S R Subramanyam vs State By Cbi/Spe on 6 December, 2010

[Cites 16, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

S R Subramanyam vs State By Cbi/Spe on 6 December, 2010

Bench: N.Ananda

~1

IN THE HIGH COURT OE KARNATAKA AT EAI§IcéAL5t;I:€E

DATED THIS THE) 06" DAY OF' DEC     

BEEoRET~
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTIc:E_TI\I.ANAI$II3A _  

CRIMINAL APPEAL No:§.1:§A2I~o_/20b'4 _c 3A4'1../20021,
287/2004, 1723/2094 and 317A/2004;

CRL.A.No.340/2004' _ 

BETWEEN:  'I I -
S.R.Subramar1yam "  v_ A 

S / 0 Late M.SaI1"Ip__angi' 'RéiI1':é:LiahA«..A'I»._ A
Aged about ;52'YQars  2:   A ' 
C / 0 Srihari "~vNoI2_..'«'2*"' .C1fOs.s  
Parvathi13ur8;§i1_.~Mai;n.Raid '  . :

Eanga'16:~e @560"   '  ...APPELLAI\IT
{By STi.M.S.ARajVErIdra'E?1jéIs.ad. Sr. Advocate)

State by CB1/SPE; I
Ba;1*1g'a}Qre, Bellary Rdad
Ba';aga.lTor<?  """  ...REsp0NDEI\IT

 «(Buy Sri.Pr"a_§anna Kumar, Advocate for Sri.C.H.Jadhav,
'  AdVQc.at'e}ﬂ. A ' ----

* ._¢RL.A.N§éIj.-3%i¥:I%g2o04

V.P:asanrIa Kurnar

 A S / 0 Lafe.A.Venkat,aram.anappa

Aged about 47 Years

,, "Residing at 12/1, Annaiahappa Block
" E Seshadripuram
 Bangalore -- 560 020. ...APPELLANT

[By Sri.K.A.Char1drashekara, Advocate}



AND:
State by CB1/SPE
Bangaiore, Bellary Road

Bangalore. _.   > 

{By Sri.Prasanna Kumar, AL'1'g'OCE1:tA€')' j.fo1:   B

Advocate]

CRL.A.N0.267/2004:
BETWEEN:

H.M.Jagadish Kumar ._ _

Clerk, Syndicate Bank *  '

H.A.L. Branch " _ 7 '   __ 

Bangalore.  V  *  "  1   ...APPELLAN'.E'

[By Sri.Naga.raj:iBan1ooar*,__AdyoCafe)

AND; ....  'A 

State byCB1fSP_Ea   .
Bang'a1ore.V _   ...RESPONDENT

(By S11:.EPrasan'n_aA'~I{:uniar, Advocate for Sri.C.H.Jadhav,
Acgivoceate) " ' '

 _ k:i{L_f;'g_1_\H1€5;~1.723gﬁ'o'o4
'   

A.utoriCks.}'1aw Driver
5"'! Cross, 8"' 'B' Main Road
2"" Stage, Banashankari

2 .. " 'Bangalore. ...APPELLANT

 (Bf Smt.G.S.Anasuya, Advocate [absent))



AND:

State by CB1/SPE
Bangalore, Bellary Road

Bangalore.     

(By Sri.Prasanna Kumar, Adv'ocai.e"
Advocate] r     * '

CRL.A.N0.3 17 2004
BETWEEN:

P.Anil Kumar  *  '
No.482, HAL 213'; Stag
Indiranagar     I 

Bangalore,"'"j..__,"  g   " f ...APPELLANT

(By  ll'a,g:lV"ocat.e [abseni.}}

Stateloy ,cs1,/sass.'    _ 
Bangalore.»   ._  ' ...RESPONDENT

" Sri.Pi"a'sa_nna liumar, Advocate for Sri.C.H.Jadhav,
,Ativo<;ai<:,)  ---------- 

  ilﬁippeal Nos.340/2004, 341/2004, 267/2004,
" . "'1.72s/«é_004~T,,'and 317/2004 are filed under section 374(2)

C.r.P,,__C';,.,against the judgment dated 16.01.2004 passed by
the"  Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and

2   'Special Judge for CB1 Cases, Bangalore in Spl.
 l'C';C.No.38/1983, convicting the appellant/accused nos. 1, 5,
F 2, 4 and 3 for offences punishable under sections 420, 468.

471 and 477A IPC read with section 120(B} IPC, convicting



e 4

accused no.1 and 2 for an offence punishable u;idei':"cect'ion

5(1]{d} i-/w section 5{2) or the Prevention of 

1947 and sentencing them to undergo R.1.._.t'()uj"ivone::yeai' and 

to pay fine of Rs.2,000/e for anMoffence',punishable"ilunder 7.

section 5(2) r/W section 5{i)(ci:}=4yoi1'_l_'tii'e P.~c_}Aci,_'i'§4?§vi--iin

default to undergo fl1I'J[1'1(3I':S.._I. forsix rrioi.itl1s and 

sentencing him to undergo  3 Yearslanld  pay fine of
Rs.2,000/-- for an ofietnce p'uii-isihablep u.nde'r"-section l20~B
IPC, in default to  :tfor«lcsixllm_onths and further
sentencing him to und.cﬁ'_gO  and pay fine of
Rs.2,000/~§i'or«.pa:f=.-- offence p'unishable.__uEnder section 420 IPC,

in default' to__   for six months, further

'to u11.de.rgol'{.'li;--'iior 3 years and pay fine of
Rs.2.,00--0--/-,ioi~. punishable under section 468 IPC,
in delaulltyptol  SI. for six months, further
sentencing to Ai;inVd'ergo R1. for 3 years and pay fine of

/-- for'~an___ofi7ence punishable under section 471 IPC,

  :lei"aul_t"to undergo further SI. for six months and further

  to undergo R1. for three years and pay fine

.' A  for an offence punishable under section 477A

  detault to undergo further S.I. for six months. It is

 so [ordered that the substantive sentence of imprisonment shall

it ._ru'n concurrently and the sentence of fine shall run

 consecutively.

These appeals coming on for final hearing this day,
the Court delivered the foliowing:



JUDGMENT

Criminal Appeal No.34o/2004, No.26?/2004, Criminal Appear'No,31'_'7/2oo€Lp,_ "'c.l~5mi;lal';« Appeal No.1723/2004 a Criniinal AppealllNr§A;a.%;1i/zooéllare filed by accused 1 respec'tiyle'ly 'Special' C.C.No.38/1983 against conviction of accused l to 5 for offences-- sections 419, 420, 468, 47_1j; §77(..A}"r/:55: rlﬁdlllalso conviction of accused} under section 5[l}ld) »tiieaIPrevei1tion of Corruption Act, 1947' [for V "

'V 03vL1'21.2(l'10g learned counsel appearing for jVlN.o,5 havdwfiled a memo, reporting death of accused ll The learned counsel had also enclosed Aa.__copvy*of:'.death certificate issued by the Registrar of Births AA and Deaths of C.M.C. at Kolar.

Sri Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for C.B.I., has also produced a copy of death c_ertificate, §\: 4' Ex \,-s. E; \ '\-x..(.''§ }V 5 conﬁrming 'the death of accused No.5. Appeal No.34} /2004 abates. 'A H A

2. I have heard Sri Nagaraj:-'D'am0da_i', T aPI3earir1g for accused No.2.

for accused 1, 3 & 4 l»are"~~..abser1i, C.H.Jadhav, learned ;_counsei1----alppeali*ing 'Cv.--B.I;:§

3. In brief, the case followsg ACCu'S_e«d::': _N0.]A1A~Sb.f{,«Sub'ra'manyarr1 and Accused No.2;--'H;iMrdiigadeeshl'Kurr1ar"'whi'le funciioning as Clerks in Curr'e_nt 'land A llysection and Day Book-Section respectively» of Syndicate Banki, Incliranagar Branch, Bangaloije en"f'ered_._into a criminal conspiracy with Accused .._Kumar, Accused No.-4l--B.S.Papanna and " AAecusedfNo';=5;V.Prasanna Kumar during the period between and December 1981 to cheat Syndicate Bank, A' lnediralnagar branch by opening a fictitious account in 'bKar11ataka State Co--operative Apex Bank, Janaizha Bazar Branch, Bangalore {for short Apex Bank} and fraudulently V 7 with drawing funds created in the said account with Apex Bank by suppression of cheques at Syndicate Bank prep'aring':"

certain false documents and books of Syndicate and frahudulentlyVd':~-y&iti1d:1*awingSd (amount) from Syndicate Ba-n--1r;"Indi-ranagarvvbysuppressing certain clearing cheques i'eti:11r}ned=?_L0xd Syndicate Bank or preparing andV':nakingV'us.e of'«c"c1jtaiVn«V:faV1se documents and manipulating "ac.count--._" iadooksdddddof Syndicate Bank, Indi1*anagaifi;, said conspiracy accused no.3- P.Ani} Kumar as A.Rathan before the Manager, State-...C0~operatiVe Apex Bank, Janatha Bazar ' ;.V'BVranch* ;onr'O6.08.198O and got Savings Bank Account épened in the name of A.Rathan with the intijovducdtion of accused no.1 -- Subramanyam who had been 2 " hoiding S.B.A/c. No.5316 with the bank since March 1978. aiso got: a cheque book containing 10 SB. Cheque leaves issued to him from Apex Bank. He drew one of the cheque he 8 leaves {No.72338) for Rs.5,000/-- favouring h1;ns§a1:3f"g~,_i}§111ng as 'A Rathan' and deposited the said S.B.Ac(:0uI1t No.9658 with SyvnMc:1"ic--31.tAe through accused no.1--Subramunye.ﬁ' cheque was returned in on ~~A';(:ouse'ciL' r1o.1~Subramanyam ;__yoIuntee:oed._ t'o_._ wofk' clearing section on U153 f€tUming Of 316 chéque of accused no.2-H.M..-tfagaijteestl o accused r1o.3--Ani1 Kumaf'o'gVot-V Wforxgiy at the credit of his ha cheque for Rs.3,950/-- on

-to hacotteechn.o.5--V.Prasanna Kumar which he _la*§$2te:r__?'e-ucashed ..._0_1i1n12.09. 1981. Aocused no.3--Ani1 Kurnar * ifw1tm:1raw..1§sJ_.:,ooo/-- through a self cheque on 14.09.1981. 'V no.3--Ani1 Kumar secured a cheque leaf N45) of Vijaya Bank, P.G.Ha1Ii from the S.B. Cheque V " VtBoo1«v§V"of PW39-V.Praveen Kumar through his elder brother hhh'-Vhaooused r1o.5--V.Prasanna Kumar. He got it written for TRs.1O.OOO/-- favouring accused no.4-B.S.Papam1a his ,1' - "

Jx; 'L s: ~r%~w A 9 b1-other--in~«1aw by accused no.5--Prasanna deposited for collection in Current Accouiit.:'N:o1"]'"4£is_"iof accused no.4--B.S.Papanna under' the iforgedi'~s.iginature'--wpof f A PW39--V.Praveen Kumar no.2--H.M.Jagadeesh 2é1..V'09.19S1, iichequey was returned in clearing on 9::/15.09p,198IL'~..Accused no.1- Subramanyam of the cheque with the help of a_.ccused;'no;2§ii;.M,Jagadees"h Kurnar preparing and ma1§_ing44uise_-.'oi'vfalse._docuii:er1t,smand manipulating the account Syridicateivﬁank. As a result accused no.<t;§;3.'S,Papari:i§i'a.:got_'"a.,wrong credit of Rs.10,000/-- in his current A.ccC1int., AA~}_ie'~withdrew Rs.9,500/-- on 26.09.1981 ova self''c'heq.ue.

9' no.3--P.Ani1 was maintaining Secured 9' . (3\}erdraftj_,Ai{3count No.22 with Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar. A chieoue book containing cheques leaves Nos.31-4951 to 9031500 was issued to him on 03.09.1981. Accused no.4- B.S.Papanna was maintaining Current Account No.14?» with Syndicate Bank since 1977. A cheque book containing \ »- Lt cheque leaves No.310'776 to 310800 was issued to" him on 21.04.1980. Accused no.4~Papanna left his eh.e(;1|_;u.e41*b0ok with signed cheque leaves with his brotherji.«it--..1ai$7.' n0.3--Anil Kumar. Accused n0.3:Ani1 ,i1Ssu'ed following cheques from these :'b'GfJ1{S.1'i'1't"fé1'.I§)1li1f--7'0f 0 A.Rathan (fictitious person)-.._and 11'd.e115osite:.jV"ithern Bank, Janatha Bazar Brarx10C1*1;' for col1e_0ti0n Eduring the period between 05. 1 1--0_:anV--d 1 I 1 98 1 . §L No._ 1'.314957 _0""314960 "'~3i0786 310787 310789 310793 r_ }s=3i4952d' 'f=d3149$4.'1 'x3i4953.= i'Cheq1.1e'i\E*os; 'Aeeoufit NC; 1330022 SOD 22 SOD 22 SOD 22 SOD 22 CA. 143 CA. 143 CA. 143 C.A. 143 Amount 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 30,000.00 20,000.00 1,000.00 4,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 on 01 "10-. 02 10 Rs.1, 05,000.00 H1Aecused no.3~Ani1 Kumar had also issued the each who deposited them for collection in their banks. * 2- x. *0 L. -

r*~»''.»»-~A~~. .

,9, ., (1 dbfoiiowing cheques in favour of the persons noted against _S_L Cheque Account Amount No. Nos. No. ' ' 10 314953 SOD 22 4,oo3o;oo11Mi;-3:11'? 11 314955 son 22 u.33.0(,o_.o0' iyshnan _ 12 314958 SOD =1.QOG:Ou .__ amanyamV.

":»Mr.S.R.Sub1' ii arnanyarn

13 310791 21030.00

-- -- ',.j''R§.sA1.'3,0oo;oo~' All the above 13V_c'11.eq1.1es:bwe1:§}" received in ciearing in Syndicate Ba11'1ﬁ-hon irarious da.tesV"bet11ieen 06.10.1981 and 20.11.1€-1131 Cgeritrai Bank of India and Can--.ara_ Band};--~f1'he"a.e'Counts of accused no.3~Ani1 Kumar and accused "v.no';.4~B..'S,:t15apanna did not have sufficient b4a1anr:e to "pas's" any of these cheques. Therefore, these .VAc'i1eq'ufes_h'w_ere to be retu1'r1ed in clearing. But accused and accused no.2~H.M.Jagadeesh iiulnar _s*uppressed these cheques without returning, AA Tprez1)va.:}i11g and making use of false documents and * ..n1an1pL1lat1ng the account books of Syndicate Bank. As a result the coiiecting banks presumed that the cheques were honoured and aliowed the parties to w1't.hdraw_funds. Accused no.3--Anil Kurnar withdrew and accused no.1-S.R.Subramanyam withdrew 2-A Apex Bank by self cheques.

Thus accused no.1--S.R,.Subfamar:yaIn, 2 no.2--H.M.Jagadeesh KL1Inar:,4l""accL1sed__ 11o.llI5jPl}'Z»:\Vf1'il"' lfjiumargld accused no.4--B.S.Papanna:.-anhde aecuseld" ' no,.Prasanna Kurnar committed s. 120--B .1'/W 419. 420, 468, 47l"9_nd it/:\iirll.5[1)(d] of P.C.Act, 1947 and IPC and accused »..ar3Cl accused no.2AH.M.Jagadeesh also committed offence ppulnishablesl I'/W 5[1][d] of P.C.Act, 1947. Sanction 2s";£§(1](c] of the P.C.Act, 1947 lor the prosecution of V =;Sh%i';~S';'RE_Ssibfamanyam and H.M.Jagadeesh Kumar was A issued'by:7'$h.ri.J.U.Prabhu, Dy. General Manager, Syndicate AA Bank... "

The accused pleaded not guilty.

l\? <7"4'-,f.- \. x (:3.

.

1.3

5. In order to bring home guilt of accused.,.._prosecution examined PW} to PW43 and documents aslllper Ex.P.395 were marked. On behaullfcf E3x.D.ll were li1a1'k€d. The caseaof F._ccuseti..yis~ one -o'f~..total denial.

6. The learned trial Jiidgewonl'a.ppreciation_.of evidence and on hearing learned convicted and sentenced accused :i""t"o punishable under sections:_4ieSl'O,__ ]___p_,:' IPC and convicted and 2 for an offence punishable under section "5{'1"i{:c1} 5(2) of the Act. it in theseivappeals filed against the judgment of it ' V. clonviction ;~._fol1ow1'ng points would arise for determinations- the prosecution has proved that during _.~th_e4j'..--period between 24.09.1981. and 20.11.1981, 'accused 1 to 5 entered into criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of such criminal conspiracy, accused I to 5 committed forgery of valuable securities by irnpersonation and prepared forged cheques to cause wrongful loss to the Syndicate ..t\; t,..\ if L 'H M ~ 14 Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore make Wro11z'§fu1 gain for themselves i. 1 & 2 being clerks of aforestated..ba.Ani;,, documents of Syndicate ._st1ch' slips, cheques, day books'.pan'dA' and altered day books'-.and subl--day l intent to aid acct1sedll3.,,.to tot Wrongftll gain for them, Ithxereb,}y*"accj1,t:~ede-.l to co1"r1"mitted offences 41.9, 420.

468, 471, 8: 477gs._..I:i?c r/@1203 Vlil5(;f?' (2) ~t}l1'e_1prosectjtionluhas proved that ..acc1i;S'ed ii ' «S; '2v.Vi_w.orking; as public servants in _AlASjvr.id.iclate Indiranagar Branch, l . their official positions to

-__pecnn..ilaIy advantage to themselves and .__,l:the:reby committed an offence Apﬁtlnishvahllle under section 5{i)(d) r/W 5(2) of Prevention of Corrtlption Act, E947?

{3:)i':Nhether the learned trial Judge has properly appreciated evidence on record?

{4} Whether the impugned judgment calls for interference?

{5} What order?"

15 .

8. My' findings on above points and reasons thC1'f;ffOI are as fo11ows:--

Before adverting to evidencehin proof' b it is necessary to consider the by accused. Accused 1 haxre._c[uestici1i'ed; and vaiidity of sanction accordejd to pros~ecfute

9. PW23--Janardhiari«-- ' evidence relating to cornpetencVeV_fq.ac'c_oiid as per Ex.P.7 5 8:

7'6. The'tria:1 C65:-t by;'order"'dated 28.12.1991 has upheld the °san¢1.1on:Pw23 and that order was not chaiiengiedh and order has attained finaiity. Even from _the__evide'11c.e.__o£ PW23 and contents of E)x.P.75 & 76, I ' ;V'1"i.r1d~.atathe"r_e1evant time, PW23 was working as Deputy " i'G'enera'i.v.VMa:=iager of Syndicate Bank, Bangalore Zone and he was competent to accord sanction to prosecute accused 1 8:

it The sanction orders are marked as EX.P.75 8: Ex.P.76. has referred to the report submitted by the Director of T C.B.I. to prosecute accused 1 S: 2. PW23 after going through %"\i a., '< < » 16 the investigation report of C131 and necessary_"do:c:urne.;its has accorded sanction to prosecute accused aforestated offences. The validitymof prosecute accused 1 8: V2 iiegsq Therefore, I do not find in the :'san;c4ti'o11'V:ordersV granted by PW28 to prosecute 1

10. The accused that there is misjoinder;'oi°§hargé.s. =iIt";is"'the':--"Cas;e:&of prosecution that offences ialleged against'.':accused".i"orrr1 series of transactions in p:urs_i1ance of"ci'iInina} conspiracy entered into between them. T_he,series"of t:_ransa'ct;ions took place within a period ofione year.r-.'[_'he'11ear.f1ed trial Judge has framed as many as distinct charges in respect of each transaction and it ._offVeac'esv coinrnit;ted by accused.

1-41. V.__r'Ii'1.:aAdecision reported in AIR 1961 sc 1241, the by yLSu;.).rei:ne Court has he1d:-

"Where the alleged offences have been committed in the course of the same transaction, the limitation placed by 8.234(1) ".\\J" 1 -\... .5; -\_ c .3, 17 cannot operate. Where the offence is have been committed not by just one 2 ' by all the accused. all these perso1"is:*c:ant be jointly tried in respect of 5111 t_hesVe"'«ofI1enc::es..VV«id this kind of charge, s.2"39'w6u1d"';,;5p1,y;. "

would. however, be'_d'e.sirabl'e to ...the charge suitable so that'2'th:e aVccused,_Vl:perso21}1s will not be prej'udiced in_.'ans'vee'1'ing._the charges and in defending theri1_selyes§'i'~';::v

12. Therefo're:',':-.I ifind, «objections raised by accusedi'regardi'n'g._misj,'oindevr_ofipch-arges are not tenable. At thisvvivjuncture, .rel.evant-- state that the matter was pending befo1'eV.trial2bCo_ti1'tfor trial over a period of 21 years. After ch4a1'g_esr..ysJere. framed, accused did not raise any ea.bjec,:ti0r1--s eithe'r""regarding misjoinder of charges or regar'd_ing'Vi'no'n~joinder of charges. in any event, in View of "provisioris_Ailcontained under section 222 Cr.P.C., when prosecution has alleged that accused 1 to 5 hatched _ criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, they cornrnitted aforestated offences in series of transactions which had taken place within a period of one i\* -:','f,7{.;,£"'\c Lglx =~C(ip_\ 18 year, there is neither rnisjoinder of charges nor of charges. The prosecution has alleged All had entered into criminal con-spiracy' '4;'1'.fVore:Stat--e'd A j period. A A A A A A

13. As could be seen A. cxzidence prosecution, the first step in pursuance of criminal conspiracy was to open Savings Bank': xlustate Coeoperative Apex danata Bazaar Branch, K.G2.Roa cl AE$avn.gal<ore= - _ -- A

14. i's~the"ca"sep oflipaflosecution that accused No.3--P.Anil by Vplersonating himself as A.Rathan [a fictitious opened a S.B.A/c.No.68l1 in Apex Bank with accused No.1-S.R.Subrarnanyam, who held c..:§io;5381 in the Apex Bank.

~ ,1_'5. order to prove this fact, prosecution has relied on A the evidence of PW? to PW9, PW14 to PWIS, PW26, PW28, E 5./H

4. 19 V .

16. Before adverting to the evidence of these witnesses, it is relevant to state at thee. relevant time, ._fl\}'r)_..f1 rv S.R.Subrarnanyam and accused yN»o.2--H..PvI.'Jagadish 'Kumar. were working as Clerks in Syndicate' BeanlﬁfIndlrarteagar Branch, Bangalore. Acc11sc:d-.i§lo.3--lP..VAnilV Kt1ma;r.was_i§a Contractor. Accused No.4--B.S>.'Papaunna the owner of an autorickshaw and ac.c.u~sed--'_No-.5;V.Prasanna Kumar was an associate of ac_c11sed'AN.Q:S.'3 f{ccuseVd'l'No.3 was holding current accoun;t»i'and:*--specia1 overdlraftvaccount in Syndicate Bank, lndiranagar.Brarich. -Accused No.4 was also holding a Current. L account ,the 'same bank. Accused No.1 knew accused No..3¥Anil'K11mar. In the circumstances. acts «_c'o¥nrn.itted._by accused No.1 in introducing accused No.3 as it to-_tvhe concerned officials of Apex Bank to enable AaccuVse'd. to open a savings bank account in the said AA gbanka... the name of A.Rathan clearly demonstrates that " .there was criminal conspiracy between accused .1 8: 3. I also find from the evidence on record that accused 3 to 5 had forged cheques and many cheques were drawn in the name

-- 20 of A.Rathan and these cheques were cieared "128:

2, who at the relevant time were working"asﬁcie:9ks.'_finV' Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch';

17. At the relevant time. p.pw15--M;e,sampe:h "K'un1'a1""

working as a clerk in Apex"'vel:.3:an.k, danata.i3as'a.aiVVVBranchi Bangaiore. Acc'used"' ~l}§o.1.e't'an'd.'; nrefe "classmates. Accused No.1 in Apex Bank.

PW15 had as customer to said bank. opening form, wherein sigllgatuifeisxefgpegqii'5pandacclised No.1 are found. PWl5 was not Jiearned counsel for accused.

T1fge1'efore,a itvxproired from the evidence of PW15 that was holding a savings bank account in Apex Bank,'Jainaitaaﬂazaar Branch, Bangalore. relevant time, PW7--K.N.JayaraIn Reddy was 0 'A working as an accountant in Apex Bank, Janata Bazaar '".VBr'anch, Bangalore. On 06.03.1980, PW7 has identified E3x.P.12 dated 06.03.1980, under which one A.Rathan, f :1 v. .--,

1. '\ _' _ (H L x \. \.

{fa

-- 21 introduced by accused No.1~»S.R.Subra1nanyanidotfiened. a savings bank account bearing No.6811 in P.i_§:exjV'Ba1ri{;' savings bank account opening"iorn1«wa.s p«res'ented~tbefore 7. PW7. PW7 opened the account signatures of account IA3.V;.<;.i€.'. 13.A chequebook to the accoun.t'"'hoider*to operate the account. The evidence of

19. The .vef-[idence;:'AVoV1": Rao, who at the relevant. atntiﬁcctountant in Apex Bank, Janata.' Bangalore, would reveal that himself as A.Rathan was operating Sank A/c.No.6811. PWIS has identified . accusced_vt"No.3 as A.Rathan before the Court. PW16 has aV.i§c't1sed No.3 personating himself as A.Rathan {a °§.,ctii'..i'ou-SP'person] was operating savings bank account is _no.z6'8i 1; accused No.3 had credited Rs.4L,0OO/- in the name V' *»o.t5A.Rathan on 06.10.1981; the credit challan was marked E as Ex.P.56; Cheque was passed and proceedings were credited to the account of A.Rathan; PW16 has identified 5'' §'\..: 4-: :7' X x C in»;

',r\._ 22 forged documents as per Ex.P.16 to which were seif cheques drawn by A.Rathan'Vfor money from S.B.Account No.68:1'1"." ' During cross--exan1inationA;'ftfttt relevant time, PW30--StGid'degowda ' Accountant in ApexA,..Bank was of savings bank account; in the was taking care of savings hasfffdenied suggestion that he No.3 as A.Rathan.

is relevant to state that PW16 had no grad no.3 to wrongly identify accused as A.Ra_than. I There are no reasons to suspect the of_PW16.

relevant time, PW8-Shivalingegowda was worktingvas a cierk in Apex Bank. PW8 has identified a self- Vcheque dated 07.12.1981 drawn by' A.Rathan for a sum of Rs.20,000/~ on S.B.A/c.No.6811. Though PW8 has not identified accused No.3 before the Court, the fact remains }'\.' a;::§.- '\ 5-»? ~ 'I

---- 23 S.B.A/c.No.68I1 was being operated in A. Rathan.

21. PW9-M.A.Gu1nrnannawar:i1as'depo'sed.;. atﬂxe re.ie\}'anti f time he was working as a Cashiei=¢_cbu--1_'n--C1er}t.pin.VApe;§"Bar1k. PW9 has deposed; he payrrients Vinwresdpect 5:' cheques marked as EXIP. 3.8',-to

22. On perusai of EX.P.33, I find that these tidy A.Rathan. The signatures had been compared

-of accused No.3 by PW-42- Nareridra expert}. As per the opinion furnished bVy'..1?:§W?12,v'signatures found on these cheques and r,specliincn'.__signatures of accused No.3 sent by the _ "~I_1_1\ie'sti}g=atingV"Officer are in the handwriting of one and the s«an1e_' 'person.

already stated, PW16 has identified accused No.3 A.Rathan. PW16 has deposed; accused No.3 was }\; _(--_g;_,-Q "L. L. 5:. 5

-1,-

24 operating S.B.A/c. bearing No.8811 opened in thepname of A. Rathan.

23. Thus, from the evidence of these witne.sse.sV'aendalso:é from documentary evidence, it is"proved-'uthat"accuVse_d. f d in connivance with accused had ddopened. No.6811 in Apex Bank, Bazaar VBraVnc'h','"'K;G.Road;d' Bangalore, in the narne of..A._Rath-an (a "fictitious person]. Accused No.1, who "k1"1C'JJ QD1.o.;3_as a customer of Syndicate Ba_1'1}:,__ Ind;ii'Vana:'g;ar"Bifanch, .i§anga1ore, had forged account todhdivntroduce accused No.3 as A.Rathan to .s';'s..._:i'A.,/:¢.;No.e811 in Apex Bank. 24»... The duestion as to how funds had ﬂown to ' A "S.«:BfA~,Icj'No.681«iimopened by accused No.3 in the name of be discussed later.

accused having opened personated account in V " ¥A_pe2v§:NBank conspired to present cheques drawn by accused "No.3 either in his own name or in the name of A.Rathan so also cheques drawn by accused No.4 with Syndicate Bank, 'K '\ [K n25 _ Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore. At the relevara-t___ time, accused No.1 was in-charge of current account arid_"'s--p'ecial overdraft account. Accused No.2 was in--charge a and sub-day book. At the releVant~ti.r_ne, f j was working as Manager of S3rndiL--§_atev Branch, Bangalore. The exridence of PN37 no.1 if was in--charge of current accVo.ufnt_an.d overdraft account and accused no.2 was in~?c-haargegot7fd.ay'~book--.. and sub-day book section has notbeen :coI:tr:oveite'd. V

26. ltjs r,he1.:-f.».sfel "prosecution that accused 1 8: 2 being clerks in-'charge account, overdraft account, day and sulba-day book were clearing forged cheques drawn & 4 and also cheques drawn by accused No.3, _ persorlati.ngV.f"VV'himself as A.Rathan by following fraudulent p'1*act1__c' es-1 ~--

to .'=B/Ialiing false entries or altering entries in overdraft slips, sub--day book and day book.

gill. Making false debit entries in the account slips and transfer vouchers of other customers of branch. IX} '£3'-9c ~ 26 III. Withholding of dishonoured cheques. IV. Physical removal and concealment of cheques V' H

27. Regarding physical rem0V'al---.and if cheques by accused 1 & 2 we haiie Aevidenvgg-. pf ib:li'ouv"ving W1'tnesses:--

PW41--~Shakuntha1a, i.\...'fj~..pw4--U;Harish,A,.7 PW6-- K.Vive kananda Hegde -- Kamath.

28. PW-41--Sriakun;tl*iala:':isl'the._Vy'o'un;€gelr sister of Wife of accused ldepodsed; at the relevant time, accused Nov. as a Clerk in Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar lBranggi»Wléahgalore; accused No.1 is the husl:)aI1dl"efV_VherV"elder sister by name Indumathi; PW-41 was visiting housel"'of.__aCcused No.1 on Saturdays; on one such >.occasi<A).n., when PW-41 visited the house of accused No. 1, she __ A.sis.ter was crying and she was in a disturbed * Anioodf 'e§flA1I.elA1's'x. VPW41 asked her sister, she told that accused A seai'ch' for accused No.1, but she could not find 1__ii.rn and No.l..__'l1a-s«--l"lnot turned up on previous night; she tried to _/.

ix: 'a ~- 5::-s': » 3.

_ also told that something had terribly gone ,5' " :_.

branch of accused No.1.

PW-41 and Indumathi, :WiAfe'"c.f& i1cc}.1sed._N0*;:1 Hmetfi'. PW37--K.S.Ka1nath, the then off'S';yndVic.atcf'Ba11k, Indiranagar Branch, Banga1dre._iybon énqum} that there were certain ,---p.r0b1ern*sV:.. 'tithe brfarich.-fiandled by accused No.1; on cérfaiii§:i_a§,}:ir1rf'{.1j¢:month of December 1981, PW't37::"'.risitedV' accused No.1 and reqiiesteti tgf No.1} to search for sorne she searched and she couilvdéndt documents; PW41 returned back; some of"the* staff fserscnnel of Syndicate Bank came to the of 'uni1:.h' a chit written by lndurnathi, wherein it ' dd\;gas«..5fatved"'that some cheques were kept by said Indurnathi " . hinthef fof PW-41 and asked PW4 1. to hand over them to those; staff members; PW4I opened her purse, to her if 'fsnrprise found some cheques: she handed over cheques to the staff of Syndicate Bank. PW37 has identified these ), .! cheques as Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.98. 1 \; K x.. 6' \,'., = (6., ya... '

--- 28

29. On perusal of contents of Ex.P.8 to Ex..P.._1*]._V and Ex.P.98, I find that these cheques were No.3 on his current account held Bvéillkb favouring A.Rat.han. E:-<.P.8 - cl:teque4jdat'eed':e.vt*as 9' drawn by accused No.3 for a surr1gol"--Rs.1Ov,3UO9/L. cheque dated 05.10.1981 by accusVed':No:;{l for a sum of Rs.1,000/-- in favo':u'r_of 9'Ex.P. 1999- cheque dated 06.10.1981 drawn by accused» of Rs.4,000/-- and Ex.P.1;l?g:.c}1equ_e drawn by accused No.31 forlAa'l;'su_rdv.ot'--.13{s;V1O,OOO/--. Ex.P.98 ~ cheque dated 19.1,1.1:981 d1*aw1f11 on'ou1*re1'1t account held by accused No.3 for a sum of"'Rs';'2C; favourin A.Rathan [a fictitious person) pe1 sona.ted_ by? accused No. . These cheques were presented forblcolle-ztion in Apex Bank and they were 1' Vi'ece1'Ejer:iby Syoldliwcate Bank for clearance. The cheques 1 been in the Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar " A9Brl'an'ch:;"Bauiigalore. On the other hand, we find that these so Veaccused No.1] through accused no.1. cheques-bad reached the hands of PW41 [sister of wife of i . ,1' 2; '\,' \_ ____ .. Q g \.M,<C(.,:

---- 29

30. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the evidence of PW37--K.S.Kamath, who at the relevant was working as Manager of Syndicate Banl;,;"""Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore.

31.. PW37--K.S.Kamath has 1:dept_):sec;1;"';gg oh'....24,,v1V:i';1VV9s«1, 7 accused No.1 was on leave _and o~neW]\/Irs. gMlira"Kuriihal:oti.

was in--charge; While tallyingV"i9:ccountsVon some differences were foui'1'd..g in Icurre-nt Vaccountslifand overdraft acco'u"nts';-- locatethe difference; she noticed that zsorne of the'i'.cheq2uesV.--~were missing. In order to verify whetheri"'chec;uevs were" in the custody of accused No.1, and another"clerk of Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar V the house of accused No.1 and met his wife. WAccused*'fNo'.1 was not in the house; his wife was in the hou.se;«:_she pleaded her ignorance; again in the evening, two clerks visited the house of accused No.1 and brought five fgchﬂequesz PW37 has identified cheques as per Ex.P.8 to ' E1X.P.l.] and E3x.P.98. These cheques had been received from / i "}'\: c.t'"z?" L \. C\.= t_ 30 Apex Bank, Janata Bazaar Branch, clearance to Syndicate Banh, Bra.nch,. Bangalore. H B B it he

32. It is obvious that cheques loy the name of A.Rathan (a fic't:7.tiot1_s person)' Eva/erfe presented for collection in said cheques were sent for clearance B'anI{A#:_'I_;1'{iiranagar Branch, accused No'. not make necessary entries. fraudulent transactions, accused Noel in the house of sister of his wifev{'P&Vi/'41)_ . doctimentary evidence, when these chequeshilvere._c]ea:ed'"'Vby accused No.1, there was no S:tiiffiQi_€:3Iit,_ ba1ance~~in"the current account held by accused 3 ' in:Syi1dicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore. On accused No.4 had presented a cheque dated 24i.O9L.'!:_981 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-- drawn in favour of 2 accused No.4. The cheque was sent for collection to Vijaya Guttahalli Branch, Bangalore. However. it was J"'\v 1. L. \x_'{'m _ --31 returned, as there was no sufficient fund in the account on which cheque was drawn.

33. It is the case of prosecution that this to PW39--Praveen Kumar, whojis "rhea 3iou.nger._brotherﬁofbT. accused No.5. It is the case ofprcvsecution that No.5 had clandestinely ta1V<:en:'.ti'<1e cheque ir§'::i"";:§5é'seésion of PW39, without his knowledge afndtvhandedi ovexythe same to accused No.3. who iorged' e.,PW39 to draw a cheque for a of favour of accused No.4. ,during the year 1981, he was a student';i"'a.ccu55..C.]~ his elder brother; they were living to}gel;hVei';V._ PWt§9'v};--n«ew accused No.4. but he had not given ' any favour of accused No.4; in fact he was not i' . operating account. PW39 has deposed; signature found on is not his signature; PW39 had not issued cheque 2 it has, per Ex.P.1 in favour of accused No.4. During cross--exarnination. PW39 has deposed that accused No.5 is his elder brother; PW39 never used to lock 5 ,-- ,.

\ x. '\_'L xi-

_«,. f

---- 32 cheque book; during the year 1981, PW39 were living together in the house of Koramangala. Accused No.5 wasmaware of thel"f3.1a.ce*V4where 7 PW39 had kept his cheque bool;.:__ accused No.3 is the couslin~v:.rjll:5i<other of and he was frequently visiting thei;l'"rioti'sel}"-vi..l§urir1g"the§year 1981, accused No.5 was years and he was also has admitted that accused,l\To'.3 llwa--s"ajbflilding'lfcontractor. At the relevant time';llPW'3Elv5was:;'holding a account bearing No.7394 in Vijayal Guttahaili Branch. As on

24._(_)9.1948V1," a.rniouAI1_tl's'tanding to the credit of PW39 in a sum of Rs.9.30/-- {Rupees Nine and A only). The evidence of PW39 has not been l A corltroverted.

r 34.. "V--PW1--P.Ba1akrishna has deposed; at the relevant time, A *hel'lwas working as a clerk in Vijaya Bank, Palace Guttahally Branch, Bangalore. PW]. has deposed about procedure for clearance of cheque. PW]. has deposed; cheqne as per 5V \, "K {A 3., tgf

-f,.-

-« 33 Ex.P.l drawn in favour of accused No.4 had been-received in Vijaya Bank, Palace Guttahalli Branch, Bai'i,<Vg'al_o:e',v.,4for clearance on account bearing No.?'394, whic,h"'.olf. 4_ Rs.9.30/». Therefore, cheque _.~was endorsement "refer to drawee".

35. At this juncture, It is'l"releVant to.l_st'a;e thatlllaccused No.4 had credited cheque (i§§rl.I31.i:4to"i'1*1is current account in Syndicate Bank, lndiranagayVlil'Bra.n.ch.ithough cheque had been returned*«wi't.h an endorsernefn.t 'irejfer to drawee". It was not brotighltvto. th:e'rnoti_ce"--oI' the Manager of Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar lﬁlagtilglgalore, by accused No.1, who was in'-gfcharge of"'c.u_rrent account section. On the other hand, on of cheque, accused No.1 permitted accused A a sum of Rs.9,500/--. This was contrary to normal' -banking practice. In the normal course, on , orese'nta.tion of a cheque, the collecting bank would send it ﬂoheque for clearance. If cheque is cleared, on receipt of credit voucher, amount. would be credited to the account of drawee. Accused No.4 has no case that he had availed over f\; x ~ Etna \_ .

-- 34 draft facility. Therefore. conduct of accusedV--'"Ngo.1 in permitting accused No.4 to withdraw from when cheque was sent for collection there was conspiracy between ae'c'used. ord'ers_to covergup f V this lapse. accused No.1 altered _ti"1.e"

voucher relating to account _:o'f~.1_3W2AO'--J__.Necdvhiniiariiiai

36. At the relevaiitj i20--.J.Neevdhirnanna was holding current account'n--lii1b__lf~Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar 'iﬁraliichsBan--galore'.'VlPW2_Cllhas deposed; he had borrowed ;=50,(§OO/-- for construction of house; therefore, the had" separate loan account: he was required 'pay Rs.2,0_:OOd/~ towards repayment of loan as per loan «_:agree'rner1't..._executed by him in favour of bank. PW2O has had given standing instructions to debit R.s.2V.__O0'-Of» pm. from his current account to loan account:

_ however at no point of time he had given instructions to V' =debit a sum of Rs. 12.000/-- from his current account to loan account ?'"\,' a (gt. A. .. .

V 'deposed;

S. R.SubramaI1ya1'n. ?"'=~- "

~ 35

37. The evidence of PW3--Mrs.P.S.Bo11amma_x"an.d'i;§?V.{5c Shalini George would establish modus operaridi of 1 81 2 to cover up deficiency in clearance of Ex..P.b"i_VfoVr' siim id. ofRs.10,000/~.

PW3~P.S.Bo11arnrna 'V depio'sed--;:W"' "Pw2o! J.NeedhiInanna hadopened.----a:.current accountand he had instructed to from his savings account to loan voucher dated

25.O9.1Q8V]f"»v of Rs.2,000/~ from curi"ent--. 'i to his loan account as per V\/'hen EX.P.7 was brought to thje notice it was only for a sum of Rs.2,000/--. 'V.Accused.N'o.,1 was inwcharge of current account in Syndicate ._ Branch, Bangalore. PW3 has deposed that ».aInci1nt mentioned in transfer voucher as per Ex.P.7 A. ,vgrasVV'a..1tered from Rs.2,000/-- to Rs.12,000/--. PW3 has Ex.P.7 bears initials of accused No.1-- i (i F" Xk.5'.i~,a.

,.., ,_ 35 _

38. At the relevant time, PW5~Shali'ni George was working as a clerk in Syndicate Bank, Incliranagar Vjﬁranch, Bangalore. PW5 has deposed; PW20 had instructions to transfer a sum of current account to his loan acv¢¢5L1m;« if transfer Voucher and sending toffcorrent section. , _ - __ .> PW5 has deposed thate.shievv_vro.te figuresHRs}.2,OO0/« at two places; numerical one 'ap}oea1'i11g..before numerical two in two places"Vare. handwriting. PW5 has identified signature__ of f at EX.P.7(a}.

notice x'fr'ornftransfer Voucher as per Ex.P.7 dated A altered from 24.09.1981. to 25.09.1981 so it also a Rs.2,000/-- is altered to a sum of Rs.12,000/-. this juncture, it is relevant to state that cheque as f Ex.P.1, which was drawn by forging signature of PW39 in favour of accused No.4 was presented in current account of accused No.4 in Syndicate Bank on 24.09.1981. Accused No.1 had credited a sum of Rs.10.000/ - into -«tl1--le_"'cu'rrent account of accused No.4 to enable accused m;.4 tolwithidraw a sum of Rs.9,500/-, withou_t....waiting""fora'.f;:l_earance._V ﬁr. cheque. It is necessary to reca.1l':.asfor1'V24l.'O9; standing in the credit accou'ntz held'~hy was..Rsl.9.3O'/It and cheque had been return_ed,wit_h an'endo1's_e3ment "refer to drawee". The entries"made2.j1n tlyeﬁtransfer voucher as per Ex.P.7 were carriedinto:'debtt=,slipV_gaccused No.2. This fact has

39. The .lelarfn.ed counsel" appearing for accused No.2 would "a.ccused No.2 was expected to make entries in day .book of debit slips sent to him and he was not ' .resp_onsible--..for alterations made in Ex.P.7-transfer voucher. As':aVlr'eady stated date of the transfer Voucher as per Ex.P.v'l?;*;. so also words reflecting the amount were altered. date was altered from 24.09.1981 to 25.09.1981 and lfthe amount was altered from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.l2,000/-. In the circumstances. the innocent conduct of accused No.2 .(f L L.» f.

38 would have been to bring the same to the notice_.'ofu:ManVager of Syndicate Bank, lndiranagar Branch, Bangalore':

No.2 despite noticing these mateVri_al altei'ati:onjS"vniade.Vbyz accused No.1 had made entries'~.shQwriri'g th_e"a:n1o'ui:'it..ii11;_the transfer voucher as Rs.ViV2',«QV00/;;-.. .52 '11El,VC:¥_i' adopted this fraudulent deVic"e._f:o;r_tally.'purgﬁosei at the end of day's transactions'*tl1e'd__ba;nl»r. " ~--.. _' ~ bl ' a _

40. Thus from thg...evifid.enC¢i~._ transaction which had resulted g.ain4dorfVRs'.9';'5OO/-- to accused No.4 and', wro11gfui':"'----Rs;9,500/-- to Syndicate Bank, IndiranagarVVBran'ch," Eangalore, by fraudulent clearance of forged. chec1nu'e:l:3vX.PfVi, we find involvement of accused 1 to evidence of PW39, it is clear that cheque leaf Vmarked-as EX.P.1 was accessible to accused No.5, who is _ Vcnonewother than the brother of PW39. in View of close it re.l'ationsl1ip between PW39 and accused No.5, there are no F reasons to suspect his evidence. PW39 has categorically ~ 39 deposed that signature found on Ex.P.1 is not his siguiature and it is a forged signature. The cheque was sum of Rs.1O,OOO/A, favouring accused NO..4j',"'aVV,hO:i's.1%6lEitQ';i' » to PW39 and accused No.5. Fromghthei'opinion-iof expert, signature found on EX.P.1 and's_tar1dar.'d of accused No.3 are of one andlthe sarriepelrsolii. Accused No.4 has no case that"PW39.;d'vvho: studentheld a sum of Rs. 10,000/-- in his No.4 had requested lend ~ by drawing eheqiuellllasc' already stated, PW39 being the younger' No.5 and close relative of accused woVuld"l_3e"ieast disposed to give false evidence .-- V, again;-3ir,A accused 'n'o:3Vto 5. Accused No.1, who was in--charge *of"cur'rent ''account on receipt of cheque as per EX.P.1, even for clearance, credited a sum of Rs. 10,000 / - to the";_current account of accused No.4, who promptly avvithdrew a sum of Rs.9,500/«. After the return of cheque Vl;(Ex.P.1] with an endorsement as "refer to drawee bank", accused No.1 should have reversed entries in current _, 43 _ account of accused No.4. Accused No.1 let alone reversing entries even did not bring the same to the notice-e:"o_f the Manager of Syndicate Bank, indiranagar Bangalore. Accused no.1 had concealed.~t--he_':cheqneAas__per EX.P.l. Accused No.2. despiteizynotjcing accused '' had forged entries in traiisier yo.1ich,er z=-,s'u'h' altering date from amount from Rs.2,000/-- to 1_2_,'oo_o*/§[§i.},id~--,promlpi1yx carried the entries to subfday booliyford the end of days transactions 37: V ' «We have"eyidenc'e»,.otl customers, Whose debit slips and cheques had altered by accused No. '1. V '*._:_"t,"'the'*--.relevant time, PWlI--S.V.Muralidhar was in 'd A charge Ni/s.Batra 8: Company, Bangalore Branch. PW1 1 has deposed; M / s.Batra <32: Company, Bangalore Branch had current account in Syndicate Bank, lndiranagar Branch, Bangalore; on 16.10.1981, he had given an application as per EX.P.35 to obtain a demand draft for a sum of ~ 43.

Rs.1,512/--; as such he had obtained DD. for a sum of Rs.1,512/«; however. in the corresponding ent14y_V'io.f'd~t_he sub--day book was aitered to make it appear _ was issued for a sum of Rs.11,5141/5. '*~ contents of Ex.P.4E5 [debit s1ip),:=.so EX.P.35 [application for demand slip corresponding to Ex.P.35. debit' aniiount was altered from Rs.1,512;/?"g«--to by accused No.1. This altered entry was p_r_on1.pt.§:} c_ari*ied'tov--.s'11b--day book by 'was~.dishonestES/ done by accused 1 81 2 with dated 15.10.1981 as per EX.P.11. cheq1_1e'~.a:s<per Ex.P11 was drawn by accused a_s11muVofvRs..«10,OO0/~ on his current account with ' Syiidicatc Indira Nagar Branch, Bangalore, favouring A..Rathan*.V-V'.j{aVA'.1'fictitious person}. As per the opinion of handwfiting expert, signature found on Ex.P.11 is in the 2 Ahang:piw1;'iti11g of accused No.4. in that way a forged cheque

1) drawn by accused No.4 in the name of A.Rathan V Hddpresented for coiiection in Apex Bank by accused no.3 was m Q4 ./i\,\_ 5%-1.»,

- My --42 received for clearance In Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore was promptly cleared by accu.s'e.d*--No.1 by resorting to aforestated fraudulent were aided by accused no.2 by cyarrying-the"alterled'_'entr_ies~ up to sub--day book.

42. In the discussion evidence of PW2O t,o..show-**'that ltrans1'ler'v~oucVher as per Ex.P.'7 was altered froinw, in order to cover up a forged cheque which in. has'Vbee3{di_sl1onoured by Vijaya Bank, Palace Guttahallli Bran ¢h;.'A'B.e{ﬁ--g"a'1§re. RK[22--rX.'Sl1«a%;oor Sait has deposed; he had presented ' aha=sei£;che'que---_for a sum of Rs.3,000/--, issued by A.L.Batra '' .toWards.l'Vo'f expenditure as per Ex.P.61; he had drawn the arnoulnt.

PW32~f<'rancis has deposed; at the relevant time, he was working as a Labour Contractor in M/s. Voltas: he had a current account: in Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch. 7 gr\ .

~ 43 Bangalore, during 1981 and 1983; PW32 had drawn a self cheque for a sum of Rs.1,200/-- as per EX.P.69, the signature of PW82 and seal of FABRICATIONS; however, in themcorrespo1vltﬁ;§§..2ie}3it the amount was altered by accu=sed._-1\lofv1ufroinal Rs.'Il.::2.00[~:lto 8. Rs.6,200/~». 8 ll 8 .8 8 8 3 8 It is seen from }3a§.P.69, and corresponding debi't;.:'_s'li.p, tor a sum of Rs.1,200/--. the jslip, it is altered to Rs.VF5,'2"0'0,<';}i, is contents of Ex.P.9, it was drawn for a sum of..Rs'.1,V0D0',*?_--d 05.10.1981 in favour of A.Rathan. fron?1'contents of Ex.P.10, the cheque was drawn ﬂ.lli"or_ Rs.4,000/- on 06.10.1981 in favour of current account held by accused No.4 in Sv11dlicatve Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore. These A llchceques were presented by accused no.3, personating as 1;-\."I-Qathan in Apex Bank and they were received for collection 8 in Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore. The said " _- /5 NIH 44 _ cheques were promptly cleared by accused the entries in corresponding debit slips of no. 104. The amount in debit s1ip"oi' j was aitered from Rs.1,200/--

had carried these altered to L At this juncture, it to state that accused No.2 was in--charge that day. Accused No.1 had rernoved the'se1L§15¢q4;esf' and Ex.P10) from bank and in the house of his sister--in--1aw [PW4'1'lb'ha}{untt:;a1, thehuditscussion made supra, I have referred to evic}.e'::=:cev«o'f"---.E?:W41. Accused No.1 having issued credit vouchers'v.for._c1earance of these cheques, in order to good ddefieiency that occurred. due to clearance of t C'sx,1:*9:'a:§1aﬁ1«:x_p1o had altered debit slip of PW32 [Current Ac'count'c:'jNo.V1O4) from Rs.1,200/~ to Rs.6,200/~. Accused No..2Rin connivance with accused No.1 had made entries in the sub--day book to make it appear that cheque for a sum Rs.6,200/-- was issued on current account No.104 held T by PW32. N 5: «M

---45

45. PW34~E.Nagaraj and PW35~Ramac'handra.lBlll -ilzefe partners of a firm by name M/s.'Ramachand'ra T. "which had a special overdraft account lcleariilgf SOD in Syndicate Bank, Indiranaga--rQ:Branch', Ba"ngal5ore;.F PW34 & I-'W35. havexr.de:;5'ose'd;. as j:)ler-uledlger extract marked as Ex.P.70; ~ was transferred from SOD however, in the debit transferred is " in debit slip dated amount is altered from Rs.6,(A)l()OL:/l-- SOD No.26 Was opened by M,g's:Glokull Sertfice Station, of which PW34 8: PW35 were _par'tn'ers._l 1981, accused No.3 had presented a cheque drawnav'for.:l~v'a sum of Rs.10,000/s in Apex Bank, Janata ABazaar"Branch, Bangalore. The cheque was drawn on 'Syndicate Bank, indiranagar Branch, Bangalore and cheque to V __was received for clearance in Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore. Accused No.1 had not sent the cheque }~\; 1. \ {f i.

~ 46 after clearance. however amount was account of accused No.3. In order to coveruﬁ- in debit slip marked as ft Rs.6,000/-- to Rs.16,000/--._ b A» T t t A. b PW35--Ran1achandra = depose~r1_;:

Brothers, of which he partne1"s held SOD account No.37 and for a sum of Rs.9,000/ Bank, Indiranagar Branch,;J3angai-or'e..VTh:e__ :.am_o'{_1n't: of Rs.9,000 / -- mentioned in chefqvuet" atndhﬂfigures was altered from Rs.£§";0(j0_/--V --. The cheque is marked as Ex_.P.7 It"PW'35_has'--deposed that he had drawn a cheque for of Rs.'9',800/-- and not for Rs.19,000/--; numerical ' "£"igure "1ﬂpr_efixed before numerical '9'. It-Visraseen from evidence, on the same day accused Nuo..3t presented a cheque for a sum of Rs.l0.000/- 2 AA tdrawn on SOD A/c.No.22. In order to clear said cheque--Ex.P.7.£, the amount mentioned was inﬂated from Rs.9,000/-- to Rs. 19,000/-- by accused No. 1.

'1.\(:'V lo--R (CA1; *

--a 4'7

46. PW38--M.Ramak.rishnan was manufacturer. PW38 was runnirig"'hi~s.busiriess"in thenaine T. and style of M/s.West Coast Gleneraln deposed; accused No.3 shop. ce-rtailnlllday the year 1981 to purchase-«----turniture; laccu-sedl No.3 had placed orders for a cheque for a sum of Rs.3.OO0/2' cheque ivas" lllorgciearance in Canara Bank, Oka.}i'puriarrx Branch; the same was realised.

47. iyasnzlorking as a clerk in Canara Bani{;'-edlkalipxiraiii. Bangalore. On 06.11.1981, he had received'aVchequedoearing No.3lO4955 for a sum of Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch, ' ;Banga._lore;«cheque was cleared and amount was credited to .S'.l:3;A/lC.Pil'0:_.'l7.;5§lr«l54 held by PW38; relevant entry made in outward. clearing register is marked as Ex.P.83. 3' Accused No.1 had cleared the cheque drawn by accused no.3 though sufficient funds was not available in af\';- \. 'i {ft x V j'-..furniiture' ,. A'...-... -' i\' 43 SOD Account of accused No.3, altered OG from Rs.2,105.85 to Rs.5,105.85.

48. PW4O~V.S.Bal1' was the Proprietor Enterprises. During the year;1__98O hand' hoiding current account No.C')dD._TE30_ ind' Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bang;aloreA;h"heA Vreceivedva telephone bill for the month of October '1: ft-rs: of Rs.239/--; therefore he dretxx,/._§'.che_qug Rs.239/~ as per Ex.P.49 anciéttissuedt:?the"=sarne:':;n"*:favour of Post Master, Indiranzélgarl 1 "

It seen '~contents of Ex.P.49, as the Words indicating arﬁo1_int..for thewcheque was drawn for a sum of 'ht"=55Ru1a--eesi.j-~.Two Hﬂtindred Thirty Nine only"; however, n1i;n_e1'£caI.S~vrr1en't}oned In the corresponding column are a1te;;§a fron1't:$§st::239/~ to Rs.3,239/~. Lsee from the evidence of above witnesses [other 'fcL1:sto'Ine-rs of bank] none of these witnesses was cross~ examined by learned counse} for accused 1 to 5. Therefore, their evidence has remained uncontroverted. Above all, 7 / _-

'\" L x 'A7 I;-,.. .

/4 particular.

-49 witnesses namely J.Needhimanna, PW34-- E. N agaraj, M.Ramakrish.nan & PW40--tV.$.Baii"hvaVe given' reference to documents.

49. Thus, from §ra1.Vi"ea.»ia¢::~¢§; witnesses and documents pertaining"to" it is clear that accused enﬁgesvinttdddebit slips and also figuresin presented by accused No.3im accused No.3 did not have sufficient 4'fund's_iVi'tnA' account. Accused No.2 alte1'ed._entriesA'ir1'subsday book to make it appear that there . V. - 'were discrepancies in transactions of the bank at the end

50." We "also notice from documentary evidence, in Cheques and entries in sub--day book that ".:£h'eq'ues drawn by accused No.3 in the name of A.Rathan [a ""'"1'ictitious person) so also cheques drawn by accused No.-ft K;

;,\; 5}':--. L « {Tw-

PWI 1~S.V.Mu1'alidhlaH19,' P'\?".«'2O.-V PW22--A.Shakoo1' Sait; .. .j}':?iV\f:32:~»l?ran_cis'; d PW35--Ran1ac.haﬁdi*a..:i2,',5 '' «:.,.,,_PW$'i - f.:.

m{_?' J---- 5

---- 50 were presented for collection by accused no.3 When cheques were received for clearancejii Bank, Indiranagar Branch," "AiBang_a'i.ore';" uh}./ere» 7.

dishonestly cleared by accused sufficient funds in the heid 4.

order to cover thvese. deéfitiir-;:1."ylvr_:Cies;c.yydebit'"slips of other customers had been figures in sub-day booi§:i*ov1'_ i\io.2 in connivance with entries in sub--day booL:"to'r*1iaE::"e of the day's transactions there were .no'd:'isAcVIepéancies between credit entries and debit entries, ' M . S The details of cheques honoured by accused No.1, whichwere lnotyretuvrned after cheques were Cleared, are as . 'V'j.--01iO"'fS.:."'g ' 4VCr£?):f:'_ij..1.i981, accused No.3 drew a cheque bearing ii a sum of Rs.1(),O(}O/w in favour of A.Rathan on No.22 of Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch, .. B_'ar1gal¢ore. Accused No.3 personating himself as A.Rath'an, ﬁx: c~:E;(' L \t..{!:\t. (Ego as 51 presented cheque for collection in Apex Bank. Accused No.1 after receiving the cheque for clearance in Bank, Indiranagar Branch. Bangalore, cleared suppressed cheque. The same ' 1.

in respect of cheque bearing No.3 for a sum of Rs.30,00i)/€j~V..V_ A it it A A On 13. 1.1.1981. accused..."gNoi3gA.had a cheque bearing No.314952 » and a cheque bearing No.31'ré3:.9_.58 ~ in favour of A.R,a"than' werelmﬁvresented for collection by accused The said cheques were received for cleairancedg byAA'-._accnnsed No.1 in Syndicate Bank, l.nt£irar1agar Bran--c-11;' Bangalore. Accused No.1 cleared the ' ;.Vc11eq"u.esr.;Tlrie---.said amount was credited to the account of .'.A'.'I{dath«an...'j_ Similarly, on 20.11.1981, accused No.3 drew a for Rs.20,000/~ on his SOD account No.22 in favour 1' of'«--A.Rathan. Accused No.3 personating himself as A.Rathan AV'§p'i'esented the cheque for collection. in Apex Bank. The 'cheque was sent for clearance to Syndicate Bank. F'\...»'. g .1 » Ci-» .

52 Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore, though available in SOD account held by accused was cleared by accused no.1 3"n"'oi'der'l--.to discrepancies, accused No.1 accused No.2 carried thesleﬂalteredh"entries book. it 1 On 11.09.1981,' drawn for a sum of Rs. / -- /s.Girija Traders was Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore._Dl'1n Bolokjll the amount is shown as Rs..':")vV,V"1,6l4.._4»l9/.--ll debited was Rs.164.49/--. This was"done, cle:a1*~-"cheque presented by accused No.3. cherjues----«bearing Nos.6971'79 and 697198 dated ' .f'24.o8.,:1*9_8.1:fand 31.07.1981 drawn by M/s.Girija Traders ".fe;-la Rs.35,427.46/-- and Rs.37,000/-- respectively on 291/ c.No.23 of M/s.Girija Traders were presented in 2 'Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore. The 0G slips relating to said cheques were altered, so also 1 corresponding entries in sub--day book. On 16.10.1981.

-53 accused No.3 drew cheque bearing A/c.No.22 in favour of A.Rathan for a sumilof and cheque was received by ac'cus'e*d. N'o.1_.an'd'._it wégs not' T if returned after clearance. However, credit s'l1'p'~Wa.s s_e13t§"ln order to cover up this miscl1i_ef;~ slip llaltered from Rs. 1,51,86'7.4Q,.--to f1'1;iisv~is..e*lrident from contents of 0G siip .16. 10. 1981, which bears signature of ~ 1

51. Eng. ° above documentary ev"iclenc_e; if has relied on oral evidence of officialsynof the witnesses were working as officials in Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore if i , and lsomeof them were working as officials in the Divisional A _ :lofbl_Sy.if1dicate Bank; at Bangalore. fraudulent actiwties committed by accused 1 8: 2 1 '' .ar1dlalte1'ations made in sub--day book and transfer voucher 7_d'sii:ps were brought to the notice of PW23--Janardhan 77 54 _, General Manager in Syndicate Bank, Bangalore_Zone;':J§V'J23 informed the matter to PW.10~Vathsala Pant, at relevant time was working as Djvisi'on.al 'Manalgelr in'Cen'tral T 1 Accounts Office, Syndicate Banl{:7Bangalore'_ '~ .

53. PW10~\/athsala Pant'~.,.uT1:1a.s de.§po.s.ed.;.:j'Qr£'--fi'éi;"1é.1981', PW10 visited Syndicate..i""'11at1l§Vf-2.ylndilraii-agar Branch. Bangalore and veriﬁed ledger and overdraft subwday boo§.{;s.._. the relevant time, accused€.No"..2V of making entries in sub~__day~ x'c'.---ay -1 book; PW10 found several discrepagncieslin made in 0G slips and subwday books'. by accused No.2 had been transferred to Bank, HAL Branch, Bangalore; accused No.2 was "-lsecure'dVy_an"dV*'he was questioned about alterations made in 'sub--Vday-ilo"ook and 0G slips on detailed Verification of entries 1 _1nad'e-- 'in siib~day book and 0G slips, PW10 submitted a 1' '~rei3ort. dated 14.12.1981 to the Deputy General Manager in F Syndicate Bank, Bangaiore Zone [PW23}. In the report marked as EX.D.3, PW10 has stated about cheques, which J ~ 55 were honoured without there being sufficient I-'unds in the current account of accused 3 8: 4 and alterations. in sub--day book and 0G 167 slips for tally purpt'o:se'.'A"--. :"

At this juncture, it is necessary' to state is per Ex.D.3 came into _existe'n_ce',,_ rnuchtA"be'fore«"<firstt information was lodged against' accuse --- 1.

54. PWIO has 11af'r.r:ﬁ:3(ﬁ ;a1teI31tion's.t.'i1a__OG 167 slips were carried out after ei1tAr.ies_ '--we're :.pmadeV'IVnp~daybook. Accused No.2:'"was c1a§}'b'o:§i:. At the first instance, accused No.2 pl'e:aded_.i.gi1orai1ce and later stated that at the instance"oftavcciu-.sed~'No. 1. he had made such alterations. evxhaus't'ively' speaks about manipulations made by ' » accusecl at the instance of accused No.1. PWlO was .'.s'ubjecte'Vd.'j_ to extensive cross--examination. However, PWIO has rei.terated that manipulation of entries made in sub--day it ~ book and OG 167 slips was for tally purpose. During cross--exa1nination of PWIO, OG slips marked as Ex.D.4 ('St EX.D.5 were brought into existence after entries h L. éftk 1', .2»;

, 5 5 were made in daybook and after obtaining....si'gnature_of concerned officer. PW10 has ruled out of other bank officials manipu1ati.r1§Vehtr_ie--s in and T. sub--day book.

55. At this juncture, it isV"ar:eievant state ltlgiatllaccused No.2 was the custodian daybook and he was responsible in sub-day book and Claybool:.'::,i%'iccused away by raising defence altered or manipulated entries in If that was so. accused No.2 should have "these .alterations to the notice of his official s4u'p'er.iors.V has deposed; after taking total in sub-day book, .AVjivNritten in 0G slips and thereafter entries are A carried' book.

on "V----Ai:?.'ron1 the evidence of PWIO, we find entries in day it 'book and current account. entries in 0G slips and sub--day books were altered to make good deficiency that occurred ;'\..s. 'L\ 5 C"

J :7\ ~ 57 due to clearance of cheques, which in fact should' 'hav.efb'ee11V returned for want of sufficient funds in" 'thefaccour_1ts_ of accused 3 81 4.

57. PWIO has deposed;Vfatp:"'the reievant was working as Divisional,Manage'ruVin*Ce'ntraI'Accounts Office of Syndicate Bank, given evidence relating to cheques <3: 4, favouring A. Rathan___ {a operandi adopted by PWIO has deposed:

._is'1edger extract of accused No.3. From I find during period between OI_.p9.1.981 anc1fV2'8.()::9.1981, cheque amount was credited ,;,)Qk" hiééfifiaéiéount even after return of cheques, Without tciearancepandventries were not reversed. On the other hand, after Clearance of cheques, entries in 0G slips and sub--day nbookz were altered for tally purpose. From the current ~..acc.oiunt extract of accused No.4 bearing A/c.No.CA I43 .. Vfnarked as Ex.P.64, I find on 23.09.1981. a sum of Rs.I0,000/-- was credited to his account. On 26.09.I981,_. ~ 58 accused No.4 had withdrawn a sum of balance as on 26.09.1981 was a sum of then, I find that accused No.4 ha>d"'drawAr1 T. favouring A.Rathan (a fictitiotis<._' received for clearance .

Branch, Bangalore

58. At the relevant was working as Special, "SI-Bank, Indiranagar Branch.;'PVl.l_l.8AA"Vé'wias: of savings account secti__on._ to the end of June 1983. Therelafter; ilindscildiarge of current account section. l3,was in said branch till the end of June 1983. ., , l3_--R.Nagaraja has given evidence with reference t.o 9"'._"F;;;fP';2£8..,"__s§;;P.e2. Ex.P.65 to EX.P.69 & Ex.D.7. PW13- R---.Nag'araj:'a has deposed; entries in inward clearing register .. as per:Ex.P.é,1.5 are in the handwriting of accused No.1, so 9' ''- VV'E1ES'O OG slip marked as Ex.D.10 is in the handwriting of F accused No.1. PW13 has deposed; there are alterations in

---- 59 0G slips to inﬂate figures. so also sub--day OG slip marked as EX.P.66 are in the of accused No.1. PW13 has deposed; these--;entrie's.arehin the T handwriting of accused No.1 and figures and entries in sub-day book are l Much of directed towards entries made stated, figures are inﬂated.» for tally purpose and some not carried to daybook.

The:refore,A__entries are not 'found in daybook, that cannot discredit the evidence of PW13 regarding uiriﬂated entries in 0G slips and sub~day book for .. ..... ..

th'eV:l.:~1'eleVant time, PW18-C.R.Venkatachalapathy Awias as the Assistant Manager in Syndicate Bank, AA indir*a_nagar Branch, Bangalore. PW18 has deposed; it 'V.ac:cused No.2 was working as daybook clerk. PW10 has deposed; day's transactions of various departments of branch were furnished to day book department through day 1' _' r ._ .£-':.. 2'. c':

g 1 book adjustment slips for consolidation. he was acquainted with the handwritingylvsigliattiresit initials of accused 1 81 2. Pill?

instance, entries will be rnalde they would be transfe1'rec'1~..:iiit.o daybook. PW18 has deposed?'thereijare overW'1'itings in total columns of sub--dayllbo=3lk "and these altered entries are the No.2 and the en tries i~iy__ D_urinVg"c:<oVss§exan1in'aition, it has been suggested to PW1 8 that there E35553 'alteration in entries in 0G slips and sub'--'day book that PW18 had signed entries at the end _vltra_nsactions after satisfying about correctness of has denied that there are no alterations in entriesL has denied that OG slips and sub--day book r ;We1'e"V'a§/ailable and accessible to other staff members of the }\: z.""'E/<--i"""(/'§...'gLC_'6:-Q, _

61. From the year 198}. to 1984, PW24--N.Prakash was working as an Assistant Manager in Syndicate~-.,'_i"3ank, Indiranagar Branch. PW24 has deposed; at time, accused No.1 was working in overdraft:"~and,: current.» account section and accused No=._2 wasEworliing-in~daylaool~:

section; at the relevant' tirne, working as Manager of Syndicate 2 iljndiranagar Branch, Bangalore: '=.PW24H that current account and accouinty therefore, PW24 verifiVed1lVer1tr5ies;9he eriirieg tallied up to a particular datezin1SepterrilaerK918'-1,;:therefore, he had to go through ledger entries and s'ub-"day book entries made after clearing PW2:4'li'as'deposed: that cheque dated 24.09.1981 1 " {.E:<:.IlJ'--.v.:_1:)l for a sum of Rs.10,000/-- by Praveenkumar fa\(ourI__of accused No.4 was presented for collection by accused no.4 in Syndicate Bank. The cheque was sent for ,V1lcollect;ion. to Vijaya Bank. Palace Guttahalli Branch, Bangalore; the cheque was returned for want of funds; after cheque was returned, the entry in current account No.143 ( 1'\. .% mil'-' '~- '

-« £2 ' '-

-- 62 of accused No.4 was not reversed, on the transfer voucher (EXP?) relating to figures were inﬂated in fruolrn x'"11:o b T Rs. l2,000/ - by prefixing PW24 has deposed; entries were inﬂated from 'l2,00(')v/-A, so also total was altered from - for tally purpose. 'I'l1es§:..alteratiori's; accused No.2, who was V of Ex.P.e.<;, on 23.09.1981, a sum of lO,.QO;0 credited to account of accused No.4 2£3.:.09.198VlV,' 'accused No.4 had drawn a self-cheque for a and the balance was shown as cheque as per Ex.P.l was returned, credit enttfgrjn Ex.P.65 was not reversed by accused No. 1, who was _ irircharge of current account.

PW24-N.Prakash has deposed; on 05.10.1981, accused No.4 had drawn a cheque on his account No.1{13 }'\-'Q 1 a. »5 " _ lolfthe drawee.

for a sum of R:-11,000/--, favouring A.Rathan.«V.&fl'liis:'cilrielque was presented for collection in Apex Banllrul and received for clearance in Syryjdicatc. A'Béanliid"iruiirariagarl Branch, Bangalore. Accused No.4:'o'nl:'Q(n3. cheque [Ex.P.10] for a sudrriuof V.RsT4,'0QQ/R--';:llwfaxrouringl A.Rathan. On No.ﬁ4""had: drawn a cheque for a sum of (')T&f1vl:l.1jis"'account, favouring A.Rathan. 'Iﬁhere»._waS-I no 's.u1"ﬁ4cie'nt_ furids in the account of accused §No.?«2«,Vthve';§;,e have been dishonoured toiétliiejl'collection bank, on the other hand, these'cheques_We§e_:neitI1er' returned nor they were found in the '_Voank'.l"* 2_.~--._At"1'.hlS jluiic'ti;:'re it is relevant to state, as per banking prac'tiee,..whVe'r} a cheque sent for collection is not returned, l'chlequ_e"is_ deemed to have been honoured. The amount rnentio;.ned in the cheque would be credited to the account X», I } '\," K K,'\...{:k"{-$1' ' « 64

62. In the discussion made supra, I have heid to EX.P.11 were found in possession of [younger sister of wife of accused"i\T0:1..}pttiilﬁjéf PW-41 is exphcitiy clear that through accused No.1j,whet1i..:VofﬁciaEsV' of had}. visited her house and PWA4-Euihad"--»proniptly_re.turned said cheques to them. it a V

63. In have held that Ei.CCl1SE.'(f1::-'i'\'l(g'.3_,v Vh'i'n1seifV_asVVh.Rathan had opened S.Bi;A/ Apex' Bank. The account Was introduced who fully knew that accused was not.._AtRati1an and he was personating A.Rathan. it was also fully aware that A.Rathan was a and account bearing N0.6811 standing in saidv--..'na:rie was opened by accused No.3. personating as A. ,A.Rathan and introduction of account was by accused No.1. Vtﬁcdcused No.2. who was inwcharge of sub--day book had V altered entries in sub--day book for tally purpose. These cheques were not dishonoured and returned to Apex Bank. 'w ﬁe < (J; 1 ..\ L V. L

-- 65 The amount mentioned in cheques was to the account of A.Rathan. T'he1'eafter withdrawn by seifwcheques drawtntttby 't-£11 b T name of A.Rathan. p I T A I I A PW24--N.Prakash has * etfidenceptto 'entries V in sub~--day book were inﬂate'd:.t:o tc'otncea1tt'hon.o=ur of these forged cheques. PW24 reference to forged cheques and all of them were hf" person by name were presented for collection in Apex were received for clearance Syndicate' Ii1di1'anaga1' Branch, Bangalore, cheques ., ~Aﬁ€i'§\\,, rettlrned. On the other hand, entries in sub--day ._ slips were inflated for tally purpose. In the di-scu__ss1on made supra, I have referred to evidence of it A. ,customers, whose debit slips/transfer vouchers were t 'infiated for tally purpose. .,»\:_ * I

-- 66 PW24 was subjected to extensive crossmexarnination by accused I & 2 to establish that these altered.:.:'e:1_tries should have been noticed by PW37, who was Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch, by sought to establish that PW2éi it entries at the end of day's tra_nsactio.n'.V-- Therefore, it deemed that there were no alterations the-entries. These contentionsyofl falsified from ledger extracts of accused they did not have stifficieii.i;'*-fundsin" their accounts to honour cheques drawn i'aVou'r_ol7:A.»--E{athan [a fictitious person]. the yea'r'""1981, PW30»S.Giddegowda was working as . a'n,_&.ac"cou'ntant in Apex Bank, Janata Bazaar Branch, B' ,!Banga_lovre.*;PW30 has deposed; pay--inws1ip challans as per EX.Pl8.6 to EX.P.94 were presented to Apex Branch, Janata ,ldBazaar Branch, Bangalore during period between l5.}0.1981 and }9.11.1981. These paywin--slips were accompanied by cheques drawn in favour of A.Rathan. yup if:-pr

- 6'7 PWBO has deposed; E3x.P.95 is the ledger in the name of A.Rathan. it It is seen from the contents if A.Rathan is shown as No.48}, HAL 11 Stage, Indirariagar, itdjis not B disputed by accused No.3 thatdxavt'1:he_re1eirdar;t..tinie, accused at rag? 1:; £4: _ .-- V. No.3 was residing Airl L"3i?;ge, Bangalore. It is seerg.g...frorn:-_bii1 'co11e'ctio--n" register extract marked as Ex.15.95.;_""',;i"{;f1-mg::"75pefioé»* between 06.10.1981 and

23. H.198 drawn on Syndicate Bank, favouring' wjei=e'4presented in Apex Bank, Janatha Bazaar Bran.,c_h',V' Bangalore. As the cheques were not .returi1ed,_"they were deemed to be honoured and amount 'V was credited to the S.B.account No.6811 of AA.Rat._hanS'..'~r'(Aa fictitious person]. During period between AA OE3.iO....i981 and 23.11.1981, cheques were drawn by V'a.C_c5used No.3, on account. held by him in Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bangaiore. favouring A.Rathar1. There are corresponding pay--in--s1ips presented to Apex Bank, g 68 Janata Bazaar Branch, Bangalore into of A.Rathan (a fictitious person]. it it A It is seen from the contelrttlsllluif during period between 19. 1:0. 1, No.3 personating the 'several self--cb.eques for froIlnl"'Rs'."é,OOO/-- to Rs.20,000/- and enlcashedl ledger extracts show that to"i:':3v:ll3.Account No.681 1 of 011' the other hand amount wastcrediteti-"to_l'S.B;A7c.,_No..6811 on clearance of cheques favouiing i.PWIl3U':S_iGilddegowda has deposed; Cheques as per were self--cheques drawn by A.Rathan. deposed; accused No.3~P.Anil }*eT,un1a'1" personated A.Rathan [a fictitious person) and he _ 'o--1;3erating account of A.Rathan. During cross--examination of PW:-30, defence has F sought to establish that PWSO could not have identified /?

';'\L3 i....[-'L-1.. _

---- 69 accused No.3 due to lapse of time and identification parade. N u N H PWSO was working in L T Branch, Bangalore and '*onpﬂerabtirigL S.B.A/c.No.6811 in the ofHv.A;.;§aél"ianx"{vauVVfictitiotis person}, obviously aCCxnsedt'No..'V3:' ﬁne bank on several occasions. 'occasions to see accused crisis. Therefore, there wa_'s'Vxi'o.. test::"i_dentification parade. Above aii, -n_o'Vi11.¥'v§_ii}..._o1* enmity against accused No.3 to falsely as A.Rat.lr1an. As already stated, in;1edgereX'tract"as g:er.Ex.P.95 of S.B.A/c.No.6811, address andwaddress mentioned in ledger extract of number of accused No.3 are one and the same. _evide~nce adduced by prosecution that accused No.1 n was gﬁzhe introducer of said account has not been Mcontroverted. R) C:é_.\_h ., .

~ 70 In the discussion made supra, I accused 3 <3: 4 had drawn cheques favouring fictitious person]. If A.Rai:han was'"na.t a j was for accused I to 4 to estalilishgthatlfl. existence. B A A B

65. PW31~Darnodaran clerk in Syndicate Bank, Bangalore from 04.08. 1978 t,o'3Q.O6,.A1'98l/3,1:During. 1981, 1>w31 was working draft sections of Syndicated Branch, Bangalore. The ledger "bo:okﬁwere maintained by PW31. In his absence, entries nisubwday book were made by accused _ VNo..1E";"i was acquainted with handwriting and signature it ,0? PW3l has given evidence relating to entries A madebyvn accused No.1, which has not been controverted. AA g66.x l3W37~K.S.Karnath was working as the Manager of " ..Sik--ndicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore from June E 1980 to middle of the year 1982. PW37 has deposed; Y"\_; \_... -\. ,._ __ accused No.2 was working as a day--book No.1 was working as a leave reserve:

E.Damodaran, who was in»c]f1arg'e«.of.:& aiccounttii'. V overdraft and discounting therefore, accused No.1 to PW3'7V has deposed; on was on leave and one Mrs. Mira asked to work in that section on account and overdraft"acccoi,1nts;' discrepancies in current account'an@:1 she could not locate these of other officers, she was able to locate'discrepancies': In that process, they noticed that ..so*rne._ofr_ the 'cheques received for clearance in Syndicate V ilﬁanlgiinlcliranagar Branch, Bangalore, were missing; PW37 aiongiian attender had gone to the house of accused; acc.uVsedVNo.l Was not in the house; wife of accused No.1 lpleaded her ignorance; on the same day in the evening, two clerks of the bank contacted PW41 [sister of wife of accused No. 1) and brought five cheques marked as Ex.P.8 to EX.P.11 )\i' ta. 5%,,-ca M.

-- '72 and Ex.P.98. EX.P.8 to Ex.P.l1 and E3x.P.98pVwé';~§':'1-éeeigrgd from Apex Bank for clearance in Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore.

67. As already stated, _t;heseV4'che.q.ues accused No.3 & 4 favourin--gj'Pi,.Rathan: 'accounts held in Syndicate batik, -B_ranchV.l"Th"ese cheques were drawn during ll '_V_O5.1O. 1981 and 19.11.1981,. 'V .:Q'r~?.i"1:rag,,'igalooo/--, Rs.1,000/~, Rs.4,00G / -- respectively. After accused * ihese cheques for clearance in SyndicateBan'k, Branch, Bangalore, he should upron1ptAl}l[VlVreturned the cheques since accused 3 & 4 A .iTllJ§;.:ha,V€ sufficient funds in their accounts, instead physically removed cheques and concealed t:'<1en1_"i11.«:lthe house of PW41. Accused No.3, personating _ chirnself as A.Rathan (a fictitious person) had drawn these V'*ch'eques to accuinulate funds in S.B.A/c.N0.681.1 held in F the name of A.Rathan (a fictitious person} with Apex Bank, Janatha Bazaar Branch, Bangalore. Therefore, oral evidence }'\: \ L...

1*'

--- '73 of PW37 finds substantial corroboration i"rom.._t_:h_e':"¢,5ntVents of Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.98.

PW37 has given evidericetl to t_prov,e .xthat_vVsub~'day L register and 0G slips entries were__infl_ated for tally purpose at the end'uPV\Asf:37 had given evidence by refe.;:ring.Aito &rnai11'tained by the bank. a it it h _ From _the__ tenorl" of PW37 by learned lmnotice that evidence of PW37 discredited, as he was not able to identiiyésignatures of accused 1 & 2; PW37 beingythe Nianager of Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch, have notified these discrepancies if really *-"suchvvédiscrepancies existed in subwday book and 0G slips.

"1~".l'1er.c ' no effective cross--examination of PW37 by i accused 3 and 4.

The evidence of PW37 is based upon documentary evidence. PW37 had given evidence by referring to as 74 documents and books of accounts maintainedwin gthe7Bank. Therefore, there are no reasons to suspect ev.idence'_<'iof PW37.

68. At the relevant time, working as Deputy Dii'ecto[g.\/,.0{ at Hyderabad. From thegyear "P'W_42.i1ad worked as Assistant of questioned documents at:Hydei*:abad,::V¥ V f t V 3 it." 'necessary to state, the 1I1V53._S'€ig€ut".IV1Vg"Gfficer'iias-----give'n evidence relating to specimen signaturesi and of accused 1, 3, 4 & 5 obtained Vby. The Investigating Officer has given 'relating to disputed signatures found in cheques, VAV.f'pa"ywin~s1ips {ch.a11ans) and entries in sub~day L~..oo1«,'.__'.' ' -.

PW42 on comparison of admitted signatures and V*--disputed signatures has opined that disputed signatures 1 made in current account ledger and 0G slips are in the handwriting of accused No.1. PW42 has deposed; disputed ;\j X a 5-1- 75 signatures found on cheques and accused No.3 are in the handwriting of accu'sc.df has deposed; disputed signatures fourjéj admitted specimen signat.u.res_'_.of r¢§t';;;; handwriting of accused evideiice of admitted and disputed":sig1<iﬂature's«.._otn'accusedA & 5. The opinion furnished by reasons as per Ex.P.382.

Thei. discredit evidence of handfvritiinge.fexpeirt.' _[4"'.V42} as handwriting science is imperfect and "handwriting expert is only opinion evidence.

6.9.' 1ri.A¢crde.r to appreciate the same, it is necessary to stated a question arises before Court whether adrnitte_d'an'd disputed signatures are in the handwriting of : a particuslar person burden of proof could be discharged by it -..takin'&g recourse to section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, VM .,_1;87'2 and also to the provisions of section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1.872. _ re- «~t-m»- -w 75 In the case on hand. we have evidencepppoijopihfcitaivsof Syndicate Bank, lndiranagar Branch, Banga.'iorer:fvv:hao acquainted with the handwriting; T

2. Therefore, evidence given piece of evidence to the»-.evi.dence .giveVnb'-.5hy.wofficials of Syndicate Bank, Indiranagait'"1.8i'a.rich.,' "Bangailore. Even otherwise, I do to discredit the evidence of H ' V a a V at

70. The ijp'E"W?i'3§aP.K.Jacob relates to the entire case rests upon documentary exrfdenéi-eipraf'Jﬁevidence of PW43 regarding collection of various documents from different banks and at " . of documentary evidence has not been seriously 53.1. ara' Damodar, learned counsel a earin for . g 3 pp g AA paccusifd No.2, referring to evidence of prosecution witnesses " made following subrnissions:--

I. The evidence of prosecution witnesses, in particular, officials of Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar

- '77 Branch, Bangalore and officials of Janatha Bazaar Branch, Bangalore, accepted as they ' ,.

identify accused and their ii. The prosecution levildle-nee so? called alter'ations reference to disputedlllcl9ie'qu'es:"lfi'}1e: of prosecution witness.es, oilivcials of Syndicate Bangalore, would ._ --re\lfe--'al--~.._»lthat~.p"th_e3r -B have not narrated about A =._pparticulars ofalterations or manipulations in their staternentslsrecorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. l*l"he documents such as debit slips, OG slips and book were available to other officials of ' .Vll.'§yA1'1dicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore. Therefore, prosecution should have ruled out possibility of alterations and manipulations by /1 th 11"' '1 fth b" k. -

O 81' 0 lCIa S 0 6 all'! FL? C._/XL' L £_>'_'_M' '78 IV. The evidence of PW37 and Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar would reveal that unnoticed by the, officiai--s,:"'who supervision over 1. their evidence is' "there are alterations 2, such acts W03:1l{'l:Q%a,IV:i'l0l1.:f'.1'V1i.! itfidvuty, without there being.. :cVr'erirr1inal intent on the part

-------- A 1 to hold that accused 1 & u2,had pecuniary advantage.

The llievidvence of PW42 regarding comparison of it 'A«.a'diji*:'ivt:ted and disputed signatures of accused I & 2 V ' is .nVo:=tVconclusive.

72. "inA'3~o1'der to appreciate the above submissions, it is nepc.e'ssary to state that accused 1 & 2 have not disputed that clerks in Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore, had altered entries in debit slips, transfer

---- '79 vouchers, OG slips and sub--day book. It is also not in dispute that accused No.1 was in--charge of overdraft accounts and accused No.2 was day book and daybook section. mT1r_1erefore_1.

custodians of documents. Tl"1e:'»..defe"iCe some other ofﬁciais had'V'fo._rgedV"'the criminal liability on case rests upon documentary wasnot necessary for the witnesses [offi.cia_1s. Indiranagar Brai1ch."Bangaltt-ire] toinarrate'particulars of alterations or manipulations slips, transfer vouchers, OG slips arid, subsday it book, when their statements were undervsection l61 Cr.P.C. The law is fairly well ' atsetttedthat"statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., is not an i' . advancexjcopy of evidence.

alterations and manipulations made by accused l 2 it OG slips and sub~day book are not mere clerical errors. They have nexus with 14 forged cheques. which n were cleared to credit the amount to SBA/c.No.6811 of YV \.x.€7'*-- .

-- 80 A.Rathan (a fictitious person]. Therefore, criminal intent on the part of accused could certainly be inferred. seizure of cheques marked as Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.11 the house of PW4i--Shakunthala "(sister »of:aecused= No.1] eloquently speaks about :'c4ri1nin_ea;l No.1. The case of prosecution evidence. Even if there are rninor"dis;cre':pa.ncies in oral evidence of prosectition. be a ground to discredit the Above all, docuinerits :e%';endEred in:"eviden'ceV were maintained in regular course of business oi'.the Bank.

" _.In ord»e_rVt'o" substantiate the evidence of bank officials, Ztirosecution had examined customers of the bank, V transfer vouchers were manipulated by accu_s'ed £3: 2 to inﬂate figures for taliy purpose at the end AA of drag/"s transactions. Therefore, there are no reasons to " .s_uspect the evidence of prosecution. witnesses.

-- 81 7 5. Thus to sum up, prosecution has 1 & 3 entered into criminal conspiracy opened S.B.A/c.No.68l1 in the"

fictitious person]. Accused Accused 3 & 5 are closely each.._o:t_he:r.hvlxccused*3V & 4 had drawn several &ch*e.:iuesl"-»faVouri'1*1g .Pi§.Rathan [a fictitious person}. Bank, Janatha Bazaar accused No.3 as the persoii'; HS.Hll3V.A/c.No.6811 in the narrie' ledug_"ei"VeXtract of Syndicate Bank, lndirlacnagar shows that accused No.3 had given.. h'isy_avddr_ess--"nVas that of address of A.Rathan (a fictitiotisperson}; ..... .. -

_ 1 & 2 were fully aware that A.Rathan was a l' . filctitiousfpeirson and they had honoured cheques drawn in fav'~ou1'...of A.Rathan. In that way, there was free ﬂow of funds 2 to._S.Il3.A/c.No.68}l held by A.l"-Eathan (a fictitious person). Accused No.3 had drawn cheques favouring accused No.1. l Thus, accused 1 8: 2 being public servants by illegal means 4 82 had abused their positions as public sewants:

pecuniary advantage for themselves and aiso 8: 4 and committed an offence"punishabieitturicjéir.igéctipnbg 5(1}(d] 1'/W section 5(2) of the A T A I It The prosecution to 'V4 entered into crimina§...cons&piracy'-- during' afo'restated period to commit offences 419, 420, 468, 471, 47:23 :1/w ~ " t t had induced offic--.i_a}s._ Ifndiranagar Branch, Bangalore, to partmiiitih ie, by making them to honour forged. cheques' and thereby committed an offence ., , ¢AV:}5'uniEshalT§Ee_._under section 420 IPC. it no.1 who knew accused No.3 had introduced accused.Vt'.:No.3 as A.Rathan (a fictitious person) to the up [Manager of Apex Bank. Jariatha Bazaar Branch, Bangaiore enabied accused no.3 to open S.B.A/c.No.6811 in the name of A.Rat.han [a fictitious person) and accused 3 4 .'i in u -as 0 3 3 knowing full well that A.Rathan was a fictitious drawn several cheques favouring A.Rathan Syndicate Bank, Indiranagag' mate» T S.B.A/c.No.6811 of A.Rathan thereby the accused s:Bazaarf Branch, Bangalore and Bank, "fndiranagar Branch, Bangalore Lﬁfcegused 1 81 2 by manipulating.:e11.tries;-Z' sub~day books and trans'fe"11.__xieuchers-..___an_d'-aidedﬂaccused 3 & 4 to draw torgeddddciiedtlesddfor §;:urp§se'¢§£ cheating Syndicate Bank.

Indirdanagar and accused committed an offence 'p"u.ni'sha"e1eAundeVr section 468 IPC. ,__In.__the cou----r--s«e' of these transactions, which were in V «pL:rsua1ic'eAV"of criminal conspiracy entered into between i' . accusedfno.;i'1 to 4. accused 3 8: 4 had used forged cheques as genguine cheques and accused I 82 2 knowing full well if that they are forged cheques have acted upon the same and committed an offence punishable under section 471 IPC. Accused 1 & 2 committed falsification of accounts and they

--- 84 had altered entries in 0G slips and sub--day had concealed cheques.

Accused No.3 while opetfatipg', hiswaccwouiit '"1111 T. Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar e£ané:1,A'Baﬁggi§m_i, operating account No.681V1'*~iini";'\,I3e><.V. sfjBa_zaaVr' Branch, Bangalore, opgenedx ijy in the A'na'n1e'of A. Rathan (a fictitious person). ha_d"fo.rged self cheques drawn and 'thereby punishable under section it A T3.'1efeior.e;. ']" to 4 are guilty of offences punishalole 420, 468, 471, 477A read with section 12O'EBiVVVIvPC.: Accused no.3 is guilty of an offence section 419 IPC. Accused no.1 and 2 are _ "gjuiA1ty'4:'o£»V_'a§§:-offence punishable under section 5(1)(d) read with The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. .. ;_Rega'r--ding Sentence:

it The learned counsel for accused No.2 would submit that a lenient View may be taken in the matter of sentence 5 of accused No.2. ix; .1 5% V_({ . -,».;

--- 85

77. The learned trial Judge having regard to of offences and modus operandi adopted by having regard to the fact thathpaccused"hadT'pe:ntered criminal conspiracy to COI11II1f'£._ aforestated'-.' and bearing in mind maximum'a11d minimum for aforestated offences has imposed following sentencew "A.1 and..Q-'..2 ;are~ .senieneed to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor o::1.¢"y_,§3f'_and to pay a ﬁne pvofix' "for the offence =.un.der' s;5{2;V"5r/w S.5(1](d) of the Preventioil:V"0f"iC;oirruption Act, 1947 and in "defau1t' todpiayfine amount, A1 and A.2 are directed.toV--.un~dergo further simple imprisonment V for a per'iod__of six months.

'k_vF'urther A1 to A5 are sentenced to " rigorous imprisonment for three years pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-- each. for the 'eioffeérlce punishable under S.I20B of the Endian H 'wi9'ena1 Code and in default to pay the fine amount, they have to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Further A1 to A.5 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years P <"--"""t§'..- \,'L.. £7?" L. 1. . <.'_7.€~";,.f;K

-86 and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-- each l"or__the offence punishable under 8.420 of the Indian_ Penal Code and In default to pay amount. they have to undergo fur*the'r M imprisonment for a pe1'iodof six m.on'tl1--s:.'_" . V C Further A.1 to undergo rigorous imp1'isoanme'.r1t forlfthree and to pay a line"of"'~Rs.2,000/'-= 'e1a.ch":._;1'or...the offence punishable the Vfjlndian Penal Code and the fine amount, theybhag'/e further simple impris0r1.ment:forv..3 iperi V months. llll are sentenced to u-ndergu':Vi*igVo1T0aus_"imprisonment for three years andltto "pa'yf'a,.Jof Rs.2,000/- each for the offeiice rpunishable under 8.471 of the Indian E_:Penal "C'od.e...«and in default to pay the fine amoun_t, they have to undergo further simple C' ~.4i'mpri.so--nment for a period of six months. urther A.1 to A5 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years V""ar1d to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-- each for the offence punishable under S.477A of the Indian Penal Code and in default; to pay the fine l"\ﬁ -=--~«4L \. £7'-"L xi' --87 amount; they have to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. "

Further A.3 is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years pay a fine of Rs.2,00_0./~,__ fOI'_'!H punishable under S.419__v oiﬁthfe Code and in defaultto fineya..inount, has to undergo furthefsimplhe for a period of six months_.__'_'l"-..V_ *

78. On reconsideration o'f__the ,/}_find that sentence irn osed b the ptria1xClou'1*tIislnot_sey'e1ieV'or harsh. Therefore, there are'-tn,o" {Q interfere with the impugned judgrizentu 'V 'in the'1"esu_lt, 'I pass the followingh ORDER Appeal No.34}/2004 filed by accused No.5 abatevsl "C5I'iII1iIlE1l Appeal No.340/2004 ﬁled by accused it ,l\_'lo.ll,"'C:I1'iminal Appeal No.26?/2004 filed by accused No.2, lﬂl'Crimina1 Appeal No.31?/2004 filed by accused No.3 and Criminal Appeal No.l723/2004 filed by accused No.4 are

-- 88 dismissed. The impugned judgment is conf1'rn1ed.g'Qffice is directed to send back records along with a. judgment to the trial Court to implement the learned trial Judge shall secure .:u::'cused tee irrmiementtb j the sentence.

r;§'UDG-E SNN

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court