Delhi District Court
Sh. Chander Prakash Srivastava vs Cbi on 5 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(CENTRAL): DELHI
Criminal Appeal No.70/14
In the matter of:
Sh. Chander Prakash Srivastava,
S/o Sh. S. P. Srivastava,
R/o C233, Shashtri Nagar,
Ghaziabad, UP.
(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Tihar) ....Appellant
Versus
CBI ....Respondent
Date of Institution: 16.10.2014
Date of Judgment: 05.12.2014
J U D G M E N T
Chander Prakash Srivastavaappellant was accused before the Trial Court in R.C. No.14(S)/90. He and his coaccused Arvind Kumar Srivastava were challaned for offences under Section 120B, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Proceedings against coaccused stand abated on account of his death.
2. Accusedappellant herein has been held guilty by the Trial Court and sentenced for the aforesaid offences.
1
Hence, this appeal.
3. In brief, it is case of the prosecution that accusedappellant herein and Chander Kumar (another coaccused against whom cognizance was not taken and process not issued by the Trial Court) was serving as clerk at Hapur Branch of Syndicate Bank. Both of them were in custody of demand draft. A number of demand drafts were found stolen from the main branch, Hapur and SSB College Extension Counter. 13 forged demand drafts were found credited to the accounts of Rama Kant Tiwari a fictitious person and Yogender Kumar and the accused - appellant then got encashed. It is case of prosecution that in respect of both the accounts, the addresses furnished in the opening forms were not found existing.
4. One of the demand drafts got encashed was found of Patiala Branch, where accused - appellant had earlier served, but he got the same encashed as if issued by Hapur Branch of the bank. It is case of prosecution that the accused - appellant and Arvind Kumar Srivastava, accused (since deceased) and some other persons opened two bank accounts in Canara Bank, Nehru Place, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy. One saving bank account no. 28458 was opened with Canara Bank, Nehru Place in the name of Yogendra Kumar, by Chander Parkash, accused - appellant by forging signatures of his coaccused Arvind Kumar Srivastava (since deceased) as the introducer in opening the account. 11 forged demand drafts are said to have been credited 2 to the tune of Rs.14,67,947/ and got encashed. One demand draft no.156954 for Rs.1,89,785/ was found to be of Patiala Branch, Syndicate Bank where accused - appellant was earlier posted as Assistant Manager. It is also case of the prosecution that accused - appellant purchased UTI certificates in the name of his children by issuing cheque no.650044 for Rs.50,000/ in favour of UTI, from the aforesaid account no.28458 at Canara Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused - appellant made heavy investment in several movable and immovable properties.
Various documents seized during investigation were sent to Government Examiner of questioned documents and got analyzed.
5. On completion of investigation, challan was put in court. Chander Kumar was shown in Column no.2 of the challan.
Charge
6. Prima facie case having been made out, charge for offences under Section 120B, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC were framed against the accused persons. Since the accused - appellant and his coaccused (since deceased) pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prosecution was called upon to lead evidence.
Prosecution Evidence
7. In order to prove its case prosecution examined, following 39 witnesses: PW1 S.B. Singh 3 PW2 Rajinder Kumar Sharma, Store Officer in Exports India and Indexpo International P. Ltd.
PW3 Ms. E.J. Ekka, Officer in Canara Bank, Branch Nehru Place PW4 V.K. Palekar, Officer in Canara Bank, Branch Nehru Place PW5 G. Kamlakannan, Officer in Canara Bank, Branch Nehru Place PW6 P. Venogopal, Manager, Canara Bank, Branch Nehru Place PW7 Bishamber Dayal, Clerk, Canara Bank, Branch Nehru Place PW8 Anil Kumar Gupta, Officer in Canara Bank, Branch Nehru Place PW9 A.D. Pai, Officer in Central Accounts Office, Syndicate Bank PW10 P.N. Hedge, Manager, Central Accounts Office, Syndicate Bank PW11 Prabhat Kumar Rastogi, Manager, Syndicate Bank, Hapur Branch PW12 Siri Kishan Sharma, Syndicate Bank, Hapur Branch PW13 S.K. Ahuja, SubManager, Hapur Branch PW14 H. Narshimhan, Special Assistant, Canara Bank, Nehru Place Branch PW15 A.K. Mahajan, Officer, Canara Bank, Nehru Place Branch PW16 Ravi Shankar, Canara Bank, Nehru Place PW17 Rajiv Manchanda, Officer, Canara Bank, Nehru Place Branch PW18 Jugesh Chander, Manager, Syndicate Bank, Patiala Branch PW19 Ram Nath, Divisional Manager, Ghaziabad Division PW20 Chander Kumar, Attender, Syndicate Bank, Hapur Branch PW21 Jagpal Singh, Clerk PW22 Satypal Gupta, Manager, Naintal Bank Branch, Ghaziabad PW23 K.S.L. Srivastav, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Fatehpur PW24 V.K. Sehgal PW25 A.K. Mittal, Tailer Clerk, Central Bank of India, Ghaziabad Branch PW26 Smt. Satyawati, Agent for Unit Trust of India PW27 H.C. Kukreja, Staff officer/ Deputy Manager/ Manager, UTI 4 PW28 Harish Dhamija, SubManager, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad PW29 R.P. Arora, SubManager, Corporation Bank, Lodhi Road Branch PW30 R. Mahesh, Officer, Canara Bank, Navyug Market Branch, Ghaziabad PW31 G.S. Chawala PW32 Mohinder SinghAjay Kumar Sharma, Assistant Accountant PW33 Ajay Kumar Sharma, Assistant Accountant PW34 K.R. Anand, Assistant Manager, Hapur Branch, Syndicate Bank PW35 Ved Prakash, Syndicate Bank, Hapur Branch PW36 Y.L. Khanna, Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Razapur, Ghaziabad PW37 R.K. Singh, Special Assistant, India Overseas Bank, Ghaziabad PW38 Inspector H.S. Rawat PW39 Inspector Jai Kumar Statement of Accused
8. When examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and claimed false implication.
9. Vide impugned judgment, learned Trial Court held the accused - appellant guilty of the offences under Section 120B, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and convicted and sentenced him in the manner indicated above while observing as under : "Therefore, in view of my above reasons, I am of the considered view that prosecution has been succeeded in proving that accused Chander Prakash Srivastava, A1 have entered into criminal conspiracy with A.K. Srivastava A2, (now deceased) to cheat the 5 Syndicate Bank by misusing the DD leafs of which A1 was custodian and forged 13 DDs, opened two bank accounts in the name of fictitious persons and deposited / credited 13 forged DDs in those accounts and encashed them and cheated the bank to the tune of Rs.15,97,947/. Hence, accused Chander Prakash Srivastava is convicted for offence under Section 120B, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC."
10. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that this is a case where reasonable opportunity was not granted to the accused during trial so as to term the trial to a fair trial. The other contention raised by learned counsel is that prosecution did not lead cogent and convincing evidence to prove that 13 demand drafts were in the custody of the appellant. Another contention raised is that the expert did not tally specimen signatures of Chander Kumar (against whom cognizance was not taken) and as such prosecution failed to rule out possibility of involvement of Chander Kumar in commission of the crime. Learned counsel has also contended that a person cannot be held guilty of the offence U/s 409 IPC when held guilty for an offence U/s 420 IPC on the same allegations.
11. Admittedly, accused - appellant was an employee of Syndicate Bank and he joined Hapur Branch of the bank in the year 1988 and that this Hapur Branch of the Bank was having an extension counter at SSV college. PW20 Sh. Chander Kumar was serving as Attendant at Hapur Branch of Syndicate Bank. He used to be deputed to attend the work at the extension counter. He has also deposed about posting of accused - appellant at Hapur Branch of the 6 bank.
PW13 Sh. S.K. Ahuja was serving as SubManager at Hapur Branch of Syndicate Bank during the relevant period. He has proved banking notes Ex.PW13/A to Ex.PW13/C relating to receipt of demand drafts at Hapur Branch and its extension counter at SSV College, Hapur. All the stocks, such as demand draft etc. received at the branch used to be mentioned in register. It is in his statement that Ex.PW9/II i.e. demand draft leaf was found to have been issued to Patiala Branch of Syndicate Bank.
Ex.PW13/A is the packing note dispatched on 02.04.88 from the head office of Syndicate Bank at Manipal to the Manger / Officer Incharge, Hapur. Vide this document security items i.e. demand dafts no.286001 to 286500 were dispatched to the Hapur Branch.
Ex.PW13/B is the packing note dispatched on 09.04.88 from the head office of Syndicate Bank at Manipal to the Manger / Officer Incharge, Extension Counter, SSV College, Hapur. Vide this document security items i.e. demand dafts no.327701 to 327800 were dispatched to the said extension counter.
Ex.PW13/C is the packing note dispatched on 19.04.88 from the head office of Syndicate Bank at Manipal to the Manger / Officer Incharge, Hapur Branch. Vide this document security items i.e. demand dafts no.509501 to 509600, 375101 to 375600 & 783601 to 783700 were dispatched to the said 7 extension counter.
Statement of PW13 was not subjected to any cross examination. According to PW18 Sh. Jogesh Chander, during the period 1985 to 1992, he was serving at Patiala Branch of Syndicate Bank. He had written a letter to the Additional Manager Syndicate Bank CAO that one DD leaf no. 156954 was missing. Witness has proved letter Ex PW18/1 in this regard. This DD leaf had been received at Patiala Branch vide packing note Ex PW18/2 from the Syndicate Bank, Manipal and formed part of DD pad mentioned at Sl. No. C. The missing DD leaf is Ex PW9/II. According to the witness, Ex PW9/II was used a demand draft purported to have been issued by Hapur Branch of Syndicate Bank, but actually it was never issued by Hapur Branch. Further, according to PW18, accused/appellant was incharge of DD Section as on 28.03.1988 when this DD leaf and the other DD leaves were received at the Patiala Branch. PW18 has proved Ex PW18/3 to Ex PW18/5 in this regard and the signatures of accused/appellant at Point A on Ex PW18/3, the accused/appellant having worked under him.
Similarly, he has proved Ex PW18/7 & Ex PW18/8 i.e. copy of certified copy of safe custody key movement register. In his cross examination, PW18 explained that by joint custody he meant custody of two individuals. DD leaves used to be kept in safe almirah. There were two sets of keys of the safe almirah which used to remain in the custody of two different officers. 8
Statement of PW18 has not been subjected to any cross examination on the point that during his posting at Patiala Branch of the Syndicate bank, the accused - appellant was having custody of either set of the key of safe almirah.
Ex.PW18/7 depicts that set of keys was received by the accused - appellant during his posting at Patiala Branch of the bank upto 28.03.88.
Ex.PW18/2 is the packing note dispatched on 17.03.88 from the head office of Syndicate Bank at Manipal to the Manger / Officer Incharge, Patiala. Vide this document security items i.e. demand dafts no.156901 to 15700 were dispatched to the said extension counter. Record reveals that DD no.156954 was one of these demand drafts in the safe custody at Patiala Branch of the bank, during the period accused - appellant remained posted there.
12. According to PW11 Sh. Prabhat Kumar Rastogi, the then Manager of Hapur Branch, he has deposed that the demand draft issue registers were maintained. Ex.PW11/L is the DD issue register maintained at the extension counter of the bank. He further stated that the extension counter was also under his control. Ex.PW11/O and Ex.PW11/P are the registers maintained by the extension counters of Syndicate Bank, Hapur whereas Ex.PW11/Q and Ex.PW11/R are demand draft issue registers maintained by main branch of Syndicate Bank, Hapur. Ex.PW11/S is the DD issue register of the main branch of Syndicate Bank, Hapur. Ex.PW11/T is the officer order book of the 9 main branch of Syndicate Bank, Hapur. PW11 further stated that custody of the keys at the main branch was maintained in this register. DD register were kept in the safe custody. PW11 has explained that in Ex.PW11/T, the page 1 to 4 pertained to first set of custodial; in the column, 'received by', names of the other officers were mentioned, who were custodian of the keys on respective dates.
Page 5 & 6 of the register depict the second set portion. These pages also contain names of the officers by whom keys were received by way of joint custodial.
A perusal of Ex.PW11/T reveals that accused - appellant was incharge of keys of the safe and cash box etc. as on 11.05.88, 15.06.88 and he was custodian of Set - I of the keys. This register further reveals that on 20.06.88, 05.07.88, 04.08.88, 25.08.88, 15.11.88, 02.12.88, 30.12.88, 03.02.89, 18.03.89 was Incharge of Set - II.
It is in cross examination that this witness has explained that by joint custody, he meant that there were two sets of keys hold separately by both the custodials. He admitted that lock could not be opened unless both the sets of keys were used. Nowhere in the cross examination it was suggested to PW11 that accused - appellant was not one of the custodians or that the 13 demand draft leaves Ex.PW11/O to Ex.PW11/S never came to his custody.
The demand drafts said to have been forged and used as genuine 10 include DD no.286403, 286404, 286405, 286406, 286407, 286408, 286409. It is in the statement of PW13 that demand draft no.286403 to 286409 were not issued by Syndicate Bank. He explained that the last demand draft issued by the bank, as per Ex.PW11/S was bearing Sr.no.286402.
PW19 Sh. Ram Nath, Divisional Manager of Ghaziabad division. This division including division of Hapur Branch of Syndicate Bank. According to this witness, all the security items such like demand draft etc. used to be kept in joint custody of two persons, as per banking instructions and further that this practice was also being followed by Hapur Branch of its extension counter.
Statement of PW13 was not subjected to any cross examination. PW12 Sh. Kishan Sharma was also working at the extension counter of Syndicate Bank, Hapur, during the relevant period. According to this witness, accused - appellant was the officer incharge of the extension counter and further that keys of safe custody used to be with accused - appellant. Another set of keys of safe custody used to be with the Cashier.
PW34 Sh. K.R. Anand, when examined, was serving as Assistant Manager at Hapur during the period from 1985 - 1989. According to him, vide Ex.PW13/B, he received demand draft leaves mentioned therein. According to this witness, Ex.PW9/I to Ex.PW9/VI are the demand drafts in the handwriting of accused - appellant. He also proved handwriting of the accused - appellant on Ex.PW4/F, Ex.PW9/VII, Ex.PW9/VIII, Ex.PW5/77 to Ex.PW5/79. Although, 11 it is in his cross examination that that witness had not seen accused - appellant, writing on these drafts, yet in its chief examination, he clearly stated that accused - appellant worked with him at Hapur as well at the extension counter and he could identify his signatures and handwriting. The witness identified h is handwriting on seeing the aforesaid documents and as such, same were duly proved.
PW35 Sh. Ved Prakash was serving at Extension Counter of Hapur Branch, Syndicate Bank i.e. SSV Collage during the period 19881995. According to the witness, accused/appellant was his Officer Incharge at the Extension Counter. He was examined to prove handwriting of accused/appellant on Ex PW15A to D; Ex PW5/56 to 59, 61, 65,68, 70; Ex PW32/A2, A4, A7; Ex PW32/B42 to B45; Ex PW11/D to Ex PW11/I. PW6 Sh. P. Venu Gopal was serving as Manager at the aforesaid branch of Canara Bank from June,1990 - 1995. He proved production of specimen signatures card Ex.PW6/C pertaining to the account opening form i.e. of account no.26543. PW6 proved original ledger sheet Ex.PW6/B pertaining to account no.26543 produced before CBI. PW6 also proved Ex.PW6/D i.e. original ledger sheet pertaining to account no.54106 maintained at the same branch.
Sh. P. Venu Gopal further proved issuance of cheque book of 10 leaves against saving bank account no.26543. He also proved issuance of cheque 12 book Ex.PW6/J of 10 leaves against account no.28458 and another cheque book Ex.PW6/K issued against account no.48458. On 06.03.90, another cheque book was issued against saving account no.28458. Still another cheque book was issued against the same account. He proved requisition sheets Ex.PW6/M1 to Ex.PW6/M3 for issuance of cheque books. The witness also proved Ex.PW6/N1 & Ex.PW6/N2 i.e. specimen signatures of accused - appellant.
PW4 Sh. V. D. Palekar is one of the officer's of Canara Bank, Nehru Place Branch, posted there since 198889. He produced before the police certain documents which were found mentioned in memo Ex PW3/A. One of the document produced by PW4 before the police is specimen signatures card Ex PW4/B pertaining to account no. 28458 i.e. of Sh. Yogender Kumar. According to the witness, body of specimen signature was signed in his presence and Sh. Yogender Kumar was alone at the time of opening of account and signing of specimen signatures. This witness proved his initials at Point A on Ex PW4B. According to the witness, Ex PW4/B pertains to account opening form Ex PW4/C. As is available from his statement, PW7 Sh. Bishambar Dayal Supervisor allowed the aforsesaid account 28458 to be opened vide his signatures at Point A. PW4 also identified the signatures of Sh. S.R. Shenoy, Branch Manager at Point B on Ex PW4/B. He identified the signatures of these two officers, he having worked under them. 13
PW4 V.D Palekar also proved entry for a sum of Rs.98,090/ credited to the account of Yogender Kumar on 12.10.1989 by clearing of credit voucher Ex PW4/E. He also proved his initials on the credit voucher and Ex PW4/F i.e. corresponding demand draft alongwith paying slip credit voucher Ex PW4/E. PW15 Sh. A.K. Mahajan deposed about receipt of withdrawal cheque Ex.PW15/A to Ex.PW15/D at Nehru Place Branch of Syndicate Bank and that which were cleared by him for payment. He also proved issuance of cheque book to account holder Yogender Kumar ex.PW15/E & Ex.PW15/F are credit vouchers received at the said bank. According to PW15, receipts of these credit vouchers were credited by account no.28548.
PW8 Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta was serving at Nehru Place Branch of Canara Bank. He proved his initials at Point X on Ex PW4/D as to the passing of the cheques for Rs.15,000/ and Rs.25,000/. PW8 further deposed that two cheques Ex PW8/A & B were passed/cleared by him for payment. He also proved debit voucher Ex PW8/C vide which sum of Rs.1,85,536/ was debited for clearing of the cheques returned unpaid, in saving bank account no.28458.
PW6 further proved entries from A1 to A12 regarding clearance of 12 demand drafts from point as available in Ex.PW6/L. He further proved entry at point A13 regarding clearance of demand draft worth Rs.1,89,785. Regarding the same demand draft, witness proved entry at point A14 said to have been made because of presentation of the cheque once again on its return. 14
Statement of PW6 Sh. P. Venu Gopal has gone unchallenged for want of any cross examination.
PW5 Kamlanand was serving as officer at Nehru Place during 199192. During trial, on seeing accused - appellant, present in court, the witness stated that he knew him as Yogender Kumar. Further according to the witness, the accused - appellant has given specimen writing to the CBI in his presence. The specimen writing are Ex.PW5/11 to Ex.PW5/18 at that time Sh. Venu Gopal was also present and he too signed as a witness.
PW5 further proved specimen signatures and handwriting of Yogender Kumar on Ex.PW5/19 to ex.PW5/24. Ex.PW5/25 to Ex.PW5/54 given by him in his presence. According to this witness, accused - appellant used to operate saving account no.28458 with Nehru Place Branch of Canara Bank.
PW5 also proved cheques Ex.PW5/55 and Ex.PW5/69 received at Nehru Place Branch for withdrawal of money from the aforesaid account no. 28458 issued by Yogender Kumar. According to the witness, he had cleared the cheques for payment. The witness proved his initials on all the15 cheques. Ex.PW5/70 to Ex.PW5/74 are the credit slips in respect of clearance of cheques.
Further according to the witness, Ex.PW5/77 to Ex.PW5/79 are the demand drafts received at the said branch of the bank for clearance. Receipts of these bank drafts were credited to account no.28458. As per statement of 15 account Ex.PW4/D, the witness proved his initials on the entries available in original ledge sheet Ex.PW4/D. He further proved delivery of documents to CBI vide memo Ex.PW5/80.
There is nothing in the statement of PW5 to disbelieve his testimony on the aforesaid material aspects of the case and identity of the accused - appellant whom he knew as Yogender Kumar.
PW9 Sh. A.D. Pie, Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank, the then serving as an officer at Central accounts office of Syndicate bank has proved as to how demand draft issued by any branch of Syndicate bank out of Delhi but lodged at any bank in Delhi comes to Central Accounts office for clearance. He further stated about receipt of Ex.PW9/I to Ex.PW9/IX, Ex.PW4/F, Ex.PW5/77 to Ex.PW5/79 at their office for clearing in normal official course. He also proved computerized statement sheets Ex.PW9/X to Ex.PW9/XXII. These depict clearance of 13 demand drafts referred to above. There is nothing in the statement of PW9 to disbelieve his testimony.
PW14 Sh. H. Narshiman, Special Assistant, then serving at Nehru Place Branch of Canara Bank. He was examined to prove signatures of Arvind, co accused, (account holder of account no.54106) on the specimen signature card ex.PW3/B. He further proved entries regarding issuance of cheque books and the ledger sheets. It is also in the statement of PW14 that a cheque book was issued to the account holder Rama Kant against his signatures at point 16 Q1 to Q23. He further proved withdrawal cheques Ex.PW14/A & Ex.PW14/B cleared by him for payment.
PW10 Sh. P.N. Hagde was Manager in Central Accounts Office, Syndicate Bank. According to the witness, in the year 1990, on receipt of phone call from Canara Bank, Nehru Place, regarding paymentof demand draft, issued by Hapur Branch of Syndicate Bank he verified computerized sheets ex.PW9/X to ex.PW9/XXII and found discrepancies in the branch serial number. He found that discrepancies were occurring in 11 demand drafts amounting to Rs.10 lacs approximately. This matter was then brought to the notice of Sh. P.K. Rastogi, Incharge of Hapur branch. According to him, he himself visited branch and verified the records of the branch as well available at EC and found that of 11 demand drafts were not counted for in account books of Hapur branch. When he inquired from PW11 Prabhat Kumar about his signatures at Ex.PW9/I to Ex.PW9/IX, Ex.PW5/77 to Ex.PW5/79 and Ex.PW4/F, Prabhat Kumar told that these were not bearing his signatures. It is also in the statement of PW10 that payments were made by Syndicate Bank as per Ex.PW9/X to ex.PW9/XXII as against the 13 drafts.
13. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that specimen signatures / handwriting of Chander Kumar were not compared with the dispute signatures / handwriting on the demand drafts, is concerned, perusal of report submitted by the expert would reveal that expert expressed 17 therein that it was not possible to express definite opinion on rest of the items which included i.e. S310 to S320 of Chander Kumar, available on Ex.PW32/C6 to Ex.PW32/C17 on the basis of materials supplied.
In the given situation it was for the Investigating Officer to provide any other material for comparison. But when the expert gave specific report regarding specimen signatures and writings of the accused - appellant i.e. S1 to S148 , S150 to S243, accused - appellant cannot take advantage from the aforesaid report of the expert expressing difficulty in giving opinion regarding the specimen signatures and handwriting of Chander Kumar.
14. As regards another contention raised by learned counsel for accused - appellant that he could not be held guilty for an offence U/s 420 IPC when held guilty for the offence U/s 409 IPC, learned Public Prosecutor has rightly submitted that ingredients of the offence U/s 409 i.e. Criminal Breach of Trust are different from the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating U/s 415 IPC. Cheating differs from Criminal Breach of Trust as the person who cheats takes possession of the property by deception. Cheating is a complete offence by itself and is not a form of Criminal Breach of Trust. In case of cheating, dishonest intentions starts with the very inception of the transaction but in case of criminal breach of trust the person who comes into the possession of movable property, receives the same legally but illegally retains it or converts it to his own use against the terms of entrustment. Reference in this regard may 18 be made to decision in Thomas K.C. V. Avirah Varghese, 1974 Crl. L.J. 207.
No other argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.
In view of the above discussion, finding no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant, judgment of conviction of the appellant is upheld.
15. On the point of sentence, learned counsel for appellant has prayed for leniency.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that this is not a fit case for leniency on the point of sentence.
16. File reveals that for the offence U/s 419 IPC, in default of payment of fine, accused has been sentenced to imprisonment for 9 months but in case of all other six offences, he has been sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months, in default of payment of fine.
It is true that accused - appellant and the another cheated the bank of about Rs.16 lacs, having regard to the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him, this Court deems it a fit case to reduce sentence of Simple Imprisonment, in default of fine, to Simple Imprisonment for 6 months in case of offences U/s 120B IPC and 419 IPC and in case he fails to pay/deposit the amount of fine imposed for the remaining offences i.e. U/s 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC to Simple Imprisonment for 9 months. I order accordingly. 19
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence.
Trial Court Record be returned and appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court
on 05.12.2014 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
20