Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pankaj Maingi Son Of Ram Dayal vs State Of Punjab on 23 February, 2010
Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998
Dated of Decision: 23.02.2010
Pankaj Maingi son of Ram Dayal, resident of
H. No. 574, New Model Town, Jalandhar.
... Appellant
Versus
1. State of Punjab
2. Central Bureau of Investigation, Sector 30,
Chandigarh.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present:Ms. B.K. Mann, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab,
for respondent No. 1 - State.
Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Central Government
Standing Counsel, for respondent No. 2.
SHAM SUNDER, J.
* * * * This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, dated 19.01.98, rendered by the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -2- Punjab, Patiala, vide which, he convicted the accused (now appellant), for the offences, punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, and, Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him, as under:-
Name of the Offence for which Sentence accused convicted awarded (now appellant) 1 2 3 Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -3- Pankaj Maingi (i) Under To undergo Section 420 rigorous of the imprisonment, Indian for a period of Penal Code. 01 year, and, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and, in default of payment thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 01 month.
(ii) Under To undergo
Section 467 rigorous
of the imprisonment,
Indian Penal for a period of
Code. 02 years, and,
to pay a fine
of Rs. 1,000/-,
and, in default
of payment
thereof, to
further undergo
rigorous
imprisonment,
for a period of
01 month.
(iii) Under To undergo
Section 468 rigorous
of the imprisonment,
Indian for a period of
Penal Code. 01 year, and,
to pay a fine
of Rs. 1,000/-,
and, in default
of payment
thereof, to
further undergo
rigorous
imprisonment,
for a period of
01 month.
(iv) Under To undergo
Section 471 rigorous
read with imprisonment,
Section 465 for a period of
of the 01 year, and,
Indian to pay a fine
Penal Code. of Rs. 500/-,
Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -4-
The substantive sentences were, however,
ordered to run concurrently.
2. Succinctly stated, Pankaj Maingi,
accused, was working, as a Cashier, in Accounts Section, in the Office of the Director (Telecom Maintenance), in Master Tara Singh Nagar, Jalandhar, during the year 1991-92. His duty was to deal with the payments of bills, which used to be received by him, from miscellaneous seats of the Accounts Section. He also used to prepare the cheques, pertaining to such payments of bills, withdraw the amount, from the bank, and make corresponding entries, with regard to the same, in the records/ledgers, maintained, in the office of the Director (Telecom Maintenance), Jalandhar.
From May, 1991 to September, 1991, he prepared three cheques, and got encashed the same. The description of the cheques, is detailed hereunder:-
Sr. Cheque No. & Date Amount as Amount as per No. per Schedule bank scroll of the and cheques department after altering and counter the figures foils
1. 739500 dated 15.05.91 Rs. 28,000/- Rs. 1,28,000/-
2. 739087 dated 02.08.91 Rs. 33,000/- Rs. 1,33,000/-
3. A 755016 Rs. 13,600/- Rs. 1,13,600/-
dated 07.09.91 Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -5-
3. The counterfoils of these cheques, bearing the initials of the accused and of H. B. Singh, Accounts Officer, were prepared, as per the amounts, mentioned, against each of them, in the handwriting of the accused. The counterfoils of the cheques, are detailed, as under:-
Cheque No. Date Amount
739500 15.05.91 Rs. 28,000/-
739087 02.08.91 Rs. 33,000/-
A 755016 07.09.91 Rs. 13,600/-
4. The daily cash book (rough) of the
following pages, carrying the entry of the
aforesaid cheques, against which, the amounts, mentioned were shown, as withdrawn, from the bank, is as under:-
Page Date Cheque No. Amount drawn
No. from the bank
9 15.05.91 739500 Rs. 28,000/-
49 02.08.91 739087 Rs. 33,000/-
64 07.09.91 A 755016 Rs. 13,600/-
Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -6-
5. The daily cash book of the above dates, was in the handwriting of the accused, and was also initialed by him. Daily cash book of 15.05.91, was initialed by Vidya Sagar, Assistant Accounts Officer and H.B. Singh, Accounts Officer. Daily cash book of 07.09.91, was initialed, by Ram Krishan, Assistant Accounts Officer and H.B. Singh, Accounts Officer.
6. The relevant pages of the cash book, maintained in the Accounts Section of the office of the Director (Telecom Maintenance), Jalandhar, carrying the entry of the aforesaid three cheques with amounts, mentioned against each of them, are as under:-
Page Date Cheque No. Amount drawn No. from the bank 38 15.05.91 739500 Rs. 28,000/- 189 02.08.91 739087 Rs. 33,000/- 48 07.09.91 A 755016 Rs. 13,600/-
7. The handwriting of the aforesaid pages, in the cash book, was of Pankaj Maingi, accused. These pages also bore his initials. Cash book dated 15.05.91, also bore the initials of Vidya Sagar, Assistant Accounts Officer and H.B. Singh, Accounts Officer. Page Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -7- No. 189 of the cash book dated 02.08.91, bore the initials of H. B. Singh, Accounts Officer. Page No. 48 of the cash book dated 07.09.91, bore the signatures of Ram Krishan, Assistant Accounts Officer and H. B. Singh, Accounts Officer.
8. During the course of investigation, it was revealed, that the original paid cheques, mentioned below, were prepared, for the inflated amounts, shown against each of them, in the handwriting of Pankaj Maingi, accused:-
Cheque No. Date Amount
739500 15.05.91 Rs. 1,28,000/-
739087 02.08.91 Rs. 1,33,000/-
A 755016 07.09.91 Rs. 1,13,600/-
9. The Government Examiner of Questioned
Documents, gave the positive opinion, that
Pankaj Maingi, accused, altered/added the
amounts, in the aforesaid three cheques. He
also received the inflated/altered amounts,
under his signatures, as, he had written, in his own handwriting the words 'received payments', and signed, on the back side of the said cheques, while obtaining the payments, from the State Bank of India, Civil Lines Branch, Jalandhar.
10. Debit scroll of the State Bank of India, Jalandhar, pertaining to the office of Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -8- the Director (Telecom Maintenance), Jalandhar, dated 15.05.91, carried the entry of cheque No. 739500 dated 15.05.91, in the sum of Rs. 1,28,000/-, which was encashed and payment, was made, to Pankaj Maingi, accused.
11. Debit scroll of the State Bank of India, Jalandhar, pertaining to the office of the Director (Telecom Maintenance), Jalandhar, dated 02.08.91, carried the entry of cheque No. 739087, at serial No. 4, through which, the amount of Rs. 1,33,000/- was shown, to have been withdrawn, from the bank.
12. Debit scroll of the State Bank of India, Jalandhar, pertaining to the office of the Director (Telecom Maintenance), Jalandhar, carried the entry of cheque No. A 755016 dated 07.09.91, in the sum of Rs. 1,13,600/- at serial No. 1, showing the withdrawal of Rs. 1,13,600/-, from the bank, on 07.09.91.
13. An amount of Rs. 1,33,000/-, was withdrawn, from the State Bank of India, Jalandhar, on 02.08.91, by Pankaj Maingi, accused, as shown in entry No. 19, in cash payment register, maintained in the State Bank Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -9- of India, Jalandhar, regarding cheque No. 739087. An amount of Rs. 1,13,600/-, was withdrawn, from the State Bank of India, Jalandhar, on 07.09.91, by Pankaj Maingi, accused, as shown, vide entry No. 11, in cash payment register, maintained in the aforesaid bank, regarding cheque No. A 755016 dated 07.09.91.
14. However, the schedule of the cheques, drawn from the aforesaid bank, for the month of May, 1991, carried an entry of cheque No. 739500 dated 15.05.91, in the sum of Rs. 28,000/-, instead of Rs. 1,28,000/-. Said schedule, was prepared, by Panjak Maingi, accused, Cashier, and, was signed by Vidya Sagar, Assistant Accounts Officer. Similarly, Pankaj Maingi, accused, in order to hide the fraud, also prepared, in his handwriting schedule/statement of cheques, drawn from the bank, during the month of August, 1991, in which, an amount of Rs. 33,000/- only, had been shown, as withdrawn, from the bank, vide cheque No. 799087 dated 02.08.91. The accused again prepared schedule/statement of cheques, drawn from the bank, in his handwriting, for the month of September, 1991, in which, it was Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -10- shown, that an amount of Rs. 13,600/- only, had been withdrawn, from the bank, vide cheque No. 755016 dated 07.09.91. Pankaj Maingi, accused, added/altered amounts, in all the three cheques, in the small space, knowingly left by him, after getting the same (cheques) signed from H.B. Singh, Accounts Officer. H.B. Singh, Accounts Officer, before signing the cheques, had tallied the amounts, mentioned therein, with their counterfoils, and, had also verified the initials of the cheque writer. He signed the cheques, after finding the same, to be correct, in respect of the amounts, mentioned therein, in regard whereto, the accused, had earlier obtained his approval. In this manner, Pankaj Maingi, accused, altered the amount of cheque No. 739500 dated 15.05.91, from Rs. 28,000/- to Rs. 1,28,000/-, of cheque No. 739087 dated 02.08.91, from Rs. 33,000/- to Rs. 1,33,000/-, and, of cheque No. A 755016 dated 07.09.91, from Rs. 13,600/- to Rs. 1,13,600/-, and thereby withdrew the excess amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, against the original amount of the cheques, to the tune of Rs. 74,600/-. In this manner, Pankaj Maingi, accused, committed forgery, cheating and dishonest misappropriation of the amount aforesaid. Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -11- Sanction to prosecute the accused, was obtained, from the competent authority. After the completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was submitted, for the offences, punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and, Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
15. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused, was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution.
16. Charge under Sections, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and, Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was framed, against the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, to which, he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.
17. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Sarwan Dass, Officer, State Bank of India (PW1), N.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Manager, State of Bank India (PW2), B.J. Chopra, Chief Manager, State Bank of India (PW3), Mir Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -12- Retired Assistant Director, Telecom (PW4), Surinder Kaur, Receipt and Despatch Clerk (PW5), S.D. Sharma, Chief Cashier (PW6), Kamlesh Kumari, Cashier, State Bank of India (PW7), J.R. Bhati, Cashier, State Bank of India (PW8), J.P. Dhingra, Divisional Engineer, Telecom (PW9), Sham Lal Aggarwal (PW10), Vinay Kumar Sharma, Clerk-cum-Cashier (PW11), Om Parkash, Clerk-cum-Cashier, State Bank of India (PW12), G.C. Gaylon, Senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company (PW13), Narinder Pal Singh, Chief Accounts Officer (PW14), Kidar Nath, Divisional Engineer, Telecom (PW15), Pritam Singh, Accounts Officer (PW16), V.K. Anand, Inspector, Central Bureau of Investigation (PW17), J.K. Sanewal, Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (PW18), and, Sudip Roy, Inspector, Central Bureau of Investigation (PW19). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation, closed the prosecution evidence.
18. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -13- implication. He admitted that, during the year 1991-92, he was working, as Cashier, in Accounts Section, in the office of the Director (Telecom Maintenance), Jalandhar, and, as such, he was a public servant. He denied to have prepared the cheques. He denied that he committed forgery, in respect of cheques No. 739500 dated 15.05.91, for Rs. 28,000/-, No. 739087 dated 02.08.91, for Rs. 33,000/-, and, No. A 755016 dated 07.09.91, for Rs. 13,600/-, and, altered the figures of Rs. 28,000/- into Rs. 1,28,000/-, Rs. 33,000/- into Rs. 1,33,000/-, and, Rs. 13,600/- into Rs. 1,13,600/-. He denied to have cheated the State Bank of India, Jalandhar, by obtaining a sum of Rs. 3,74,600/-, against the original amount of the cheques, to the tune of Rs. 74,600/-. He also denied that he dishonestly misappropriated Rs. 3,00,000/-. He denied to have received payments, from the State Bank of India. He also denied that, he had made entries, in the books, maintained in the Accounts Section, in the office of the Director (Telecom Maintenance), Jalandhar. He also denied all other allegations, and stated that the prosecution witnesses deposed falsely, against him, under the influence of the Central Bureau of Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -14- Investigation. It was further stated by him, that wrong investigation, was made, by the Central Bureau of Investigation. It was further stated by him that, he being a petty employee of the department, with a view to save the real culprits, from the clutches of law, was falsely involved, in this case. It was further stated by him that the sanction, accorded was invalid. It was further stated by him that his appointing and dismissal authority was Telecom District Manager/Chief General Manager, Telecom, Punjab Circle, Ambala.
19. He also examined Ravinder Singh, Junior Telecom Officer (DW1), who proved D1, photocopy of the appointment letter dated 10.04.91. Thereafter, he closed the defence evidence.
20. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.
21. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant.
Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -15-
22. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
23. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, the accused, during the relevant period, was the Cashier, in the department. She further submitted that, it was, however, not the duty of the accused, to write the cheques and fill in the amounts, therein. She further submitted that, H.B. Singh, Accounts Officer, signed these cheques, and the same, were presented, by the accused. She further submitted that, H.B. Singh, Accounts Officer, who signed the cheques, aforesaid, being the most material witness, was not intentionally and deliberately examined, by the prosecution, with a view, to prevent the truth, from coming, on the record. She further submitted that, no report, was made, by the despatch and receipt Clerk, that the scrolls, were forged, by the accused. She further submitted that the second copy of the scroll, was not received, but, despite that, the officials of the department, slept over the matter, without any complaint, having been made, to the bank. She further submitted that, no cogent and convincing evidence, was led, by Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -16- the prosecution, to prove, that the cheques, were written, by Pankaj Maingi, accused, the amounts therein, were filled in, by him, and, that he allegedly altered the said amounts. She further submitted that, opinion of the Handwriting Expert, could not be said to be conclusive, to prove, the handwriting and signatures of a particular person. She further submitted that, even the opinion of the Handwriting Expert, was lopsided, given just with a view, to favour the department. She further submitted that the sanction, accorded for prosecution of the accused, was invalid, as the same, was accorded by an authority, lower in rank, than the appointing and dismissal authority of the accused. She further submitted that the accused, was only made a scape goat, for the fault of others. She further submitted that the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, recorded by the trial Court, being illegal, are liable to be set aside.
24. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that since the appellant, was the Cashier of the department, at the relevant time, as admitted by him, and also proved, from the evidence, on record, it Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -17- was his duty, to write the cheques, fill in the amounts therein, and, make entries thereof, in the cash book, as also the daily cash book (rough). They further submitted that, in the first instance, the approval, with regard to the amounts, in respect whereof, the cheques, were prepared, used to be obtained, from the Accounts Officer. They further submitted that the approval, was only, in the sum of Rs. 28,000/-, Rs. 33,000/-, and, Rs. 13,600/-, respectively, in respect of three cheques. They further submitted that originally, the amounts aforesaid, in three cheques, were written, by the accused, and he got signed the same, from H.B. Singh, Accounts Officer. They further submitted that, thereafter, in the small space, which had been deliberately left, by the accused, in the cheques, he made alterations, referred to above, and, was successful, in obtaining the payment of altered amounts, from the bank. They further submitted that, sufficient cogent and convincing evidence, was led, by the prosecution, to prove the preparation of the cheques, the counterfoils, the writing of the cash book, daily (rough) cash book etc., by the accused. They further submitted that the sanction, was accorded, by Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -18- the competent authority. They further submitted that non-examination of H.B. Singh, Accounts Officer, for, whatever, the reasons, may be, by the prosecution, did not go, to disprove its case. They further submitted that the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, being legal and valid, are liable to be upheld.
25. The first question that arises for consideration, is, as to what were the duties of the accused and whether he prepared the cheques in question, and altered the amounts therein. The accused, was admittedly Cashier, in the office of the Director (Telecom Maintenance), Jalandhar, at the relevant time. Being Cashier, his duty, was to deal with the payments of the bills, which used to be received, by him, from the miscellaneous seats of the Accounts Section. It was also his duty, to prepare the cheques, pertaining to such payments of the bills, withdraw the amounts, from the bank, and make corresponding entries, with regard to the same, in the records/ledgers, maintained in the Accounts Section, in the office of the Director (Telecom Maintenance), Jalandhar. Narinder Pal Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -19- Chief Accounts Officer, PW14, who earlier worked, as Accounts Officer, in the office of the Director (Telecom Maintenance), Jalandhar, was acquainted with the initials, signatures and handwriting of the accused, as, he used to receive the bills and other documents, having been written, signed and initialed, by the accused, in the discharge of his official duties. He handed over file PW14/1, to the Central Bureau of Investigation, which was taken into possession, vide memo PW14/1. This file contained the correspondence, relating to the receipt of the third copy of the P & T bank scrolls, from the State Bank of India, Jalandhar, to the Accounts Officer, in the office of the Director (Telecom Maintenance), Jalandhar. Rough cash book also called the day book, was also handed over, by him, to the Central Bureau of Investigation, which was taken into possession, vide memo PW14/3. He deposed, with regard to the procedure, about the payments and the cheques, prepared on the basis thereof, in the office of the Director (Telecom Maintenance), Jalandhar. According to him, the bills, used to be passed, by the Accounts Officer. After passing the bills, the same, used to be given, to the Cashier, for the Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -20- purpose of drawing the amount thereof, from the bank, for making payments, against the same. It was further deposed to, by him, that the Cashier, used to make the total of the bills, received by him, in the day book, which was also called, as rough cash book. The duty of the Accounts Officer, was to check, that the Cashier, had correctly totaled the bills, and, had entered the same, in the day book. It was the Accounts Officer, who used to authorize the Cashier, to write the cheques, for bringing money, from the bank, on the basis thereof. The cash book, used to remain, in the custody of the Cashier, from which, he used to write the cheques. It was also the duty of the Cashier, as per Narinder Pal Singh, PW14, to fill in the cheques and counterfoils. The amounts, both in words and digits, used to be written, in the cheques and their counterfoils. The Accounts Officer, used to append his full signatures, on the cheques. On the back of the cheques, the signatures of the Cashier, used to be appended, which were attested, by the Accounts Officer. The attestation of the signatures of the Cashier, on the back of the cheques, amounted to authorization, by the Accounts Officer, to him, to receive the cash, from the bank. The Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -21- Cashier, after receiving the payments, from the bank, gave the information, to the concerned Clerk, who then, used to make entries, in his register, known as drawing from the bank register.
26. The accused, was under suspension, when Narinder Pal Singh, Chief Accounts Officer, PW14, joined the office of the Director (Telecom Maintenance), Jalandhar. He was receiving suspension allowance, from him, by signing and writing the documents. After seeing Cheque No. 739500 dated 15.05.91, for Rs. 28,000/-, exhibit PW6/4, it was stated by Narinder Pal Singh, PW14, that the same, was filled up, in the handwriting of Pankaj Maingi, accused. It was also deposed to, by him, that the amount, in the same, in words and digits, was also in the handwriting of Pankaj Maingi, accused. On the back of the cheque, the signatures of Pankaj Maingi, were also identified, by Narinder Pal Singh, PW14. He also identified the signatures of H.B. Singh, Accounts Officer, at the relevant time, on the cheque. According to him, the signatures of Pankaj Maingi, on the back of the cheque, were attested by H.B. Singh, Accounts Officer. The Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -22- State Bank of India, allotted code No. 621, to the Department of Telecom. The statement of Narinder Pal Singh, PW14, further runs, in the manner that, on the counterfoil of cheque No. 739500 dated 15.05.91, the amount of Rs. 28,000/-, and not Rs. 1,28,000/-, was written. This amount, in the counterfoil, was written, in digit alone and not in words. The counterfoils of the cheques, were in the counterfoil book PW14/4. He identified the initials of Pankaj Maingi, on the counterfoil.
He also deposed, that the department, issued the cheque, in the sum of Rs.
28,000/-, and by interpolation, the amount of the cheque, was altered into Rs. 1,28,000/-, and the payment of Rs. 1,28,000/- of cheque exhibit PW6/4, was received, by Pankaj Maingi, accused, from the bank. He also deposed, that cheque No. 739087 dated 02.08.91, exhibit PW6/5, was filled in, in the handwriting of Pankaj Maingi, accused. The cheque, was in the sum of Rs. 1,33,000/-. He identified the signatures of Pankaj Maingi, on the back of the cheque too. He further deposed that, H.B. Singh, Accounts Officer, had authorized the accused, to receive the payment, from the bank, and, he received the same, in the sum of Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -23- Rs. 1,33,000/-. The counterfoil of this cheque, was seen, by him, in counterfoil book PW14/5, which was filled in, by Pankaj Maingi, accused, and, this showed the amount of Rs. 33,000/-, instead of Rs. 1,33,000/-. The amount of Rs. 33,000/-, was only written, in digits, but by interpolating the same, Pankaj Maingi, accused, altered it into Rs. 1,33,000/-, and, on the back thereof, 'received payment', was written by him. Similarly, after seeing Cheque No. 755016 dated 07.09.91, in the sum of Rs. 1,13,600/-, it was stated by Narinder Pal Singh, PW14, that the same was filled in, in the handwriting of Pankaj Maingi, accused. On the back of the cheque, exhibit PW6/6, he also identified the signatures of Pankaj Maingi, accused, showing that, he received the payment of Rs. 1,13,600/-, from the bank, under his signatures. The authorization, on the back, was signed, by H.B. Singh, the then Accounts Officer. The cheque was, in fact, in the sum of Rs. 13,600/-, as that amount, was written, in the counterfoil book of the same, exhibit PW14/6. In this manner, a sum of Rs. 13,600/-, the original amount of the cheque, was altered into Rs. 1,13,600/-.
Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -24-
27. Not only this, Narinder Pal Singh, PW14, after seeing the cash book, deposed that, entries therein, were in the handwriting of Pankaj Maingi, accused. Entry dated 15.05.91, exhibit PW14/7, showed that, amount of Rs. 28,000/-, was received. Entry dated 02.08.91, exhibit PW14/8, showed that, amount of Rs. 33,000/-, was received, from the bank. Entry dated 07.09.91, exhibit PW14/9, showed that, amount of Rs. 13,600/-, was received, from the bank. Even, the rough cash book also called the day book, which used to be written, by the accused, showed that, on 15.05.91, vide entry PW14/10, a sum of Rs. 28,000/-, was received, from the bank. Similarly, entry dated 02.08.91, exhibit PW14/11, showed the receipt of amount of Rs. 33,000/-, from the bank, and, entry dated 07.09.91, exhibit PW14/12, showed the receipt of amount of Rs. 13,600/-. In the cash book, as also, in the day book, referred to above, the original amounts of the cheques, i.e. Rs. 33,000/-, Rs. 13,600/-, and, Rs. 28,000/-, were shown, as the altered amount, could not be shown, by the accused as that would have led to the detection of fraud committed by him immediately. Even, in the counterfoils, as stated above, the original Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -25- amounts of the cheques, were shown, and not the altered amount. There was no reason, on the part of Narinder Pal Singh, to make a false statement. He had no ill-will, grudge or enmity, against the accused, to make a false statement. Since, he had been seeing his signatures, handwriting and initials, on the cheques and other documents, in the ordinary course of the discharge of his official duties, he was acquainted with the same. It was, under these circumstances, that he identified the handwriting, signatures and initials, on the cheques and counterfoils.
28. The statement of Narinder Pal Singh, PW14, regarding the identification of the handwriting, signatures and initials of the accused, on the cheques aforesaid, counterfoils, entries in the cash book, as also entries, in the day book, was duly corroborated, by S.D. Sharma, Chief Cashier, PW6, Kamlesh Kumari, Cashier, PW7, J.R. Bhatti, PW8, Vinay Kumar Sharma, Clerk-cum-Cashier, PW11, Om Parkash, Clerk-cum-Cashier, State Bank of India, PW12, G.C. Gaylon, Senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Chandigarh, PW13, and, J.K. Senwal, Deputy Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -26- Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, PW18, in the manner, depicted hereinafter. S.D. Sharma, Chief Cashier, State Bank of India, Civil Lines Branch, Jalandhar, PW6, who was acquainted with the initials, signatures and handwriting of other Cashiers, who had been working with him, deposed, after seeing the cash payment register, for the year 1991, pertaining to payment to government, that entry dated 15.05.91, pertaining to the amount of Rs. 1,28,000/-, against cheque No. 739500, was made by Kamlesh Kumari, Cashier. He identified her handwriting. He deposed that, column of payment showed, that Pankaj Maingi, accused, received the payment of Rs. 1,28,000/- of the cheque. Photocopy of the register dated 15.05.91, is PW6/1. He also stated that, entry dated 02.08.91, in the cash payment register, pertaining to the payment of Rs. 1,33,000/-, vide cheque No. 739087, was made, by Vinay Kumar Sharma, Cashier. This payment, was made, to Pankaj Maingi, accused. The name of Pankaj Maingi, was written, in the relevant column. Photocopy of the said entry is PW6/2. He further stated, after seeing the entry dated 07.09.91, in the cash payment register, regarding the payment of Rs. 1,13,600/-, vide Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -27- cheque No. A 755016, that Vinay Kumar Sharma, Cashier, made payment to Pankaj. The name of Pankaj, is written, in the relevant column, photocopy whereof, is PW6/3. He also deposed, after seeing the cheques PW6/4, PW6/5 and PW6/6, that the same, were passed for payment, by Sham Lal Aggarwal, the then Deputy Manager.
29. Kamlesh Kumari, Cashier, State Bank of India, Civil Lines Branch, Jalandhar, PW7, deposed, after seeing the cash payment register for 15.05.91, that payment, was made, by her, to Pankaj Maingi, accused, regarding cheque No. 739500, amounting to Rs. 1,28,000/-. She identified the accused, in the Court, to be the same person, whom, she had made the payment. She identified him, because the accused, had been visiting the bank, on behalf of the Telcom Department, for receiving payments, in his capacity, as Cashier. She proved entry PW6/1, regarding payment of Rs. 1,28,000/-. The cheque is PW6/4. She also deposed, that she took the signatures of Pankaj Maingi, accused, on the back of this cheque, in token of having made the payment. The signatures of the accused, on the back of the cheque are PW7/1. These Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -28- signatures, were made, by the accused, in her presence.
30. J.R. Bhatti, Cashier, State Bank of India, Civil Lines Branch, Jalandhar, PW8, also proved entries PW6/1 to PW6/3, regarding the payments of Rs. 1,28,000/-, vide cheque No. 739500, Rs. 1,33,000/-, vide cheque No. 739087, and, Rs. 1,13,600/-, vide cheque No. A 755016.
31. Vinay Kumar Sharma, Clerk-cum-Cashier, State Bank of India, Civil Lines Branch, Jalandhar, PW11, deposed with regard to the procedure, about the payments against the cheques, and, about the entries, made in the cash payment register and the cashier payment register. He also proved entries PW6/1 to PW6/3. He deposed that, he made payment of cheque No. 739087 for Rs. 1,33,000/-, to Pankaj Maingi, accused, vide token No. 62. He further stated that, he had obtained the signatures of Pankaj Maingi, accused, on the back of the cheque at Q14. He further stated that, he, thereafter, made entry, in the cash payment register for 02.08.91. Similarly, he deposed, that he made payment of cheque No. A 755016 of Rs. 1,13,600/-, to Pankaj Maingi, accused, vide token No. 239. He further stated that, he Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -29- obtained the signatures of the accused, on the back of the cheque at Q22.
32. Om Parkash, Cashier, State Bank of India, Jalandhar, PW12, deposed that, he issued token No. P503, regarding cheque dated 07.09.91, for Rs. 1,13,600/-, exhibit PW6/6, and, token No. P62, in respect of cheque No. 739087 dated 02.08.91, for Rs. 1,33,000/-, exhibit PW6/5, and, made entries, regarding the cheques, after issuing token, in the debit scrolls. Certified copies of the debit scrolls exhibits PW12/1 to PW12/3, were proved by him. These were, in the handwriting of Om Parkash, Cashier. The copies of the cash government payment register are exhibits PW3/1, PW12/4 and PW12/5, which were proved by Om Parkash, Cashier, PW12.
33. The specimen initials, signatures and handwriting of Pankaj Maingi, accused, were taken, in the presence of G.C. Gaylon, Senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Chandigarh, PW13. The copies of specimen signatures, initials and handwriting sheets of the accused, are PW13/1 to PW13/70. G.C. Gaylon, attested the sheets, and, when he Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -30- appeared, as PW13, it was deposed, by him, that the accused, voluntarily gave the specimen signatures, initials and handwriting. These specimen signatures, handwriting and initials of the accused, were taken, by Sudeep Rai, Inspector, Central Bureau of Investigation. He also proved the sheets PW13/1 to PW13/70 and PW16/1 to PW16/26.
34. J.K. Senwal, Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, PW18, stated that, he received the documents, concerning this case, and two other connected cases, against the accused, vide letter of SP, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh, copy whereof, is PW18/1. He further deposed that, he carefully examined and compared the disputed documents marks Q1, Q3, Q4, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q11, Q12, Q13, Q14, Q17, Q19, Q20, Q21 and Q22 with the specimen signatures and writing marked S62 to S152, S164, S165, S165/1, S166, and, S167 with his admitted writing and signatures marked A3 to A8. Q1, Q3, Q4, Q7 and Q8, are on both sides of cheque PW6/4. Q9, Q11, Q12, Q13 and Q14, are on both sides of cheque PW6/5. Q17, Q19, Q20, Q21 and Q22, are on both sides of cheque PW6/6. The admitted signatures, are A3 to A8. Their Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -31- copies are PW18/2 to PW18/4 (original are in CC No. 2/96). It was stated by him, that after comparison of the questioned signatures, handwriting and initials of Pankaj Maingi, accused, with his admitted and specimen signatures, handwriting and initials, he came to the conclusion, that the writing and signatures mark Q1, Q3, Q4, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q11, Q12, Q13, Q14, Q17, Q19, Q20, Q21 and Q22, were written, by the person named Pankaj Maingi, accused, who also wrote the specimen writing and signatures marked S62 to S152, S165, S165/1, S166 and S167, and, the admitted writing and signatures marked A3 to A8. Copy of his report is PW18/5. This report, was also signed, by R.K. Jain, Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, who independently examined and compared the documents and concurred with the opinion of J.K. Senwal, PW18. The conclusions, arrived at, by the Handwriting Experts, are PW18/6 (copy) (original in CC No. 2/96). The opinion of J.K. Senwal, Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, PW18, was based on cogent and convincing reasons. He is the proficient expert. It is, no doubt, true that, the report of the Handwriting Expert, cannot be said to be Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -32- conclusive, yet, when cogent and convincing reasons, are given, by the Handwriting Expert, for coming to a particular conclusion, then that can be said to be sufficient, to corroborate the ocular version, with regard to the identification of the handwriting, initials and signatures of a particular person. The statement of Narinder Pal Singh, PW14, duly corroborated by the ocular evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and expert evidence of J.K. Senwal, Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, PW18, was rightly held to be sufficient, by the trial Court, to prove, that the cheques, counterfoils, the entries, in the cash book, as also, in the day book and other books relating to this case, were in the handwriting of Pankaj Maingi, accused, and the same also bore his signatures and initials. The witnesses aforesaid had no ill-will, grudge or enmity against the accused. This Court, after reappraisal and reappreciation of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, also comes to the same conclusion. The findings of the trial Court, on this aspect of the matter, being based on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence are affirmed. Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -33-
35. The Counsel for the appellant, however, placed reliance on S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1996(2), Apex Court Journal, 44 (SC), in support of her contention, that the evidence of Handwriting Expert, can be characterized, as a weak type of evidence. As stated above, the evidence of Handwriting Expert, cannot be said to be conclusive, to prove the handwriting, signatures or initials of a particular person. It is only an opinion evidence. However, in the instant case, as stated above, the handwriting, signatures and initials of Pankaj Maingi, accused, on the aforesaid documents, were proved, by Narinder Pal Singh, Chief Accounts Officer, PW14, and other witnesses, referred to above, beyond a reasonable doubt. The report of the Handwriting Expert, only furnished corroboration, to the ocular evidence of Narinder Pal Singh, PW14 and the other witnesses. The report of the Handwriting Expert, was based on cogent and convincing data, material and reasons. When the opinion of the Handwriting Expert, corroborates the ocular version, with regard to the identification of the handwriting, signatures and initials of a particular person, that can Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -34- be relied upon. The trial Court, was, thus, right in relying upon the same. Had the case of the prosecution, been merely based on the report of the Handwriting Expert, for the identification of the handwriting, signatures and initials of Pankaj Maingi, accused, on various documents, the argument, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, that, since the opinion of Handwriting Expert, was not conclusive, no reliance thereon, could be placed would have carried some substance. In the instant case, in view of the facts and circumstances and the evidence, discussed above, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, does not carry any weight. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant, from the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case.
36. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellant, cheated the bank, as also the department, and, thus, committed the offence, punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution, was required, to prove, that the accused, practiced deception; on account of that deception, there was Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -35- fraudulent or dishonest inducement, so as to make a person deceived, to deliver any property or to do something or omit to do something; and by reason of delivery of property, there was wrongful loss, to the person deceived and wrongful gain to the accused. Right from the very beginning, the accused, was having mensrea, to cheat the bank and the department. The accused, in the instant case, in the first instance, altered the amounts of the cheques aforesaid, and, thus, made a dishonest inducement, to the bank, to deliver the altered amounts of the same. Thus, the ingredients, required for constituting the offence, punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, were proved, from the cogent and convincing evidence, produced by the prosecution. The trial Court, was, thus, right in holding so. This Court, on reappraisal and reappreciation of the evidence, also comes, to the same conclusion. The findings of the trial Court, on this aspect of the matter, being correct, are affirmed.
37. The forgery of the cheques, was writ large, on the face of the same. It was proved, from the evidence, on record, that the accused, Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -36- altered the amounts of the cheques which are valuable securities. He, thus, forged the cheques, by altering the amounts of the same and knowing fully well, that the said cheques, were forged, used the same, as genuine, and made the State Bank of India, Jalandhar, to part with the altered amounts, in his favour. After receiving the payment of altered amount, he entered the original amount of the cheques, in the cash book and day book, as also other books and pocketed the altered amount. He, thus, committed the offence, punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court, was, thus, right in holding so.
38. Whether the accused dishonestly misappropriated the altered amount of the cheques is the next question that falls for consideration. Sham Lal Aggarwal, Deputy Manager (Accounts), State Bank of India, Civil Lines Branch, Jalandhar, PW10, deposed, after seeing cheques PW6/4, PW6/5 and PW6/6, dated 15.05.91, for Rs. 1,28,000/-, dated 02.08.91, for Rs. 1,33,000/-, and, dated 07.09.91, for Rs. 1,13,600/-, respectively, that the same, were passed by him. He further stated that, he Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -37- could not detect, whether, there was any alteration in the same. He further stated that the same looked to be genuine cheques and he signed the same, as the Passing Officer.
39. The entries, regarding the receipt of Rs. 33,000/-, Rs. 13,600/- and Rs. 28,000/-, were made, by Pankaj Maingi, accused, in the cash book, copies whereof, are PW14/2 to PW14/9. Similarly, he made entries of Rs. 28,000/-, Rs. 33,000/- and Rs. 13,600/-, against the aforesaid cheques, in the day book, as proved, by Narinder Pal Singh, PW14. From the evidence, referred to above, it was, thus, proved, that it was the accused, who received the altered amounts of Rs. 1,28,000/-, Rs. 1,33,000/- and Rs. 1,13,600/-, against the original amount of the cheques i.e. Rs. 28,000/-, Rs. 33,000/- and Rs. 13,600/-, and, thus, dishonestly misappropriated that amount. The prosecution, was only required, to prove, that the accused, received the payments of the altered cheques. In which manner, he used the same, was not for the prosecution, to prove. It was for the accused, to account for the amount, which was altered and received by him from the bank. The trial Court, was, thus, right in Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -38- holding, that the accused as a public servant dishonestly misappropriated the altered amounts of the cheques, and, thus, committed the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This Court, after reappraisal and reappreciation of evidence, also comes to the same conclusion.
40. The question then arises, as to whether, non-examination of H.B. Singh, Accounts Officer, could prove fatal, to the case of the prosecution. No doubt, it was H.B. Singh, Accounts Officer, who signed the cheques and also attested the signatures of Pankaj Maingi, accused, on the back of the same. The signatures of H.B. Singh, Accounts Officer, on the cheques, and, on the back thereof, attesting the signatures of Pankaj Maingi, accused, were duly proved, by Narinder Pal Singh, Chief Accounts Officer, PW14, as he was acquainted with his signatures and handwriting. His statement, as stated above, was duly corroborated by the other evidence discussed above. Under these circumstances, non- examination of H.B. Singh, did not at all materially affect the case of the prosecution. Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -39- It was not necessary, for the Public Prosecutor, for the Central Bureau of Investigation, to examine each and every witness, cited by him, in the list of prosecution witnesses. Since the Public Prosecutor, for the Central Bureau of Investigation, came to the conclusion, that the signatures of the accused, his initials, and, handwriting, as also the signatures of H.B. Singh, stood duly proved, from the other cogent and convincing evidence, produced by him, he did not deem it necessary, to examine H.B. Singh. Under these circumstances, non- examination of H. B. Singh, did not at all cast any dent, in the prosecution story. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
41. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to how, the fraud, committed by the accused, was detected. The schedules of the cheques, drawn from the bank, used to be sent, to the Head Office i.e. office of the Chief General Manager, Maintenance (Northern) Telecom Region, New Delhi. The copies of the bank scrolls, were sent, Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -40- directly, to the Head Office, by the State Bank of India, Civil Lines Branch, Jalandhar. In the office of the Chief General Manager, Maintenance (Northern) Telecom Region, New Delhi, entries of the schedule of cheques, drawn from the bank, were compared with the entries of the bank scrolls. Mir Singh, PW4, worked as Accounts Officer, in the office of the Chief General Manager, Maintenance (Northern) Telecom Region, New Delhi, from 1985 to 1992. He deposed, that the entries of the schedule of cheques, drawn, from the bank, and, entries of bank scrolls, were compared, in the Head Office, in January, 1992. It was revealed, as a result of such comparison, that there was difference, in seven cheques, which involved an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/-. Letter dated 04.02.92, exhibit PW4/1, was then written by Mir Singh to the Director, Telecom Maintenance, Jalandhar. It was, thereafter, that it was found, that alteration, in the amount of the cheques aforesaid, had been made, by the accused, and, thus, the fraud, was detected. If the fraud, was detected not immediately, but, after sometime, that could not be said to be sufficient, to grant benefit of doubt, to the accused. Fraud is fraud. It may be detected Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -41- immediately, after the same, is committed, or even after a long time of the commission of the same. Thus, detection of fraud, committed by the accused, after some time, did not at all affect the merits of the case.
42. The second copy of the scroll, was not sent, to the Telecom Department, Jalandhar, by the bank. It was the duty of the accused, in the capacity of Cashier, to obtain the second copy of scroll. If he failed, to discharge his duty, he could not blame either the Despatch Clerk or any other employee of the department. If the Despatch Clerk or any other official of the department, on non-receipt of the second copy of the scroll, from the bank, did not complain, that did not absolve the accused of his criminal liability, in the face of the other cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence, discussed above. The mere fact, that the second copy of scroll, was not received, in the department, at Jalandhar, did not at all affect the merits of the case. The trial Court, was also right, in holding so.
43. Coming to the sanction for launching prosecution, against the accused, no defect, can be found therein, as would be discussed Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -42- hereinafter. Kidar Nath, Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, PW15, passed the sanction order PW15/1, for launching prosecution against the accused. This order, was sent, to the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh, vide letter PW15/2. The accused, was appointed, as Telecom Office Assistant/Cashier, by the Telecom District Manager. Kidar Nath, PW15, was the appointing as well as dismissal authority of the accused. The sanction, was accorded, by a competent authority. The Counsel for the accused, could not point out, as to how, Kidar Nath, PW15, was not the competent authority, to accord sanction, for launching prosecution, against the accused. Not only this, Kidar Nath, PW15, before according sanction, went through all the relevant documents, relating to the case, including the report and statements of the witnesses, and came to the conclusion, that the accused, prima-facie committed the offences, punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(i)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and, accorded sanction for launching prosecution against the accused. No doubt, the accused, was Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -43- appointed, as Telecom Office Assistant/Cashier, by the Telecom District Manager, Jalandhar. The sanction, was accorded, by Kidar Nath, Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs. The Counsel for the appellant, could not point out that, Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, was lower, in rank, than the Telecom District Manager, Jalandhar. Under these circumstances, the Divisional Engineer, Telecom, was the competent authority, to accord sanction. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
44. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
45. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgement of conviction and the order of the sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point. The same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and deserve to be upheld.
46. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -44- The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are upheld. If the appellant, is on bail, his bail bonds, shall stand cancelled.
47. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and submit compliance report, within 02 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgement.
48. The District & Sessions Judge, is also directed to ensure that the directions, referred to above, are complied with, and the compliance report is sent within the time frame, to this Court.
49. The Registry is directed to keep track that the directions are complied with, within the stipulated time. The papers be put up within 10 days, of the expiry of the time frame, whether the report is received or not, for further action.
23.02.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE