Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 10 January, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CRR No.66 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 66 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: January 10, 2013
Sanjay Kumar
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
CRM No.1353 of 2013 For the reasons recorded in the Criminal Misc. Application, the same is allowed. Delay of 50 days in filing the criminal revision is condoned.
CRR No. 66 of 2013
Present criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner against judgment dated 21.08.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and judgment of conviction dated 01.09.2011 and order of sentence dated 03.09.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First CRR No.66 of 2013 (O&M) 2 Class, Faridabad, has been upheld, vide which the petitioner has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 65 and 66 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment as follows:-
Under Section Period Fine 420 IPC Two years Rs.1,000/- 467 IPC Three years Rs.2,000/- 468 IPC Two years Rs.1,000/- 471 IPC Two years Rs.1,000/- 65 I.T. Act Two years Rs.1,000/- 66 I.T. Act Two years Rs.1000/-
In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the Senior Branch Manager, Vijay Bank, NIT, Faridabad moved a complaint dated 11.02.2003 before the Police stating that the petitioner was deputed by M/s Virmati Software and Telecommunication Ltd. to maintain the Software System supplied by them to the bank. He was also looking Software System of certain other banks. In connection with rendering such services, the petitioner was having access to their accounting system which was computerized and was also in a position to enter into ledgers and various other accounts. While reconciling the accounts, certain discrepancies were pointed out by the officials of the bank and in that process, it was revealed that the accused-petitioner, who was having SB Account No. 21499 in his CRR No.66 of 2013 (O&M) 3 personal name in their bank, manipulated the entries by forging and fabricating certain entries from one account to another, from the computer system by handling the software and got the entries pertaining to the amount of the the bank and withdrew the amounts from the bank on various dates by issuing cheques in his own favour and withdrew the amount from the cash counter of the bank as well as through transfer/clearing transactions. As per enquiry, it has been revealed that the accused by carrying out forgery, fabricating the entries in the computer system of the bank, illegally and wrongfully, withdrew Rs.17,67,409/- from the bank and thus, caused wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the bank. The said Bank came to know regarding the fraud committed by the accused on 07.02.2003. thereafter, the accused was called to the bank and he was confronted with the details of the fraud but he gave evasive replies as only admitted having embezzled a sum of Rs. 17 lacs without giving further information or revealing the exact amount of fruad or the modus operandi of the same and also assured to pay back the amount to the bank. On receipt of the complaint, a case bearing FIR No. 165 dated 11.02.2003, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 65, 66 and 72 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 was registered against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused-petitioner was presented in the Court. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused- petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW1 A. CRR No.66 of 2013 (O&M) 4 Siridhar, PW2 Girish Kumar Verma, PW3 Maheshwar Rath, PW4 Ramesh Kumar Malik and PW5 Dalip Singh, DSP.
Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. He denied the same and pleaded innocence.
The learned trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid vide judgment and order dated 01.09.2011 and 03.09.2011 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 21.08.2012. Hence, this criminal revision.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as the complainant and eye witness were inimical to the petitioner as they were having a dispute about 15/16 years prior to the occurrence. Learned counsel further contends that there is no direct evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence in question, therefore, no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
From perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, it transpires that the allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner CRR No.66 of 2013 (O&M) 5 has manipulated the computerized Bank account i.e. the interest entries and thereby cheated the complainant bank by forging electronic record in order to cause wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to himself to the tune of Rs.17,67,409/-. It has come in the documentary evidence on record that the petitioner has forged the entries in the bank record and had thereby withdrawn a sum of Rs.17,67,409/-.
The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, observed as under:-
"9. All the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The complainant PW-1 A. Siridhar and PW-2 Girraj Parshad Sharma have stated that the accused Sanjay Kumar Bhatia was the employee of M/s Virmati Software and Telecommunication Ltd. and have been appointed in their branch for the purpose of maintenance of Software Sytem supplied by them to the bank. This fact stand corroborated by document Ex.P36 wherein in Team No. 7 the name of Sanjay has been mentioned along with his residence number and Pager number. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia has also opened an A/c No. 21499 in their bank as evident from the account opening form of the accused Sanjay Bhatia placed on record as Ex.P37 along with specimen signature Card Ex.P38 and the cheque book issued register Ex.P39. Further, from the bank statement of account no. 21499, Ex.P8, on 1.8.2001, Rs.2,00,000/- was deposited by clearing and Rs.1/- as interest. However, nothing is mentioned as to what is the basis of clearing. In this regard, PW-3 Maheshwar Rath stated that during his inquiry he could not find any supporting document or CRR No.66 of 2013 (O&M) 6 voucher. The accused has also not produced any evidence in this regard. Rather, Ex.PW1/D shows that even the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been transferred from interest account on 1.8.2001. This fact stand corroborated by the report Ex.P34 wherein it is mentioned that the accused has increased interest portion in his own account through first time creation to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- and then applied interest along with other SB accounts and to mislead the Branch employees, the accused has splitted the transaction into 2 parts, one entry is shown as "by interest credit" as Rs.1.00 and the other by clearing as Rs.2,00,000/- and, therefore, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is reflected in account statement as `by clearing'.
10. Similarly, using the same modus operandi, accused forged the interest entries on 1.8.2002 and 2.8.2000 and got deposited Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.4,20,000/- respectively in his account.
11. Further, the accused used the fixed deposit account of Sardar Jeet Singh. The account of Jeet Singh was opened on 8.3.2002 in which Rs.1,05,00,000/- was deposited on that day as evidence from Ex.P3. The statement of account of Sardar Jeet Singh Ex.P3 shows that an interest of Rs.8,46,489/- was deposited on 29.4.2002. However, the said interest calculated was an inflated one, calculated by forging entries to the effect as it the account of Jeet Singh was opened on a prior date. Thereafter, on 30.4.2002, accused transferred the amount of Rs.8,46,489/- to the account of Anil Kumar Sharma having A/c No. 22618 which had already been closed on 1.9.2001,as evident from Ex.P5, by forging the CRR No.66 of 2013 (O&M) 7 entries to the effect that it was changed in bank records form closed to o pen and on 8.5.2002, 13.5.2002 and 18.5.2002, accused transferred the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs.3,47,409/- respectively from the account of Sh. Anil Kumar to his account as evident from Ex.P5 and Ex.P8 to Ex.P12. Further, PW-3 Sh. Maheshwar Rath has stated as also evident from his report Ex.P34 that the transaction rooted through the account of Jeet Singh and Anil Kumar has been deleted by accused using SRF files which were later recovered during Audit.
12. Moreover, Ex.P15 to Ex.P24 show that accused has withdrawn the said amount through cheques.
13. In this manner, the accused was dishonestly forged the bank records to cause wrongful loss to the bank and thereby cheated the concerned bank by depositing Rs.17,67,409/- in his account and thereafter withdrawing the same. Further, the accused has admitted his guilt vide letter Ex.P44. The signature of accused on the letter Ex.P44 are similar to the specimen signatures of accused on bank opening account card Ex.P38 as well as on the bank opening Account form Ex.P37. Furthermore, form the bare perusal of the confessional statement Ex.P44, it clearly emanates that the manner in which the word `Sanjay' has been written is similar to the manner word `Sanjay' has been written by accused below his signatures by accused as he even returned in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Moreover, Ex.P47 and Ex.P48 show that accused has tendered Rs.3,50,000/- to the bank in respect of the amount fraudulently withdrawn by him which shows the CRR No.66 of 2013 (O&M) 8 admission of guilt as evident from Ex.P47 and Ex.P48.
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused during the course of arguments has argued that no specific password was allotted to Sanjay. However, no doubt password is givne to an employee but it has surfaced in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that for the purpose of maintaining the software and in this manner had assess to all those files to which only the employee of the bank could have. Moreover, as the amount was deposited in the account of accused and he has withdrawn it, there is no force in said argument.
15. In this manner, the accused had cheated the bank and forged the electronic record to cause wrongful loss to bank and wrongful gain to himself. The prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts, the ingredients of Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
16. Furthermore, clearly the accused has tampered with the computer source document and he has also altered in the information which resided in the computer resource and by doing so he committed the offences under Sections 65 and 66 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000. At the same time, it is pertinent to mention that although accused was having secured assess to electrical record of the bank and he forged the entries and cheated to cause wrongful gain to himself but there is no such breach of confidentiality by disclosing the information to any other person and as such he is acquitted of offence under Section 72 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000."
The learned Trial Court was wholly justified in convicting the accused-petitioner and the learned Appellate court, as can be clearly seen, CRR No.66 of 2013 (O&M) 9 had not committed any error in upholding the conviction of the accused petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of any evidence and could not point out any infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below. The findings of guilt, reached against the accused-petitioner does not, thus, suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual and does not therefore, warrant interference by this Court in exercise of this Court's revisional jurisdiction.
In view of the above, there is no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Dismissed in limine.
January 10, 2013 [Paramjeet Singh] vkd Judge