimen writings of G. Ananthkumar
marked as A-22 by the I.O during
investigation.
Ex.P.94 Specimen writings of G. Ananthkumar marked as A-23 by the I.O during investigation in Canara Bank, Credit slip 171 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 Ex.P.95 Specimen writings of G. Ananthkumar marked as A-24 by the I.O during investigation in Canara Bank, Credit slip Ex.P.96 Specimen writings of G. Ananthkumar marked as A-25 by the I.O during investigation in Canara Bank, Credit slip Ex.P.97 Specimen writings of G. Ananthkumar marked as A-26 by the I.O during investigation in Canara Bank, Credit slip Ex.P.98 Specimen writings of G. Ananthkumar marked as A-27 by the I.O during investigation in Canara Bank, Credit slip Ex.P.99 Specimen writings of G. Ananthkumar marked as A-28 by the I.O during investigation in Canara Bank, Credit slip Ex.P.100 Specimen writings of G. Ananthkumar marked as A-29 by the I.O during investigation in Canara Bank, Credit slip Ex.P.101 Specimen writings of G. Ananthkumar marked as A-30 by the I.O during investigation in Canara Bank, Credit slip Ex.P.102 Specimen writings of G. Ananthkumar marked as A-31 by the I.O during investigation in Canara Bank, Credit slip Ex.P.103 Receipt memo dated 13.12.2002 Ex.P.104 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Self cheque No. 73267 dtd 19.05.2001 for Rs. 4.5 Lakhs (bearing admitted signature marked as A-36.) Ex.P.105 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Self cheque No. 73260 dtd 04.04.2001 for Rs.1 Lakh (bearing admitted signature marked as 172 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 A-37.) Ex.P.106 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, cheque No. 73266 dtd 18.05.2001 for Rs.5.2 Lakhs favouring Sri.P.Krishnappa (bearing admitted signature marked as A-38.) Ex.P.107 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Cheque No. 73263 dtd 25.04.2001 for Rs.3 Lakhs favouring Sri. P. Krishnappa (bearing admitted signature marked as A-39.) Ex.P.108 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Self cheque No. 73252 dtd 20.03.2001 for Rs.1 Lakhs (bearing admitted signature marked as A-40.) Ex.P.109 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Self cheque No. 73253 dtd 22.03.2001 for Rs.5 Lakhs (bearing admitted signature marked as A-41.) Ex.P.110 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, cheque No.73259 dtd 04.04.2001 for Rs.4 Lakhs favouring Sri.P.Krishnappa (bearing admitted signature marked as A-42.) Ex.P.111 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Self cheque No. 73255 dtd 27.03.2001 for Rs.1 Lakhs (bearing admitted signature marked as A-43.) Ex.P.112 Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Br., letter dated 13.06.2003 addressed to CBI 173 Spl.C.C.No.77/2003 List Of Documents Marked On Behalf Of Defence.
Exhibits Descriptions
No.
Ex.D.1 Signature of A.3 available in Ex.P.49( D8)
(Manjula Itty),
XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.