Bangalore District Court
State By Cbi/Acb vs A-1) J. Kannan on 16 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
BENGALURU (CCH-4).
Spl. C.C. No.253/2013
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015
PRESENT : Sri. Bheemanagouda K. Naik,
B.Com., LL.B., (Spl.)
XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
Complainant: State by CBI/ACB, Bengaluru
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused: A-1) J. KANNAN
S/o S. Jothimurugan
Aged about 31 years
Asst. Manager (under suspension)
Syndicate Bank,
Yeshwanthpur Branch,
Bangalore
R/o Syndicate Bank Officer's
Quarters No.35/4,
Nandini Layout,
Bangalore-560 096.
Also at Plot No.32,
Kamakshi Illam,
6th Cross Street,
Krishnapuram Colony,
Madurai-14,
Tamil Nadu.
A-2) J. MURALIDHARAN
S/o S. Jothimurugan
Aged about 28 years,
Plot No.32, Kamakshi Illam,
2 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
6th Cross Street,
Krishnapuram Colony,
Madurai-14,
Tamil Nadu.
A-3) S.G. RAM NAIK,
S/o late Sri. Govind Naik
Aged about 61 years
Chief Manager (Retired)
Regional office-II,
Syndicate Bank,
No.110, R V Road, VV Puram,
Radha Vittal Mansion,
Bangalore-04.
Also at 1-71/42,
Mahadevi Nagar,
Behind Bhajana Mandir,
Karmar, Padil Post,
Alape Village,
Mangalore-07.
(By Smt. Prafulla. K, Advocate for A1,
Sri. Giri Gowda, Advocate for A2,
Sri. B. J. Prakash Singh, Adv. for A3)
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB Bengaluru has submitted a charge sheet against the above accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sec. 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A of IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that: -
(a) The accused No.1 J. Kannan was working as Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch,
3 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Bangalore from August 2009 to 30.10.2012 and a public servant and during his tenure of service in the said branch holding the advances portfolio. Accused No.2 J. Muralidharan S/o Jothimurugan is a private person and the brother of Accused No.1, unemployed, and staying with his parents at Madurai, Tamil Nadu. Accused No.3 Ram Naik was working as Chief Manager and Head of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore, from 13.01.2010 to 29.10.2012 and a public servant.
(b) Accused No.1 while he was working as Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore, Karnataka from August 2009 to 30.10.2012, entered into a criminal conspiracy with Accused No.2 his brother, a private person and Accused No.3 Chief Manager (Branch Head) of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore to cheat Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore, misappropriated funds to the tune of Rs.12,22,94,260/- by falsification of records, unauthorized diversion of funds, criminal breach of trust and caused financial loss to the bank and to derive undue pecuniary advantage to themselves.
4 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
(c) As per the banking procedures, the policy guidelines covering the Drawee Bills Scheme (DBS) as per Manual of Instruction on Credit Policy and Procedures are in force from 2006 onwards. Branches shall obtain the documents as per Manual of Instructions on documentation in respect of both under DBS (Drawee Bill Scheme) and BCAS (Bills Co-Acceptance Scheme). Further that, with the bank migrating to Core Banking Solutions (CBS) each bill discounted under this scheme should come under sanctioned limit of the party. When the drawee bills are tendered by the eligible borrower the concerned clerk/Maker will make the entries in the system in the FCC Module (Flexi Cube Corporate) and the same will be authorized by the Officer/checker after verifying the genuineness of the bill, due date of the bill, interest rate, charges validity of the limits, and it is within the limits sanctioned. After debiting the bills duly authorized by the officer the credit net of charges and interest will be credited to the party's Over Draft account. In this regard the clerk/maker/teller and the officer/checker will be having different login IDs and passwords. Further, there are several General Ledger Folios (GL accounts) such as 5 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Remittance Parking GL, On-Line Suspense GL, Term Deposit (TD) renewal GL, etc. But there is provision to transfer the funds from Various Parking GL heads to any party's accounts as per the wishes of the eligible borrower. The parking GL are temporary media to route the transactions of the bank.
(d) The Accused No.1 had transferred the defrauded amounts through NEFT remittance made from the GL Head No.170100500 Remittance Parking GL, GL Head No. 170150100 suspense online transactions, GL Head No.170100300-TD Renewal parking GL, towards the account Number of 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 and A/c. No.912010025893800 of Accused No.2 both at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu for a total 24 transactions.
Details of Individual Transactions: -
(e) On 15.10.2011 a debit of Rs.28,08,000/- from GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000986 of M/s Gayathri Structural and Roofing Pvt Ltd., and on the same day an amount of Rs.28,08,000/- was debited from 04281250000986 of M/s. Gayathri Structural Roofing Pvt Ltd., for credit to
6 Spl.C.C.253/13 J GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.28,08,000/- was transferred to A/c. No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu vide NEFT reference No.P11101540471967.
(f) Further, on 23.02.2012 debit of Rs.35,73,456/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000691 of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments though the amount of the bill tendered by M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments was for Rs.5,73,456/- & no bill was available for the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and on the same day an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was debited from 04281250000691 of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments for credit to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was transferred to A/c. No.91001001564435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu vide NEFT reference No. P12022352761157.
7 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
(g) Further on 16.03.2012 debit of Rs.50,00,000/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281010006553 of M/s. Delta Manufacturer and on the same day an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was debited from 04281010006553 of M/s. Delta Manufacturer for credit to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was transferred to A/c. No.910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu vide NEFT reference No. P1-2031655684986. No Bills/ vouchers were available for this transaction.
(h) Further on 18.4.2012 debit of Rs.56,02,052/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000929 of M/s. Pooja Enterprises and on the same day an amount of Rs.56,02,052/- was debited from 04281250000929 of M/s. Pooja Enterprises for credit to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.56,02,052/- was transferred to A/c No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu 8 Spl.C.C.253/13 J vide NEFT reference No. P12041859629439. No bills/ vouchers were available to support these transactions.
(i) Further on 21.4.2012 debit of Rs.51,12,557/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000933 of M/s. R R Forgings Pvt Ltd., and on the same day an amount of Rs.51,12,557/- was debited from 04281250000933 of M/s. R R Forgings Pvt Ltd., for credit to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.51,12,557/- was transferred to A/c. No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Bangalore vide NEFT reference No. P12042159991271. No bills/ vouchers were available to support these transactions.
(j) Further on 14.8.2012 debit of Rs.53,00,400/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000929 of M/s. Pooja Enterprises and on the same day an amount of Rs.53,00,400/- was debited from 04281250000929 of M/s. Pooja Enterprises for credit to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day, through NEFT an amount of Rs.53,00,400/- was 9 Spl.C.C.253/13 J transferred to A/c No.910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P12081475839046. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
(k) Further on 16.08.2012 debit of Rs.49,00,500/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000691 of M/s Digitronix Measuring Instruments and on the same day an amount of Rs.49,00,500/- was debited from 04281250000691 of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments and on the same day an amount of Rs.49,00,500/- was debited from 04281250000691 of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments for credit to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.49,00,500/- was transferred to A/c No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P1-2081676104552. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
(l) Further on 17.08.2012 debit of Rs.58,96,752/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281010006553 of M/s Delta 10 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Manufacturer and on the same day an amount of Rs.58,96,752/- was debited from 04281010006553 of M/s. Delta Manufacturer for credit of GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.58,96,752/- was transferred to A/c. No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P1-2081776306529. No bill/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
(m) Further on 21.8.2012 debit of Rs.53,00,900/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000880 of M/s. Siva Steels and on the same day an amount of Rs.53,00,900/- was debited from 04281250000880 of M/s. Siva Steels for credit to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.53,00,900/- was transferred to A/c. No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P12082176645208. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
11 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
(n) Further on 25.8.2012 debit of Rs.56,22,529/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250001019 of M/s Sunil Steels Scrap Traders and on the same day an amount of Rs.56,22,529/- was debited from 04281250001019 of M/s Sunil Steels Scrap Traders for credit of GL Head No. 170150100 of Suspense - Online Transactions, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.56,22,529/- was transferred to A/c. No.910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No.P12082577129274. No bills/ vouchers were available to support these transactions.
(o) Further on 18.9.2012 debit of Rs.53,00,497/- & Rs.47,53,973/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000185 of M/s. Gujarath Traders and another account No. 04281250000576 of M/s. SLN Engineering Work and on the same day an amount of Rs.53,00,497/- was debited from 04281250000185 of M/s. Gujarath Traders for credit of GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and Rs.47,53,973/- for credit of GL Head 12 Spl.C.C.253/13 J No.170150100 of Suspense-Online Transactions from the another account No. 04281250000576 of M/s. SLN Engineering Work, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.53,00,497/- & Rs.47,53,973/- were transferred to A/c. No.910010015164435 of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P12091881145419 & P12091881146964 respectively. No bills/vouchers were available to support all the four transactions.
(p) Further on 03.10.2012 debit of Rs.47,42,000/-, Rs.53,75,000/-, Rs.51,62,000/- & Rs.56,41,000/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000277 of M/s. Manal Enterprises and another account No.04281250000185 of M/s. Gujarath Traders, A/c. No.04281250001061 of M/s Ashwini Clothing Company and the A/c. No. 04281250000205 of Anand Electricals respectively. Further on the same day an amount of Rs.47,42,000/- was debited from 04281250000277 of M/s. Manal Enterprises and an amount of Rs.51,62,000/- was debited from A/c. No. 04281250001061 of M/s. Ashwini Clothing Company for credit of GL Head No. 170150100 of Suspense-Online 13 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Transactions. Further on the same day an amount of Rs.53,75,000/- was debited from account No. 04281250000185 of M/s. Gujarath Traders and an amount of Rs.56,41,000/- was debited from A/c No. 04281250000205 of M/s. Anand Electricals for credit of GL Head No.170100500 of remittance parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.47,42,000/- & Rs.51,62,000/- were transferred to A/c No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P12100383190760 & P12100383189771 respectively. Further on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.53,75,000/- & Rs.56,41,000/- were transferred to A/c. No.912010025893800 of Accused No.2 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P12100383222770 & P12100383222897 respectively. No bills/vouchers were available to support all these four transactions.
(q) Further on 04.10.2012 debit of Rs.52,72,600/- & Rs.57,42,500/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000952 of M/s. Karni Kemp and another account 14 Spl.C.C.253/13 J No.04281250000649 of M/s A A Associates and on the same day an amount of Rs.52,72,600/- was debited from 04281250000952 of M/s Karni Kemp and another amount of Rs.57,42,500/- was debited from the account No. 04281250000649 of M/s. A A Associates for credit of GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.52,72,600/- & Rs.57,42,500/- were transferred to A/c No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P12100483562928 & P12100483562910 respectively. No bills/vouchers were available to support both these transactions.
(r) Further on 6.10.2012 debit of Rs.47,59,200/-, Rs.56,30,200/-, Rs.44,30,500/- & Rs.53,70,400/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000576 of M/s SLN Engineering Work, another account No.04281250000856 of M/s. Balaji Wood Work, A/c No.04281250001095 of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Engineering Works and the A/c No. 04281250001080 of Sri Balaji Corporation respectively. Further on the same day an amount of Rs.47,59,200/- was 15 Spl.C.C.253/13 J debited from 04281250000576 of M/s. SLN Engineering Work and an amount of Rs.56,30,200/- was debited from account No. 04281250000856 of M/s. Balaji Wood Work, and an amount of Rs.44,30,500/- was debited from A/c No. 04281250001095 of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Engineering Works and an amount of Rs.53,70,400/- was debited from A/c No. 04281250001080 of Sri Balaji Corporation for credit of GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.47,59,200/- & Rs.53,70,400/- were transferred to A/c No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P12100683923018 & P12100683923540 respectively. Further on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.56,30,200/- & Rs.44,30,500/- were transferred to A/c No. 912010025893800 of Accused No.2 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P12100683925210 & P12100683924359 respectively. No bills/vouchers were available to support these four transactions.
16 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
(s) Further on 26.10.2012 debit of Rs.58,40,300/- & Rs.57,30,400/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000205 of M/s Anand Electricals and another account No. 04281250000880 of M/s Shiva Steels and on the same day an amount of Rs.58,40,300/- was debited from 04281250000205 of M/s. Anand Electricals and Rs.57,30,400/- from another account No. 04281250000880 of M/s Siva Steels for credit of GL Head No. 170100300 of TD Renewal (Parking GL), thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.58,40,300/- & Rs.57,30,400/- were transferred to A/c. No. 9100100151564435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P12102686942036 & P1210286940435 respectively. No bills/vouchers were available to support these both transactions.
(t) Further on 06.10.2012 an amount of Rs.47,59,200/- was debited from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000576 of M/s. SLN Engineering Work,
thereafter the said amount was not transferred to any 17 Spl.C.C.253/13 J other GL Head and it was lying in the 04281250000576 of SLN Engineering Work account, further on the oral instruction from the Regional Office, Syndicate Bank, Bangalore the amount of Rs.47,59,200/- was transferred to Suspense account (GL No.170100400) of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore on 30.10.2012, subsequently a letter to that effect was sent to Yeshwanthpur branch, Syndicate Bank from Regional Office, Bangalore vide letter No.1432/0479/ROB/IRRC/FDC dated 31.10.2012. The screen shot shows the credit transaction of Rs.47,59,200/- dated 30.10.2012 from the account of 04281250000576 of SLN Engineering Work to Suspense account No. 170100400 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. No bills/vouchers were available to support this transactions.
(u) Further the credit and debit vouchers and relevant Drawee bills of the following and the orders of the sanctioning authority are not available in the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore which are supposed to be maintained in the branch after the sanction. Moreover of the Rs.5,73,456/- tendered by M/s Digitronix Measuring Instruments was a sales finance 18 Spl.C.C.253/13 J bill as it represented the supplies made by M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments to M/s. HMT(I) LTD & should not have been discounted under the "Drawee Bill"
head & should have been discounted under the relevant "Sales Finance Bill" head as per the laid down policy guidelines.
(v) Further there are no Credit vouchers to the various accounts where the proceeds were credited from the discount of the following 24 transactions, nor there are debit vouchers for debiting these accounts and credit into various Parking General Head accounts. Similarly, there were neither the request letter for the NEFT transactions nor debit vouchers for debiting to various parking GL's nor credit vouchers for effecting NEFT transactions for credit to SB accounts of Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 at Thallakulam Branch of Axis Bank, Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
Sl. No. Date of Discount Amount Rs.
1 15-10-2011 2808000 2 23-02-2012 3000000 3 16-03-2012 5000000 19 Spl.C.C.253/13 J 4 18-04-2012 5602052 5 21-04-2012 5112557 6 14-08-2012 5300400 7 16-08-2012 4900500 8 17-08-2012 5896752 9 21-08-2012 5300900 10 25-08-2012 5622529 11 18-09-2012 4753973 12 18-09-2012 5300497 13 03-10-2012 5375000 14 03-10-2012 5641000 15 03-10-2012 4742000 16 03-10-2012 5162000 17 04-10-2012 5272600 18 04-10-2012 5742500 19 06-10-2012 5630200 20 06-10-2012 5370400 21 06-10-2012 4430500 20 Spl.C.C.253/13 J 22 06-10-2012 4759200 23 26-10-2012 5840300 24 26-10-2012 5730400 (w) Further the Original Credit and Debit vouchers for the transaction of Rs.5,73,456/- in favour of M/s.Digitronix Measuring Instruments dated 23.02.2012 are available. However, there is no credit and debit vouchers for Rs.35,73,456/- are available in the branch as mentioned in the bills register page No. 190 in respect of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments vide Invoice No. 068 dated 04.02.2012 of LC bill No. 0030412LC0000232 dated 04.01.2012 usance for 60 days. Further Accused No.1 has made certain correction in the entry of the register (bill register).
(x) Further Yeshwanthpur branch is not having copy/ original bill for Rs.9,92,775/- or Rs.59,92,775/- of M/s. Delta Manufacturers drawn on M/s Akson Enterprise. The bill register of Yeshwanthpur branch, Syndicate Bank, Bangalore page No.191 vide Invoice No. 0128 dated 12.03.2012 of Delta Manufacturer vide A/c No. 21 Spl.C.C.253/13 J 428:101:6553, the amount has been mentioned as Rs.59,92,775/- not an amount of Rs.9,92,775/-.
(y) All the OD account, Current account holders denied the transactions of the huge amounts through their accounts and also denied of having the knowledge of the same. Further most of the customers had checked up with Accused No.1, Asst. Manager of the Yeshwanthpur Branch about the transactions on noticing the same, who clarified that it was wrong entry and the same have been set right.
(z) Sri. Saravanakumar was maintaining SB account No. 045520130791 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. He has spoken about the clearing credit of Rs.5lakhs on 14.10.2011 through cheque No.6170 of Axis Bank and another clearing credit of Rs.5 lakhs on 20.10.2011 through cheque No. 6171 of Axis Bank and the cash withdrawal of Rs.10 lakhs on 20.10.2011 and stated that those transactions do not pertain to him, but at the request of Accused No.1, Asst. Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore who informed Sri. Saravanakumar that he had received funds from his uncle and as he is a staff he cannot route such huge funds 22 Spl.C.C.253/13 J through his account, he requested Sri. Saravanakumar that he will route such transaction through his account and Sri. Saravanakumar had agreed for the same. However, Accused No.1 had neither showed the cheques nor the credit slips if any, were signed by Sri. Saravanakumar. However, Sri. Saravanakumar had signed one blank withdrawal slip and handed over it to Accused No.1.
(aa) On the withdrawal slip dated 20.10.2011 for Rs.10 Lakhs Sri. Saravanakumar identified his signature both on the face of the withdrawal slips and on the back side of the slip. But he did not get any cash from the withdrawal slip. Sri. Saravanakumar identified his signatures on two credit slips dated 21.03.2011 for Rs. 5 Lakhs each crediting the amount to OD account No. 428.125.841 of M/s Vani Industries. In the absence of his father Sri. C. Krishnan, Proprietor of M/s. Vani Industries, he was authorized to sign the credit slips. These two credit slips were signed by him as his father was not in the station.
(ab) Sri. C. Gunasekaran was maintaining SB account No. 428.201.101970 with Syndicate Bank, 23 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore has spoken about the two cash deposit credit of Rs.5 Lakhs each on 08.09.2011, total an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs and debit of Rs.10 Lakhs for making NEFT transfer on the same day. In this connection he stated that the said amount was credited by Accused No.1, Asst. Manager of the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch in Sri. C. Gunashekaran's above mentioned SB account and Accused No.1 told to Sh. Gunasekaran that his uncle who is in abroad had given this amount to him and accused No.1 requested Sri. C. Gunasekaran to sign in the credit slips accordingly he had signed in the credit slips. Further in the two credit slips dated 08.09.2011 for Rs.5 lakhs each crediting the amount to account No.0428201101970 Sri. C. Gunasekaran has confirmed his signatures.
(ac) There was one more transaction of Rs. 5 lakhs carried out through the account of Sri. C. Gunasekaran in October 2011 about which Sri. C. Gunasekaran was not aware. Further he stated that Accused No.1, Asst. Manager used to obtain withdrawal slips signed by Sri. C. Gunasekaran for withdrawal of cash of Rs.5 Lakhs taken place in October 2011 through his account without his 24 Spl.C.C.253/13 J knowledge. Accused No.1 had misused the same by taking Sri. C. Gunasekaran's signature in the withdrawal slips as he had believed Accused No.1 earlier that Accused No.1 used to credit and withdraw cash to remit the other loan accounts of Sri. C. Gunasekaran.
(ad) Accused No.1 and 2 had opened SB account with Axis Bank Ltd., Tallakulam Branch, SPRM Towers, No.50, Alagar Koil Main Road, Tallakulam Madurai, Tamil Nadu vide SB account No. 910010015164435 in the name of Accused No.1 and SB account No.9110025893800 in the name of accused No.2. The both SB accounts confirmed about the various transactions in these two SB accounts, which also confirms the credits of an amount of Rs.10,12,17,560/- through 20 NEFT remittances from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch, Bangalore into the SB account bearing No. 910010015164435 of accused No.1 maintained with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and also the credit of an amount of Rs.2,10,76,700/- through 04 NEFT remittances from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch, Bangalore into the SB account bearing No. 9110025893800 of accused No.2 maintained with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
25 Spl.C.C.253/13 J The various debits from the SB accounts of accused No.1 and 2 through RTGS/internet banking for making remittances to M/s. Adventures India, M/s Great Ventures, M/s. Orion Broking India Ltd., M/s. KEDIA Commodities etc. The payment of Rs.7 lakhs each in cash in the name of accused No.2 and Sri. Krishnamurthy vide Cheque No. 006176 dated 16.05.2012 and Cheque No. 006177 dated 16.05.2012 respectively to accused No.1 only. In this connection signed cheques have been sent to GEQD for opinion on the forged signature done by Accused No.1.
(ae) The payment of Rs.8,00,000/- in cash on 13.06.2012 to Smt. Nirmala mother of Accused No.1 and 2 in respect of the Cheque No.6179 dated 11.06.2012 issued by Accused No.1 on his SB account No.910010015164435 of Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
(af) Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch has discounted 88 bills from 13.05.2009 to till 26.10.2012, out of which 25 bills discounted without any genuine bills amounting Rs.12,70,53,460/-. Out of these one fictitious transaction of Rs.47,59,200/- was debited twice to the above GL Head and credited into 4281250000576.
26 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Amount of Rs.47,59,200/- remitted through the NEFT to Accused No.1's account with A/c No. 910010015164435 and the next amount of Rs.47,59,200/- was CASA (Current Account Savings Account) 4281250000576 continued in credit in this account only. Subsequently branch had recovered this amount and kept it in the suspense account. One bill of Rs.5,73,456/- discounted on 23.02.2012 for Rs.35,73,456/- and credited to 4281250000691 of Digitronix Measuring Instruments and immediately Rs.30,00,000/- debited and remitted by NEFT to Accused No.1's account with Axis Bank, vide account No. 910010015164435. Discount is collected on amount of Rs.5,73,456/- and not on 35,73,456/-. The interest amount of Rs.14,160/- and commission of Rs.5,063/- collected from Digitronix for an amount of Rs.5,73,456/- and not on 35,73,456/-. The remittance in 24 cases amounting to Rs.12,22,94,260/- is a fraudulent amount.
(ag) After discounting the fictitious bills by debiting GL 277240100 and credited to various customers accounts, immediately debiting the same accounts and crediting to either GL 170100500 (Remittance Parking GL), GL 170100300 (Term Deposit Renewal Parking GL) or GL 27 Spl.C.C.253/13 J 170150100 (Suspense Online Transactions). Then debiting to these GL Heads remitted the funds towards account of Accused No.1 vide account No. 910010015164435 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai amounting Rs.10,12,17,560/- (20 remittances) and towards Accused No.2 account vide No. 9110025893800 with Axis Bank to the amounting Rs.2,10,76,700/- (4 remittances). Branch has not prepared debit and credit slips for the above parking GL's and NEFT remittances.
(ah) All the above bills entered by the teller ID 557692T of Accused No.1, Asst. Manager and authorized by supervisor ID 194817S of Accused No.3, Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore.
(ai) On 08.09.2011 Accused No.1 has deposited cash Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs in the account of Sri. Gunasekharan.C vide account 4282010101970 and remitted Rs.10 lakhs through NEFT to his account vide account 910010015164435 with Axis Bank, Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
(aj) Further on 17.09.2011 Accused No.1 has deposited cash Rs.5.05 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs in the account 28 Spl.C.C.253/13 J of Sri.Krishnan.C vide account 4282010120298 and remitted Rs.10.05 Lakhs through NEFT to his account vide account 910010015164435 with Axis Bank, Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
(ak) The accused No.2 connived with Accused No.1 in routing the proceeds of the fraudulent bills through his SB account No. 912010025893800 amounting to Rs.2,10,76,700/- (4 remittances) maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu. Further in connivance with Accused No.1 he had kept the copies of the cheque Nos. 1168, 1167, 1164 & 1165 all dated 04.10.2012 for Rs.50 Lakhs each amounting to Rs.2 Crores, which were not debited from his account, these cheques were seized from the accused residence at Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
(al) A total amount of Rs.12,22,94,260/- was fraudulently withdrawn from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch, Bangalore by Accused No.1 with the connivance of the other accused persons Accused No.2 and 3 and an amount of Rs.6,73,10,688/- was recovered and kept in Accused No.1's SB account No. 01112020026478 29 Spl.C.C.253/13 J maintained with Syndicate Bank, Manipal Branch. The total loss is Rs.5,49,83,572/- with an amount of Rs.5,26,997/- kept frozen with M/s. Orion Broking Services Pvt Ltd and Rs.10,00,000/- receivable from Mrs. Urmila and Rs.1,41,000/- receivable from M/s. Adventures India which was frozen with them. Thus the total loss amounting of Rs.5,33,15,575/-.
3. Sri. K. Santhosh Kamath, General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, V.V. Puram, R.V. Road, Bangalore- 560 004 complaint dated 29.10.2012 vide letter No. 0479/ROB/GM/2012, addressed to Dy. Inspector General of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, Bangalore lodged complaint regarding the misappropriation of funds by Accused No.1, Asst. Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore to the tune of Rs.12.24 Crores by falsification of records, unauthorized diversion of funds, criminal breach of trust and caused financial loss to the bank. Further on 27.10.2012 Sri. Santhosh Kamath, the then General Manager, Regional Head, Bangalore instructed Sri. N. Suresh, Senior Manager to look into the irregularities occurred in one of the General Ledger Accounts (i.e. Drawee Bills account) of Syndicate Bank, 30 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Yeshwanthpur Branch. Accordingly, he had gone into the details and submitted a detailed report dated 28.10.2012 i.e., Preliminary Verification Report. The report was submitted before the Darshan, AGM, Regional Office, Bangalore and complaint was given based on the preliminary verification report submitted by Asst. General Manager dated 28.10.2012 vide Note No.1425/ROB/IRRC/2012, on receipt of the said report, the General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Bangalore lodged a complaint with CBI against accused No.1 and others.
4. Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Bangalore received the complaint and registered a case in RC No.20(A)/2012 and submitted FIR to the court and entrusted the investigation of this case to Sri. Vivekananda Tulsigeri, Police Inspector, CBI, ACB, Bangalore. Thereafter the further investigation was entrusted to Sri. A. Sathiamoorthy, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Bangalore. During the investigation, the Investigating Officers, collected the relevant documents, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Then the investigation was concluded and filed a charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 before the court.
31 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
5. After filing the charge sheet, looking to the material forthcoming against the accused No.1 to 3, cognizance has been taken for the alleged offences against all accused. Then in response to the service of summons, the accused No.1 to 3 appeared before the court and they were enlarged on bail and necessary police papers have been furnished to them.
6. The accused No.3 submitted application praying for his discharge and the same was opposed by the CBI. The learned counsel for Accused No.1 and 2 submitted arguments for discharge. After hearing both sides, the request for discharge came to be rejected. Then the court proceeded to frame charge against accused No.1 to 3.
7. Thereafter the charge against the accused No.1 to 3 has been framed and contents of the charge were read over and explained to them in the language known to them and they all pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. Then the prosecution has examined in all 46 witnesses as PWs.1 to 46, got exhibited Ex.P1 to P222 and closed its side. Then the statement of the accused No.1 to 3 as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., has been recorded, 32 Spl.C.C.253/13 J after explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they have denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them.
9. The Accused No.1 to 3 have not entered the defence evidence on their behalf but during the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they have got exhibited Ex.D1 to D18 in support of their defence.
10. Then I have heard the detail arguments advanced by learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and the learned defence counsel for the Accused No.1 to 3.
11. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted his Notes of Arguments. The learned defence counsel for accused No.1 to 3 submitted their detail notes of arguments and citations.
12. The points that would arise for my consideration are: -
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and 3 being a public servants and accused No.2 being a private person, from 15.10.2011 to 30.10.2012 entered into criminal conspiracy to cheat the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore, and thereby committed an offence?
33 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 to 3 during the relevant time, in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy cheated Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore for Rs.12,22,94,260/- dishonestly and fraudulently and thereby committed an offence?
3) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, being a Asst. Manager in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, a public servant entrusted with property or with any dominion over property in his capacity as a public servant committed criminal breach of trust in respect of that property and thereby committed an offence?
4) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 in furtherance of criminal conspiracy committed forgery for the purpose of cheating the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore and thereby committed an offence?
5) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 in furtherance of criminal conspiracy fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record and thereby committed an offence?
6) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 in furtherance of criminal conspiracy acting in the capacity as Asst. Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore, willfully and with intent to defraud, destroyed, altered, mutilates or falsified book, electronic record and other records of the bank and thereby committed an offence?
34 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
7) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 and 3 being public servants in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converted for their own use the property of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore entrusted to them or under their control as a public servants or allowed any other person so to do and thereby committed an offence?
8) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 and 3 being public servants in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy by corrupt or illegal means, by abusing their position as public servants obtained for themselves or for any other person, a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage and thereby committed an offence?
9) What order?
13. My findings on the above points are as follows:
POINT NO.1 & 2: Partly in the affirmative against accused No.1 and 2, POINT NO.3 to 6: In the affirmative, POINT NO.7 & 8: Partly in the affirmative against accused No.1 only POINT NO.9: As per final order, for the following REASONS
14. POINT Nos.1 TO 8: - All these points have been taken up together for consideration and discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence.
35 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
15. The main allegations of prosecution forthcoming against accused No.1 to 3 are: -
(1) Accused No.1 while he was working as Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore, accused No.2 and accused No.3 who was working as Chief Manager and head of Yeshwanthpur Branch, Syndicate Bangalore entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore, accordingly cheated, misappropriated funds to the tune of Rs.12,22,94,260/- by falsification of records, unauthorised diversion of funds, criminal breach of trust and caused loss to the bank and derived pecuniary advantage to themselves and diverted the misappropriated funds to M/s. Great Ventures to the extent of Rs.1.50 crores, KEDIA commodity to the extent of Rs.2 crores, Adventures India to the extent of Rs.1.67 crores, invested in Bullet Trading through a broker at Madurai for Rs.4.14 crores and Rs.2.66 crores and retained Rs.10 lakhs balance in the SB Account at Axis Bank, Thallakulam branch, Madurai and thereby committed the offences.
36 Spl.C.C.253/13 J (2) Looking to the defence of all the accused, it is an admitted fact that accused No.1 J. Kannan was working as Asst. Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore from August 2009 to 30.10.2012 and holding the advances portfolio in the said branch. It is further admitted that accused No.2 J. Muralidharan is the own younger brother of accused No.1 and student and resident of Madurai, Tamilnadu and a private person. It is further admitted that accused No.3 Ram Naik was working as Chief Manager and head of Yeshwanthpura Branch, Syndicate Bank, Bangalore from 13.1.2010 to 29.10.2012 and subsequently he was transferred to the Syndicate Bank, Regional Office-II, Bangalore and retired from the service on superannuation on 30.4.2013. It is further admitted that subsequently, accused No.1 and 3 have been dismissed from the service by holding Departmental Enquiry by the Syndicate Bank.
(3) It is further admitted that accused No.1 had opened his SB Account in Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the said account was bearing No. 910010015164435 and operating the said account.
37 Spl.C.C.253/13 J (4) It is further admitted that accused No.2 had opened his SB A/c. in Axis Bank, Thallakulam branch, Madurai and the said account was bearing No. 912010025893800 and operating the said account.
16. In support of its case, the prosecution has relied upon the oral and documentary evidence. Looking to the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, firstly the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 C.V. Sundar Murthy, Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch who has deposed that he has addressed a letter Ex.P1 to the Investigating Officer intimating that credit and debit vouchers pertaining to 24 bills discounting transactions were not available and mentioned those transactions in Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is the statement of account pertaining to K. Saravana Kumar along with his certificates and Ex.P3 and P4 are the letter and account opening form along with enclosures. His another letter forwarded by him to the Investigating Officer with 7 documents is Ex.P5 and documents are Ex.P6 to P9 and they are pertaining to C. Gunashekaran and C. Krishna in respect of opening of accounts and statements of account pertaining to their accounts. Ex.P10 38 Spl.C.C.253/13 J is his another letter to the Investigating Officer producing 12 documents and Ex.P17 is his another letter producing 17 documents before the Investigating Officer as per Ex.P20 to 36. All the credit vouchers, debit vouchers, drawing bills and order of sanctioning authority pertaining to the fraud transactions were not available in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and said 24 transactions were not backed by vouchers duly authorized by the concerned officer. Accused No.1 has discounted against non existing bills and discounted the amount from General Ledger and credited the amounts to the 17 accounts and thereafter debited from those 17 accounts and got credited the same to the Account of Accused No.1 in Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and to the account of his brother accused No.2. For remitting the said amount from the 17 accounts to the accounts of accused No.1 and 2 in Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, there were no letter of authority.
17. He has further stated that as per Ex.P1 there was no Manager's certificate from January 2012 to March 2012 for said transaction. Ex.P37 is the debit voucher for having debited Rs.5,73,456/- from GL account and credited to M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments. Ex.P38 is the 39 Spl.C.C.253/13 J credit voucher under which an amount of Rs.5,73,456/- was credited to the account of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments. Ex.P39 is the bill register extract and in respect of entry dated 23.2.2012 no credit vouchers or debit vouchers pertaining to Rs.35,73,456/- of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments is available in the branch.
18. He has further stated that an amount of Rs.59,92,775/- has been credited to the account of M/s. Delta Manufacturer on 15.3.2012 as per Ex.P39(b). As per Ex.P22(a) an amount of Rs.9,92,775/- is credited to the account of M/s. Delta Manufacturer and there is no original bill for having issued by Akson in favour of M/s. Delta Manufacture either for Rs.9,92,775/- or Rs.59,92,775/-. Those 24 transactions were not within the credit limit of Asst. Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch and those transactions were not informed to the controlling authority. The said bills were treated as non-performance assets due to non realization of the bills and the same was not reported to the Regional Office by the Yeshwanthpur branch.
40 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
19. Further, he has deposed that the passwords are to be changed periodically by the Manager and all the staff members and circulars are being issued from time to time as per Ex.P40 and 41. The Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch has not updated Liability Register by party-wise. Ex.P42 is his letter for producing four documents as per Ex.P43 to P46. Ex.P47 is his another letter to CBI furnishing the statement of accounts of Gunashekaran C and Saravana Kumar.
20. Secondly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 Sri. T. Srikrishna, Asst. General Manager, Regional Office-II, Syndicate Bank, Bangalore who has deposed that on 8.2.2013, he has produced the policy guidelines for drawee bill scheme details along with letter Ex.P48 signed by Deputy General Manager and Ex.P49 is the policy guidelines for drawee bill scheme. On 25.7.2013, he has produced manual Ex.P51 containing the Roles and Responsibilities of Chief Manager under his letter Ex.P50.
21. Thirdly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.3 N. Suresh, Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank, RO-I, Belgaum who has deposed that on 41 Spl.C.C.253/13 J 27.10.2012, he was asked by their GM to look into the irregularities occurred in one of the General Ledger Account with regard to the drawee bill of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and accordingly he secured the document from the concerned branch to the Regional Office, verified General Ledger with regard to the drawee bill and submitted his preliminary verification report as per Ex.P52.
22. Fourthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.4 Sri. K. Santhosh Kamath, General Manager who has deposed that he has lodged complaint dated 29.10.2012 before the CBI as per Ex.P53 against Accused No.1. On 27.10.2012, he received oral complaint from the Chief Manager and then deputed PW3 and Sri. N.V. Dharshan, Asst. General Manager to conduct preliminary verification and then they submitted preliminary verification report on 28.10.2012 as per Ex.P52. During the period between 15.10.2011 and 26.10.2012, accused No.1 carried out 24 unauthorised transactions by debiting to General Ledger Head by name Advances against drawee bills involving an amount of Rs.12.23 crores and passed on the corresponding credit 42 Spl.C.C.253/13 J through NEFT to his off-site monitoring cell in the Regional Office.
23. Fifthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.5 Sri. Tridib Kumar Bose, Chief Manager, Regional Office, Syndicate Bank, Kolkata who worked as Senior Manager in Regional Office, Syndicate Bank, Bangalore who has deposed that on 17.11.2012, he has produced documents before the CBI under receipt memo Ex.P64. Further he has deposed that under the letter of their General Manager dated 16.11.2012 produced the certified copies of statement of account, certified screen shots of RTGS/NEFT remittances made from GL Head No.170100500, GL Head No. 170150100 suspense online transactions etc., and letter of General Manager is Ex.P65 and the documents are Ex.P56. Ex.P20 to 36 are some of the accounts pertaining to M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments and others.
24. Further he has deposed that on 23.2.2012, an amount of Rs.35,73,456/- was debited from the GL account and credited to M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments under Ex.P67 and relevant entry is Ex.P67(a). Out of Rs.35,73,456/-, an amount of Rs.30 lakhs was debited 43 Spl.C.C.253/13 J from the account of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments and credited to remittance parking GL bearing GL No.170100500 as per Ex.P67(b) and on the same day, an amount of Rs.30 lakhs was transferred to the account of accused No.1 under Ex.P67(c).
25. Further, he has deposed that on 15.10.2011, an amount of Rs.28,08,000/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. Gayatri Structural and Roofing Pvt. Ltd., bearing account No. 04281250000986 as per Ex.P68. Then the said amount was debited to the same account and credited to Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 under Ex.P68(a) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.28,08,000/- was debited from the remittance parking GL account and credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P68(b) and 68(c).
26. Further, he has deposed that on 16.3.2012, an amount of Rs.50 lakhs was debited to GL Head Account No. 277240100 under Ex.P69 and relevant entry Ex.P69(a) and 44 Spl.C.C.253/13 J on the same day, an amount of Rs.50 lakhs was credited to the current account of M/s. Delta Manufacturer bearing No. 04281010006553 under Ex.P69(b). After debiting from the M/s. Delta Manufacturer account the said amount of Rs.50 lakhs was credited to remittance parking GL account bearing No. 170100500 under Ex.P69(d) and on the same day, an amount of Rs.50 lakhs was transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained in Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and those debit and credit entries are under Ex.P69(e) and 69(f).
27. Further, he has deposed that on 18.4.2012, an amount of Rs.56,02,052/- was debited from advance against drawee bills from the GL account No. 277240100 under Ex.P70 and relevant entry is Ex.P70(a) and on the same day, the said amount was credited to the account of M/s. Pooja Enterprises bearing No. 04281250000929 and on the same day, the said amount was debited from the account of M/s. Pooja Enterprises and credited to remittance parking GL account. On the same day, the said amount is credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT 45 Spl.C.C.253/13 J bearing No. 910010015164435 maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu as per Ex.P70(g).
28. Further, he has deposed that on 21.4.2012, an amount of Rs.51,12,557/- was debited from advance against drawee bills from GL account No.277240100 and credited to 04281250000933 of M/s. R R Forgings Pvt. Ltd., under Ex.P71 and relevant entry is Ex.P71(a) and on the same day, the amount was debited from the account of M/s. RR Forgings Pvt. Ltd., and the said entry is at Ex.P71(b) and credit entry is Ex.P71(c). On the same day, the amount of Rs.51,12,557/- was credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu under Ex.P71(f).
29. Further, he has deposed that on 14.8.2012, an amount of Rs.53,00,400/- was debited from the advances drawee bill from GL Account No.277240100 and credited to the account No. 04281250000929 of M/s. Pooja Enterprises under Ex.P72 and relevant entry is Ex.P72(a) and on the same day, the amount was credited to the account of remittance parking GL account by debiting the amount to GL and those entries are Ex.P72(b) and P72(c). On the same day, the said amount was credited to the account of 46 Spl.C.C.253/13 J accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai under Ex.P72(f).
30. Further, he has deposed that on 16.8.2012, an amount of Rs.49,00,500/- was debited from the advance drawee bills from GL account No.27724100 under Ex.P73 and relevant entry is Ex.P73(a) and the said amount was credited to the account of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments bearing A/c. No. 04281250000691 and on the same day, an amount was debited to M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments and credited to the remittance parking GL and those entries are Ex.P73(b) to P73(d). On the same day, an amount of Rs.49,00,500/- was credited to the account of accused No.1 J. Kannan through NEFT in Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu under Ex.P73(e) and (f).
31. Further, he has deposed that on 17.8.2012, an amount of Rs.58,96,752/- was debited from advances against drawee bills under Ex.P74 and relevant entry Ex.P74(a) and amount was credited to the current account of M/s. Delta Manufacturer bearing No.04281010006553 under Ex.P74(b). Then the amount was debited from the M/s. Delta Manufacturer account and credited to the 47 Spl.C.C.253/13 J remittance parking GL account bearing No. 17010500 and the said entry is Ex.P74(d). On the same day, the said amount of Rs.58,96,752/- was credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu under Ex.P74(e) and 74(f).
32. Further, he has deposed that on 21.8.2012, an amount of Rs.53,00,900/- was debited from advance against drawee bill from GL account 277240100 and credited to M/s. Siva Steels under Ex.P75 and relevant entry is Ex.P75(a). The said amount of Rs.53,00,900/- was debited from M/s. Siva Steels on the same day for credit to remittance parking GL and those entries are at Ex.P75(c) and (d). Then the said amount was credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT under Ex.P75(f) and 75(g).
33. Further, he has deposed that on 25.8.2012, an amount of Rs.56,22,529/- was debited from the advance against drawee bill from GL account No.277240100 for credit of M/s. Sunil Steels Scrap Traders under Ex.P76 and relevant entry Ex.P76(a). On the same day, the said amount was debited to M/s. Sunil Steels Scrap Traders in order to credit to suspense online transactions and those entries 48 Spl.C.C.253/13 J are Ex.P76(d) and 76(e). On the same day, the said amount of Rs.56,22,529/- was credited to the account of accused No.1 J. Kannan through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thalakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu under Ex.P76(f) and 76(g).
34. Further, he has deposed that on 18.9.2012, an amount of Rs.47,53,973/- and Rs.53,00,497/- were debited from advance against drawee bill from GL account as per the statement Ex.P.77 and those entries are as per Ex.P.77(a). Out of aforesaid amounts an amount of Rs.47,53,973/- was credited to M/s. SLN Engineering Works on the same day bearing account No.0428125000576 as per the statement of account Ex.P.77(b) and the said two entries crediting and debiting the amount to M/s. SLN Engineering Works are as per Ex. P77(c). On the same day, an amount of Rs.53,00,497/- was credited to the account of M/s. Gujarath Traders bearing account No. 04281250000185 as per the statement of account Ex.P77(d) and the said amount was transferred to remittance parking GL 170100500 and the said entry is Ex.P.77(e). An amount of Rs.47,53,973/- was debited from the M/s. SLN Engineering Works in order to credit 49 Spl.C.C.253/13 J to the suspense online transactions as per the statement of account Ex.P77(f). The said amount was debited from the suspense on line account on same day and credited to the account of accused No.1 J. Kannan through NEFT, the said entries are as per Ex.P77(g) and 77(h). The said two amounts were credited to the account of accused No.1 on 18.9.2012 as per Ex.P77(p).
35. Further, he has deposed that on 3.10.2012, an amount of Rs.47,42,000/-, Rs.53,75,000/-, Rs.51,62,000/- and Rs.56,41,000/- were debited to advance against drawee bills from GL account No.277240100 under Ex.P78 and relevant entries at Ex.P78(a). An amount of Rs.47,42,000/- was credited to the account of M/s. Manal Enterprises bearing No. 04281250000277 as per Ex.P78(b) and the relevant entry is Ex.78(c) and the said amount was debited on the same day from M/s. Manal Enterprises and credited to online suspense account as per Ex.P78(d) suspense online transaction and relevant entries are Ex.P78(e) and (f). On the same day, the said amount of Rs.47,42,000/- was credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT under Ex.P78(g).
50 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
36. Further, he has deposed that an amount of Rs.53,75,000/- was credited on GL account to M/s. Gujarath Traders bearing account No.04281250000185 as per Statement of account of M/s. Gujarath Traders Ex.P.78(h) and said relevant entries are at Ex.P78(i). The said amount was debited from M/s. Gujarath Traders and credited to the remittance parking GL as per Ex.P78(j) and the relevant entry Ex.P78(k). On the same day, the said amount of Rs.53,75,000/- was credited to the account of Accused No.2 Muralidharan through NEFT and the said entry is Ex.P78(l).
37. Further, he has deposed that an amount of Rs.51,62,000/- was debited from GL account and was credited to the account of Ashwini Clothing Company bearing account No. 04281250001601 as per Ex.P78(m) and the relevant entries are Ex.P78(n). The said amount of Rs.51,62,000/- debited from Ashwini Clothing and credited to suspense online transaction as per Ex.P78(e). The said amount was debited from suspense online account and credited to the account of accused No.1 J. Kannan through NEFT under Ex.P78(o).
51 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
38. Further, he has deposed that an amount of Rs.56,41,000/- was debited from advance against drawee bills and credited to the account of Anand Electricals account bearing No. 0425125000205 as per Ex.P78(p) and the relevant entries are Ex.P78(q). THE said amount of Rs.56,41,000/- debited from Anand Electricals and credited to remittance parking GL as per Ex.P78(j) and relevant entry is Ex.P78(r) and the said amount was credited to the account of Accused No.2 Muralidharan on the same day as per Ex.P78(s).
39. Further, he has deposed that on 4.10.2012, an amount of Rs.52,72,600/- and Rs.57,42,500/- were debited by the advance against drawee bill from GL Account No.277240100 as per Ex.P79 and relevant entries at Ex.P79(a). The said amounts were credited to the account of M/s. Karni Kemp and AA Associates respectively as per Ex.P79(b) and 79(c). An amount of Rs.52,72,600/- was debited from the account of Karni Kemp bearing account No.04281250000952 and credited to the remittance parking GL and those entries are Ex.P79(d). An amount of Rs.57,42,500/- was debited from the account of AA Associates bearing Account No. 52 Spl.C.C.253/13 J 04281250000649 and credited to remittance parking GL as per Ex.P79(e) and remittance parking GL is Ex.P79(f). An amount of Rs.57,42,500/- and Rs.52,72,600/- were debited in order to credit to the account of accused No.1 J. Kannan and those entries are Ex.P79(g) and the entries for crediting the amount to account of accused No.1 through NEFT are at Ex.P79(h) and (i).
40. Further, he has deposed that on 6.10.2012, an amount of Rs.47,59,200/-, Rs.56,30,200/-, Rs.44,30,500/-, Rs.47,59,200/- and Rs.53,70,400/- were debited from the advance against drawee bill from the GL account No.277240100 as per Ex.P80 and the five entries are at Ex.P80(a). Out of the aforesaid 5 amounts, two amounts of Rs.47,59,200/- each were credited to the account No. 04281250000576 of SLN Engineering Work at Ex.P80(b) and two credit entries are at Ex.P80(c). Out of the said two amounts marked at Ex.P80(c), one amount of Rs.47,59,200/- was credited to the remittance parking GL as per Ex.P80(d). Remittance Parking GL statement is at Ex.P80(e) and relevant entry is at Ex.P80(f). The amount of Rs.56,30,200/- was debited from GL account and credited to the account of Balaji Wood Works bearing 53 Spl.C.C.253/13 J account No. 04281250000856 as per Ex.P80(g) and on the same day, it was credited to the remittance parking GL as per Ex.P80(h), the entry of credit in remittance parking GL is Ex.P80(i). Another amount of Rs.53,70,400/- which was debited from GL account was credited to the account of Balaji Corporation bearing account No.04281250001080 as per Ex.P80(h) and the relevant entry is Ex.P80(i). The said amount was credited to remittance parking GL as per Ex.P80(e). The debit entry is at Ex.P80(j). An amount of Rs.44,30,500/- debited from GL account was credited to the account of Sri. Lakshmi Engineering Works bearing account No. 04281250001095 as per Ex.P80(k) and the credit entry is Ex.P80(l). The said amount was again debited from Sri. Lakshmi Engineering Works in order to credit to remittance parking GL as per Ex.P80(m). The amount of Rs.44,30,500/- to the parking GL is at Ex.P.80(n). Out of these amounts, Rs.47,59,200/- and Rs.53,70,400/- were credited to the account of accused No.1 J. Kannan through NEFT as per Ex.P80(o) and two amounts of Rs.56,30,200/- and Rs.44,30,500/- were credited to the account of accused No.2 J. Muralidaran, the relevant entries are at Ex.P80(p) and (q).
54 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
41. Further, he has deposed that on 26.10.2012, an amount of Rs.58,40,300/- and Rs.57,30,400/- were debited from the advance against drawee bill from GL account No.277240100 as per Ex.P81 and those two entries are at Ex.P81(a). Out of these two amounts, an amount of Rs.58,40,300/- was credited to Anand Electricals bearing account No.04281250000205 as per Ex.P81(b) and the said amount was credited to TD Renewal (Parking GL) as per Ex.P81(c). The TD Renewal Parking (GL) bearing No.170100300 is at Ex.P81(d) and the entries pertaining to Rs.58,40,300/- is at Ex.P81(e). The said amount was credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT, on 26.10.2012 as per Ex.P81(f). Another amount of Rs.57,30,400/- was debited from advance against drawee bill and credited to the account of M/s. Siva Steels bearing account No.04281250000880 as per Ex.P81(g) and the relevant entries at Ex.P81(h). The said amount was debited from the account of M/s. Siva Steels and credited to TD renewal parking GL as per Ex.P81(g) and the relevant entry is Ex.P81(i). The said amount was credited to the account of accused No.1 on the same day 55 Spl.C.C.253/13 J through NEFT maintained in Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai as per Ex.P81(j).
42. Further, he has deposed that Ex.P40 and 41 are the two circulars with regard to the maintaining of secrecy of password by the officials of the bank and all the guidelines are provided in said circulars. Under receipt memo Ex.P82, he has produced certified copies of Attendance Register of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch before the Investigating Officer and the attendance register for the month of October 2012 is Ex.P82(a).
43. Further, he has deposed that Ex.P83 is the letter addressed by their Regional General Manager to the Investigating Officer and he has produced the documents shown in the said letter. The partial recovery of Rs.2,27,54,688/- was recovered from accused No.1 which was transferred from account of accused No.1 maintained in Axis Bank, Tallakulam branch, Madurai to his account of Syndicate Bank, Manipal Branch as per Ex.P66.
44. Sixthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.6 Sri. S.N. Haresh Nethi, Asst. Manager, Syndicate Bank, who worked as Asst. Manager at Yeshwanthpura branch from July 2012 to May 2013 has 56 Spl.C.C.253/13 J deposed that that when he was working as Asst. Manager at Yeshwanthpur Branch, accused No.3 was working as Chief Manager, and during that period accused No.1 was working as Asst. Manager (Advance) in the same branch and he worked with accused No.1 in that branch for a period of 3 months, therefore he can identify the signature of accused No.1. On 15.7.2013, as per the letter of Sri. C.V. Sundaramoorthy, Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch as per Ex.P84 he produced 8 set of debit and credit vouchers as per Ex.P85 to 100 before the Investigating Officer which are in the handwriting of accused No.1 and bears his initial.
45. Further, he has deposed that the Attendance Register of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch is Ex.P.82 and the Attendance Register for the month of October 2012 is Ex.P.82(b) and on 25.10.2012 and 26.10.2012 accused No.1 had come to the branch but he has not put his initial in the Attendance Register on the said days and the same is at Ex.P82(c) and his signature from 16.10.2012 to 31.10.2012 is at Ex.P82(d).
46. Further, he has deposed that on 25.10.2012 and 26.10.2012 he worked in the branch till evening and on 57 Spl.C.C.253/13 J 26.10.2012 around 5 PM, he received phone call from one person viz., Ramu, who is authorized signatory of one OD account of M/s. Siva Steels and informed that there was a big credit amount to his account above Rs.50 lakhs and he had received an SMS to that effect and he informed him that he will check the same. Thereafter within 5 or 10 minutes he again received a call from Rama Naik i.e., accused No.3 stating that Sri. Ramu of M/s. Siva Steels had called him saying that there was a credit to his account and said Ramu had received an SMS to that effect and Sri. Rama Naik informed him to check the OD account of M/s. Siva Steels. Immediately he stopped work and in hand checked the OD account of M/s. Siva Steels and came to know that the credit was made to the said account and he also found that debit was also made on the same day from the said account. On verification, he did not find any debit or credit vouchers for having credited the amount and debited the amount from the OD account of M/s. Siva Steels and he came to know that the said transactions are not genuine transactions and they are of suspicious transactions. Then he verified for the purpose of crediting the OD account of M/s. Siva Steels from 58 Spl.C.C.253/13 J which account, the debit was made and came to know that the debit was made from the Advance against Drawee bill General Ledger Account and from the said General Ledger Account, the amount was credited to M/s. Siva Steels OD account and on verification, he also found that once again the amount was debited from M/s. Siva Steels and amount had gone to Term Deposit Parking General Ledger and from there the said amount had gone through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
47. Further, he has deposed that on the same day, he came to know that the same General Ledger against drawee bill was debited for about Rs.57 lakhs and credited to OD account of M/s. Anand Electricals and from said M/s. Anand Electricals, the amount was debited and an amount was sent through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai. Thereafter he informed the said fact to one Francis D' Souza who was working as Manager in Yeshwanthpur Branch and he verified the aforesaid two transactions and confirmed his findings. At that time, Rama Naik was proceeding to Mangalore and they 59 Spl.C.C.253/13 J informed him about the aforesaid two transactions and therefore he cut short his journey and came back to Bangalore and one Mathew Varghese, Asst. Manager also came and joined him. Thereafter himself, Francis D' Souza and Mathew started to check the system to ascertain as to how these transactions had taken place and after checking these transactions, they came to know that the said transactions are not genuine transactions and on that day, no drawee bills were submitted by M/s. Siva Steels and M/s. Anand Electricals and therefore there was no occasion to credit the said accounts by debiting from the General Ledger Account. Then they started checking the general ledger in order to ascertain whether there are still more transactions and then they found many transactions, which were not correct transactions and out of the said transactions only one transaction pertaining to M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments was genuine and bill was for Rs.5 lakhs and odd and it was altered as Rs.35 lakhs and odd and in the said transaction Rs.5 lakhs and odd was transferred to the OD account of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments and Rs.30 lakhs and odd was 60 Spl.C.C.253/13 J transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained in Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
48. Seventhly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.7 Thirupathi Reddy Rondla, AGM, Syndicate Bank, who worked as Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Corporate Office, Bangalore has deposed he was looking after the information security and he has produced the documents to CBI under the letter of their Chief Manager. The circular dated 18.3.2011 is at Ex.P41 speaks about the maintenance of password secrecy and periodical change of password by the employees of the bank. Various circulars have been issued in this regard which are referred in Ex.P.41. He further speaks about circular dated 7.4.2011 issued by Fraud Risk Management Policy which is at Ex.P101. Ex.P.101 is accompanied with the policy of fraud risk management. He further deposed that fraud risk management policy speaks about the issues relating to fraud and its prevention and it also speaks about various roles and responsibilities of monitoring officials at various levels. It also speaks about the various alerts, control statement which are to be verified on daily basis by the branch head and other officers. The document dated 61 Spl.C.C.253/13 J 30.5.2013 which is signed by the Deputy General Manager of Vigilance Department through which the user Login details of accused No.1 and 3 were provided as per Ex.P103.
49. Further, he has deposed that in letter dated 27.5.2013 which is marked as Ex.P104, the login IDs of Accused No.1 and 3 were provided and they are as follows: -
(i) Mr. Rama Naik user ID 194817S
(ii) Mr. J. Kannan user ID 557692S and 557692T
50. Eighthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.8 Sri. M.G. Sudhir Kini, Retired Deputy General Manager, Syndicate Bank, RO-II, Bangalore who has deposed that he produced documents before CBI officers along with his covering letter dated 8.2.2013 Ex.P48 and documents such as Policy Guidelines regarding drawee bills, policy guidelines, accounting system aspects and duties and responsibilities of officers and the supervisory role and responsibility of the branch head which is at Ex.P49. He had given another letter dated 25.7.2013 as per Ex.P50 along with guidelines and the role of Chief Manager and Asst. General Manager as per Bank Manual of Instructions which is marked at Ex.P51. On 62 Spl.C.C.253/13 J 12.8.2013, he forwarded a copy of Special Investigation Report pertaining to the fraud committed in this case along with his letter Ex.P105 and the report is Ex.P106. On 25.6.2013, he produced two cheques, one drawn by Accused No.1 and another drawn by accused No.2 of Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu for Rs.2,25,56,000/- and Rs.2,20,00,000/- respectively under his letter Ex.P55 and the cheques are at Ex.P56 and 57. He has also produced two credit slips under Ex.P55 which are as per Ex.P58 and P59 for crediting the amount to the account of accused No.1 and cheque return memos which were returned without honour since the account was blocked and frozen and cheque return memos are at Ex.P60 and 61.
51. Ninthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.9 K. Preetam Lal, General Manager, Syndicate Bank, who was working as General Manager in Erstwhile Regional Office, Bangalore who has deposed that he produced 10 documents to CBI Officer under his letter Ex.P65 which are certified copies of statements of accounts of 17 account holders which are Ex.P20 to 36 containing applications for OD etc. On 20.12.2012, he has produced 63 Spl.C.C.253/13 J statement of account pertaining to the accounts of Yeshwanthpura branch of Sri. Rama Naik under his letter Ex.P.83.
52. Tenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.10 that N. Ganganarasaiah, Contractor who has deposed that on 3.10.2012, an amount of Rs.56,41,000/- was deposited to his OD account, on 26.10.2012, an amount of Rs.58,40,300/- was deposited to his OD account and he had neither submitted any bill of account nor discount bill and deposited the said amount to his OD account. During November first week of 2012, he came to know that the said amounts were deposited to his OD account and fraud has been committed and on the same day of deposit, this amounts were withdrawn from his OD account and the relevant entries are at Ex.P31(b) and 31(c).
53. Eleventhly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.11 Hemant Kumar, Partner of M/s. Ashwini Clothing Company, Bangalore who has deposed that on 3.10.2012, an amount of Rs.51,62,000/- was deposited to his OD account Ex.P30(a). On the same day, the said amount was debited from his account and he had 64 Spl.C.C.253/13 J not given any bill of discount to the tune of Rs.51,62,000/- and the said entry is Ex.P30(c) and after 2 days, he came to know about the deposit and debit of the said amount to his OD account and subsequently, he came to know that the fraud was committed in respect of Rs.51,62,000/-.
54. Twelfthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.12 Sageer Ahamed who is Proprietor of M/s. Delta Manufacturer, Bangalore who has deposed that on 16.3.2012, an amount of Rs.50 lakhs was credited to his account and on the same day, the said amount of Rs.50 lakhs was debited from his account and again on 17.8.2012 an amount of Rs.58,96,752/- was credited to his account and debited on the same day and those entries are Ex.P22(d) and P22(e).
55. Further he has deposed that neither on 16.3.2012 nor on 17.8.2012, he had submitted any bill for discount in order to credit the amount to his account. After 2 or 3 days of 16.3.2012, he had been to the Bank and enquired A1 as to why the said amount of Rs.50 lakhs was credited and debited to his account and he replied that it was simple credit and debit and he need not worry for the same. Further he has deposed that accused No.1 was working as 65 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Asst. Manager in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch and identified him before the court.
56. Thirteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.13 Jaijo Joseph, Proprietor of M/s. A.A. Associates, Bangalore who deposed that on 4.10.2012, an amount of Rs.57,42,500/- was credited to his OD account and on the same day, the said amount was debited from his account under Ex.P28(c) and he came to know about the said entry and he had no bill discounting facility and he had not submitted any bills for discounting and he enquired accused No.1 and he told that it was due to mistake.
57. Fourteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.14 Anish A. Majid, Proprietor of M/s. Gujarath Traders, who deposed that in the year 2012, he came to know that an amount of Rs.53,00,497/- and Rs.53,75,000/- were credited and debited to his OD account on the same day and he went and enquired accused No.1 and he replied that by mistake the said entries have taken place. He had not given any bill for the purpose of discount in respect of the said two amounts and CBI officer enquired him and Ex.P34 is his account opening 66 Spl.C.C.253/13 J form and statement of account is Ex.P34(b) and the relevant entries are at Ex.P34(c) and (d).
58. Fifteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.15 Ashok Kothari, one of the Proprietor of M/s. Karni Kemp, Bangalore, who has deposed that they are having OD Account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch and having OD limit to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs. On 4.10.2012, an amount of Rs.52,72,600/- was credited to their OD account and it was debited on the same day and after one week, he came to know about the said entries and he had not given any bills for the purpose of discount and the said entries does not pertain to their business transaction and on enquiry with accused No.1, he told that it was a wrong entry and it was done due to mistake. Then he has deposed that Accused No.1 was looking after the OD account at that time and on the advice of their Auditor, he had given letter to the bank and obtained reply from the bank stating that the entire are wrong entries. Ex.P29 is the account opening form, and his signature and signature of his wife are at Ex.P29(a) and (b) and their statement of account is Ex.P29(c). The relevant entries are at Ex.P.29(d).
67 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
59. Sixteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.16 Oscar Sebastian Dass, who is running Hot & Cold Insulation in the name of M/s. Manal Enterprises, a Proprietary concern has deposed that he is having account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch pertaining to his concern and the OD limit is of Rs.28 lakhs. About 1½ or 2 years back he received SMS alert from the bank with regard to drawing of excess amount i.e., crediting and debiting the amount from his account and the statement of account pertaining to his account is Ex.P32. On 3.10.2012, an amount of Rs.47,42,000/- was credited to their account and immediately on the same day, the amount was debited from their account and they had not submitted any bills for discount or earlier to that and the transaction is as per Ex.P32(b).
60. Seventeenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.17 Smt. Jalaja Manjunath, Proprietrix of M/s. Pooja Enterprises deposed that her firm has got OD account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur and prescribed limit is Rs.12,75,000/-. Then she has deposed that in the month of April 2012 and August 2012, accused No.1 had called her and intimated that some 68 Spl.C.C.253/13 J wrong entries were made in their account and she need not worry for the same. The said amount of credit and debit do not pertain to her business and during that period she had not submitted any bills for discount. On 18.4.2012, an amount of Rs.56,02,052/- was credited to her account and on same day, the amount was debited from their account under Ex.P23(b) and on 14.8.2012, an amount of Rs.53,00,400/- was credited to her account and on the same day, the amount was debited from her account under Ex.P23(c) and those transactions do not pertain to her business and Ex.P23 is her statement of account. She went to the bank and accused No.1 took her inside the bank and showed that the entry was made and reversed on the same day and he also consoled her stating that she need not worry for the same, since the entry is reversed.
61. Eighteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.18 Smt. Kavitha R, who is running a proprietary concern in the name of M/s. Siva Steels has deposed that she is having OD account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch in the name of her firm and avail the OD facility to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs.
69 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
62. She has further deposed that on 26.10.2012, she received SMS stating that an amount of Rs.57,30,400/- was credited, on the same day the accused No.1 called her over phone and told that the said entry was made by mistake and same has been reversed. Subsequently she came to know that an amount of Rs.53,00,900/- was credited and debited to their account and she had not submitted any bills on both occasions and said amount do not pertain to their business and Ex.P36 is her account opening form and statement of account. The relevant entries are Ex.P36(b) and 36(c).
63. Nineteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.19 T. Kempegowda who is one of the partner of M/s. SLN Engineering Works has deposed that their firm is having OD account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore and prescribed OD limit is Rs.20 lakhs. He further deposed that after obtaining statement of account, he came to know that in October 2012, on two occasions, some amount was credited and debited from their OD account and at that time he had not availed the SMS alert facility from the bank account. Ex.P33 is his account opening form and statement of 70 Spl.C.C.253/13 J account and as per the said document, on 18.9.2012, an amount of Rs.47,53,973/- was credited and on the same day it was debited and on 6.10.2012, a sum of Rs.47,59,200/- was credited and debited on the same day to their OD account and he had not submitted any bills for discount. The relevant entries are at Ex.P33(b) and (c).
64. Twentiethly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.20 Raghunathan, Managing Director of M/s. RR Forgings Pvt. Ltd., has deposed that his firm had availed OD facility from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch and Rs.25 lakhs cheque discounting facility. On 21.4.2012, an amount of Rs.51,12,557/- was credited to their account and immediately he called the accused No.1 over phone and enquired him about the said entry and he reversed the said entry and the said amount does not pertain to their business and he had not submitted any bills for discount for the said amount. Ex.P24 is his OD account opening form and the transactions is Ex.P24(b).
65. Twenty Firstly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.21 Smt. Deepa Bist, who is one of the Proprietrix of M/s. Sri Balaji Corporation has deposed that they are having account with Syndicate 71 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. Then further she has deposed that on 6.10.2012 an amount of Rs.53,70,400/- was credited and debited to their account and the said amount does not pertain to their business transaction and they had not submitted any bill for the purpose of discounting and CBI officer enquired her about the said transaction.
66. Twenty Secondly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.22 Hari, who is one of the Proprietors of M/s. Balaji Corporation who has deposed that he is having another firm in the name of M/s. Sri. Balaji Wood Works which is running in his name. M/s. Balaji Wood Works is having account with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch and availed OD facility to the tune of Rs.70 lakhs. On 6.10.2012, an amount of Rs.56,30,200/- was credited and debited to their OD account under Ex.P27(b) and the said transaction amount does not pertain to their business and he had not submitted any bills for the purpose of business or earlier to that.
67. Twenty Thirdly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.23 R. Naveen Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Sunil Steels & Scrap Traders, who has deposed that 72 Spl.C.C.253/13 J he is having OD account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore and prescribed OD limit is Rs. One crore. He further deposed that on 25.8.2012, an amount of Rs.56,22,529/- was credited to their account and on same day, it was debited to their account as per Ex.P35(b) and the said amount does not pertain to their business transaction and he had not submitted any bill for the purpose of discount.
68. Twenty fourthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.24 K. Sharavanakumar, who is son of Sri. C. Krishnan, Prop: M/s. Vani Industries and looking after the said business of his father has deposed that their concern is having account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch and not having the OD facility to their account. About 2 years back when he had been to Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch and accused No.1 told that his uncle has sent two cheques for Rs. 5 lakhs each and asked him to sign the withdrawal slip to withdraw the amount from their account and accordingly, he has signed the withdrawal slip and on the basis of withdrawal slip accused No.1 withdrew the said amount. He further deposed that he had not taken the said amount of Rs.10 73 Spl.C.C.253/13 J lakhs and the said amount does not belongs to him. Ex.P12 is the withdrawal slip signed by him and Ex.P13 and P17 are the credit slips which does not contain his handwriting and signature which are forged and he had not presented two cheques for Rs.5 lakhs each in order credit the amount to his account and those cheques are Ex.P107 and 108.
69. Twenty fifthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.25 C. Gunasekaran, Proprietor of M/s. Venkateshwara Engineering Works has deposed that he is having SB Account with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Bangalore. He has further deposed that about 2 years back when he had been to the bank, the accused No.1 told him that his uncle had sent an amount of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs to his account and obtained his signature on the withdrawal slips and accordingly he signed on two withdrawal slips. An amount of Rs.10 lakhs had come to his account through NEFT and another amount of Rs.5 lakhs was deposited through cheque Ex.P109 which does not pertain to him and does not bear his signature. Accused No.1 did not owe Rs.15 lakhs to him under two withdrawal slips signed him and he had not 74 Spl.C.C.253/13 J taken the amount of Rs.15 lakhs and Ex.P18 - credit slip which does not bear his signature.
70. Twenty sixthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.26 K.N. Nagaraja Rao, Proprietor of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments has deposed that his firm is having account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore with OD facility of Rs.36 lakhs. Then he has deposed that on 23.2.2012, an amount of Rs.35,73,456/- was credited to his account and out of the said amount, Rs.30 lakhs was debited on the same day. On that day he had submitted bill of discount to the tune of Rs.5,73,456/- but instead of crediting, only Rs.5,73,456/- an amount of Rs.35,73,456/- was credited and Rs.30 lakhs was debited from his account on that day. He enquired bank staff who told that, by mistake Rs.30 lakhs was credited and debited to his account through bill of discount. On 16.8.2012, an amount of Rs.49,00,500/- was credited and debited to his account on the same day and he had not submitted any bill for discount and he enquired staff in the bank who replied that by mistake the said credit and debit entries have been made in their account. The relevant entry for Rs.49,00,500/- is at 75 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P20(c)(a). On the request of CBI Officer under seizure memo Ex.P110 he produced the triplicate copy of invoice as per Ex.P111.
71. Twenty seventhly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.27 K.N. Shivashankar, Chairman, M/s. Gayathri Structural & Roofing Pvt. Ltd., who has deposed that their firm is having account with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore was having cash credit facility, bill discounting facility and other facilities. On 15.10.2011, an amount of Rs.28,08,000/- was credited and on the same day debited to his OD account and immediately he went to the bank and enquired with accused No.1 as to who was handling his account who told that by mistake the said entries were made. He had not submitted any bill for discounting on 15.10.2011 or earlier to that and the entry in his account is Ex.P21(b) and does not pertain to their transaction.
72. Twenty eighthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.28 R. Karthik Prasanna, Manager, Operations Head, Axis Bank has deposed that he worked in Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai. On 19.11.2012, he produced 11 documents as per Receipt 76 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Memo Ex.P112 before the CBI Officer. Ex.P113 is the letter of their Branch Manager, Ex.P114 are the original account opening form of accused No.1 and connected documents and account was opened on 30.4.2010 with initial deposit of Rs. One lakh. Ex.P115 is the RTGS NEFT Inward Data Query and under Ex.P115, the total amount of Rs.28,08,000/- was transferred by accused No.1 from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.1.
73. Further he has deposed that Ex.P116 is the statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1 for the period of 30.10.2004 to 15.11.2012 and all credit in Ex.P116 have been made either by NEFT or RTGS or by online transfer and those transfers have been made from the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. Ex.P117 is NEFT Inward Data Query dated 23.2.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 for Rs.30 lakhs and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P118 is the Inward Data Query dated 16.3.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 through which an amount of Rs.50 lakhs had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused 77 Spl.C.C.253/13 J No.1. Ex.P119 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 18.4.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 for Rs.56,02,052/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P120 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 21.4.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.51,12,557/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P121 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 14.8.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.53,00,400/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P122 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 16.8.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.49,00,500/- and the said amount come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P123 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 17.8.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.58,96,752/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P124 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 21.8.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.53,00,900/- and the said amount come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch 78 Spl.C.C.253/13 J to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P125 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 3.10.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.53,75,000/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P126 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 25.8.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.56,22,529/- and the said amount come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P127 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 18.9.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.47,53,973/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P128 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 18.9.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.53,00,497/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P129 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 4.10.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.57,42,500/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P130 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 4.10.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.52,72,600/- and the said amount had come from 79 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P131 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 4.10.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.47,59,200/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P132 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 6.10.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.53,70,400/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P133 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 26.10.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.57,30,400/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P134 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 26.10.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.58,40,300/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P135 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 3.10.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.56,41,000/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P136 is the NEFT Inward Data Query 80 Spl.C.C.253/13 J dated 3.10.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.47,42,000/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Ex.P137 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 3.10.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.51,62,000/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1.
74. Further he has deposed that Ex.P138 is the NEFT Outward Data Query dated 31.10.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.2,27,54,688/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Under Ex.P.138, the said amount has been sent by our bank to the Syndicate Bank, Head Office on the request of CBI and request letter of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. Ex.P139 is the NEFT Outward Data Query dated 31.10.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.27,54,688/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Under Ex.P.139, the said amount has been sent by their bank to Syndicate Bank, 81 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Head Office on the request of CBI and request letter of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore.
75. Further he has deposed that Ex.P140 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 6.10.2012 pertaining to accused No.2 of Rs.56,30,200/- and the said amount come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.2. Under Ex.P.140, the said amount has been sent by their bank to Syndicate Bank Head Office on the request letter of CBI and request letter of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. Ex.P141 is the NEFT Inward Data Query dated 6.10.2012 pertaining to accused No.1 of Rs.44,30,500/- and the said amount had come from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the account of accused No.1. Under Ex.P.141, the said amount has been sent by their bank to Syndicate Bank Head Office on the request letter of CBI and request letter of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore.
76. Further, he has deposed that Ex.P142 to 156 are the online internet debit transactions. Ex.P157 to 171 are the cheques issued by accused No.1. Ex.P172 to 185 are the cheques issued by accused No.2. Ex.P186 is the cheque dated 21.10.2012 for Rs.2,25,57,000/- bearing cheque 82 Spl.C.C.253/13 J No.089759 issued by Great Ventures in favour of accused No.1 and the said amount has been credited to the account of accused No.1 bearing No.910010015164435, on 31.10.2012 and credit voucher is Ex.P187. Ex.P188 is the SB account opening form of accused No.2 along with documents.
77. He further deposed that Sri. K. Thanga Thirupathi, Branch Head of Axis Bank has submitted attested copy of Attendance Register for the month of May 2012 to July 2012 (Ex.P190) to the CBI under letter at Ex.P189. Ex.P192 is the statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.2 for the period from 12.5.2012 to 15.11.2012. He further deposed that all the aforesaid credit and debit transactions made by accused No.2 have been shown in Ex.P192. On 10.11.2012 he has submitted documents before the CBI under his letter Ex.P193.
78. Twenty Ninthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.29 V. Vikram Karthick, Deputy Manager, Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu and the then Asst. Manager has deposed that Ex.P171 is the cheque dated 11.6.2012 issued in the name of Smt. Nirmala drawn on Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, 83 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Madurai for Rs.8 lakhs and the said amount has been disbursed to the holder of the cheque and Ex.P171(a) is the signature of accused No.1.
79. Thirtiethly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.30 S.K. Dhingra, retired General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Corporate Office, Bangalore who has deposed that CBI through their Vigilance Department made a request to seek production of some Circulars relating to maintaining secrecy of passwords and accordingly under his covering letter Ex.P194, he sent in all 7 circulars and out of them, 6 are Ex.P195 to Ex.P200 and another one is Ex.P.40.
80. Thirty Firstly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.31 B.P. Girish, Asst. Manager, Regional Office, Syndicate Bank, who has deposed that their AGM informed him to send some documents to the CBI Inspector for investigation and accordingly under the letter of their DGM Ex.P55, he produced two cheques Ex.P56 and 57 which were drawn on Axis Bank issued by accused No.1 and 2 respectively and those cheques have been returned with an endorsement that account blocked and those endorsement is in inward return report Ex.P60 84 Spl.C.C.253/13 J and Ex.P58 and 59 are the credit slips and Ex.P61 is the CTS inward report.
81. Thirty Secondly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.32 Sri. K. Thanga Thirupathi, Branch Head and Asst. Vice President who has deposed that CBI requested him to submit some documents for the purpose of investigation and accordingly, he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. Further, he has deposed that he produced Attendance Register Extract Ex.P190, Office Note Ex.P191 and Account Statement of accused No.2 Ex.P192 under his letter Ex.P189 and Ex.P188 is the account opening form of accused No.2 sent by him.
82. Thirty thirdly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.33 Smt. B. Annapoorani, Manager of Axis Bank, Karaikudi Branch and the then Deputy Manager, Axis Bank, Thalakulam Branch, Madurai who has deposed that she knows accused No.1 and 2 and Ex.P116 is the certified copy of the statement of account of accused No.1 maintained in their bank. On 16.5.2012, a sum of Rs.7 lakhs has been debited to the account of accused 85 Spl.C.C.253/13 J No.1 towards payment of the said amount to accused No.2 as per Ex.P116(d). On 16.5.2012, an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs has been debited to the account of accused No.1 towards payment of the said amount to one Krishnamurthy and said entry is Ex.P116(e). Ex.P171 is a cheque of Axis Bank Ltd., issued by accused No.1 in favour of one Smt. Nirmala and the amount mentioned in the cheque has been paid to the bearer of the cheque from their bank.
83. Thirty Fourthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.34 Smt. J.S. Lakshmi, the then Asst. Manager in Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai who has deposed that Ex.P169 and 170 are the cheques of Axis Bank Ltd., issued by accused No.1 in favour of accused No.2 and Krishnamurthy respectively for Rs.7 lakhs each and the cheques amount has been delivered to the bearer of the cheque and she has passed the cheques and paid the amount of the cheques in cash section.
84. Thirty Fifthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.35 Pravin Tipnis, Asst. General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Mumbai who worked as Chief Manager in Regional Inspectorate Office, Syndicate Bank, Bangalore who has deposed that he was instructed to 86 Spl.C.C.253/13 J conduct special investigation of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore and he has conducted the inspection and submitted the report to the Head Office and found that certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available. He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the 87 Spl.C.C.253/13 J branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
85. Thirty sixthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.36 C. Krishnan, the owner of M/s. Vani Industries deposed that his industry is having account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch and availed OD facility. Then he has deposed that Ex.P8 and P9 are his account opening form and statement of account pertaining to his account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch. On 17.9.2011, cash deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs.5,05,000/- was made to his account by accused No.1. On the same day, there is another transaction in his account showing the transfer of amount of Rs.10,05,000/-
88 Spl.C.C.253/13 J through NEFT payment and those transactions are not pertaining to his industry transactions. Accused No.1 told him that he has deposited the amount to his account and he will withdraw the same and to put his signature on the withdrawal and by saying so he has obtained his signature on the withdrawals. Accused No.1 told that since he was the Manager working in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, he has deposited the fund to his account and he will get transfer of fund, therefore he has signed on Ex.P14 and 15 which are credit slips for Rs.5,05,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively. Those credit slips have been written by accused No.1 and he has put his signature on those slips.
86. Thirty seventhly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.37 Gurusankaranarayanan, Inspector of Central Excise who has deposed that on the request of CBI Inspector, their Commissioner instructed and deputed him to act as a pancha and accordingly, he went to the house of accused No.1 situated at Rathinaswamy Road, near BB Kulam, Madurai and his colleague K. Bhaskaran was also deputed and accompanied him to the house of accused No.1 and Inspector of CBI 89 Spl.C.C.253/13 J conducted search and traced some records and seized them. Ex.P201 is the search list dated 1.11.2012, and himself and his colleague have signed on it. The documents seized under the search list are as per Ex.P202.
87. Thirty eighthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.38 Ramesh Shetty, Asst. Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Ganganagar Branch, Bangalore who has deposed that in his presence specimen handwriting and signature of accused No.2 have been obtained as per Ex.P203. On the same day in his presence, specimen signature/handwriting of witness Smt. P. Nirmala were obtained as per Ex.P204.
88. Thirty ninthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.39 P. Krishnamurthy who has deposed that during 2012, he had not gone to Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and Ex.P170 was not delivered to him by accused No.1 at any time and he has not drawn the amount mentioned in Ex.P170 and the signature on the back of the cheque is not his signature and he has not shown any transaction in respect of Ex.P170.
90 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
89. Fortiethly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.40 R. Venkateshan, Asst. Administrative Officer, LIC Mandya who has deposed that on 8.5.2013, he went to the CBI office as a witness for obtaining the specimen signatures of accused No.1 and in his presence the specimen signatures of accused No.1 have been obtained as per Ex.P205. The specimen signature of P. Krishnamurthy were obtained in his presence as per Ex.P206.
90. Forty firstly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.41 Anil Sharma, Handwriting Expert who has deposed that on 27.6.2013, they received letter forwarded by Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Bangalore along with disputed documents as Q1 to Q9 and specimen documents marked at S1 to S79 along with a queries regarding their examination and opinion.
91. Further he has deposed that after thorough scientific examination of questioned documents in comparison with specimen documents provided as per queries contained in the letter, the examination was carried out and conclusive opinion in the form of report was submitted to the forwarded agency on 6.9.2013, as per Ex.P207 along with 91 Spl.C.C.253/13 J covering letter of their Director Ex.P208. Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen English signature and handwritings marked as S1 to S30, S61 to S79 attributed to accused No.1 being the person responsible for writing the questioned English signatures and writings marked at Q1 to Q3, Q5 to Q9.
92. Further he has deposed that Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen English signatures marked at S51 to S60 attributed to Smt. P. Nirmala being the person responsible for writing the questioned English Signature marked as Q-4.
93. Further he has deposed that the bill discounting Register of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore is at Ex.P209 and Q7 is the handwriting of accused No.1 marked as Ex.P209(a), Q8 is the handwriting of accused No.1 marked at Ex.P209(b) and Q9 and it is the handwriting of accused No.1 marked at Ex.P209(c).
94. Further he has deposed that Q7(A) to Q9(A) are the exhibits marked by his Laboratory. Q1 is the signature of A1 already marked at Ex.P170(a). Q2 is the signature signed as Krishnamurthy at Ex.P170(b). Q3 is the signature of A1 at Ex.P.171(a). Q4 is the signature signed 92 Spl.C.C.253/13 J as Smt. P. Nirmala already marked at Ex.P.171(c). Q5 is the signature of A1 at Ex.P169(a). Q6 is the signature signed as A2 is at Ex.P169(b).
95. Further he has deposed that S1 to S10 are the specimen signatures of A1 at Ex.P210. S61 to S79 are the signatures and writings of A1 at Ex.P211. S11 to S20 are the specimen signatures signed as Krishnamurthy by A1 and also contains signatures of Accused No.1 which are at Ex.P.205. S25 to S30 are the signatures as Muralidharan signed by Accused No.1 and also contain the signature of J. Kannan at Ex.P205.
96. Further he has deposed that S41 to S50 are the specimen signatures of P. Krishnamurthy, S51 to S60 are the signatures of P. Nirmala and S31 to S40 are the specimen signatures of J. Muralidharan are at Ex.P.206, P204 and P203 respectively.
97. Forty Secondly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.42 G. Manivannan, the then Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai who has deposed that as per the instruction of their DIG, ACB, Chennai, he has conducted search of residence of accused No.1 at Madurai and during the search he has seized one bunch of 93 Spl.C.C.253/13 J documents under search list Ex.P201 in the presence of panchas. Further he deposed that he handed over search list and the CST documents to the Investigating Officer of this case.
98. Forty thirdly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.43 Sri. S.D. Kaushik, who was serving as Asst. General Manager, Personnel, Syndicate Bank Head Office, Manipal and he has deposed that he received investigation papers and documents from CBI through their Vigilance Department for according sanction to prosecute accused No.1 and he has gone through all the materials received by him, after applying his mind properly and independently he came to believe that there is a case against accused No.1 for due process under law and accordingly, he has accorded sanction to prosecute him as per Ex.P212.
99. Forty fourthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.44 Sri. S. Mony, Deputy Manager, State Bank of Mysore who has deposed that in his presence, the Investigating Officer has obtained the specimen signature of accused No.1 as per Ex.P210. The Investigating Officer has also obtained the specimen 94 Spl.C.C.253/13 J signature and handwritings of accused No.1 as per Ex.P211.
100. Forty fifthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.45 Sri. Vivekanand Tulsigeri, Dy.SP and the then Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Bangalore has deposed that on 30.10.2012, he received a FIR in RC No. 20(A)/2012 from their Superintendent of Police, CBI, Bangalore for investigation and the said FIR is Ex.P213. He obtained search warrant from the court for search of residential premises of accused No.1 and on 31.10.2012 he requested Sri. Manivannan, Police Inspector, CBI, ACB, Chennai to conduct the search of residence of accused No.1 at Madurai and sent 165 Cr.P.C., requisition to him as per Ex.P214. On 1.11.2012 he conducted the search of residential premises of accused No.1 at Bangalore in the presence of two witnesses and seized 6 documents under search list Ex.P215. He sent the request a letter to Axis Bank, Madurai to stop operation of account of accused No.1 and 2 bearing No. 910010015164435 and 912010025893800 respectively. On 2.11.2012, he received a letter from General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Bangalore and sent a letter to Sri. Raja 95 Spl.C.C.253/13 J G.D. of M/s. Adventures India, Chennai to freeze the account No.1321 pertaining to Accused No.1 and also sent a letter to the General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagar, Bangalore to furnish the documents and statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1. On 6.11.2012, he sent a letter to Regional Passport Office, Chennai and Bangalore seeking passport details of Accused No.1 and 2 and he received letter from General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Bangalore and also received two bunches of documents along with search list from Sri. G. Manivannan, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai. On 7.11.2012, he received a letter from Regional Passport Office, Chennai regarding passport details of accused No.1 and 2 and filed an application before the court seeking order for retention of seized documents in his custody for investigation purpose. On 8.11.2012, he received a letter from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch and General Manager, Regional Office, Bangalore with a copy of suspension order of accused No.1 and also collected the statement of account of accused No.1 from Axis Bank, Madurai. On 11.11.2012, he received statement of account of Axis Bank, Madurai, pertaining to accused No.1 96 Spl.C.C.253/13 J and 2 bearing No. 910010015164435 and 912010025893800 and statement of account pertaining to account No.601129563 from ICICI Bank, Ramanathapuram and pertaining to account No.24036 of Indian Overseas Bank, Shivaganga Branch and account No. 600601500041 of ICICI Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai. On 13.11.2012, he received a letter from ICICI Bank, Ramanathapuram, Central Bank of India, Thallakulam, Madurai and State Bank of India, Madurai and on 15.11.2012, he received a letter from Indian Overseas Bank, Vishalakshmipuram Branch, Madurai, along with statement of account pertaining to the account of Smt. P. Nirmala bearing No. 134001000018387. On 16.11.2012, he received a letter from Branch Manager, Indian Bank, V.V. Kulam Branch, Madurai, pertaining to account No. 502064849 and account No. 502091227 and on 17.11.2012, he received a letter from General Manager, Regional Office, V.V.Puram, Bangalore along with documents pertaining to Account No.04281010006553. On 19.11.2012, he received documents from Sri. Karthick Prasanna, Manager, Operation Head, Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and received a letter from 97 Spl.C.C.253/13 J KEDIA Commodity, Railway Station, Kalyan, along with original application form and transaction details of accused No.1. On 20.11.2012, 21.11.2012, 22.11.2012 and 23.11.2012, he received letters from Axis Bank, Madurai, documents from Adventures India, Chennai, pertaining to Client ID No.1321, 4281 and 4282, letter from Regional Passport Office, Bangalore regarding passport details of accused No.1, letter from Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Madurai along with statement of account pertaining to account No. 65074447993. On 24.11.2012, he received a letter from General Manager, Regional Office, Syndicate Bank and documents pertaining to Audit Report from January 2011 to July 2011 and August 2011 to July 2012 and internal audit report dated 13.7.2011 and certified copy of Risk Based Internal Audit Report of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore and original statutory audit report pertaining to 2010 and 2011, 2011 and 2012 and service particulars of accused No.1 and responsibilities of Asst. Manager and other officers and certified copies of transaction journal pertaining to TELLER ID No. 557692T of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore and certified copies of 98 Spl.C.C.253/13 J NEFT transactions from 17.8.2009 to 31.10.2012. From 25.11.2012 to 29.11.2012, he received a letter from G.V.S. Rajesh and recorded his statement, received a letter from Central Bank, Madurai and letter from Chief Vigilance Officer, Syndicate Bank, and received documents from Adventures India Pvt., Ltd., received a letter from Profit Mirror and Adventures India Pvt. Ltd., and recorded the statement of Mr. Brijesh Yadav, received documents from Mr. Kathik Prasanna from Axis Bank, Thallakulam, Madurai and recorded his statement and received documents from Johnson and recorded his statement and also recorded the statement of one Mr. Chinnappa. On 4.12.2012, he received documents from Mr. Karthik Prasanna, recorded his further statement on 5.12.2012, he received a letter from Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch and on 6.12.2012, he received documents from Adventures India Pvt., Ltd., and recorded the statement of Sri. Ramalingam and on 11.12.2012, he received documents from Sri. K. Prasanna and recorded his statement. On 13.12.2012 he handed over further investigation of this case to Sri. A. Sathiamoorthy, Police Inspector, CBI.
99 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
101. Forty Sixthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.46 A. Sathiamoorthy, Dy.SP, CBI, ACB, Bangalore who has deposed that on 13.12.2012, he took up further investigation of this case from PW.45 and verified investigation done by him. On 20.12.2012, he has taken up the documents from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. On 8.2.2013 he has collected the documents from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch and examined PW2 and recorded his statement and further statement. On 11.2.2013, he examined PW27, PW12, and PW17 and recorded their statements and subsequently recorded their further statements. On 12.2.2013, he examined and recorded the statements of PW26, PW14, PW20, PW21 and PW22 and then recorded their further statements on various dates. On 13.2.2013, he collected documents from Sri. Ashok Kothari, Proprietor of Karni Kemp, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore, and on the same day he examined PW.23, 13, 10 and 15 and recorded their statements and then recorded their further statements on subsequent dates. On 14.2.2013, he examined and recorded the statements of PW18, PW.19 and PW.16. On 18.2.2013, he examined 100 Spl.C.C.253/13 J and recorded the statement of PW.11. On 25.3.2013, he examined and recorded the statements of PW24, PW25 and PW36. On 26.3.2013, he collected documents from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. On 11.3.2013, he collected documents from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch. On 14.3.2013, he has collected the specimen signatures of accused No.1. On 16.3.2013, he collected documents from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch. On 20.3.2013, he collected the specimen signatures of Smt. P. Nirmala, mother of accused No.1 and on 21.3.2013, he collected the specimen signatures of accused No.2. On 2.4.2013, he examined PW.29 and 33. On 3.4.2013, he examined PW.34. On 8.4.2013, he collected documents from Axis Bank, Madurai. On 16.4.2013, he examined PW.35. On 2.5.2013, he collected the documents from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch. On 8.5.2013, he collected the specimen signatures of PW.39, examined him and recorded his statement. On 16.5.2015, he collected the documents from Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Bangalore. On 21.6.2013, he examined and recorded the statement of PW4 and his further statement on subsequent date. On 101 Spl.C.C.253/13 J 26.6.2013, he collected the documents from Axis Bank, Madurai and on the same day he examined and recorded the statements of PW3 and 31. On 2.7.2013, he collected documents from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch and on the same day, he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and recorded his further statement thereafter. On 3.7.2013, he sent the questioned documents to GEQD, New Delhi. On 5.7.2013, he examined and recorded the statement of PW5 and his further statement on subsequent date. On 9.7.2013, he collected the documents from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch. On 11.7.2013 he examined and recorded the statement of PW7 and recorded his further statement thereafter. On 15.7.2013, he collected the documents from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch and on the same day, he examined and recorded the statement of PW6. On 16.7.2013, he collected the documents from Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Bangalore and on 29.7.2013, he collected the documents from Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Bangalore and on the same day, he examined and recorded the statement of PW30. On 2.8.2013, he collected the documents from 102 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch. On 5.8.2013, he examined and recorded the statements of PW32. On 6.8.2013, he examined and recorded the statements of PW8 and PW9. On 12.8.2013, he collected the documents from Syndicate Bank and Regional Office, Bangalore. On 19.9.2013, he received the CFSL report from New Delhi. On 30.10.2013, he received the sanction order from the competent authority in respect of accused No.1 and concluded the investigation and filed a charge sheet before the court. The letter dated 8.4.2013 received by him from Axis Bank, Thallakulam is at Ex.P217, attendance details of bank employees of Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch is Ex.P218, covering letter of Syndicate Bank dated 23.2.2012 is at Ex.P220 and covering letter dated 22.2.2012 of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments is at Ex.P221 and their Letter of Credit of Bank of Maharashtra issued in favour of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments dated 4.1.2012 is Ex.P222.
102. Based on the above evidence, I will consider the alleged transactions one after another.
TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO M/S. GAYATHRI STRUCTURAL & ROOFING PVT. LTD.:
103 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
103. Firstly, I will consider the alleged transaction dated 15.10.2011 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. Gayathri Structural & Roofing Pvt. Ltd. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 15.10.2011 a debit of Rs.28,08,000/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000986 of M/s. Gayathri Structural and Roofing Pvt. Ltd., and on the same day an amount of Rs.28,08,000/- was debited from 04281250000986 of M/s. Gayathri Structural & Roofing Pvt Ltd., for credit to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.28,08,000/- was transferred to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu vide NEFT reference No. P11101540471967.
104. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Gayathri Structural & Roofing Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore is having OD account No. 04281250000986 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for their business. PW.27 has deposed about his business, OD account and facility availed from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura branch, Bangalore for his business. Ex.P21 contains application for credit facilities, 104 Spl.C.C.253/13 J along with enclosures, statement of account and certificates u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and under Section 2A of Banker's Books of Evidence Act. The evidence of PW.27 and the contents of Ex.P.21 are not disputed by any of the accused.
105. As per Ex.P.21(b) dated 15.10.2011, there is a credit of amount of Rs.28,08,000/- describing as discount of bill and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.28,08,000/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Gayathri Structural & Roofing Pvt. Ltd. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.21(b).
106. It is pertinent to note that PW.27 has deposed that on 15.10.2011 he has not submitted any bill for discount or earlier to it and the transaction as per Ex.P.21(b) is not pertaining to his business transaction. Therefore, his evidence proves that on 15.10.2011 or earlier to it, he had not submitted any bill for discounting to avail the bill discounting facility from his account to the extent of Rs.28,08,000/-.
107. It is also deposed by PW.27 that he went to the bank and enquired accused No.1 with regard to entry as per Ex.P21 105 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
(b) and accused No.1 informed that by mistake the said entry was made. Therefore, his evidence is also proving that he went to the bank, made enquiry with accused No.1 with regard to Ex.P.21(b) transaction and accused No.1 informed him that the said entries were made due to mistake.
108. PW.1 who worked as Chief Manager in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch and furnished information to the Investigating Officer as per Ex.P.1 has deposed that in respect of Ex.P21(b) transaction dated 15.10.2011 there are no credit and debit vouchers are available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction Ex.P21(b) is not supported from any credit and debit vouchers, the bill of discount and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority.
109. Regarding Ex.P21(b), the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank in the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off- sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he conducted 106 Spl.C.C.253/13 J preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details as to the date, the account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
110. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates. His evidence further proves that on 15.10.2011 amount of Rs.28,08,000/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000986 of M/s. Gayathri Structurals & Roofing Pvt. Ltd., and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000986 and credited to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount 107 Spl.C.C.253/13 J was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P11101540471967.
111. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 15.10.2011, an amount of Rs.28,08,000/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. Gayatri Structural and Roofing Pvt. Ltd., bearing account No. 04281250000986 as per Ex.P68. Then the said amount was debited to the same account and credited to Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 under Ex.P68(a) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.28,08,000/- was debited from the remittance parking GL account and credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P68(b) and 68(c). Ex.P68(d), Ex.P.68(e) and Ex.P.68(f) are the statement of account and certificates.
112. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.68 and P68(a) to 68(g) were marked are all secondary evidence 108 Spl.C.C.253/13 J and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
113. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.68 is an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several datas of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, Ex.P.68 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no 109 Spl.C.C.253/13 J merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.68.
114. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.68, P68(a), (b), (c) is proving how the entries were made on 15.10.2011 for Rs.28,08,000/- without there being any bill for discounting from M/s. Gayathri Structurals & Roofing Pvt. Ltd. Further, his evidence proves that in Ex.P68(c), for transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT Kannan J. P11101540471967. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
115. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available. He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused 110 Spl.C.C.253/13 J No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification 111 Spl.C.C.253/13 J and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
116. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transaction Ex.P.21(b) done without bill for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 and 2. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are entered in the Teller ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
117. PW.28 who is Manager Operations Head, Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai has deposed that Ex.P115 is the RTGS NEFT Inward Data Query and under Ex.P115, the total amount of Rs.28,08,000/- was transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.1. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the contents of Ex.P.115 and transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P115, it is clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, sender address, 112 Spl.C.C.253/13 J beneficiary branch IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
118. Ex.P.115 is admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting it as evidence is complied by producing the certificate.
119. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. As per his evidence, he has produced Ex.P115 and P116 which are pertaining to the transaction dated 15.10.2011. On perusal of Ex.P116, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1, an amount of Rs.28,08,000/- has been credited to his account on 15.10.2011 vide NEFT reference No. P11101540471967 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
120. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transaction pertaining to M/s. Gayathri Structurals & Roofing Pvt. Ltd., is an unauthorized and fraudulent transaction done without bill for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bills and 113 Spl.C.C.253/13 J sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and the amount of that unauthorized and fraudulent transaction has been transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai. TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO M/S. DIGITRONIX MEASURING INSTRUMENTS:
121. Secondly, I will consider the alleged transaction dated 23.2.2012 and 16.8.2012 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 23.02.2012 debit of Rs.35,73,456/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000691 of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments though the amount of the bill tendered by M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments was for Rs.5,73,456/- & no bill was available for the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and on the same day an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was debited from 04281250000691 of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments for credit to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter
114 Spl.C.C.253/13 J on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was transferred to A/c. No.91001001564435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu vide NEFT reference No. P12022352761157.
122. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on 16.08.2012 debit of Rs.49,00,500/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000691 of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments, on the same day an amount of Rs.49,00,500/- was debited from 04281250000691 of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments for credit to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.49,00,500/- was transferred to A/c. No.91001001564435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu vide NEFT reference No. P12081676104552.
123. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments, Bangalore is having OD account No. 04281250000691 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for their business. PW.26 has deposed about his proprietary business, OD account and OD facility 115 Spl.C.C.253/13 J of Rs.36,00,000/- availed from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura branch, Bangalore for his business. Ex.P20 contains application for credit facilities, along with enclosures, statement of account and certificates u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and under Section 2A of Banker's Books of Evidence Act.
124. Further, he has deposed that on 23.2.2012, an amount of Rs.35,73,456/- was credited to his account and out of the said amount, Rs.30 lakhs was debited on the same day. On that day he had submitted bill of discount to the tune of Rs.5,73,456/- but instead of crediting, only Rs.5,73,456/- an amount of Rs.35,73,456/- was credited and Rs.30 lakhs was debited from his account on that day. He enquired bank staff who told that, by mistake Rs.30 lakhs was credited and debited to his account through bill of discount.
125. Further, he has deposed that on 16.8.2012, an amount of Rs.49,00,500/- was credited and debited to his account on the same day. He had not submitted any bill of discount for Rs.49,00,500/- pertaining to his business.
126. As per Ex.P.20(a) dated 23.2.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.35,73,456/- describing as discount of bill and 116 Spl.C.C.253/13 J on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.30,00,000/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments. Further he has deposed that he has produced the triplicate copy of invoice as per Ex.P111. The evidence deposed PW.26 and the contents of Ex.P111 and Ex.P.20(a) is not disputed in any manner. Therefore, on perusal of Ex.P111, the bill was for Rs.5,73,456/- only. There is no dispute about the credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.20(a) and the amount of bill shown in Ex.P111.
127. As per Ex.P.20(c-a) dated 16.8.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.49,00,500/- describing as discount of bill and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.49,00,500/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments. The evidence deposed PW.26 and the contents of Ex.P.20(c-a) is not disputed in any manner. Hence there is no dispute about the credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.20(c-a).
128. Though PW.26 presented bill Ex.P.111 for Rs.5,73,456/- only for discounting, but an amount of Rs.35,73,456/- was credited to his account. Ex.P39 and P209 are the copy and 117 Spl.C.C.253/13 J original bills discounting register maintained by the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore. As per Ex.P39(a) and P209(b) though the bill for discount was for Rs.5,73,456/- but an amount of Rs.35,73,456/- has been credited to the account of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments by altering the figure. On perusal of the relevant entries it can be seen how the amount has been altered in the register Ex.P209 in respect of relevant Ex.P209(b).
129. PW.1 who worked as Chief Manager in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch and furnished information to the Investigating Officer as per Ex.P.1 has deposed that in respect of Ex.P20(a), Ex.P.20(c-a) transaction dated 23.2.2012 and 16.8.2012 there are no credit and debit vouchers are available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction Ex.P20(a) and P20(c-a) are not supported from any credit and debit vouchers, the bill of discount and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority.
118 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
130. He has further stated that as per Ex.P1 there was no Manager's certificate from January 2012 to March 2012 for said transaction. Ex.P37 is the debit voucher for having debited Rs.5,73,456/- from GL account and credited to M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments. Ex.P38 is the credit voucher under which an amount of Rs.5,73,456/- was credited to the account of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments. Ex.P39 is the bill register extract and in respect of entry dated 23.2.2012 no credit vouchers or debit vouchers pertaining to Rs.35,73,456/- of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments is available in the branch.
131. Regarding Ex.P20(a) and 20(c-a), the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank in the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off-sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he conducted preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details as to date, the account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, 119 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
132. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates. His evidence and the contents of Ex.P52 further proves that on 23.2.2012, an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000691 of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000691 and credited to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12022352761157.
133. His evidence further proves that on 16.8.2012, an amount of Rs.49,00,500/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000691 of M/s.
120 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Digitronix Measuring Instruments and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000691 and credited to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12081676104552.
134. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 23.2.2012, an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments bearing account No. 04281250000691 as per Ex.P67. Then the said amount was debited to the same account and credited to Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 under Ex.P67(b) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was debited from the remittance parking GL account and credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from 121 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P67(c). Ex.P67(a), Ex.P67(d) and (e) are the statement of account and certificates.
135. Further, he has deposed that on 16.8.2012, an amount of Rs.49,00,500/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments bearing account No. 04281250000691 as per Ex.P73. Then the said amount was debited to the same account and credited to Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 under Ex.P73(c) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.49,00,500/- was debited from the remittance parking GL account and credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P73(e) and (f) and the certificate is Ex.P73(g).
136. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.67, P67(a) to 67(e) and Ex.P.73, 73(a) to 73(i) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those 122 Spl.C.C.253/13 J documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
137. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.67 and 73 are an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several data of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, Ex.P.67 and 73 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.67 and 73.
123 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
138. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.67, P67(a), (b), (c) is proving how the entries were made on 23.2.2012 for Rs.30,00,000/- though the bill for discounting from M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments was submitted for Rs.5,73,456/- only. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
139. Further, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.73, P73(e) and (f) is proving how the entries were made on 16.8.2012 for Rs.49,00,500/-. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
140. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available.
124 Spl.C.C.253/13 J He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill 125 Spl.C.C.253/13 J discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
141. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transaction Ex.P.20(a) and 20(c-a), done without bill for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are entered in the Teller ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
142. PW.28 who is Manager Operations Head, Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai has deposed that Ex.P117 and P122 are the RTGS NEFT Inward Data Queries and under Ex.P117, the total amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 and as per Ex.P122 an amount of Rs.49,00,500/- was transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the contents of Ex.P.117 and 122 and transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account by accused No.1 with 126 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P117 and 122, it is clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, sender address, beneficiary branch IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
143. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. As per his evidence, he has produced Ex.P116, P117 and P122 which are pertaining to the transaction dated 23.2.2012 and 16.8.2012. Ex.P117 and 122 are admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting them as evidence is complied by producing the certificate as per Ex.P117(b) and 122(b).
144. On perusal of Ex.P116, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1, an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- has been credited to his account on 23.2.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12022352761157 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore. On 127 Spl.C.C.253/13 J further perusal of Ex.P116, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1, an amount of Rs.49,00,500/- has been credited to his account on 16.8.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12081676104552 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
145. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transactions pertaining to M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments, are an unauthorized and fraudulent transactions done without bills for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bills and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and the amounts of that unauthorized and fraudulent transactions have been transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO M/S. DELTA
MANUFACTURER:
146. Thirdly, I will consider the alleged transactions dated 16.03.2012 and 17.8.2012 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. Delta 128 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Manufacturer. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 16.3.2012 a debit of Rs.50,00,000/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281010006553 of M/s. Delta Manufacturer and on the same day an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was debited from 04281010006553 of M/s. Delta Manufacturer for credit to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was transferred to A/c. No.910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu vide NEFT reference No. P1-2031655684986. No Bills/vouchers were available for this transaction.
147. It is further alleged that on 17.08.2012 debit of Rs.58,96,752/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281010006553 of M/s Delta Manufacturer and on the same day an amount of Rs.58,96,752/- was debited from 04281010006553 of M/s. Delta Manufacturer for credit of GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.58,96,752/- was transferred to A/c. No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 129 Spl.C.C.253/13 J with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P1-2081776306529. No bill/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
148. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Delta Manufacturer, Bangalore is having Current account No. 04281010006553 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for their business. In this regard, P.W.12 Sageer Ahamed who is the husband of Proprietrix of M/s. Delta Manufacturer, Bangalore and who has been authorized to look after the business on behalf of his wife has deposed that on 16.3.2012, an amount of Rs.50 lakhs was credited to their account and on the same day, the said amount of Rs.50 lakhs was debited from their account and again on 17.8.2012 an amount of Rs.58,96,752/- was credited to their account and debited on the same day and those entries are Ex.P22(d) and P22(e).
149. Further he has deposed that neither on 16.3.2012 nor on 17.8.2012, he had submitted any bill for discount in order to credit the amount to his account. After 2 or 3 days of 16.3.2012, he had been to the Bank and enquired Accused No.1 as to why the said amount of Rs.50 lakhs was credited and debited to his account and he replied that it 130 Spl.C.C.253/13 J was simple credit and debit and he need not worry for the same. Further he has deposed that accused No.1 was working as Asst. Manager in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch and identified him before the court. Ex.P22 contains application for opening of current account along with enclosures, statement of account and certificates u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and under Section 2A of Banker's Books of Evidence Act. The evidence of PW.12 and the contents of Ex.P.22 are not disputed by any of the accused. Ex.P22(b) is the statement of account pertaining to the current account of M/s. Delta Manufacturer with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch.
150. It is pertinent to note that PW.12 has deposed that on 16.3.2012 and on 17.8.2012 he has not submitted any bills for discount and the transaction as per Ex.P.22(d) and Ex.P22(e) are not pertaining to their business transaction. Therefore, his evidence proves that on 16.3.2012 and on 17.8.2012, he had not submitted any bills for discounting to avail the facility from his account to the extent of Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.58,96,752/-.
131 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
151. It is also deposed by PW.12 that he went to the bank and enquired accused No.1 with regard to entry as per Ex.P22
(d) and accused No.1 informed that by mistake the said entry was made. Therefore, his evidence is also proving that he went to the bank, made enquiry with accused No.1 with regard to Ex.P.22(d) transaction and accused No.1 informed him that the said entries were made due to mistake.
152. As per Ex.P.22(d) dated 16.3.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.50,00,000/- describing as discount of bill and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.50,00,000/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Delta Manufacturer. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.22(d).
153. As per Ex.P.22(e) dated 17.8.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.58,96,752/- describing as discount of bill and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.58,96,752/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Delta Manufacturer. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.22(e).
154. PW.1 has deposed that in respect of Ex.P22(d) and (e) transactions dated 16.3.2012 and 17.8.2012, there are no 132 Spl.C.C.253/13 J credit and debit vouchers are available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction Ex.P22(d) and (e) are not supported from any credit and debit vouchers, the bills of discount and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority.
155. Regarding Ex.P22(d) and (e), the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank in the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off-sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he conducted preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details as to date, the account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
133 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
156. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates. His evidence further proves that on 16.3.2012 amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281010006553 of M/s. Delta Manufacturer and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281010006553 and credited to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12031655684986.
157. His evidence further proves that on 17.8.2012 amount of Rs.58,96,752/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281010006553 of M/s. Delta Manufacturer and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281010006553 and credited to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was 134 Spl.C.C.253/13 J transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12081776306529.
158. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 16.3.2012, an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. Delta Manufacturer bearing account No. 04281010006553 as per Ex.P69. Then the said amount was debited to the same account and credited to Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 under Ex.P69(a) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was debited from the remittance parking GL account and credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P69(d) and the relevant entries are Ex.P69(e) and Ex.P69(f). Ex.P69(i) and (h) are certificates.
159. PW.5 has further deposed that on 17.8.2012, an amount of Rs.58,96,752/- was debited from Advances against drawee bills under Ex.P74 and relevant entry Ex.P74(a) and the 135 Spl.C.C.253/13 J said amount was credited to M/s. Delta Manufacturer bearing account No. 04281010006553 as per Ex.P74(b). Then the said amount was debited to the same account and credited to Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 under Ex.P74(d) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.58,96,752/- was credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P74(e) and (f). Ex.P74(g) and (i) are certificates.
160. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.69, P69(a) to 69(i) and Ex.P.74, 74(a) to 74(i) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
161. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.69 and 74 are an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under 136 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several datas of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, Ex.P.69 and 74 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.69 and 74.
162. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P69(d) and Ex.P69(e) and Ex.P.74, P74(a),
(b), (c), (d) and (e) are proving how the entries were made on 16.3.2012 for Rs.50,00,000/- and on 17.8.2012 for Rs.58,96,752/- without there being any bills for discounting from M/s. Delta Manufacturer. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P.69(f) and Ex.P74(f), for 137 Spl.C.C.253/13 J transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT Kannan J. P12031655684986 and P12081776306529. His evidence also proves that the said amounts have been transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entries are Ex.P.69(f) and Ex.P74(f).
163. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available. He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the 138 Spl.C.C.253/13 J same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
164. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transactions mentioned in Ex.P.22, Ex.P.69 and P74 have been done without bills for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are 139 Spl.C.C.253/13 J entered in the Teller ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
165. PW.28 has deposed that Ex.P118 and Ex.P123 are the NEFT Inward Data Queries and under Ex.P118 and P123, an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.58,96,752/- were transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.1. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the contents of Ex.P.118 and P123 and transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P118 and P123, it is clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, sender address, beneficiary branch IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
166. Ex.P118 and P123 are admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting them as evidence is complied by producing the certificate as per Ex.P118(b) and P123(b).
140 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
167. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. On perusal of Ex.P116, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1, an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- has been credited to his account on 16.3.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12031655684986 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore and further Ex.P.116, shows that an amount of Rs.58,96,756/- has been credited to his account on 17.8.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12081776306529 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
168. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transactions pertaining to M/s. Delta Manufacturer, are an unauthorized and fraudulent transactions done without bills for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bills and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and the amounts of that unauthorized and fraudulent transactions have been transferred through NEFT to the 141 Spl.C.C.253/13 J account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO M/S. POOJA
ENTERPRISES:
169. Fourthly, I will consider the alleged transactions dated 18.4.2012 and 14.8.2012 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. Pooja Enterprises. In this regard, it is alleged by the prosecution that on 18.4.2012 debit of Rs.56,02,052/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000929 of M/s. Pooja Enterprises and on the same day an amount of Rs.56,02,052/- was debited from 04281250000929 of M/s. Pooja Enterprises for credit to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.56,02,052/- was transferred to A/c No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu vide NEFT reference No. P12041859629439. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
170. It is further alleged that on 14.8.2012 debit of Rs.53,00,400/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of 142 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000929 of M/s. Pooja Enterprises and on the same day an amount of Rs.53,00,400/- was debited from 04281250000929 of M/s. Pooja Enterprises for credit to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day, through NEFT an amount of Rs.53,00,400/- was transferred to A/c No.910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P12081475839046. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
171. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Pooja Enterprises, Bangalore is having OD account No. 04281250000929 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for their business. In this regard, P.W.17 Smt. Jalaja Manjunath, Proprietrix of M/s. Pooja Enterprises, Bangalore has deposed that her firm has got OD account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur and prescribed limit is Rs.12,75,000/-. Then she has deposed that in the month of April 2012 and August 2012, accused No.1 had called her and intimated that some wrong entries were made in their account and she need not worry for the same. The said amount of credit and debit do not pertain to her 143 Spl.C.C.253/13 J business and during that period she had not submitted any bills for discount. On 18.4.2012, an amount of Rs.56,02,052/- was credited to her account and on same day, the amount was debited from their account under Ex.P23(b) and on 14.8.2012, an amount of Rs.53,00,400/- was credited to her account and on the same day, the amount was debited from her account under Ex.P23(c) and those transactions do not pertain to her business and Ex.P23 is her statement of account. She went to the bank and accused No.1 took her inside the bank and showed that the entry was made and reversed on the same day and he also consoled her stating that she need not worry for the same, since the entry is reversed.
172. She has further deposed that Ex.P23 contains application for opening of OD account along with enclosures, statement of account and certificates u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and under Section 2A of Banker's Books of Evidence Act. The evidence of PW.17 and the contents of Ex.P.23 are not disputed by any of the accused.
173. It is pertinent to note that PW.17 has deposed that on 18.4.2012 and on 14.8.2012 she has not submitted any bills for discount and the transaction as per Ex.P.23(b) and 144 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P23(c) are not pertaining to their business transaction. Therefore, her evidence proves that on 18.4.2012 and on 14.8.2012, she had not submitted any bills for discounting to avail the facility from her account to the extent of Rs.56,02,052/- and Rs.53,00,400/- respectively.
174. It is also deposed by PW.17 that the accused No.1 had called her and informed her that some wrong entries have been made in her account and he further informed that the said entries were made by mistake and they are reversed and she need not to worry about the said entries. She has further deposed that she went to the bank and enquired accused No.1 with regard to entries in her account and accused No.1, took her inside the bank and showed that the entries were made and reversed on the same day and consoled her stating that she need not worry for the same, since they are reversed. She also deposed that she had not submitted any bills for discount for the said amount and came to know that the said credit and debit entries have been made by accused No.1.
175. As per Ex.P.23(b) dated 18.4.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.56,02,052/- describing the amount as bills discounted and on the same day, there is a debit of 145 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Rs.56,02,052/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Pooja Enterprises. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.23(b).
176. As per Ex.P.23(c) dated 14.8.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.53,00,400/- describing as bills discounted and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.53,00,400/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Pooja Enterprises. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.23(c).
177. PW.1 has deposed that in respect of Ex.P23(b) and (c) transactions dated 18.4.2012 and 14.8.2012, there are no credit and debit vouchers are available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction Ex.P23(b) and (c) are not supported from any credit and debit vouchers, the bills of discount and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority.
178. Regarding Ex.P23(b) and (c), the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate 146 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Bank in the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off-sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he conducted preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details of the date, the account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
179. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates. His evidence further proves that on 18.4.2012 amount of Rs.56,02,052/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000929 of M/s. Pooja Enterprises and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000929 and credited to GL Head No. 170100500 147 Spl.C.C.253/13 J of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12041859629439.
180. His evidence further proves that on 14.8.2012 amount of Rs.53,00,400/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000929 of M/s. Pooja Enterprises and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000929 and credited to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12081475839046.
181. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 18.4.2012, an amount of Rs.56,02,052/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. Pooja Enterprises bearing account No. 04281250000929 as per Ex.P70. Then the said amount was debited to the same account and 148 Spl.C.C.253/13 J credited to Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 under Ex.P70(a) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.56,02,052/- was debited from the remittance parking GL account and credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P70(e) and the relevant entries are Ex.P70(f) and Ex.P70(g) and Ex.P70(h) to (j) are certificates.
182. PW.5 has further deposed that on 14.8.2012, an amount of Rs.53,00,400/- was debited from Advances against drawee bills under Ex.P72 and relevant entry Ex.P72(a) and the said amount was credited to M/s. Pooja Enterprises bearing account No. 04281250000929 as per Ex.P72(b). Then the said amount was debited to the same account and credited to Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 and on the same day the said amount of Rs.53,00,400/- was credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P72(d) and the relevant entries are Ex.P72(e) and (f) and Ex.P72(g) and (i) are certificates.
149 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
183. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.70, P70(a) to 70(j) and Ex.P.72, 72(a) to 72(i) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
184. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.70 and 72 are an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several datas of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, 150 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.70 and 72 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.70 and 72.
185. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.70, P70(a), (b), (f), and (g) is proving how the entries were made on 18.4.2012 for Rs.56,02,052/- without there being any bill for discounting from M/s. Pooja Enterprises. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P70(g), for transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT Kannan J. P12041859629439. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entries are Ex.P70(f) and (g).
186. Further, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.72, P72(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) is proving how the entries were made on 14.8.2012 for Rs.53,00,400/- without there being any bill for discounting from M/s. Pooja Enterprises. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P72(f), for transfer of the said amount, 151 Spl.C.C.253/13 J it is mentioned that NEFT Kannan J. P12081475839046. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entries are Ex.P72(e) and (f).
187. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available. He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was 152 Spl.C.C.253/13 J transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
188. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transactions mentioned in Ex.P.70 and P72 done without bills for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are entered in the Teller 153 Spl.C.C.253/13 J ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
189. PW.28 has deposed that Ex.P119 and Ex.P121 are the NEFT Inward Data Queries and under Ex.P119 and P121, an amount of Rs.52,02,052/- and Rs.53,00,400/- were transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.1. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the contents of Ex.P.119 and P121 and transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P119 and P121, it is clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, sender address, beneficiary branch IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
190. Ex.P119 and P121 are admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting them as evidence is complied by producing the certificate as per Ex.P119(b) and P121(b).
154 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
191. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. On perusal of Ex.P116, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1, an amount of Rs.56,02,052/- has been credited to his account on 18.4.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12041859629439 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore and further in Ex.P.116, an amount of Rs.53,00,400/- has been credited to his account on 14.8.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12081475839046 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
192. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transactions pertaining to M/s. Pooja Enterprises, are an unauthorized and fraudulent transactions done without bills for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bills and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and the amounts of that unauthorized and fraudulent transactions have been transferred through NEFT to the 155 Spl.C.C.253/13 J account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO M/S. R.R. FORGINGS PVT. LTD.:
193. Fifthly, I will consider the alleged transaction dated 21.4.2012 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. R R Forgings Pvt. Ltd. In this regard, it is alleged by the prosecution that on 21.4.2012 debit of Rs.51,12,557/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000933 of M/s. R R Forgings Pvt Ltd., and on the same day an amount of Rs.51,12,557/- was debited from 04281250000933 of M/s. R R Forgings Pvt Ltd., for credit to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.51,12,557/- was transferred to A/c. No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Bangalore vide NEFT reference No. P12042159991271. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
194. It is an admitted fact that M/s. R R Forgings Pvt Ltd., Bangalore is having OD account No. 04281250000933 with
156 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for their business. In this regard, P.W.20 Sri. Raghunathan, Managing Director of M/s. R R Forgings Pvt Ltd., Bangalore has deposed that his firm had availed OD facility from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch and Rs.25 lakhs cheque discounting facility. On 21.4.2012, an amount of Rs.51,12,557/- was credited to their account and immediately he called the accused No.1 over phone and enquired him about the said entry and he reversed the said entry and the said amount does not pertain to their business and he had not submitted any bill for discount for the said amount. Ex.P24 is his OD account opening form and the transactions is Ex.P24(b).
195. As per Ex.P.24(b) dated 21.4.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.51,12,557/- describing the amount as discount of bill and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.51,12,557/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. RR Forgings Pvt. Ltd. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.24(b).
196. PW.1 has deposed that in respect of Ex.P24(b) transaction dated 21.4.2012, there is no credit and debit vouchers are 157 Spl.C.C.253/13 J available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction Ex.P24(b) is not supported from any credit and debit vouchers, the bill of discount and the notings on the bill and orders of the sanctioning authority.
197. Regarding Ex.P24(b), the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank in the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off- sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he conducted preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details of the date, the account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
198. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry 158 Spl.C.C.253/13 J along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates. His evidence further proves that on 21.4.2012 amount of Rs.51,12,557/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000933 of M/s. RR Forgings Pvt. Ltd., and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000933 and credited to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12042159991271.
199. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 21.4.2012, an amount of Rs.51,12,557/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. R.R. Forgings Pvt. Ltd., bearing account No. 04281250000933 as per Ex.P71. Then the said amount was debited from the same account and credited to Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 159 Spl.C.C.253/13 J 170100500 under Ex.P71(d) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.51,12,557/- was debited from the remittance parking GL account and credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P71(d) and the relevant entries are Ex.P71(e) and Ex.P71(f) and Ex.P71(i) to (h) are certificates.
200. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.71, P71(a) to 71(i) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
201. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.71 is an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a 160 Spl.C.C.253/13 J primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several datas of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, Ex.P.71 the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.71.
202. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.71, P71(a), (b), (d) (e) and (f) is proving how the entries were made on 21.4.2012 for Rs.51,12,557/- without there being any bill for discounting from M/s. R.R. Forgings Pvt. Ltd. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P71(f), for transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT Kannan J. P12042159991271. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entries are Ex.P71(e) and (f).
161 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
203. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available. He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect 162 Spl.C.C.253/13 J of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
204. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transaction mentioned in Ex.P.71 done without bill for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are entered in the Teller ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
205. PW.28 has deposed that Ex.P120 is the NEFT Inward Data Query and under Ex.P120, an amount of Rs.51,12,557/- was transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.1. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the 163 Spl.C.C.253/13 J contents of Ex.P.120 and transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P120, it is clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, sender address, beneficiary branch IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
206. Ex.P120 is admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting it as evidence is complied by producing the certificate as per Ex.P120(b).
207. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. On perusal of Ex.P116, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1, an amount of Rs.51,12,557/- has been credited to his account on 21.4.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12042159991271 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
164 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
208. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transaction pertaining to M/s. R R Forgings Pvt Ltd., is an unauthorized and fraudulent transaction done without bill for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bill and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and the amount of that unauthorized and fraudulent transaction has been transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO M/S. SIVA STEELS:
209. Sixthly, I will consider the alleged transactions dated 21.8.2012 and 26.10.2012 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. Siva Steels. In this regard, it is alleged by the prosecution that on 21.8.2012 debit of Rs.53,00,900/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000880 of M/s. Siva Steels and on the same day an amount of Rs.53,00,900/- was debited from 04281250000880 of M/s. Siva Steels for credit to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter 165 Spl.C.C.253/13 J on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.53,00,900/- was transferred to A/c. No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P12082176645208. No bills/ vouchers were available to support these transactions.
210. Further it is alleged that on 26.10.2012 debit of Rs.57,30,400/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into account No. 04281250000880 of M/s Siva Steels and on the same day an amount of Rs.57,30,400/- was debited from account No. 04281250000880 of M/s Siva Steels for credit to GL Head No. 170100300 of TD Renewal (Parking GL), thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.57,30,400/- was transferred to A/c. No. 9100100151564435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P1210286940435. No bills/vouchers were available to support these four transactions.
211. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Siva Steels, Bangalore is having OD account No.04281250000880 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for their 166 Spl.C.C.253/13 J business. In this regard, P.W.18 Smt. Kavitha R, who is running a proprietary concern in the name of M/s. Siva Steels has deposed that she is having OD account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch in the name of her firm and availed the OD facility to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs.
212. She has further deposed that on 26.10.2012, she received SMS stating that an amount of Rs.57,30,400/- was credited to her account, on the same day the accused No.1 called her over phone and told that the said entry was made by mistake and same has been reversed. Subsequently she came to know that an amount of Rs.53,00,900/- was credited and debited to her account and she had not submitted any bills on both occasions and the said amounts do not pertain to their business and Ex.P36 is her account opening form and statement of account. The relevant entries are Ex.P36(b) and Ex.P36(c).
213. She has further deposed that Ex.P36 contains application for opening of OD account along with enclosures, statement of account and certificates u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and under Section 2A of Banker's Books of 167 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Evidence Act. The evidence of PW.18 and the contents of Ex.P.36 are not disputed by any of the accused.
214. As per Ex.P.36(b) dated 21.8.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.53,00,900/- describing the amount as bill discounted and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.53,00,900/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Siva Steels. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.36(b).
215. As per Ex.P.36(c) dated 26.10.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.57,30,400/- describing as bill discounted and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.57,30,400/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Siva Steels. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.36(c).
216. PW.1 has deposed that in respect of Ex.P36(b) and (c) transactions dated 21.8.2012 and 26.10.2012, there are no credit and debit vouchers are available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction Ex.P36(b) and (c) are not supported from any credit and 168 Spl.C.C.253/13 J debit vouchers, the bills of discount and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority.
217. Regarding Ex.P36(b) and (c), the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank in the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off-sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he conducted preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details of the date, the account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
218. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates. His evidence further proves that on 21.8.2012 amount of Rs.53,00,900/- was debited from 169 Spl.C.C.253/13 J GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000880 of M/s. Siva Steels and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000880 and credited to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12082176645208.
219. His evidence further proves that on 26.10.2012 amount of Rs.57,30,400/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000880 of M/s. Siva Steels and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000880 and credited to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12102686940435.
220. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 21.8.2012, an amount of Rs.53,00,900/- was debited from the GL account bearing 170 Spl.C.C.253/13 J No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. Siva Steels bearing account No. 04281250000880 as per Ex.P75. Then the said amount was debited to the same account and credited to Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 under Ex.P75(a) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.53,00,900/- was debited from the remittance parking GL account and credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P75(e) and the relevant entries are Ex.P75(g) and Ex.P75(i) to (h) are certificates.
221. PW.5 has further deposed that on 26.10.2012, an amount of Rs.57,30,400/- was debited from GL head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited to M/s. Siva Steels bearing account No. 04281250000880 as per Ex.P81 and the relevant entry is Ex.P.81(a) and then the said amount was debited to the account of M/s. Siva Steels bearing account No. 04281250000880 and credited to Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 and on the same day the said amount of Rs.57,30,400/- was credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis 171 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P81(d) and the relevant entries are Ex.P81(i) and (j) and Ex.P81(k) and (n) are certificates.
222. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.78, P78(a) to 78(aa) and Ex.P.81, 81(a) to 81(n) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
223. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.78 and 81 are an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several datas of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data 172 Spl.C.C.253/13 J can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, Ex.P.78 and 81 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.78 and 81.
224. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.75, P75(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) is proving how the entries were made on 21.8.2012 for Rs.53,00,900/- without there being any bill for discounting from M/s. Siva Steels. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P75(g), for transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT Kannan J. P12082176645208. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entries are Ex.P75(e) and (g).
225. Further, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.81, P81(a), (g), (h), (i) and (j) is proving 173 Spl.C.C.253/13 J how the entries were made on 26.10.2012 for Rs.57,30,400/- without there being any bill for discounting from M/s. Siva Steels. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P81(g), for transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT Kannan J. P12102686940435. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entries are Ex.P81(i) and (j).
226. P.W.6 Sri. S.N. Haresh Nethi, Asst. Manager, Syndicate Bank, who worked as Asst. Manager at Yeshwanthpura branch from July 2012 to May 2013 has deposed that that when he was working as Asst. Manager at Yeshwanthapura Branch, accused No.3 was working as Chief Manager, and during that period accused No.1 was working as Asst. Manager (Advance) in the same branch and he worked with accused No.1 in that branch for a period of 3 months, therefore he can identify the signature of accused No.1. On 15.7.2013, as per the letter of Sri. C.V. Sundaramoorthy, Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch as per Ex.P84 he produced 8 set of debit and credit vouchers as per Ex.P85 to 100 before the 174 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Investigating Officer which are in the handwriting of accused No.1 and bears his initial.
227. PW.6 has further stated that one Ramu of M/s. Siva Steels had informed that there was a big credit of amount of Rs.50 lakhs to his account and he asked to verify as to that credit. Immediately, he checked the OD account of M/s. Siva Steels and came to know that there was a credit into that account. He also noticed that there was a debit from the said account and on verification it is revealed that there was no debit or credit vouchers for having credited the amount and debited the amount from the OD account of M/s. Siva Steels. Further, he has deposed that therefore, he came to know that the above said transactions are not genuine and they are suspicious transactions. He also noticed that the said amount was again transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 J. Kannan maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai. The evidence of this witness corroborates the evidence of PW.1, 5 and other witnesses.
228. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that 175 Spl.C.C.253/13 J certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available. He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract 176 Spl.C.C.253/13 J balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
229. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transactions mentioned in Ex.P.75 and P81 done without bills for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are entered in the Teller ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
230. PW.28 has deposed that Ex.P124 and Ex.P133 are the NEFT Inward Data Queries and under Ex.P124 and P133, an amount of Rs.53,00,900/- and Rs.57,30,400/- were transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.1. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the contents of Ex.P.124 and P133 and transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, 177 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P124 and P133, it is clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, sender address, beneficiary branch IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
231. Ex.P124 and P133 are admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting them as evidence is complied by producing the certificate as per Ex.P124(b) and P133(b).
232. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. On perusal of Ex.P116, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1, an amount of Rs.53,00,900/- has been credited to his account on 21.8.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12082176645208 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore and further in Ex.P.133, an amount of Rs.57,30,400/- has been credited to his 178 Spl.C.C.253/13 J account on 26.10.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12102686940435 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
233. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transactions pertaining to M/s. Siva Steels, are an unauthorized and fraudulent transactions done without bills for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bills and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and the amounts of that unauthorized and fraudulent transactions have been transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO M/S. SUNIL STEELS & SCRAP TRADERS:
234. Seventhly, I will consider the alleged transaction dated 25.8.2012 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. Sunil Steels & Scrap Traders. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 25.8.2012 debit of Rs.56,22,529/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250001019 of M/s 179 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Sunil Steels & Scrap Traders and on the same day an amount of Rs.56,22,529/- was debited from 04281250001019 of M/s Sunil Steels & Scrap Traders for credit of GL Head No. 170150100 of Suspense - Online Transactions, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.56,22,529/- was transferred to A/c. No.910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No.P12082577129274. No bills/ vouchers were available to support these transactions.
235. It is an admitted fact that M/s Sunil Steels & Scrap Traders, Bangalore is having OD account No. 04281250001019 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for their business. PW.23 has deposed about his business, OD account and facility availed from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura branch, Bangalore for his business. Ex.P35 contains application for credit facilities, along with enclosures, statement of account and certificates u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and under Section 2A of Banker's Books of Evidence Act. The evidence of PW.23 and the contents of Ex.P.35 are not disputed by any of the accused.
180 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
236. As per Ex.P.35(b) dated 25.8.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.56,22,529/- describing as bill discounted and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.56,22,529/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Sunil Steels & Scrap Traders. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.35(b).
237. It is pertinent to note that PW.23 has deposed that on 25.8.2012 he has not submitted any bill for discount or earlier to that and the transaction as per Ex.P.35(b) is not pertaining to his business transaction. Therefore, his evidence proves that on 25.8.2012 or earlier to it, he had not submitted any bill for discounting to avail the OD facility from his account to the extent of Rs.56,22,529/-.
238. PW.1 who worked as Chief Manager in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch and furnished information to the Investigating Officer as per Ex.P.1 has deposed that in respect of Ex.P35(b) transaction dated 25.8.2012 there are no credit and debit vouchers are available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and the 181 Spl.C.C.253/13 J contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction Ex.P35(b) is not supported from any credit and debit vouchers, the bill of discount and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority.
239. Regarding Ex.P35(b), the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank in the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off- sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he conducted preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details of the date, the account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
240. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were 182 Spl.C.C.253/13 J done on various dates. His evidence further proves that on 25.8.2012 amount of Rs.56,22,529/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250001019 of M/s. Sunil Steels & Scrap Traders and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250001019 and credited to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12082577129274.
241. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 25.8.2012, an amount of Rs.56,22,529/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. Sunil Steels & Scrap Traders bearing account No. 04281250001019 as per Ex.P76. Then the said amount was debited to the same account and credited to Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 under Ex.P76(a) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.56,22,529/- was debited from the remittance parking GL account and credited to the account 183 Spl.C.C.253/13 J of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P76(b). Ex.P76(j) and (h) are the certificates.
242. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.76, P76(a) to 76(j) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
243. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.76 is an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several datas of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data 184 Spl.C.C.253/13 J can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, Ex.P.76 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.76.
244. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.76, P76(a), (b), (c) and (d) is proving how the entries were made on 25.8.2012 for Rs.56,22,529/- without there being any bill for discounting from M/s. Sunil Steels & Scrap Traders. Further, his evidence proves that in Ex.P76(g), for transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT Kannan J. P12082577129274. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
245. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that 185 Spl.C.C.253/13 J certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available. He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract 186 Spl.C.C.253/13 J balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
246. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transaction Ex.P.35(b), and other relevant entries done without bill for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 and 2. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are entered in the Teller ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
247. PW.28 who is Manager Operations Head, Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai has deposed that Ex.P126 is the RTGS NEFT Inward Data Query and under Ex.P126, the total amount of Rs.56,22,529/- was transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.1. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the contents of Ex.P.126 and 187 Spl.C.C.253/13 J transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P126, it is clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, sender address, beneficiary branch IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
248. Ex.P123 is admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting it as evidence is complied by producing the certificate as per Ex.P123(b).
249. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. As per his evidence, he has produced Ex.P116 and Ex.P126 which are pertaining to the transaction dated 25.8.2012. On perusal of Ex.P116, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1, an amount of Rs.56,22,529/- has been credited to his account on 25.8.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12082577129274 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
188 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
250. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transaction pertaining to M/s. Sunil Steels & Scrap Traders, is an unauthorized and fraudulent transactions done without bills for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bills and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and the amount of that unauthorized and fraudulent transaction has been transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO M/S. GUJARATH TRADERS:
251. Eighthly, I will consider the alleged transactions dated 18.9.2012 and 3.10.2012 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. Gujarath Traders. In this regard, it is alleged by the prosecution that on 18.9.2012 debit of Rs.53,00,497/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000185 of M/s. Gujarath Traders and on the same day an amount of Rs.53,00,497/- was debited from 04281250000185 of M/s. Gujarath Traders for credit to 189 Spl.C.C.253/13 J GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.53,00,497/- was transferred to A/c No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu vide NEFT reference No. P12091881145419. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
252. It is further alleged that on 3.10.2012 debit of Rs.53,75,000/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000185 of M/s. Gujarath Traders and on the same day an amount of Rs.53,75,000/- was debited from 04281250000185 of M/s. Gujarath Traders for credit to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day, through NEFT an amount of Rs.53,75,000/- was transferred to A/c No.910010025893800 of Accused No.2 J. Muralidharan with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P12100383222770. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
253. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Gujarath Traders, Bangalore is having OD account No. 04281250000185 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for 190 Spl.C.C.253/13 J their business. In this regard, P.W.14 Anish A. Majid, Proprietor of M/s. Gujarath Traders, has deposed that in the year 2012, he came to know that an amount of Rs.53,00,497/- and Rs.53,75,000/- were credited and debited to his OD account on the same day and he went and enquired accused No.1 and he replied that by mistake the said entries have taken place. He had not given any bill for the purpose of discount in respect of the said two amounts and CBI officer enquired him and Ex.P34 is his account opening form and statement of account is Ex.P34(b) and the relevant entries are at Ex.P34(c) and
(d).
254. As per the evidence of PW.14, Ex.P34 contains application for opening of OD account along with enclosures, statement of account and certificates u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and under Section 2A of Banker's Books of Evidence Act. The evidence of PW.14 and the contents of Ex.P.34 are not disputed by any of the accused.
255. It is pertinent to note that PW.14 has deposed that on 18.9.2012 and on 3.10.2012 he has not submitted any bills for discount and the transaction as per Ex.P.34(c) and Ex.P34(d) are not pertaining to their business transaction.
191 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Therefore, his evidence proves that on 18.9.2012 and on 3.10.2012, he had not submitted any bills for discounting to avail the OD facility from his OD account to the extent of Rs.53,00,497/- and Rs.53,75,000/- respectively.
256. It is further deposed by PW.14 that he went to the bank and enquired with the accused No.1 who replied that by mistake the said credit and debit entries were made and those entries would not effect him.
257. As per Ex.P.34(c) dated 18.9.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.53,00,497/- describing the amount as bill discounted and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.53,00,497/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Gujarath Traders. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.34(c).
258. Further, as per Ex.P.34(d) dated 3.10.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.53,75,000/- describing as bill discounted and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.53,75,000/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Gujarath Traders. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.34(d).
192 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
259. PW.1 has deposed that in respect of Ex.P34(c) and (d) transactions dated 18.9.2012 and 3.10.2012, there are no credit and debit vouchers are available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction Ex.P34(c) and (d) are not supported from any credit and debit vouchers, the bills of discount and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority.
260. Regarding Ex.P34(c) and (d), the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank in the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off-sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he conducted preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details of the date, the account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has 193 Spl.C.C.253/13 J prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
261. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates. His evidence further proves that on 18.9.2012 amount of Rs.53,00,497/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000185 of M/s. Gujarath Traders and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000185 and credited to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12091881145419.
262. His evidence further proves that on 3.10.2012 amount of Rs.53,75,000/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000185 of M/s. Gujarath Traders and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000185 and credited to GL 194 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.2 J. Muralidharan with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12100383222770.
263. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 18.9.2012, an amount of Rs.53,00,497/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. Gujarath Traders bearing account No. 04281250000185 as per Ex.P77. Then the said amount was debited to the same account and credited to Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 under Ex.P77(a) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.53,00,497/- was debited from the remittance parking GL account and credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P77(o) and the relevant entry is Ex.P77(p) and Ex.P77(q) is the certificate.
195 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
264. PW.5 has further deposed that on 3.10.2012, an amount of Rs.53,75,000/- was debited from Advances against drawee bills under Ex.P78 and relevant entry Ex.P78(a) and the said amount was credited to M/s. Gujarath Traders bearing account No. 04281250000185 as per Ex.P78(h). Then the said amount was debited to the same account and credited to Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 and on the same day the said amount of Rs.53,75,000/- was credited to the account of accused No.2 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P78(j) and the relevant entries are Ex.P78(k) and (l) and Ex.P78(t) is the certificate.
265. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.78, 78(a) to 78(i) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
266. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the 196 Spl.C.C.253/13 J electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.77 and 78 are an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several data of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, Ex.P.77 and 78 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.77 and 78.
267. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.77 and 78 are proving how the entries were made on 18.9.2012 for Rs.53,00,497/- and on 3.10.2012 for Rs.53,75,000/- without there being any bill 197 Spl.C.C.253/13 J for discounting from M/s. Gujarath Traders. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P77(p), for transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT Kannan J. P12091881145419. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entries are Ex.P77(p).
268. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P78(j), for transfer of the amount, it is mentioned that NEFT No. P12100383222770 Muralidharan. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.2 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entries are Ex.P78(l).
269. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available. He further investigated the matter through the system and 198 Spl.C.C.253/13 J found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification 199 Spl.C.C.253/13 J and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
270. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transactions mentioned in Ex.P.77 and 78 done without bills for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 and 2. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are entered in the Teller ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
271. PW.28 has deposed that Ex.P128 and Ex.P125 are the NEFT Inward Data Queries and under Ex.P128 and P125, an amount of Rs.53,00,497/- and Rs.53,75,000/- respectively were transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 and 2 respectively. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the contents of Ex.P.125 and P128 and transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P128 and P125, it is clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, 200 Spl.C.C.253/13 J sender address, beneficiary branch IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
272. Ex.P128 and P125 are admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting them as evidence is complied by producing the certificate as per Ex.P128(b) and P125(b).
273. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. On perusal of Ex.P116, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1, an amount of Rs.53,00,497/- has been credited to his account on 18.9.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12091881145419 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore. Ex.P192 is the statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.2 maintained with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai which is supported from certificate u/s 2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act and the same is not disputed by accused No.2, therefore the same is admissible in 201 Spl.C.C.253/13 J evidence. As per Ex.P192 an amount of Rs.53,75,000/- has been credited to his account on 3.10.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12100383222770 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
274. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transactions pertaining to M/s. Gujarath Traders, are an unauthorized and fraudulent transactions done without bills for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bills and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and the amounts of that unauthorized and fraudulent transactions have been transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 and 2 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO M/S. SLN
ENGINEERING WORKS:
275. Ninthly, I will consider the alleged transactions dated 18.9.2012 and 6.10.2012 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. SLN Engineering Works, Bangalore. In this regard, it is alleged by the prosecution that on 18.9.2012 debit of 202 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Rs.47,53,973/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000576 of M/s. SLN Engineering Works, Bangalore and on the same day an amount of Rs.47,53,973/- was debited from 04281250000576 of M/s. SLN Engineering Works for credit to GL Head No. 170150100 of Suspense Online Transactions, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.47,53,973/- was transferred to A/c No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu vide NEFT reference No. P2091881146964. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
276. It is further alleged that on 6.10.2012 debit of Rs.47,59,200/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000576 of M/s. SLN Engineering Works and on the same day an amount of Rs.47,59,200/- was debited from 04281250000576 of M/s. SLN Engineering Works for credit to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day, through NEFT an amount of Rs.47,59,200/- was transferred to A/c No.910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, 203 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P12100683923018. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
277. It is an admitted fact that M/s. SLN Engineering Works, Bangalore is having OD account No. 04281250000576 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for their business. In this regard, P.W.19 T. Kempegowda who is one of the partner of M/s. SLN Engineering Works has deposed that their firm is having OD account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore and prescribed OD limit is Rs.20 lakhs. He further deposed that after obtaining statement of account, he came to know that in October 2012, on two occasions, some amount was credited and debited from their OD account and at that time he had not availed the SMS alert facility from the bank account. Ex.P33 is his account opening form and statement of account and as per the said document, on 18.9.2012, an amount of Rs.47,53,973/- was credited and on the same day it was debited and on 6.10.2012, a sum of Rs.47,59,200/- was credited and debited on the same day to their OD account and he had 204 Spl.C.C.253/13 J not submitted any bills for discount. The relevant entries are at Ex.P33(b) and (c).
278. Ex.P33 contains application for opening of OD account along with enclosures, statement of account and certificates u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and under Section 2A of Banker's Books of Evidence Act. The evidence of PW.19 and the contents of Ex.P.33 are not disputed by any of the accused.
279. It is pertinent to note that PW.19 has deposed that on 18.9.2012 and on 6.10.2012 he had not submitted any bills for discount and the transaction as per Ex.P.33(b) and Ex.P33(c) are not pertaining to their business transaction. Therefore, his evidence proves that on 18.9.2012 and on 6.10.2012, he had not submitted any bills for discounting to avail the OD facility from his account to the extent of Rs.47,53,973/-, Rs.47,59,200/- and Rs.47,59,200/- respectively.
280. As per Ex.P.33(b) dated 18.9.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.47,53,973/- describing the amount as bills discounted and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.47,53,973/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. SLN Engineering Works. There is 205 Spl.C.C.253/13 J no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.33(b).
281. As per Ex.P.33(c) dated 6.10.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.47,59,200/- describing as bills discounted and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.47,59,200/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. SLN Engineering Works. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.33(c).
282. PW.1 has deposed that in respect of Ex.P33(b) and (c) transactions dated 18.9.2012 and 6.10.2012, there are no credit and debit vouchers are available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction Ex.P33(b) and (c) are not supported from any credit and debit vouchers, the bills of discount and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority.
283. Regarding Ex.P33(b) and (c), the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank in the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off-sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he 206 Spl.C.C.253/13 J conducted preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details of the date, the account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
284. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates. His evidence further proves that on 18.9.2012 amount of Rs.47,53,973/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000576 of M/s. SLN Engineering Works and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000576 and credited to GL Head No. 170150100 of Suspense online transaction and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to 207 Spl.C.C.253/13 J account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12091881146964.
285. His evidence further proves that on 6.10.2012 amount of Rs.47,59,200/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000576 of M/s. SLN Engineering Works and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000576 and credited to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12100683923018.
286. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 18.9.2012, an amount of Rs.47,53,973/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. SLN Engineering Works bearing account No. 04281250000576 as per Ex.P77. Then the said amount was debited to the same account and credited to GL Head No. 170150100 of 208 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Suspense Online Transactions under Ex.P77(a) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.47,53,973/- was debited from the Suspense Online Transactions account and credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P77(f) and the relevant entry is Ex.P77(h) and Ex.P77(l) is the certificate.
287. PW.5 has further deposed that on 6.10.2012, an amount of Rs.47,59,200/- was debited from Advances against drawee bills under Ex.P80 and relevant entry Ex.P80(a) and the said amount was credited to M/s. SLN Engineering Works bearing account No. 04281250000576 as per Ex.P80(c). Then the said amount was debited to the same account and credited to Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 and on the same day the said amount of Rs.47,59,200/- was credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P80(e) and the relevant entry is Ex.P80(o) and Ex.P80(r) is the certificate.
209 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
288. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.77, P77(a) to 77(p) and Ex.P.80, 80(b) to 80(f) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
289. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.77 and 80 are an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several data of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, 210 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.77 and 80 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.77 and 80.
290. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.77 and P80 is proving how the entries were made on 18.9.2012 for Rs.47,53,973/- and on 6.10.2012 for Rs.47,59,200/- without there being any bill for discounting from M/s. SLN Engineering Works. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P77 and 80 are transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT Kannan J. P12091881146964 and P12100683923018. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entries are Ex.P.77(h) and Ex.P80(o).
291. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 211 Spl.C.C.253/13 J 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available. He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has 212 Spl.C.C.253/13 J submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
292. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transactions mentioned in Ex.P.77 and P80 in respect of M/s. SLN Engineering Works done without bills for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are entered in the Teller ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
293. PW.28 has deposed that Ex.P127 and Ex.P131 are the NEFT Inward Data Queries and under Ex.P127 and P131, an amount of Rs.47,53,973/- and Rs.47,59,200/- were transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.1. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the contents of Ex.P.127 and P131 and transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P127 and P131, it is 213 Spl.C.C.253/13 J clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, sender address, beneficiary branch IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
294. Ex.P127 and P131 are admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting them as evidence is complied by producing the certificate as per Ex.P127(b) and P131(b).
295. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. On perusal of Ex.P116, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1, an amount of Rs.47,53,973 /- has been credited to his account on 18.9.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12091881146964 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore and further in Ex.P.116, an amount of Rs.47,59,200/- has been credited to his account on 6.10.2012 vide NEFT reference No. 214 Spl.C.C.253/13 J P12100683923018 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
296. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transactions pertaining to M/s. SLN Engineering Works, are an unauthorized and fraudulent transactions done without bills for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bills and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and the amounts of that unauthorized and fraudulent transactions have been transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO M/S. MANAL
ENTERPRISES:
297. Tenthly, I will consider the alleged transaction dated 3.10.2012 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. Manal Enterprises. In this regard, it is alleged by the prosecution that on 3.10.2012 debit of Rs.47,42,000/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000277 of M/s. Manal Enterprises, and on the same day an amount of 215 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Rs.47,42,000/- was debited from 04281250000277 of M/s. Manal Enterprises, for credit to GL Head No.170150100 of Suspense Online Transaction, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.47,42,000/- was transferred to A/c. No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Bangalore vide NEFT reference No. P12100383190760 of Syndicate Bank. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
298. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Manal Enterprises, Bangalore is having OD account No. 04281250000277 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for their business. In this regard, P.W.16 Oscar Sebastian Dass, has deposed that he is having account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch pertaining to his concern and the OD limit is of Rs.28 lakhs. About 1½ or 2 years back he received SMS alert from the bank with regard to drawing of excess amount i.e., crediting and debiting the amount from his account and the statement of account pertaining to his account is Ex.P32. On 3.10.2012, an amount of Rs.47,42,000/- was credited to their account and immediately on the same day, the amount was 216 Spl.C.C.253/13 J debited from their account and they had not submitted any bills for discount or earlier to that and the transaction is as per Ex.P32(b).
299. Ex.P32 contains application for OD account, enclosures, statement of account and certificates. As per Ex.P.32(b) dated 3.10.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.47,42,000/- describing the amount as discount of bills and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.47,42,000/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Manal Enterprises. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.32(b).
300. PW.1 has deposed that in respect of Ex.P32(b) transaction dated 3.10.2012, there is no credit and debit vouchers are available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction Ex.P32(b) is not supported from any credit and debit vouchers, the bills of discount and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority.
301. Regarding Ex.P32(b), the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank in 217 Spl.C.C.253/13 J the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off- sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he conducted preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details of the date, the account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
302. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates. His evidence further proves that on 3.10.2012 amount of Rs.47,42,000/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000277 of M/s. Manal Enterprises, and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000277 and credited to GL Head No. 170150100 218 Spl.C.C.253/13 J of Suspense Online Transactions and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12100383190760.
303. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 3.10.2012, an amount of Rs.47,42,000/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. Manal Enterprises bearing account No. 04281250000277 as per Ex.P78. Then the said amount was debited from the same account and credited to Suspense online transaction bearing A/c. No. 170150100 under Ex.P78(e) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.47,42,000/- was debited from the suspense online transaction account and credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P78(e) and the relevant entry is Ex.P78(g) and Ex.P78(aa) is the certificate.
219 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
304. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.78, P78(b) to 78(g) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
305. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.78 is an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several data of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, 220 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.78 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.78.
306. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.78, P78(e) and (g) is proving how the entries were made on 3.10.2012 for Rs.47,42,000/- without there being any bill for discounting from M/s. Manal Enterprises. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P78(g), for transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT Kannan J. P12100383190760. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entries are Ex.P78(g).
307. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available.
221 Spl.C.C.253/13 J He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill 222 Spl.C.C.253/13 J discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
308. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transaction mentioned in Ex.P.78 in respect of M/s. Manal Enterprises, done without bills for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are entered in the Teller ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
309. PW.28 has deposed that Ex.P136 is the NEFT Inward Data Query and under Ex.P136, an amount of Rs.47,42,000/- was transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.1. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the contents of Ex.P.136 and transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P136, it is clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, sender address, beneficiary branch 223 Spl.C.C.253/13 J IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
310. Ex.P136 is admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting it as evidence is complied by producing the certificate as per Ex.P136(b).
311. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. On perusal of Ex.P116, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1, an amount of Rs.47,42,000/- has been credited to his account on 3.10.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12100383190760 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
312. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transaction pertaining to M/s. Manal Enterprises, is an unauthorized and fraudulent transaction done without bill for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bill and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and 224 Spl.C.C.253/13 J the amount of that unauthorized and fraudulent transaction has been transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO M/S. ANAND
ELECTRICALS:
313. Eleventhly, I will consider the alleged transactions dated 3.10.2012 and 26.10.2012 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. Anand Electricals. In this regard, it is alleged by the prosecution that on 3.10.2012 debit of Rs.56,41,000/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000205 of M/s. Anand Electricals and on the same day an amount of Rs.56,41,000/- was debited from 04281250000205 of M/s. Anand Electricals for credit to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.56,41,000/- was transferred to A/c No. 910010025893800 of Accused No.2 J. Muralidharan with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu vide NEFT reference No. P12100383222897. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
225 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
314. It is further alleged that on 26.10.2012 debit of Rs.58,40,300/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000205 of M/s. Anand Electricals and on the same day an amount of Rs.58,40,300/- was debited from 04281250000205 of M/s. Anand Electricals for credit to GL Head No. 170100300 of TD Renewal (Parking GL), thereafter on the same day, through NEFT an amount of Rs.58,40,300/- was transferred to A/c No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, vide NEFT reference No. P12102686942036. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
315. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Anand Electricals is having OD account No. 04281250000205 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for their business. In this regard, P.W.10 N. Ganganarasaiah, Contractor who has deposed that on 3.10.2012, an amount of Rs.56,41,000/- was deposited to his OD account and on 26.10.2012 an amount of Rs.58,40,300/- was deposited to his OD account and he had neither submitted any bill of account nor discount bill for deposit of the said amount to his OD account. During November first week of 2012, he 226 Spl.C.C.253/13 J came to know that the said amounts were deposited to his OD account and fraud has been committed and on the same day of deposit, this amounts were withdrawn from his OD account and the relevant entries are at Ex.P31(b) and 31(c).
316. Ex.P31 contains application for opening of OD account along with enclosures, statement of account and certificates u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and under Section 2A of Banker's Books of Evidence Act. The evidence of PW.10 and the contents of Ex.P.31 are not disputed by any of the accused.
317. It is pertinent to note that PW.10 has deposed that on 3.10.2012 and on 26.10.2012 he had not submitted any bills for discount and the transaction as per Ex.P.31(b) and Ex.P31(c) are not pertaining to their business transaction. Therefore, his evidence proves that on 3.10.2012 and on 26.10.2012, he had not submitted any bills for discounting to avail the OD facility from his account to the extent of Rs.56,41,000/- and Rs.58,40,300/- respectively.
318. As per Ex.P.31(b) dated 3.10.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.56,41,000/- describing the amount as bills discounted and on the same day, there is a debit of 227 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Rs.56,41,000/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Anand Electricals. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.31(b).
319. As per Ex.P.31(c) dated 26.10.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.58,40,300/- describing as bills discounted and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.58,40,300/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Anand Electricals. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.31(c).
320. PW.1 has deposed that in respect of Ex.P31(b) and (c) transactions dated 3.10.2012 and 26.10.2012, there are no credit and debit vouchers are available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction Ex.P31(b) and (c) are not supported from any credit and debit vouchers, the bills of discount and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority.
321. Regarding Ex.P31(b) and (c), the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate 228 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Bank in the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off-sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he conducted preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details of the date, the account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
322. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates. His evidence further proves that on 3.10.2012 amount of Rs.56,41,000/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000205 of M/s. Anand Electricals and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000205 and credited to GL Head No. 170100500 229 Spl.C.C.253/13 J of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.2 J. Muralidharan with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12100383222897.
323. His evidence further proves that on 26.10.2012 amount of Rs.58,40,300/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000205 of M/s. Anand Electricals and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000205 and credited to GL Head No.170100300 of TD Renewal (Parking GL) and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12102686942036.
324. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 3.10.2012, an amount of Rs.56,41,000/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. Anand Electricals bearing account No. 04281250000205 as per Ex.P78. Then 230 Spl.C.C.253/13 J the said amount was debited to the same account and credited to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL under Ex.P78(p) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.56,41,000/- was debited from the Remittance Parking GL account and credited to the account of accused No.2 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P78(j) and the relevant entry is Ex.P78(s) and Ex.P78(t) is the certificate.
325. PW.5 has further deposed that on 26.10.2012, an amount of Rs.58,40,300/- was debited from Advances against drawee bills under Ex.P81 and relevant entry Ex.P81(a) and the said amount was credited to M/s. Anand Electricals bearing account No. 04281250000205 as per Ex.P81(c). Then the said amount was debited to the same account and credited to GL Head No. 170100300 of TD Renewal (Parking GL) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.58,40,300/- was credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P81(d) and the relevant entry is Ex.P81(f) and Ex.P81(n) is the certificate.
231 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
326. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.78, P78(p)
(q) (j) (r) (s) (t) to (z) and 78(aa) and Ex.P.81, 81(a) to 81(f) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
327. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.78 and 81 are an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several data of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, 232 Spl.C.C.253/13 J it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, Ex.P.78 and 81 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.78 and 81.
328. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.78 and P81 is proving how the entries were made on 3.10.2012 for Rs.56,41,000/- and on 26.10.2012 for Rs.58,40,300/- without there being any bill for discounting from M/s. Anand Electricals. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P78, transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT J. Muralidharan P12100383222897. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.2 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entries are mentioned in Ex.P.78(s).
329. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P81, transfer of the amount of Rs.58,40,300/-, it is mentioned that NEFT Kannan J. P12102686942036. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account 233 Spl.C.C.253/13 J of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entries are mentioned in Ex.P.81(f).
330. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available. He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are 234 Spl.C.C.253/13 J entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
331. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transactions mentioned in Ex.P.78 and P81 in respect of M/s. Anand Electricals done without bills for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are entered in the Teller ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
235 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
332. PW.28 has deposed that Ex.P135 and Ex.P134 are the NEFT Inward Data Queries and under Ex.P135 and P134, an amount of Rs.56,41,000/- and Rs.58,40,300/- respectively were transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.2 and 1 respectively. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the contents of Ex.P.135 and P134 and transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of accused No.2 and 1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P135 and P134, it is clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, sender address, beneficiary branch IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
333. Ex.P134 and P135 are admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting them as evidence is complied by producing the certificate as per Ex.P134(b) and P135(b).
236 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
334. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. On perusal of Ex.P192, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.2, an amount of Rs.56,41,000/- has been credited to his account on 3.10.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12100383222897 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore and in Ex.P.116, an amount of Rs.58,40,300/- has been credited to the account of accused No.1 on 26.10.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12102686942036 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
335. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transactions pertaining to M/s. Anand Electricals, are an unauthorized and fraudulent transactions done without bills for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bills and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and the amounts of that unauthorized and fraudulent transactions have been transferred through NEFT to the 237 Spl.C.C.253/13 J account of accused No.1 and 2 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO M/S. ASHWINI CLOTHING COMPANY:
336. Twelfthly, I will consider the alleged transaction dated 3.10.2012 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. Ashwini Clothing Company. In this regard, it is alleged by the prosecution that on 3.10.2012 debit of Rs.51,62,000/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250001061 of M/s. Ashwini Clothing Company, and on the same day an amount of Rs.51,62,000/- was debited from 04281250001061 of M/s. Ashwini Clothing Company, for credit to GL Head No.170150100 of Suspense Online Transaction, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.51,62,000/- was transferred to A/c. No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Bangalore vide NEFT reference No. P12100383189771 of Syndicate Bank. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
337. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Ashwini Clothing Company, Bangalore is having OD account No.
238 Spl.C.C.253/13 J 04281250001061 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for their business. In this regard, P.W.11 Hemanth Kumar, Partner of M/s. Ashwini Clothing Company, Bangalore has deposed that on 3.10.2012, an amount of Rs.51,62,000/- was deposited to their OD account Ex.P30(A). On the same day, the said amount was debited from his account and he had not given any bill of discount to the tune of Rs.51,62,000/- and the said entry is Ex.P30(c) and after 2 days, he came to know about the deposit and debit of the said amount to his OD account and subsequently, he came to know that the fraud was committed in respect of Rs.51,62,000/-.
338. Ex.P30 contains application for OD account, enclosures, statement of account and certificates. As per Ex.P.30(c) dated 3.10.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.51,62,000/- describing the amount as discount of bills and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.51,22,000/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Ashwini Clothing Company. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.30(c).
339. PW.1 has deposed that in respect of Ex.P30(c) transaction dated 3.10.2012, there is no credit and debit vouchers are 239 Spl.C.C.253/13 J available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction Ex.P30(c) is not supported from any credit and debit vouchers, the bills of discount and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority.
340. Regarding Ex.P3o(c), the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank in the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off- sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he conducted preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details of the date, the account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
341. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry 240 Spl.C.C.253/13 J along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates. His evidence further proves that on 3.10.2012 amount of Rs.51,62,000/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250001061 of M/s. Ashwini Clothing Company, and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250001061 and credited to GL Head No. 170150100 of Suspense Online Transaction and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12100383189771.
342. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 3.10.2012, an amount of Rs.51,62,000/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. Ashwini Clothing Company bearing account No. 04281250001061 as per Ex.P78. Then the said amount was debited from the same 241 Spl.C.C.253/13 J account and credited to Suspense online transaction bearing A/c. No. 170150100 under Ex.P78(m) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.51,62,000/- was debited from the suspense online transaction account and credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P78(e) and the relevant entry is Ex.P78(o) and Ex.P78(aa) is the certificate.
343. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.78, P78(m)
(n) (e) and (o) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
344. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.78 is an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in 242 Spl.C.C.253/13 J evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several data of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, Ex.P.78 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.78.
345. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.78, P78(e) and (o) is proving how the entries were made on 3.10.2012 for Rs.51,62,000/- without there being any bill for discounting from M/s. Ashwini Clothing Company. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P78(o), for transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT Kannan J. P12100383189771. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT 243 Spl.C.C.253/13 J maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entries are Ex.P78(o).
346. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available. He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by 244 Spl.C.C.253/13 J the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
347. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transaction mentioned in Ex.P.78 in respect of M/s. Ashwini Clothing Company, done without bills for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are entered in the Teller ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
348. PW.28 has deposed that Ex.P137 is the NEFT Inward Data Query and under Ex.P137, an amount of Rs.51,62,000/-
245 Spl.C.C.253/13 J was transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.1. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the contents of Ex.P.137 and transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P137, it is clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, sender address, beneficiary branch IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
349. Ex.P137 is admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting it as evidence is complied by producing the certificate as per Ex.P137(b).
350. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. On perusal of Ex.P116, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1, an amount of Rs.51,62,000/- has been credited to his account on 3.10.2012 vide NEFT 246 Spl.C.C.253/13 J reference No. P12100383189771 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
351. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transaction pertaining to M/s. Ashwini Clothing Company, is an unauthorized and fraudulent transaction done without bill for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bill and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and the amount of that unauthorized and fraudulent transaction has been transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO M/S. KARNI KEMP:
352. Thirteenthly, I will consider the alleged transaction dated 4.10.2012 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. Karni Kemp. In this regard, it is alleged by the prosecution that on 4.10.2012 debit of Rs.52,72,600/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000952 of M/s. Karni Kemp, and on the same day an amount of Rs.52,72,600/- was debited from 04281250000952 of 247 Spl.C.C.253/13 J M/s. Karni Kemp, for credit to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.52,72,600/- was transferred to A/c. No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Bangalore vide NEFT reference No. P12100483562928 of Syndicate Bank. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
353. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Karni Kemp, Bangalore is having OD account No. 04281250000952 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for their business. In this regard, P.W.15 Ashok Kothari, who is the husband of the Proprietrix of M/s. Karni Kemp, Bangalore, has deposed that they are having OD Account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch and having OD limit to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs. On 4.10.2012, an amount of Rs.52,72,600/- was credited to their OD account and it was debited on the same day and after one week, he came to know about the said entries and he had not given any bills for the purpose of discount and the said entries does not pertain to their business transaction and on enquiry with accused No.1,. he told that it was a wrong 248 Spl.C.C.253/13 J entry and it was done due to mistake. Then he has deposed that Accused No.1 was looking after the OD account at that time and on the advice of their Auditor, he had given letter to the bank and obtained reply from the bank stating that the entries are wrong entries. Ex.P29 is the account opening form, and his signature and signature of his wife are at Ex.P29(a) and (b) and their statement of account is Ex.P29(c). The relevant entries are at Ex.P.29(d).
354. Ex.P29 contains application for OD account, enclosures, statement of account and certificates. As per Ex.P.29(d) dated 4.10.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.52,72,600/- describing the amount as bill discounted and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.52,72,600/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Karni Kemp. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.29(d).
355. PW.1 has deposed that in respect of Ex.P29(d) transaction dated 4.10.2012, there is no credit and debit vouchers are available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence 249 Spl.C.C.253/13 J of PW-1 and the contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction Ex.P29(d) is not supported from any credit and debit vouchers, the bills of discount and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority.
356. Regarding Ex.P29(d), the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank in the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off- sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he conducted preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details of the date, the account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
357. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were 250 Spl.C.C.253/13 J done on various dates. His evidence further proves that on 4.10.2012 amount of Rs.52,72,600/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000962 of M/s. Karni Kemp, and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000952 and credited to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12100483562928.
358. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 4.10.2012, an amount of Rs.52,72,600/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. Karni Kemp bearing account No. 04281250000952 as per Ex.P79. Then the said amount was debited from the same account and credited to the Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 under Ex.P79(a) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.52,72,600/- was debited from the suspense online transaction account and credited to the account of 251 Spl.C.C.253/13 J accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P79 (a) to (d) and Ex.P79(j) is the certificate.
359. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.79, P79(a) to 70(d) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
360. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.79 is an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several data of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data 252 Spl.C.C.253/13 J can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, Ex.P.79 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.79.
361. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.79, P79(a) to (d) is proving how the entries were made on 4.10.2012 for Rs.52,72,600/- without there being any bill for discounting from M/s. Karni Kemp. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P79(b), for transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT Kannan J. P12100483562928. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entry is Ex.P79(b).
362. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that 253 Spl.C.C.253/13 J certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available. He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract 254 Spl.C.C.253/13 J balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
363. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transaction mentioned in Ex.P.79 in respect of M/s. Karni Kemp, done without bills for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are entered in the Teller ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
364. PW.28 has deposed that Ex.P130 is the NEFT Inward Data Query and under Ex.P130, an amount of Rs.52,72,600/- was transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.1. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the contents of Ex.P.130 and transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of 255 Spl.C.C.253/13 J accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P130, it is clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, sender address, beneficiary branch IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
365. Ex.P130 is admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting it as evidence is complied by producing the certificate as per Ex.P130(b).
366. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. On perusal of Ex.P116, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1, an amount of Rs.52,72,600/- has been credited to his account on 4.10.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12100483562928 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
367. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transaction pertaining to M/s. Karni Kemp, is an unauthorized and fraudulent transaction done without bill 256 Spl.C.C.253/13 J for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bill and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and the amount of that unauthorized and fraudulent transaction has been transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO M/S. A A
ASSOCIATES:
368. Fourteenthly, I will consider the alleged transaction dated 4.10.2012 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. A A Associates. In this regard, it is alleged by the prosecution that on 4.10.2012 debit of Rs.57,42,500/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000649 of M/s. A A Associates, and on the same day an amount of Rs.57,42,500/- was debited from 04281250000649 of M/s. A A Associates, for credit to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.57,42,500/- was transferred to A/c. No. 910010015164435 of Accused No.1 257 Spl.C.C.253/13 J with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Bangalore vide NEFT reference No. P12100483562910 of Syndicate Bank. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
369. It is an admitted fact that M/s. A A Associates, Bangalore is having OD account No. 04281250000649 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for their business. In this regard, P.W.13 Jaijo Joseph, Proprietor of M/s. A.A. Associates, Bangalore has deposed that on 4.10.2012, an amount of Rs.57,42,500/- was credited to his OD account and on the same day, the said amount was debited from his account under Ex.P28(c) and he came to know about the said entry and he had no bill discounting facility and he had not submitted any bills for discounting and he enquired accused No.1 and he told that it was due to mistake.
370. Ex.P28 contains application for OD account, enclosures, statement of account and certificates. As per Ex.P.28(c) dated 4.10.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.57,42,500/- describing the amount as bill discounted and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.57,42,500/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account 258 Spl.C.C.253/13 J of M/s. A A Associates. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.28(c).
371. PW.1 has deposed that in respect of Ex.P28(c) transaction dated 4.10.2012, there is no credit and debit vouchers are available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction Ex.P28(c) is not supported from any credit and debit vouchers, the bills of discount and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority.
372. Regarding Ex.P28(c), the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank in the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off- sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he conducted preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details of the date, the account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has 259 Spl.C.C.253/13 J prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
373. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates. His evidence further proves that on 4.10.2012 amount of Rs.57,42,500/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000649 of M/s. A A Associates, and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000649 and credited to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12100483562910.
374. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 4.10.2012, an amount of Rs.57,42,500/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch 260 Spl.C.C.253/13 J and the amount was credited to M/s. A A Associates bearing account No. 04281250000649 as per Ex.P79. Then the said amount was debited from the same account and credited to the Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 under Ex.P79(e) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.57,42,500/- was debited from the Remittance Parking GL account and credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P79 (i) and Ex.P79(j) is the certificate.
375. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.79, P79(e)
(g) to 79(m) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
376. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.79 is an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 261 Spl.C.C.253/13 J 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several data of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, Ex.P.79 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.79.
377. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.79, P79(e) and (i) is proving how the entries were made on 4.10.2012 for Rs.57,42,500/- without there being any bill for discounting from M/s. A A Associates. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P79(i), for transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT Kannan J. P12100483562910. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the 262 Spl.C.C.253/13 J account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entry is Ex.P79(i).
378. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available. He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are 263 Spl.C.C.253/13 J entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
379. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transaction mentioned in Ex.P.79 in respect of M/s. A A Associates, done without bills for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are entered in the Teller ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
264 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
380. PW.28 has deposed that Ex.P129 is the NEFT Inward Data Query and under Ex.P129, an amount of Rs.57,42,500/- was transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.1. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the contents of Ex.P.129 and transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P129, it is clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, sender address, beneficiary branch IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
381. Ex.P129 is admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting it as evidence is complied by producing the certificate as per Ex.P129(b).
382. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. On perusal of Ex.P116, a statement of account pertaining to 265 Spl.C.C.253/13 J the account of accused No.1, an amount of Rs.57,42,500/- has been credited to his account on 4.10.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12100483562910 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
383. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transaction pertaining to M/s. A A Associates, is an unauthorized and fraudulent transactions done without bill for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bill and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and the amount of that unauthorized and fraudulent transaction has been transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO M/S. BALAJI WOOD WORKS:
384. Fifteenthly, I will consider the alleged transaction dated 6.10.2012 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. Balaji Wood Works. In this regard, it is alleged by the prosecution that on 6.10.2012 debit of Rs.56,30,200/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of 266 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250000856 of M/s. Balaji Wood Works, and on the same day an amount of Rs.56,30,200/- was debited from 04281250000856 of M/s. Balaji Wood Works, for credit to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.56,30,200/- was transferred to A/c. No. 912010025893800 of Accused No.2 J. Muralidharan with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Bangalore vide NEFT reference No. P12100683925210 of Syndicate Bank. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
385. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Balaji Wood Works, Bangalore is having OD account No. 04281250000856 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for their business. In this regard, P.W.22 Hari, who is one of the Proprietor of M/s. Balaji Corporation has deposed that he is having another firm in the name of M/s. Sri. Balaji Wood Works which is running in his name. M/s. Balaji Wood Works is having account with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch and availed OD facility to the tune of Rs.70 lakhs. On 6.10.2012, an amount of Rs.56,30,200/-
267 Spl.C.C.253/13 J was credited and debited to their OD account under Ex.P27(b) and the said transaction amount does not pertain to their business and he had not submitted any bills for the purpose of business or earlier to that.
386. Ex.P27 contains application for OD account, enclosures, statement of account and certificates. As per Ex.P.27(b) dated 6.10.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.56,30,200/- describing the amount as bill discounted and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.56,30,200/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Balaji Wood Works. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.27(b).
387. PW.1 has deposed that in respect of Ex.P27(b) transaction dated 6.10.2012, there is no credit and debit vouchers are available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction Ex.P27(b) is not supported from any credit and debit vouchers, the bills of discount and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority.
268 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
388. Regarding Ex.P27(b), the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank in the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off- sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he conducted preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details of the date, the account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
389. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates. His evidence further proves that on 6.10.2012 amount of Rs.56,30,200/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000856 of M/s. Balaji Wood Works, and on 269 Spl.C.C.253/13 J the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250000856 and credited to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.2 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12100683925210.
390. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 6.10.2012, an amount of Rs.56,30,200/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. Balaji Wood Works bearing account No. 04281250000649 as per Ex.P80. Then the said amount was debited from the same account and credited to the Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 under Ex.P80(g) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.56,30,200/- was debited from the Remittance Parking GL account and credited to the account of accused No.2 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P80 (o) and Ex.P80(r) is the certificate.
270 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
391. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.80, P80(g) to 80(i) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
392. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.80 is an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several data of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, 271 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.80 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.80.
393. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.80, P80(g) and (o) is proving how the entries were made on 6.10.2012 for Rs.56,30,200/- without there being any bill for discounting from M/s. Balaji Wood Works. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P80(o), for transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT J.Muralidharan P12100683925210. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.2 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entry is Ex.P80(o).
394. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available.
272 Spl.C.C.253/13 J He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill 273 Spl.C.C.253/13 J discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
395. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transaction mentioned in Ex.P.80 in respect of M/s. Balaji Wood Works, done without bills for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are entered in the Teller ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
396. PW.28 has deposed that Ex.P140 is the NEFT Inward Data Query and under Ex.P140, an amount of Rs.56,30,200/- was transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.1. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the contents of Ex.P.140 and transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P140, it is clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, sender address, beneficiary branch 274 Spl.C.C.253/13 J IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
397. Ex.P140 is admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting it as evidence is complied by producing the certificate as per Ex.P140(b).
398. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. On perusal of Ex.P192, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.2, an amount of Rs.56,30,200/- has been credited to his account on 6.10.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12100683925210 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
399. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transaction pertaining to M/s. Balaji Traders, is an unauthorized and fraudulent transaction done without bill for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bill and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and 275 Spl.C.C.253/13 J the amount of that unauthorized and fraudulent transaction has been transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.2 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO M/S. BALAJI
CORPORATION:
400. Sixteenthly, I will consider the alleged transaction dated 6.10.2012 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. Balaji Corporation. In this regard, it is alleged by the prosecution that on 6.10.2012 debit of Rs.53,70,400/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 04281250001080 of M/s. Balaji Corporation, and on the same day an amount of Rs.53,70,400/- was debited from 04281250001080 of M/s. Balaji Corporation, for credit to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.53,70,400/- was transferred to A/c. No. 9120010015164435 of Accused No.1 J. Kannan with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Bangalore vide NEFT reference No. P12100683923540 of Syndicate Bank. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
276 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
401. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Balaji Corporation, Bangalore is having OD account No. 04281250001080 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for their business. In this regard, P.W.21 Smt. Deepa Bist who is one of the Proprietrix of M/s. Sri Balaji Corporation has deposed that they are having account with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. Then further she has deposed that on 6.10.2012 an amount of Rs.53,70,400/- was credited and debited to their account and the said amount does not pertain to their business transaction and they had not submitted any bill for the purpose of discounting and CBI officer enquired her about the said transaction.
402. Ex.P26 contains application for OD account, enclosures, statement of account and certificates. As per Ex.P.26(b) dated 6.10.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.53,70,400/- describing the amount as bill discounted and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.53,70,400/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Balaji Corporation. There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made as per Ex.P.26(b).
277 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
403. PW.1 has deposed that in respect of Ex.P26(b) transaction dated 6.10.2012, there is no credit and debit vouchers are available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction Ex.P26(b) is not supported from any credit and debit vouchers, the bills of discount and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority.
404. Regarding Ex.P26(b), the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank in the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off- sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he conducted preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details of the date, the account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
278 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
405. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates. His evidence further proves that on 6.10.2012 amount of Rs.53,70,400/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 04281250000856 of M/s. Balaji Corporation, and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 04281250001080 and credited to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12100683923540.
406. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 6.10.2012, an amount of Rs.53,70,400/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. Balaji Corporation bearing account No. 04281250001080 as per Ex.P80. Then 279 Spl.C.C.253/13 J the said amount was debited from the same account and credited to the Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 under Ex.P80(e) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.53,70,400/- was debited from the Remittance Parking GL account and credited to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P80(o) and Ex.P80(r) is the certificate.
407. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.80, P80(h) to 80(j) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
408. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.80 is an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in 280 Spl.C.C.253/13 J evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several datas of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, Ex.P.80 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.80.
409. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.80, P80(i) and (o) is proving how the entries were made on 6.10.2012 for Rs.53,70,400/- without there being any bill for discounting from M/s. Balaji Corporation. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P80(o), for transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT Kannan J. P12100683923540. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT maintained at Axis 281 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entry is Ex.P80(o).
410. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available. He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by 282 Spl.C.C.253/13 J the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
411. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transaction mentioned in Ex.P.80 in respect of M/s. Balaji Corporation, done without bills for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are entered in the Teller ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
412. PW.28 has deposed that Ex.P132 is the NEFT Inward Data Query and under Ex.P132, an amount of Rs.53,70,400/-
283 Spl.C.C.253/13 J was transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.1. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the contents of Ex.P.132 and transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P132, it is clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, sender address, beneficiary branch IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
413. Ex.P132 is admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting it as evidence is complied by producing the certificate as per Ex.P132(b).
414. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. On perusal of Ex.P116, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1, an amount of Rs.53,70,400/- has been credited to his account on 6.10.2012 vide NEFT 284 Spl.C.C.253/13 J reference No. P12100683923540 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
415. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transaction pertaining to M/s. Balaji Corporation, is an unauthorized and fraudulent transaction done without bill for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bill and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and the amount of that unauthorized and fraudulent transaction has been transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO M/S. LAKSHMI ENGINEERING WORKS:
416. Seventeenthly, I will consider the alleged transaction dated 6.10.2012 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. Lakshmi Engineering Works. In this regard, it is alleged by the prosecution that on 6.10.2012 debit of Rs.44,30,500/- from the GL Head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into 042812500001095 of M/s. Lakshmi Engineering 285 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Works, and on the same day an amount of Rs.44,30,500/- was debited from 04281250001095 of M/s. Lakshmi Engineering Works, for credit to GL Head No.170100500 of Remittance Parking GL, thereafter on the same day through NEFT an amount of Rs.44,30,500/- was transferred to A/c. No. 912010025893800 of Accused No.2 J. Muralidharan with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Bangalore vide NEFT reference No. P12100683924359 of Syndicate Bank. No bills/vouchers were available to support these transactions.
417. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Lakshmi Engineering Works, Bangalore is having OD account No. 042812500001095 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for their business.
418. Ex.P25 contains application for OD account, enclosures, statement of account and certificates. As per the statement of account pertaining to M/s. Lakshmi Engineering Works dated 6.10.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.44,30,500/- describing the amount as bill discounted and on the same day, there is a debit of Rs.44,30,500/- describing as miscellaneous customer debit to the account of M/s. Lakshmi Engineering Works.
286 Spl.C.C.253/13 J There is no dispute about this credit and debit entry made in the statement of account.
419. PW.1 has deposed that in respect of transaction dated 6.10.2012 pertaining to M/s. Lakshmi Engineering Works, there is no credit and debit vouchers are available. He has further deposed that the relevant bills and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority are also not available. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Ex.P1 are proving that the transaction dated 6.10.2012 pertaining to M/s. Lakshmi Engineering Works is not supported from any credit and debit vouchers, the bills of discount and the notings on the bills and orders of the sanctioning authority.
420. Regarding the transaction dated 6.10.2012, pertaining to M/s. Lakshmi Engineering Works the evidence of PW.3 is very much relevant because as a Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank in the Regional Office, Bangalore he was looking after off-sight monitoring cell. He has deposed that he conducted preliminary enquiry as per the direction of their General Manager and submitted his preliminary report as per Ex.P52. He has also deposed that Ex.P52 contains totally 24 transactions and details of the date, the 287 Spl.C.C.253/13 J account No., transfer of GL head, the amount, remittance made through NEFT to Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the name of beneficiaries under the said transfer and he has prepared the report after verifying GL account of the concerned branch.
421. The evidence of PW.3 proves that as per the direction of their General Manager he conducted preliminary enquiry along with one Darshan and on preliminary verification, it was observed that the 24 transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates. His evidence further proves that on 6.10.2012 amount of Rs.44,30,500/- was debited from GL 277240100 and credited into account No. 042812500001095 of M/s. Lakshmi Engineering Works, and on the same day, the said amount was debited from 042812500001095 and credited to GL Head No. 170100500 of Remittance Parking GL and thereafter on the same day through NEFT the said amount was transferred to account of accused No.2 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai vide NEFT reference No. P12100683924359.
288 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
422. PW.5 has deposed about the production of documents before the CBI and the details of the documents. Further, he has deposed that on 6.10.2012, an amount of Rs.44,30,500/- was debited from the GL account bearing No.277240100 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch and the amount was credited to M/s. Lakshmi Engineering Works bearing account No. 042812500001095 as per Ex.P80. Then the said amount was debited from the same account and credited to the Remittance Parking GL bearing A/c. No. 170100500 under Ex.P80(k) and on the same day the said amount of Rs.44,30,500/- was debited from the Remittance Parking GL account and credited to the account of accused No.2 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamil Nadu and the same is evident from Ex.P80(q) and Ex.P80(r) is the certificate.
423. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.80, P80(k) to 80(m) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before 289 Spl.C.C.253/13 J the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
424. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.80 is an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several data of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, Ex.P.80 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.80.
290 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
425. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 which is supported from contents of Ex.P.80, P80(e) and (q) is proving how the entries were made on 6.10.2012 for Rs.44,30,500/- without there being any bill for discounting from M/s. Lakshmi Engineering Works. Further, his evidence proves that, in Ex.P80(q), for transfer of the said amount, it is mentioned that NEFT J.Muralidharan P12100683924359. His evidence also proves that the said amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.2 through NEFT maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and the relevant entry is Ex.P80(q).
426. P.W.35 who conducted the inspection of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore and submitted the report to the Head Office has deposed that he found that certain advances accounts entered directly in General Ledger and Branch had not maintained the ledger from 1.4.2012. Then he has deposed that the supplementary evidence like bills and other vouchers were not available. He further investigated the matter through the system and found the modus operandi as a Branch Officer, accused No.1 in his Teller ID by debiting huge amount in advances against drawee bill and credited the amount to various 291 Spl.C.C.253/13 J customers account. On the same day, the same amount was debited to those customers account with a narration, system generated wrong credits, reversed and the proceeds was credited either to the parking GL or direct deposits parking GL or remittance parking GL. On the same day by debiting those parking GLs, the amount was transferred through RTGS to various accounts either of accused No.1 or accused No.2. All these accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 the then Chief Manager of the branch. No records were available in the branch in respect of vouchers, bills or any other documents connected to those transactions. As per manual of instructions, if any heads are maintained manually, Branch had to extract balancing periodically and tally with General Ledger Heads and branch had not followed the procedure. He has submitted his inspection report Ex.P.106 to their Head Office. A ledger for Advances against Drawee Bill discounted was not produced from 1.4.2012 for verification and there were certain advances controlling reports AB1026 in which these advances were not appearing.
292 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
427. Considering the entire evidence of PW.35, his evidence is proving the transaction mentioned in Ex.P.80 in respect of M/s. Lakshmi Engineering Works, done without bills for discount and how the entries have been made in the registers and the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1. His evidence is also proving that the accounts are entered in the Teller ID of Accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of Accused No.3.
428. PW.28 has deposed that Ex.P141 is the NEFT Inward Data Query and under Ex.P141, an amount of Rs.44,30,500/- was transferred from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to their bank through NEFT to the account of accused No.2. The evidence of PW.28 is proving the contents of Ex.P.141 and transfer of amount from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur branch to the account of accused No.2 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. In Ex.P141, it is clearly mentioned, NEFT transaction reference No., sender branches IFSC, sender customer account and name, sender address, beneficiary branch IFSC, beneficiary customer account number and name, amount, value date, remittance date, transaction status, 293 Spl.C.C.253/13 J credit status, authorized ID No., and authorized date is clearly mentioned.
429. Ex.P141 is admissible in evidence because the conditions stipulated for admitting it as evidence is complied by producing the certificate as per Ex.P141(b).
430. P.W.32 has deposed that he submitted documents through their Operations Head under his letter Ex.P113 and the documents submitted by him are Ex.P114 to P150. On perusal of Ex.P192, a statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.2, an amount of Rs.44,30,500/- has been credited to his account on 6.10.2012 vide NEFT reference No. P12100683924359 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
431. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transaction pertaining to M/s. Lakshmi Engineering Works, is an unauthorized and fraudulent transaction done without bill for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bill and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and the amount of that unauthorized and fraudulent transaction has been transferred through NEFT 294 Spl.C.C.253/13 J to the account of accused No.2 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO M/S. SLN
ENGINEERING WORKS:
432. Eighteenthly, I will consider the alleged another
transaction dated 06.10.2012 of Syndicate Bank,
Yeshwanthpura Branch in respect of M/s. SLN
Engineering Works for Rs.47,59,200/-. It is alleged that in respect of M/s. SLN Engineering Works there was another debit entry. On 06.10.2012, an amount of Rs.47,59,200/- was debited from the GL head of 277240100 of Syndicate Bank and credited into account of M/s. SLN Engineering Works bearing No. 04281250000576 and thereafter the said amount was not transferred to any other GL Head and it was lying in the account of M/s. SLN Engineering Works. Further, on 30.10.2012, on the instructions of Regional Office, Syndicate Bank, the said amount was transferred to suspense account (GL No. 170100400) of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch. No bills and vouchers were available for this transaction.
295 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
433. There is no dispute about this transaction done on 6.10.2012. PW.19 has deposed that they have not submitted any bill for discount regarding this transaction and this transaction is not pertaining to their business. He has further deposed about the contents of Ex.P33(c). As per Ex.P33(c) there was credit of Rs.47,59,200/- describing as bill discounted and the said amount was remained in the account of M/s. SLN Engineering Works and not transferred to any GL Head.
434. PW.5 has deposed about this transaction and transfer of the amount to the account of M/s. SLN Engineering Works without there being any bill and vouchers. Further, he has deposed about the statement of account of M/s. SLN Engineering Works as per Ex.P80(b) and the entries made therein as per Ex.P80(c).
435. It is the contention of accused No.1 that Ex.P.80, P80(a) to 80(f) were marked are all secondary evidence and secondary evidence is permissible if at all the original evidence is lost. It is further contended that the person who has signed those documents is not a witness before the court and there is no affidavit for the said secondary evidence.
296 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
436. PW.1 who was Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has attested and signed the electronic record and the certificates. Admittedly, Ex.P.80 is an attested copy of electronic record taken from the system and accompanied by the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. If an electronic record is accompanied by a certificate, it shall be received in evidence by the court. The data stored in the system is a primary evidence which cannot be brought before the court when the same is containing several datas of banking transactions. Then the secondary evidence of such data can only be produced before the court along with the certificate and if the conditions stipulated under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied for such evidence, it shall be received as secondary evidence. Therefore, Ex.P.80 and the relevant entries are admissible in evidence as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.1 regarding admissibility of Ex.P.80.
437. PW.1 has deposed about Ex.P43 and 44. There is no dispute about the contents of Ex.P43 and 44 and they prove that on 30.10.2012, the amount which was credited 297 Spl.C.C.253/13 J to the account of M/s. SLN Engineering Works on 6.10.2012 to the extent of Rs.47,59,200/- was transferred to the suspense account of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch.
438. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the above transaction pertaining to M/s. SLN Engineering Works, is an unauthorized and fraudulent transaction done without bill for discount, credit and debit vouchers and without any noting on the bill and sanctioning order of the sanctioning authority, accounts are entered in the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized by the user ID of accused No.3 and the amount of that unauthorized and fraudulent transaction was retained in the account of M/s SLN Engineering and subsequently the said amount has been transferred to the suspense account of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch as per the instructions of Regional Office.
TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO ACCOUNT OF
SRI.SARAVANAKUMAR
439. Ninteenthly, I will consider the alleged transaction done by the accused No.1 through the SB A/c. No. 045520130791 of Sri. Saravana Kumar for 298 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Rs.10,00,000/-. Regarding this transaction, it is alleged by the prosecution that Sri. Saravana Kumar was maintaining SB A/c. No. 045520130791 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch, Bangalore and the said account was originally opened in Peenya Branch and subsequently transferred to Yeshwanthpura Branch. It is further alleged that the accused No.1 deposited two cheques for Rs. Five lakhs each of Axis Bank and withdrawn the amount from the account of Sri. Saravana Kumar stating that he being the staff of Syndicate Bank cannot route such huge funds through his account.
440. Looking to the defence of all accused, there is no dispute that Sri. Saravana Kumar is having SB A/c. No. 045520130791 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch, Bangalore. It is further admitted that Ex.P2 is the statement of account pertaining to his SB A/c. No. 045520130791 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch, Bangalore and Ex.P2(b) and (c) are the certificates and Ex.P3 is the letter of Chief Manager regarding the above account details and Ex.P4 is the account opening form dated 27.9.1999 which was opened at Peenya Branch and subsequently transferred to Yeshwanthapura Branch.
299 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
441. P.W.24 K. Sharavanakumar, who is son of Sri. C. Krishnan, Prop: M/s. Vani Industries and looking after the said business of his father has deposed that their concern is having account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch and not having the OD facility to their account. About 2 years back when he had been to Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch and accused No.1 told that his uncle has sent two cheques for Rs. 5 lakhs each and asked him to sign the withdrawal slip to withdraw the amount from their account and accordingly, he has signed the withdrawal slip and on the basis of withdrawal slip accused No.1 withdrew the said amount. He further deposed that he had not taken the said amount of Rs.10 lakhs and the said amount does not belongs to him. Ex.P12 is the withdrawal slip signed by him and Ex.P13 and P17 are the credit slips which does not contain his handwriting and signature which are forged and he had not presented two cheques for Rs.5 lakhs each in order credit the amount to his account and those cheques are Ex.P107 and 108.
442. As per the evidence of PW.24, the amount withdrawn as per Ex.P12 is not pertaining to their own transaction. He has admitted his signature on Ex.P12. Ex.P13 and 17 are 300 Spl.C.C.253/13 J the credit slips for deposit of two cheque amount of Rs.5 lakhs each. PW.24 has deposed that the writing on Ex.P13 and 17 is not in his handwriting and signatures on those documents are not made by him. Further, he has deposed that Ex.P13 and 17 are forged documents. Further, PW.24 has deposed that he has not presented Ex.P107 and 108 for credit to his account.
443. Ex.P107 and 108 are the two original cheques dated 17.10.2011 and 12.10.2011 respectively for Rs. Five lakhs each. It is not disputed that these two cheques are pertaining to the account of accused No.1 bearing No. 910010015164435 maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, Tamilnadu. It is also not disputed that these cheques have been drawn by the accused No.1 in the name of PW.24 and bears his signature.
444. The evidence of PW.24 proves that it is the accused No.1 who has drawn Ex.P107 and P108 in the name of PW.24 and credited those cheques amount to the SB Account of PW.24 by filling the credit slips in his own handwriting as per Ex.P.13 and 17 and put his signature. The evidence of PW.24 further proves that the accused No.1 by saying to PW.24 that the cheques Ex.P107 and P108 have been 301 Spl.C.C.253/13 J received by him from his uncle and by saying so he has deposited the cheques amount to the account of PW.24 and obtained his signature on the withdrawal slip Ex.P12 and withdrawn the amount. It is forthcoming from the evidence and the statement of account of accused No.1 that out of the amount which was transferred to his account from the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch from the above mentioned transfers drawn Ex.P107 and 108 and withdrawn the amount. Therefore, the evidence of PW.24 proves that the amount deposited as per Ex.P107 and 108 to his account and withdrawn as per Ex.P12 is not pertaining to him and those transactions have been made by accused No.1 through his account. Therefore, these transactions made by the accused No.1 through the account of PW.24 have been established. Hence, the prosecution has proved the transaction done by accused No.1 through the account of Sri.Saravanakumar. TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO THE ACCOUNT OF SRI. C. GUNASHEKARAN:
445. Twentiethly, I will consider the alleged transaction done by the accused No.1 through the SB A/c No. 04282010101970 of Sri. C. Gunashekaran for 302 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Rs.10,00,000/-. Regarding this transaction, it is alleged by the prosecution that Sri. C. Gunashekaran was maintaining SB A/c No. 04282010101970 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch, Bangalore. It is further alleged that the accused No.1 deposited two cash deposits of Rs. Five lakhs each on 8.9.2011 to the account of Sri. C. Gunashekaran stating that his uncle who was in abroad had given that amount to him and requested Sri. C. Gunashekaran to sign in the credit slips, accordingly he had signed in the credit slips. Further, the said amount was debited to his account for making NEFT transfer on the same day.
446. It is further alleged that there was one more transaction of Rs. Five lakhs carried by accused No.1 through the account of Sri. C. Gunashekaran in October 2011 which was not known to Sri. C. Gunashekaran and accused No.1 by misusing the withdrawal slip signed by Sri. C. Gunashekaran for other transactions withdrawn the said amount without the knowledge of Sri. C. Gunashekaran.
447. Looking to the defence of all accused, there is no dispute that Sri. C. Gunashekaran is having SB A/c. No. 04282010101970 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura 303 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Branch, Bangalore. It is further admitted that Ex.P6 is the account opening form and Ex.P7 is the statement of account pertaining to his SB A/c. No. 04282010101970 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch, Bangalore and Ex.P7(a) and (b) are the certificates.
448. P.W.25 C. Gunasekaran, Proprietor of M/s. Venkateshwara Engineering Works has deposed that he is having SB Account with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Bangalore.
He has further deposed that about 2 years back when he had been to the bank, the accused No.1 told him that his uncle had sent an amount of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs to his account and obtained his signature on the withdrawal slips and accordingly he signed on two withdrawal slips. An amount of Rs.10 lakhs had come to his account through NEFT and another amount of Rs.5 lakhs was deposited through cheque Ex.P109 which does not pertain to him and does not bear his signature. Accused No.1 did not owe Rs.15 lakhs to him under two withdrawal slips signed him and he had not taken the amount of Rs.15 lakhs and Ex.P18 - credit slip which does not bear his signature.
449. As per the evidence of PW.25 and the contents of Ex.P7, the relevant entries are Ex.P7(f) to (j). The transactions 304 Spl.C.C.253/13 J made in the account of PW.25 as per Ex.P7(f) to (j) are proved from the evidence of PW.25. Further, it is proved that those transactions are not pertaining to the PW.25. PW.25 has deposed that on Ex.P.18 credit slip, he has not put his signature and admitted his signature on the withdrawal slip Ex.P.11 for withdrawal of Rs. Five lakhs but not admitted the amount has been taken by him. The evidence of PW.25 proves that the transactions dated 8.9.2011 and 20.10.2011 are not pertaining to him and they have been done by the accused No.1 through his account by obtaining his signature. It is pertinent to note that the contents of Ex.P7 which shows that there is cash deposit of Rs. Five lakhs on 8.9.2011 and on the same day there is a debit of Rs. Ten lakhs through NEFT. Further, on perusal of Ex.P116 statement of account pertaining to the accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai an amount of Rs. Ten lakhs has been credited to his account through NEFT vide NEFT reference No.P11090837141923 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore.
450. Further, Ex.P7 reveals that on 18.10.2011 an amount of Rs. Five lakhs has been credited to the SB account of 305 Spl.C.C.253/13 J PW.25 and on 20.10.2011 an amount of Rs. Five lakhs has been withdrawn under withdrawal slip No.664406 which is evident from Ex.P11.
451. The evidence of PW.25 proves that it is the accused No.1 who has made transactions dated 8.9.2011, 18.10.2011 and 20.10.2011 stating that the amount has been received by him from his uncle. Therefore, these transactions made by the accused No.1 through the account of PW.25 have been established TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO THE ACCOUNT OF SRI. C. KRISHNAN:
452. Twenty firstly, I will consider the alleged transaction done by the accused No.1 through the SB A/c No. 04282010120298 of Sri. C. Krishnan for Rs.10,05,000/-. Regarding this transaction, it is alleged by the prosecution that Sri. C. Krishnan was maintaining SB A/c No. 04282010120298 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch, Bangalore. It is further alleged that the accused No.1 deposited two cash deposits one for Rs.5,00,000/- and another for Rs.5,05,000/- on 17.9.2011 to the account of Sri. C. Krisnan and got withdrawn the said amount on the same day through NEFT payment.
306 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
453. Looking to the defence of all accused, there is no dispute that Sri. C. Krishnan is having SB A/c. No. 04282010120298 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch, Bangalore. It is further admitted that Ex.P8 is the account opening form and Ex.P9 is the statement of account pertaining to his SB A/c. No. 04282010120298 with Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch, Bangalore and Ex.P9(a) and (b) are the certificates.
454. P.W.36 C. Krishnan, the owner of M/s. Vani Industries deposed that his industry is having account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch and availed OD facility. Then he has deposed that Ex.P8 and P9 are his account opening form and statement of account pertaining to his account in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch. On 17.9.2011, cash deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.5,05,000/- was made to his account by accused No.1. On the same day, there is another transaction in his account showing the transfer of amount of Rs.10,05,000/- through NEFT payment and those transactions are not pertaining to his industry transactions. Accused No.1 told him that he has deposited the amount to his account and he will withdraw the same and to put his signature on the 307 Spl.C.C.253/13 J withdrawal and by saying so he has obtained his signature on the withdrawals. Accused No.1 told that since he was the Manager working in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, he has deposited the fund to his account and he will get transfer of fund, therefore he has signed on Ex.P14 and 15 which are credit slips for Rs.5,05,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively. Those credit slips have been written by accused No.1 and he has put his signature on those slips.
455. As per the evidence of PW.36 and the contents of Ex.P9, the transactions made in the account of PW.36 are proved from the evidence of PW.36. Further, it is proved that those transactions are not pertaining to the PW.36. PW.36 has deposed that accused No.1 deposited cash into his account and he will withdrawn the same by saying so he has obtained his signature on the credit slip Ex.P.14 and
15. The evidence of PW.36 proves that the transactions dated 17.9.2011 is not pertaining to him and the same has been done by the accused No.1 through his account by obtaining his signature. It is pertinent to note that the contents of Ex.P9 which shows that there is cash deposit of 308 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs.5,05,000/- on 17.9.2011 and on the same day there is a debit of Rs.10,05,000/- through NEFT.
456. Further, on perusal of Ex.P116 statement of account pertaining to the accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai an amount of Rs.10,05,000/- has been credited to his account through NEFT vide NEFT reference No.P11091737934140 dated 17.9.2011 of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore.
457. The evidence of PW.36 proves that it is the accused No.1 who has made transaction dated 17.9.2011. Therefore, these transactions made by the accused No.1 through the account of PW.36 have been established.
TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO SRI. P.
KRISHNAMURTHY:
458. Twenty secondly, it is alleged by the prosecution that out of the amount transferred to the account of accused No.1 from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, he has drawn cheque dated 16.5.2012 for Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank in favour of his brother-in-law Sri. P. Krishnamurthy, and accused No.1 himself by forging the signature of P. Krishnamurthy has withdrawn the said cheque amount.
309 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
459. In this regard, P.W.39 P. Krishnamurthy has deposed that during 2012, he had not gone to Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and Ex.P170 was not delivered to him by accused No.1 at any time and he has not drawn the amount mentioned in Ex.P170 and the signature on the back of the cheque is not his signature and he has not shown any transaction in respect of Ex.P170. The evidence deposed by PW.39 is unchallenged in any manner and none of the accused have not cross-examined this witness. Therefore, the evidence deposed by PW.39 is acceptable evidence. His evidence proves that he has not made withdrawal of amount of Ex.P.170 by signing on the reverse of the cheque.
460. Regarding this transaction, it is pertinent to note the evidence of PW.41 handwriting expert who has opined that the signature on Ex.P.170 marked as Ex.P.170(b) and marked as Q2 by him has been made by accused No.1 J. Kannan. Therefore, the evidence of PW.41, his report Ex.P.207 and his opinion for Ex.P.170(b) is not disputed.
461. The issue of cheque to PW.39 as per Ex.P.170 and withdrawal of the cheque amount is not disputed. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the accused 310 Spl.C.C.253/13 J No.1 drawn the Ex.P.170 in the name of PW.39 and he himself signed in the name of PW.39 and forged his signature and withdrawn the said amount of Rs.7,00,000/- . Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the transaction as per Ex.P.170 is a fraudulent transaction made by accused No.1 in the name of PW39.
TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO SMT. NIRMALA:
462. Twenty thirdly, it is alleged by the prosecution that out of the amount transferred to the account of accused No.1 from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, he has drawn cheque dated 11.6.2012 for Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank in favour of his mother Smt. Nirmala and the amount of the said cheque has been withdrawn.
463. Regarding Ex.P.171, PW.28 has deposed his evidence. He deposed that Ex.P.171 cheque issued by the accused No.1 for Rs.8,00,000/- in favour of Smt. Nirmala. Further, PW.29 has deposed about the withdrawal of the amount said cheque amount by the holder of the cheque.
464. Regarding this transaction, it is pertinent to note the evidence of PW.41 handwriting expert who has opined that the signature on Ex.P.171 marked as Ex.P.171(c) and marked as Q4 by him has been made by Smt. Nirmala.
311 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Therefore, the evidence of PW.41, his report Ex.P.207 and his opinion for Ex.P.171(c) is not disputed.
465. The issue of cheque by accused No.1 as per Ex.P.171 in the name of his mother Smt. Nirmala and withdrawal of the cheque amount is not disputed. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the accused No.1 issued the Ex.P.171 in the name of his mother, who has withdrawn the said amount. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that out of the amount transferred to the account of accused No.1 from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Ex.P.171 has been issued and the same has been withdrawn.
REGARDING IMPROPER CALCULATION OF DISCOUNT AND INTEREST REGARDING TRANSACTION OF M/S. DIGITRONIX MEASURING INSTRUMENTS:
466. Twenty fourthly, I will consider the allegation pertaining to the alleged improper calculation of discount and interest on the transaction of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments dated 23.2.2012. It is alleged by the prosecution that, one bill of Rs.5,73,456/- discounted on 23.02.2012 for Rs.35,73,456/- and credited to 4281250000691 of M/s. Digitronix Measuring 312 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Instruments and immediately Rs.30,00,000/- debited and remitted by NEFT to Accused No.1's account with Axis Bank, vide account No. 910010015164435. Discount is collected on amount of Rs.5,73,456/- and not on 35,73,456/-. The interest amount of Rs.14,160/- and commission of Rs.5,063/- collected from M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments for an amount of Rs.5,73,456/- and not on 35,73,456/-.
467. Looking to the bill submitted by M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments on 23.2.2012, it was for Rs.5,73,456/- but it was fictitiously discounted for Rs.35,73,456/-. It is already discussed about the said transaction above. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the books of accounts show that the discount and interest has been calculated only on Rs.5,73,456/- and the same has been entered in the concerned register. As per Ex.P39(a) and 209(b), the discount and interest is shown differently. On perusal of Ex.P23(c) and the relevant entries, the interest on bill discount is Rs.14,160/- and commission of Rs.5,063/- are debited to the said account. Further, in Ex.P209(b), the discounted bill amount is altered as Rs.35,73,456/-.
313 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Therefore, there is no consistency in the original bill and amount discounted and credited to the account of M/s. Digitrnoix Measuring Instruments. Hence, the evidence proves that the interest and commission is not charged on the amount of Rs.35,73,456/- and only charged on the original bill for Rs.5,73,456/-. Therefore, the prosecution has clearly established the improper calculation of interest and commission on this transaction.
TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO M/S. DELTA
MANUFACTURER:
468. Twenty fifthly, I will consider the alleged transaction dated 15.3.2012 pertaining to M/s. Delta Manufacturer bearing Account No. 04281010006553 for Rs.59,92,775/-. It is alleged by the prosecution that Syndicate Bank, Yeswanthpur branch is not having copy/original bill for Rs.9,92,775/- or Rs.59,92,775/- of M/s. Delta Manufacturer drawn on M/s Akson Enterprise. The bill register of Yeswanthpur branch, Syndicate Bank, Bangalore page No.191 vide Invoice No. 0128 dated 12.03.2012 of Delta Manufacturer vide A/c No. 04281010006553, the amount has been mentioned as Rs.59,92,775/- not an amount of Rs.9,92,775/-.
314 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
469. Regarding this transaction, PW.1 has spoken that an amount of Rs.59,92,775/- has been credited to the account of M/s. Delta Manufacturer on 15.3.2012 as per Ex.P39(b). As per Ex.P22(a) an amount of Rs.9,92,775/- is credited to the account of M/s. Delta Manufacturer. It is further admitted that M/s. Delta Manufacturer submitted bill for discount for Rs.9,92,775/- and the same is evident from Ex.P.22(a) statement of account and the commission and interest are also charged for the said bill amount. However, regarding that transaction though the bill was presented but there is no original bill available in the bank for having issued Akson in favour of M/s. Delta Manufacturer for Rs.9,92,775/-.
470. The accused have not disputed the transaction and entry made in Ex.P209 as per Ex.P209(c). The copy of the same is Ex.P39 and relevant entry is Ex.P39(c). In Ex.P.209 on 15.3.2012, the bill amount is shown as Rs.59,92,775/- and the relevant entry is as per Ex.P.209(c) and the alteration of the amount is also forthcoming from the said record. This transaction for Rs.59,92,775/- is not supported from any original/copy of M/s. Delta Manufacturer.
315 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
471. It is deposed by the witnesses that there is no original/ copy of the bill for Rs.9,92,775/- or Rs.59,92,775/- of M/s. Delta Manufacturer Invoice dated 12.3.2012. Hence, this transaction is not supported from any documents. As per the evidence, it is forthcoming that though the bill was discounted for Rs.9,92,775/- as per Ex.P.22(a), how the entry has been made in Ex.P.209 mentioning the amount as Rs.59,92,775/- and why the amount is altered as appearing in Ex.P.209(c) is not explained by the accused No.1 who is said to be the author of the said entry. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution proves that this entry for Rs.59,92,775/- is an unauthorized and fraudulent entry made in the accounts of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch.
REGARDING DUTY OF ACCUSED NO.1 ON 25.10.2012 & 26.10.2012:
472. Twenty sixthly, I will consider whether the accused No.1 was on duty on 25.10.2012 and 26.10.2012 in the bank and not signed in the attendance register and done the transactions in the bank. In this regard PW.6 who served as Asst. Manager in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has deposed that the attendance register for the 316 Spl.C.C.253/13 J month of October 2012 is Ex.P82(b). Further, he has deposed that on 25.10.2012 and 26.10.2012 accused No.1 has done the duty in the bank but he has not signed in the attendance register Ex.P82(b) and the relevant entry pertaining to accused No.1 is Ex.P82(c). Further, he has deposed that he was on duty from 16.10.2012 to 31.10.2012 and signed as per Ex.P82(d).
473. Further he has deposed that he produced 5 sets of debit and credit vouchers dated 25.10.2012 which are at Ex.P85 to P97 and 3 sets of debit and credit vouchers dated 26.10.2012 which are at Ex.P98 to P100. Then he has deposed that Ex.P85 to P100 are in the handwriting of Accused No.1 and Accused No.1 had put initials in all debit vouchers in the space provided for checked. The said initials of Accused No.1 are at Ex.P85(a), 87(a), 89(a), 91(a), 93(a), 95(a), 96(a), 97(a) and 99(a).
474. The evidence of PW6 and the contents of Ex.P85 to P100 are proving that on 25.10.2012 and 26.10.2012, the accused No.1 was on duty in the bank and done the transactions, though he has not signed in the attendance register Ex.P82(b) as per Ex.P82(c).
317 Spl.C.C.253/13 J CREDIT & DEBIT ENTRIES PERTAINING TO THE ACCOUNT OF ACCUSED NO.1:
475. Twenty seventhly, I will consider the credit and debit entries pertaining to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai from 4.5.2010 to 31.10.2012. It is admitted that accused No.1 was having SB A/c. No. 910010015164435 in his name with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai. Further, he has admitted all the transactions made in his above account as per Ex.P116 statement of account. On perusal of Ex.P116, accused No.1 opened an account in his name by initial deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-. From 4.5.2010 to 31.10.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.12,10,17,618/- to his account and debit of amount of Rs.9,84,81,682.36 and balance as on 31.10.2012 was Rs.2,25,66,944.20.
CREDIT & DEBIT ENTRIES PERTAINING TO THE ACCOUNT OF ACCUSED NO.2:
476. Twenty eighthly, I will consider the credit and debit entries pertaining to the account of accused No.2 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai from 16.5.2012 to 30.10.2012. It is admitted that accused No.2 was having SB A/c. No. 912010025893800 in his name with Axis
318 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai. Further, he has admitted all the transactions made in his above account as per Ex.P192 statement of account. On perusal of Ex.P192, accused No.2 opened an account in his name by initial deposit of Rs.10,600/-. From 16.5.2012 to 30.10.2012, there is a credit of amount of Rs.4,21,18,886/- to his account and debit of amount of Rs.2,01,08,752/- and balance as on 30.10.2012 was Rs.2,20,10,133/-. ISSUE OF CHEQUES BY ACCUSED NO.1 IN RESPECT OF HIS SB ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK:
477. Twenty ninthly, I will consider the issue of cheques and other amount transferred from the SB account of accused No.1 bearing No. 910010015164435 after the credit of amount to his account from NEFT, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. Regarding the cheques issued by accused No.1, PW.28 has deposed in detail in his evidence to the same. He has deposed that Ex.P.157 to 171 are the cheques issued by accused No.1.
478. It is an admitted fact that accused No.1 has issued 7 cheques pertaining to his SB Account with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai from Ex.P157 to P162 for Rs.50,00,000/- each and Ex.P168 for Rs.30,00,000/- in
319 Spl.C.C.253/13 J favour of Great Ventures. The drawee of the cheque has realized the amount of those cheques totally amounting Rs.3,30,000/- and the same is evident from Ex.P116 statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
479. It is further admitted fact that accused No.1 has issued 4 cheques pertaining to his SB Account with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai from Ex.P164 to P167 for Rs.18,00,000/-, Rs.30,00,000/-, Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.50,00,000/- totally Rs.1,48,00,000/- in favour of Adventures India. The drawee of the cheque has realized the amount of those cheques totally amounting Rs.1,48,00,000/- and the same is evident from Ex.P116 statement of account pertaining to the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
480. Further, as per Ex.P.169, it is forthcoming that accused No.1 has issued cheque for Rs.7,00,000/- in the name of accused No.2 and the said amount has been withdrawn. Further, as per Ex.P.170, it is forthcoming that accused No.1 has issued cheque for Rs.7,00,000/- in name of P. Krishnamurthy and the said amount has been withdrawn. Further, as per Ex.P.171, it is forthcoming that accused 320 Spl.C.C.253/13 J No.1 has issued cheque for Rs.8,00,000/- in name of Smt. Nirmala who is the mother of accused No.1 and 2 and the said amount has been withdrawn.
ONLINE TRANSFER OF AMOUNT FROM THE S.B. ACCOUNT OF ACCUSED NO.1:
481. Thirtiethly, I will consider the online transfer of amount from the account of accused No.1. In this regard, it is deposed by PW.28 about the online internet debit transactions made as per Ex.P.142 to P156 in the account of accused No.1 with Axis Bank.
482. There is not dispute regarding these online debit transactions made from the account of accused No.1.
Therefore, as per Ex.P.142 dated 17.8.2012 an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- was transferred to the account of Great Ventures, Ex.P.143, 144, 152 to P156 (dated 18.8.2012 to 22.9.2012) an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- each has been transferred to the account of Great Ventures from the account of accused No.1.
483. Further, as per Ex.P.146 to P149 and 151 an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- has been transferred from the account of accused No.1 to the account No. 910020028536180. Further, as per Ex.P.150 an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has 321 Spl.C.C.253/13 J been transferred from the account of accused No.1 to the account No. 910010006140585.
ISSUE OF CHEQUES BY ACCUSED NO.2 IN RESPECT OF HIS SB ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK:
484. Thirty firstly, I will consider the issue of cheques from the SB account of accused No.2 bearing No. 9110025893800 after the credit of amount to his account from NEFT, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. In this regard, PW.28 has deposed that Ex.P.172 to P185 are the cheques issued by accused No.2.
In this regard, accused No.2 has clearly admitted that those cheques have been signed and issued by him pertaining to his SB account but his contention is that he was a student and his brother accused No.1 was doing trading business and looking after his account and accused No.1 has obtained the cheques signed by him and he has no knowledge about receipt of huge amount to his account and debit of amount to his account. It is his further contention that he had given his Net banking User ID and Password to Accused No.1.
485. As seen from the evidence of PW.28 and the contents of Ex.P.172 to P185 in all 14 cheques were issued in respect 322 Spl.C.C.253/13 J of SB account of accused No.2 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. The total amount involved in those 14 cheques is amounting to Rs.2,00,50,000/- and those cheques have been encashed by the drawees of the cheques. On 4.10.2012 in all 13 cheques have been issued from the account of accused No.2 in favour of KEDIA Commodities amounting to Rs.2,00,00,000/-. On 20.10.2012, one cheque has been issued from the account of accused No.2 in favour of Great Ventures for Rs.50,000/-. It is evident from the statement of account Ex.P.192 pertaining to accused No.2 all the debit entries pertaining to Ex.P.172 to P185 are forthcoming.
RECOVERY OF PORTION OF FRAUD AMOUNT FROM THE ACCUSED NO.1 & 2:
486. Thirty secondly, it is the contention of the prosecution that, an amount of Rs.6,73,10,688/- has been recovered out of the fraud amount of Rs.12,22,94,260/- and kept in SB Account of Accused No.1 bearing No.01112020026478 maintained with Syndicate Bank, Manipal Branch. For recovery of this amount, accused No.1 has issued two cheques as per Ex.P.163 and Ex.P.56 for Rs.2,27,54,688/-
323 Spl.C.C.253/13 J and Rs.2,25,56,000/- respectively and accused No.2 issued one cheque as per Ex.P.57 for Rs.2,20,00,000/-.
487. It is an admitted fact that accused No.1 issued cheque for Rs.2,27,54,688/- as per Ex.P.163 and the said cheque was realized and amount was transferred to the account of accused No.1 in Syndicate Bank, Manipal Branch and the relevant transaction is forthcoming in Ex.P.116 dated 31.10.2012 and Ex.P.138 which is the certified copy of RTGS Outward Data Query of Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
488. Regarding issue of cheques Ex.P.56 and 57 by accused No.1 and 2, PW.4 has spoken and identified the connected vouchers as per Ex.P.58 and 59 and Ex.P60 and 61 are the cheque return memos. Further he deposed that amounts mentioned in Ex.P.56 and 57 could not be transferred to the account of accused No.1 maintained in Syndicate Bank, Manipal Branch as accounts of accused No.1 and 2 maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai was blocked.
489. PW.31 has deposed that he produced two cheques Ex.P.56 and 57 which were drawn on Axis Bank issued by accused No.1 and 2 respectively and those cheques have been 324 Spl.C.C.253/13 J returned with an endorsement that account blocked and those endorsement is in inward return report Ex.P.60 and Ex.P.58 and 59 are the credit slips and Ex.P.61 is the CTS inward report.
490. Then PW.28 deposed that he submitted a letter as per Ex.P.193. In Ex.P.193 he has stated that as per instructions of the Investigating Officer amounts of Rs.2,25,56,000/- and Rs.2,20,00,000/- were transferred to the account bearing No. 01112020026478 of J. Kannan maintained at Syndicate Bank, Manipal.
491. As seen from the defence of all accused, they have not disputed the evidence deposed by PW.4, PW.28 and PW.31 regarding issue of cheques and amount realized through cheque and RTGS transfers.
492. As seen from the evidence, it is an admitted fact that cheques issued by accused No.1 as per Ex.P.163 came to be honoured and the amount involved in that cheque came to be transferred to the account of accused No.1 maintained at Syndicate Bank, Manipal.
493. Further, it is admitted that the cheques issued by accused No.1 and 2 as per Ex.P.56 and 57 could not be honoured as the accounts of accused No.1 and 2 were blocked by the 325 Spl.C.C.253/13 J CBI and those cheques returned without any realization and the same are evident from cheque return memo.
494. Further, it is admitted that when the cheques Ex.P.56 and P57 were not realized then on the instructions of CBI, the amount from the accounts of accused No.1 and 2 was transferred to the account of accused No.1 maintained at Syndicate Bank, Manipal.
495. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that an amount of Rs.6,73,10,688/- was recovered from the account of accused No.1 and 2 by way of cheque and RTGS transfers to the account of accused No.1 maintained at Syndicate Bank, Manipal.
EXPERT'S OPINION:
496. Thirty thirdly, the prosecution has relied upon the Expert's Opinion in support of its case. In this regard, P.W.41 Anil Sharma, Handwriting Expert has deposed that on 27.6.2013, they received letter forwarded by Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Bangalore along with disputed documents as Q1 to Q9 and specimen documents marked at S1 to S79 along with a queries regarding their examination and opinion.
326 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
497. Further he has deposed that after thorough scientific examination of questioned documents in comparison with specimen documents provided as per queries contained in the letter, the examination was carried out and conclusive opinion in the form of report was submitted to the forwarded agency on 6.9.2013, as per Ex.P207 along with covering letter of their Director Ex.P208. Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen English signature and handwritings marked as S1 to S30, S61 to S79 attributed to accused No.1 being the person responsible for writing the questioned English signatures and writings marked at Q1 to Q3, Q5 to Q9.
498. Further he has deposed that Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen English signatures marked at S51 to S60 attributed to Smt. P. Nirmala being the person responsible for writing the questioned English Signature marked as Q-4.
499. Further he has deposed that the Bill Discounting Register of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore is at Ex.P209 and Q7 is the handwriting of accused No.1 marked as Ex.P209(a), Q8 is the handwriting of accused 327 Spl.C.C.253/13 J No.1 marked at Ex.P209(b) and Q9 and it is the handwriting of accused No.1 marked at Ex.P209(c).
500. Further he has deposed that Q7(A) to Q9(A) are the exhibits marked by his Laboratory. Q1 is the signature of A1 already marked at Ex.P170(a). Q2 is the signature signed as Krishnamurthy at Ex.P170(b). Q3 is the signature of A1 at Ex.P.171(a). Q4 is the signature signed as Smt. P. Nirmala already marked at Ex.P.171(c). Q5 is the signature of A1 at Ex.P169(a). Q6 is the signature signed as A2 is at Ex.P169(b).
501. Further he has deposed that S1 to S10 are the specimen signatures of A1 at Ex.P210. S61 to S79 are the signatures and writings of A1 at Ex.P211. S11 to S20 are the specimen signatures signed as Krishnamurthy by A1 and also contains signatures of Accused No.1 which are at Ex.P.205. S25 to S30 are the signatures as Muralidharan signed by Accused No.1 and also contain the signature of J. Kannan at Ex.P205.
502. Further he has deposed that S41 to S50 are the specimen signatures of P. Krishnamurthy, S51 to S60 are the signatures of P. Nirmala and S31 to S40 are the specimen 328 Spl.C.C.253/13 J signatures of J. Muralidharan are at Ex.P.206, P204 and P203 respectively.
503. The learned counsel for accused No.1 and 3 have not cross-examined PW.41, therefore they have admitted the evidence of PW.41 and his report Ex.P.207. The learned counsel for accused No.2 has cross-examined PW.41 but nothing has been elicited to disprove his evidence against accused No.2. Therefore, the evidence of PW.41 is acceptable in totality and the same is proving his report Ex.P.207 and the opinion given by him.
504. It is an admitted fact that the specimen signatures of accused No.1 marked as S1 to S10 have been obtained on 14.3.2013 as per Ex.P.210 in the presence of PW44 by the Investigating Officer. It is further admitted that the specimen signatures of accused No.1 signed in the name of Krishnamurthy marked as S11 to S30 have been obtained on 8.5.2013 as per Ex.P205 in the presence of PW40 by the Investigating Officer. It is further admitted that the specimen signature/ handwriting of accused No.1 marked S61 to S79 have been obtained on 14.3.2013 as per Ex.P.211 in the presence of PW38 by the Investigating Officer. It is further admitted that the specimen signatures 329 Spl.C.C.253/13 J of Krishnamurthy have been obtained on 8.5.2013 on Ex.P.206 before the independent witness PW.40. Further, it is admitted that the specimen signatures of Smt. P. Nirmala have been obtained on 20.3.2013 as per Ex.P.204 in the presence of PW.38.
505. It is admitted that signature of accused No.1 marked as Q1 on Ex.P.170 marked as Ex.P.170(a) is made by accused No.1 on the cheque written by him in favour of Krishnamurthy. Ex.P.170(b) marked as Q2 is said to be the forged signature of Krishnamurthy for drawing the amount in his name. As per the evidence of PW.41 and contents of Ex.P.207, it is proved that Ex.P.170(b) has been signed by Accused No.1 as the signature of Krishnamurthy.
506. It is admitted that signature of accused No.1 marked as Q5 on Ex.P.169 marked as Ex.P.169(a) is made by accused No.1 on the cheque written by him in favour of Muralidharan. Ex.P.169(b) marked as Q6 is said to be the forged signature of Muralidharan for drawing the amount in his name. As per the evidence of PW.41 and contents of Ex.P.207, it is proved that Ex.P.169(b) has been signed by Accused No.1 as the signature of Muralidharan.
330 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
507. It is admitted that in Ex.P.209, the relevant entries as per Ex.P.209(a), 209(b), 209(c) marked as Q7, Q8 and Q9 respectively are said to be in the handwriting of Accused No.1. The evidence of PW.41 and the contents of Ex.P.207 prove that they are in the handwriting of accused No.1 only. Therefore, it is established that the entries as per Ex.P.209(a), 209(b) and 209(c) are in the handwriting of accused No.1.
508. It is admitted that Ex.P.171 has been issued in favour of Smt. Nirmala by accused No.1. It was investigated to know the authenticity of signature of Smt. Nirmala marked as Q4 and Ex.P.171(c) and whether there is any forgery of her signature. As per the evidence of PW.41 and contents of Ex.P.207, it is revealed that Ex.P.171(c) /Q4 has been signed by Smt. Nirmala only.
POLICY GUIDELINES COVERING THE DRAWEE BILL SCHEME:
509. Thirty fourthly, it is an admitted fact that, the policy guidelines covering the Drawee Bills Scheme (DBS) as per Manual of Instructions on credit policy and procedures are in force from 2006 onwards. As per those procedures and policy guidelines, the branches shall obtain the documents 331 Spl.C.C.253/13 J in respect of both under DBS (Drawee Bill Scheme) and BCAS (Bills Co-Acceptance Scheme). Further that, with the bank migrating to Core Banking Solutions (CBS) each bill discounted under that scheme should come under sanctioned limit of the party. When the drawee bills are tendered by the eligible borrower the concerned clerk/Maker has to make the entries in the system in the FCC Module (Flexi Cube Corporate) and the same shall be authorized by the Officer/checker after verifying the genuineness of the bill, due date of the bill, interest rate, charges validity of the limits, and it is within the limits sanctioned. After debiting the bills duly authorized by the officer the credit net of charges and interest shall be credited to the party's Over Draft account. In this regard the clerk/maker/teller and the officer/checker will be having different login IDs and passwords. Further, there are several General Ledger Folios (GL accounts) such as Remittance Parking GL, On-Line Suspense GL, Term Deposit (TD) renewal GL, etc. But there is provision to transfer the funds from Various Parking GL heads to any party's accounts as per the wishes of the eligible borrower.
332 Spl.C.C.253/13 J The parking GL are temporary media to route the transactions of the bank.
DRAWEE BILLS, CREDIT AND DEBIT VOUCHERS FOR THE TRANSACTIONS:
510. Thirty fifthly, It is an admitted fact that Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch has discounted 88 bills from 13.5.2009 to till 26.10.2012. It is alleged that out of 88 bills discounted 25 bills discounted without any genuine bills amounting to Rs.12,70,53,460/-. As per the evidence of the witnesses deposed before the court, banking procedure and the Manual of Instructions, it is mandatory on the part of the concerned employee of the bank incharge of advance section to obtain Drawee Bills, Credit and Debit vouchers for discounting of drawee bills. It is also mandatory that the sanctioning authority must sanction the drawee bills for discounting.
511. In the case on hand, it is deposed by the witnesses that the records pertaining to 25 transactions are not available in the bank. Therefore, when the credit and debit vouchers for discounting of Drawee Bills, the concerned drawee bills and sanction order is not available in the 333 Spl.C.C.253/13 J bank, it can be safely said that those transactions have not been supported from the necessary records.
512. It is forthcoming from the evidence of the witnesses that fictitious entries have been made for the 25 transactions in the guise of bills discounted without any genuine bills amounting to Rs.12,70,53,460/-. It is further forthcoming from the evidence that out of the said above amount, an amount of Rs.10,12,17,560/- has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT and an amount of Rs.2,10,76,700/- has been transferred to the account of accused No.2 through NEFT and an amount of Rs.47,59,200/- was remained in the account of M/s SLN Engineering Works and subsequently the same was got transferred to suspense account of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore as per the instructions of Regional Office.
513. Further, it is forthcoming from the evidence of the prosecution that the bill for Rs.5,73,456/- tendered by M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments was a sales finance bill as it represented the supplies made by M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments to M/s. HMT (I) Ltd., and should not have been discounted under the Drawee Bill Head and 334 Spl.C.C.253/13 J should have been discounted under the relevant sales finance bill head as per the policy guidelines. The evidence of the prosecution proves that this transaction was made by following wrong procedure for the bill of M/s. Digitronix measuring instrument.
NEFT TRANSFER DOCUMENTS:
514. Thirty sixthly, it is an admitted fact that for transfer of amount through NEFT, there must be a request letter for NEFT transaction, debit vouchers for debiting to the various parking GLs and credit vouchers for effecting NEFT Transfer. In the present case, the witnesses have deposed that none of those documents are available in respect of transfer of amount made from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore to the account of accused No.1 and 2 through NEFT for the amounts.
Therefore, the amount of Rs.10,12,17,560/- transferred through 20 remittances to the account of accused No.1 through NEFT are not supported from request letters for NEFT, nor debit vouchers for debiting to various parking GLs nor credit vouchers for effecting NEFT transfers. Further, the amount of Rs.2,10,76,700/- transferred through 4 remittances to the account of accused No.2 335 Spl.C.C.253/13 J through NEFT are not supported from request letters for NEFT, nor debit vouchers for debiting to various parking GLs nor credit vouchers for effecting NEFT transfers of the amounts.
POWER FOR SANCTION OF CREDIT LIMIT:
515. Thirty seventhly, for sanction of credit limit on the request of the customer of the bank, the officer/Manager of the bank must have the power conferred upon him. In the present case, it is deposed that PW.1 that the above 24 transactions for discount of bills were not within the credit limit of Asst. Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch and those transactions were not inform to the controlling authority. The said bills were treated as non-performance assets due to non-realisation of the bills and the same was not reported to the Regional Office by the Yeshwanthapura branch.
516. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, it is clear that the 24 transactions done in respect of discounting of bills were not within the credit limit of Asst. Manager. Those transactions have been done by the Asst. Manager on various dates which were beyond his credit limit. It is further forthcoming that those transactions were not
336 Spl.C.C.253/13 J informed to the controlling authority and the bills of those amount have not been realized because they were all fictitious transactions done without any drawee bills, credit and debit vouchers. As a result, the amount of those bills were treated as Non-Performance Assets due to non- realisation and the same was not reported to the Regional Office by the Yeshwanthpura Branch. Therefore, the evidence proves that the 24 transactions done in this case were beyond the credit limit of Asst. Manager.
517. The drawee bills have to be discounted by the customer if the customer is provided with such facility by the bank. In the present case, some customers have deposed that they are not having the facility of discounting of bills. Without there being facility of discounting of bills, the transactions have been made in their account. This fact itself goes to show that in the account of customer without there being any discounting facility of bill transaction has been made.
518. It is pertinent to note that some customers were having a particular over draft facility limit for their account. In the present case, the witnesses have deposed that beyond their limit of OD facility, the credit and debit entry has been made in their account. Though the customers were 337 Spl.C.C.253/13 J having prescribed OD limit but the transactions have been done in their account beyond their prescribed OD limit.
INVOLVEMENT OF ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE
TRANSACTIONS:
519. Thirty eighthly, it is an admitted fact that the accused No.1 being the Asst. Manager was incharge of advance section in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch. It is further admitted that accused No.1 and 3 were allotted separate user ID while working in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore for doing their respective duties.
520. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the oral and documentary evidence. PW.7 has deposed that accused No.1 was provided user ID 557692S and 557692T and accused No.3 was provided user ID 194817S. Further, he has deposed that Ex.P.103 is the letter of their Deputy General Manager (Vigilance) furnishing the details of login and the node number of accused No.1 and 3. Further, he has deposed about Ex.P.104 signed by their General Manager (IT) furnishing the said details.
521. It is not disputed by the accused No.1 that during his service in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch he was 338 Spl.C.C.253/13 J provided user ID 557692S and 557692T for his official discharge of duties. It is not disputed by the accused No.3 that he was provided user ID 194817S for discharge of his official duty.
522. PW.3 has deposed about the preliminary investigation done by him in respect of 24 transactions of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch and his preliminary report as per Ex.P.52. The evidence of PW.3 is proving the preliminary investigation and his report as per Ex.P.52. On perusal of Ex.P.52, it is clearly forthcoming about date, credit to GL Account No. 277240100 and transfer to the account of customers and again from customer account to transfer to GL Heads, amount, Remittance through NEFT to Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai and names of beneficiary. As per Ex.P.52 an amount of Rs.12,22,94,260/- was the fraud amount for the 24 transactions and accused No.1 and 2 are the beneficiaries to the said amount.
523. PW.4 has deposed about the complaint lodged by him as per Ex.P.53 before the CBI.
524. PW.5 has deposed in detail about the 24 transactions reported as per Ex.P.52.
339 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
525. PW.8 has deposed about the special investigation conducted by PW.35 in respect of Yeshwanthpura Branch and report as per Ex.P.106.
526. PW.35 is a star witness to the prosecution who conducted special investigation of Yeshwanthpura branch in respect of the allegations and submitted his report as per Ex.P.106. He has deposed in detail about the transactions. Therefore, the evidence of PW.35 is proving the contents of Ex.P.106. As per Ex.P.106, it is mentioned about the details of bills discounted without any genuine bills by debiting to GL 277240100- ADVANCES AGAINST DRAWEE BILLS. On perusal of these transactions it is forthcoming that accused No.1 by using his Teller ID No. 557692T entered the system and made transactions by the authorized supervisory user ID of accused No.3 bearing No. 194817S. It is further forthcoming that the accused No.1 has transferred the transactions amount to his personal account and to the account of his brother accused No.2 at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
527. PW.35 in his report Ex.P.106 has reported that all these entries are done by user -id 557692T Sri Kannan. J, Asst. Manager and authorized by 194817S Sri Rama Naik S G, 340 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Chief Manager. Sri. Kannan use NEFT instead of RTGS for remitting the huge funds may be because NEFT remittance CBS user-ids and passwords are used and for remitting through RTGS different user-ids and passwords required as RTGS in different URL.
528. Further, PW.35 after his special investigation, has arrived to a conclusion and reported his conclusion in Ex.P.106 which reads as follows: -
"Sri. Kannan J, Asst. Manager who was looking after advances department in the branch, fraudulently debited GL 277240100 - Advances against Drawee Bills portfolio to remit the funds to his and his brother's account at various Banks to the tune of Rs.12,70,53,460/- by using his Teller id and Chief Manager's Supervisory id. Sri Kannan has fraudulently siphoning of funds from Bank, leads misuse and diversion of funds, reputation of the Bank. He has also used the customers' accounts for remitting funds for his personal benefit by using his official status."
529. PWs.10 to 23, 26 and 27, the customers through whose accounts the transactions have been done have consistently deposed that inspite of not submitting bills for discount, transactions have been made in their respective accounts and some customers viz., PWs.12 to 15, 17, 18, 20 and 27 enquired the accused No.1 personally and on their personal enquiry he informed that they were wrong entries, done mistakenly in their account and the same 341 Spl.C.C.253/13 J have been reversed. Therefore, their evidence is also supporting the case of the prosecution and proving that the accused No.1 being the Asst. Manager has given wrong information to the customers regarding the transaction done by him through their accounts.
530. Therefore, there is ample oral and documentary evidence placed before the court by the prosecution which establishes the involvement of accused No.1 and the transactions done by him in respect of 24 transactions and other transactions discussed above. Hence, there is sufficient evidence to prove that all the entries discussed above have been done by the accused No.1 unauthorisedly and fraudulently on the respective dates as the Asst. Manager working in Advance Section, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. From the evidence of the prosecution, the modus operandi of accused No.1 has been established to prove how deceitfully by using the supervisory user ID of accused No.3 has done the various fraudulent transactions. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that it is accused No.1 who has done the 24 fraudulent transactions through the accounts of customers and other transactions discussed above.
342 Spl.C.C.253/13 J EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION OF ACCUSED NO.1:
531. Thirty ninthly, it is alleged by the prosecution that on 27.10.2012, the accused No.1 has submitted his letter wherein he has made his extra judicial confession admitting the fraud committed by him. It is contended by the accused No.1 that the said statement was taken from him under duress or coercion, therefore it is a fabricated document cannot be considered as extra judicial confession made by him as per the rules of evidence. It is further contended that one of the witness for the alleged statement is accused No.3 and another one is Mr. Francis D' Souza who was deliberately dropped as a witness for the reasons best known to the prosecution.
532. PW.4 has deposed that along with his complaint, he enclosed Ex.P.54 and lodged before the police. He has deposed that another General Manager by name Mr. Preetham Lal, T.V. Rai, DGM, Accused No3, Suresh and Darshan were present when accused No.1 admitted his alleged fraud which was admitted by him before the Chief Manager. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 has made extra judicial confession before PW.4 and other officers and it is an improved version of
343 Spl.C.C.253/13 J PW.4 before the court. Therefore, his improved version made before the court cannot be said as helpful to the prosecution to prove that accused No.1 has admitted the wrong done by him before him. Therefore, the evidence of PW.4 which is contrary to the case of the prosecution with regard to extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by accused No.1 cannot be believed and acceptable to prove the said confession.
533. PW.1 has deposed that he being the head of the Syndicate Bank before him accused No.1 admitted the alleged fraud. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 has made extra judicial confession before PW.1 at any time after the alleged incident. It is an improved version made by PW.1 before the court and such improvement cannot be said as helpful to the prosecution.
534. It is the specific case of the prosecution that accused No.1 has confessed in writing before accused No.3 and Sri. Francis D' Souza on 27.10.2012 as per Ex.P54. Admittedly, after the investigation accused No.3 is also charge sheeted in this case and he cannot be a witness to speak about the alleged extra judicial confession of accused No.1. It is pertinent to note that an important 344 Spl.C.C.253/13 J and material witness Sri. Francis D' Souza is not cited as witness nor summoned by the prosecution to speak about the extra judicial confession relied upon by the prosecution against accused No.1. If Sri. Francis D' Souza who was working in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthapura Branch was examined he would have spoken about Ex.P.54, but for the best reasons known to the prosecution neither he is cited as a witness nor brought before the court to speak about this aspect. The evidence of the person in whose presence accused No.1 alleged to have written the contents of Ex.P.54 is not available before the court to support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that accused No.1 voluntarily written the contents of Ex.P.54 on 27.10.2012 and it amounts to an extra judicial confession.
535. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.54 is the true copy of the original statement alleged to have been written by the accused No.1 in his own handwriting and signed the same. The original of Ex.P.54 is not forwarded along with complaint or seized by the Investigating Officer during the investigation. Only the true copy is relied upon by the 345 Spl.C.C.253/13 J prosecution and what happened to the original is not made clear. Ex.P.54 is marked in the evidence of PW.4.
536. The learned counsel for accused No.3 has relied upon a decision reported in II(2007)CCR 332 Madras High Court in the case of K. Balu vs. State and argued that Ex.P.54 is acceptable and proving the illegalities committed by accused No.1 and as per the said document it is accused No.1 who is alone responsible for the entire fraud committed in this case.
537. In the present case, the original of Ex.P.54 is not produced before the court and it is not proved that accused No.1 has written the contents voluntarily by examining the person concerned. Therefore, Ex.P.54 is only a marking of document. Mere marking of document cannot be said that the due execution of the same is proved by the prosecution. In the present case, mere marking of Ex.P.54 does not dispense with the proof of the contents. Therefore, there is totally lack of evidence to prove the alleged extra judicial confession of accused No.1.
538. When the extra judicial confession relied upon by the prosecution is not established, the contents of Ex.P.54 cannot be said to have been proved and acceptable.
346 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Further, the principles of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused No.3 are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
CIRCULARS & MANUAL OF INSTRUCTIONS FOR
PASSWORD SECRECY:
539. Fortiethly, it is an admitted fact that after the
implementation of Core Banking System (CBS) in
Syndicate Bank, the Circulars have been issued from time to time for maintaining the secrecy of password and avoiding of sharing of password by the employees of the bank so as to prevent fraudulent transactions and loss to the bank.
540. PW.30 who served as General Manager in Syndicate Bank has spoken about the Circulars issued from time to time as per Ex.P.195 to 200 and producing them before CBI under his letter Ex.P.194. On perusal of Ex.P.195 dated 4.4.2005 was issued in respect of acts and omissions attracting disciplinary measures relating to Information Technology/Information Security in the Banks. In this circular, it was cautioned to the officers, supervisors, clerical staff to maintain utmost secrecy in respect of their passwords and not to allow others to access 347 Spl.C.C.253/13 J system/menus through his login and password, otherwise liable for disciplinary action as per rules.
541. Ex.P.40 is the circular dated 13.1.2010 issued regarding password compromise in CBS Management wherein the employees were directed to maintain confidentiality in their password otherwise action will be taken for transfer outside the region.
542. Ex.P.196 dated 21.2.2006 is pertaining to guidelines on user, administration and password management in CBS Branches. In this circular also it was cautioned to maintain secrecy of password by the concerned while discharging their duty in the bank. Further, under this circular the employees were directed to change their password once in 30 days or immediately if it is perceived to have been compromise.
543. Ex.P.197 is circular dated 29.5.2006 wherein it is mentioned that "Frauds-Violation of Procedural Guidelines regarding secrecy of passwords".
544. Ex.P.198 is the circular dated 17.9.2009 wherein it is mentioned regarding "Adherence to safety standards relating to Information Technology/Information Security in the bank".
348 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
545. Ex.P.199 is the Circular dated 18.8.2008 issued regarding maintaining secrecy of password. Ex.P.200 is the circular dated 9.4.2010 regarding password compromise in CBS environment and under this circular, the employees were again advised to maintain confidentiality of passwords as per the prevailing guidelines.
546. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW.1, 30 and other witnesses and the contents of Ex.P.40, 195 to 200, it is clear that it is mandatory on the part of any employee of the bank to maintain secrecy of their respective user ID and password and to change the password from time to time within the time mentioned in the circular, without giving any scope for misuse of their password by the others in respect of CBS transactions.
DEFENCE OF ACCUSED NO.1:
REGARDING FIR:
547. Forty secondly, it is the contention of accused No.1 that PW.4 was not competent to lodge the complaint as per circular dated 7.1.2006 and it is only Chief Vigilance Officer and General Manager of Corporate Office have the power to lodge the complaint with CBI. There is no dispute about the circular relied upon by the accused No.1 which says 349 Spl.C.C.253/13 J about frauds - compulsory lodging of police complaint. On perusal of the said circular, it is clear that fraud cases below Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (One crore) to be referred to local police for investigation. Fraud cases of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (One crore) and up to Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Five crores) have to be referred to CBI. All cases of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Five crores) and above, the cases have to be referred to CBI. In the above circular, it is mentioned that branches should not file a complaint directly with CBI and they should furnish the details to the Vigilance Department, Corporate Office to enable them to file the complaint with the CBI. This does not mean that the circular prescribe filing of complaint by CVO and GM only to the CBI. As per the circular, the Vigilance Department after receiving the report can authorize any officer to lodge a complaint with CBI. Therefore, the complaint lodged by PW.4 as per Ex.P.53 before the CBI is valid and cannot be said as without authority. Therefore, the defence of accused No.1 questioning the authority of PW.4 for lodging of complaint as per Ex.P.53 is not tenable. Hence, the complaint lodged by PW.4 is in accordance with law.
350 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
548. Secondly, it is contended by the accused No.1 that there is no consistency in the evidence of PW.4 and PW.35. On perusal of the evidence of PW.4 and 35, there may be minor contradictions in the cross-examination which are bound to occur in the evidence of witnesses due to lapse of time and memory and such minor contradictions cannot be given much importance while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses in totality. Therefore, there is no merit in the defence of accused No.1. The learned counsel for accused No.1 has produced some circulars of Syndicate Bank and there is no dispute about those circulars issued from time to time.
549. Thirdly, it is the defence of accused No.1 that the funds of Rs.12,22,94,260/- had been transferred in the form of NEFT which is a remittance from 14 customers account, since all these NEFT transactions had been happened by debiting Remitting GL Parking which acted as a Mirror account or virtual account of the customer and the Bank was a Medium for transferring the funds, since the funds had been send through by debiting the Bank GL, need not be the Banks funds. Hence, this is not Applicable in this case.
351 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
550. As per this defence, the accused No.1 has clearly admitted the 24 transactions for Rs.12,22,94,260/- and remittance of the said amount through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 and 2. The accused No.1 in respect of 24 transactions fraudulently done by him firstly debited the amount of transactions to GL 277240100-Advances against Drawee Bill, then credited to the accounts of respective customers and then debited the amount to the accounts of customers and credited to various parking GL and then transferred the amount through NEFT to his account and account of accused No.2. Looking to the manner in which the transactions have been done in the books, electronic record, it cannot be said that after crediting the amount to the respective customers account, the amount cannot be considered as the amount of customers when they have not presented bills for discounting and availed any facility from the bank. It is accused No.1 who intelligently find out the way in the electronic record to do the fraudulent transactions so as to suppress the same to the knowledge of supervisory authority. Whatever the fraudulent transactions done by him are in respect of the funds of the 352 Spl.C.C.253/13 J bank. Therefore, there is no merit in the defence raised by accused No.1.
551. The learned counsel for accused No.1 relied upon the principles of the following decisions: -
(a) (2014) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 723 (SC) (P.L. Tatwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh);
(b) (2012) 6 SCC 403 (Sahadevan and another v. State of Tamil Nadu);
(c) 2009 Cri.L.J. 319 (Chattar Singh and another v. State of Haryana);
(d) (2009) 16 SCC 785 (Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others);
(e) (2015) Madras High Court Appeal No. 1058 and 1059 (N Sridhar Vs. State Rep.) dated 04.03.2015.
552. I have gone through the facts and principles laid down in the above decision which have no bearing and relevant to the present case.
DEFENCE OF ACCUSED NO.2:
553. Forty thirdly, the accused No.2 has clearly admitted his account, transfer of amount to his account, issue of cheques but he has contended that every thing has been done by his brother accused No.1. In his written 353 Spl.C.C.253/13 J argument, he has submitted that he had opened SB account in his name with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai, his account was having facility of netbanking and also cheque book facility. The netbanking facility was provided by the bank on the instructions of his brother Kannan, since he was working as Asst. Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore. The intention of opening his SB account was to transfer the amount from his brother for expenditure towards his studies. His brother told that he would deposit the amount as and when required by him. In the mean time, his brother told that he was having trading business with certain companies, since he is a public servant he could not transact with the trading companies in his accounts, therefore told him that he would transact or do the business of share trading with his account. Therefore, he had given his net banking user ID and password to his brother. His brother insisted him to provide some signed cheque and blank cheques, therefore he had given a cheque book to his brother and he has obtained his signature on 12 cheque leaves on blank cheques. His brother has misused his bank account by transferring the 354 Spl.C.C.253/13 J amount from Syndicate Bank on 3.10.2012 with two transactions totally deposit of Rs.1,10,16,000/- and diverted the funds to KEDIA Commodity, therefore he has misused his signed cheques by diverting the amount for personal transaction. Again on 6.10.2012 his brother made two more further transactions by transferring the amount from Syndicate Bank and the said amount has been diverted to KEDIA Commodities and Great Ventures by way of issuing his cheques. He is totally innocent about the transaction taken place in his account, he has not committed any criminal act as alleged by the prosecution.
554. Looking to the defence of the accused No.2 he has clearly admitted the transactions made through his account but he is only putting liability upon his brother accused No.1. DEFENCE OF ACCUSED NO.3:
555. Forty fourthly, looking to the defence of accused No.3, he has clearly admitted all the transactions, but he has contended that accused No.1 by using his user id has done the illegal transactions and thereby committed huge fraud to the bank. He has admitted the evidence deposed by the witnesses about the transactions, transfer of amount made by accused No.1 to his account and account of his brother 355 Spl.C.C.253/13 J through NEFT references. He has also admitted the recovery of the portion of the amount from the account of accused No.1 and 2.
556. He has also contended that the circular instructions are only for guidelines. The circulars produced by the prosecution through the bank officials are only for guideline. Therefore, the circulars stand inadmissible and cannot be considered. The circulars indicates that the password is used by other officers due to negligent act he will be charged and enquired in the departmental enquiry, no criminal liability will be attributed to the officer whose password was misused.
557. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for accused No.3 has relied upon the principles of the decision reported in 2010 (4) KCCR 2677 in the case of H. Gopala vs. State of Karnataka wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as follows: -
B. CRIMINAL TRIAL - Appreciation of documentary evidence - Mere by getting the document marked through Investigating Officer would not ipso facto amount to proving the contents - To prove the document the author of it shall be examined - Non- examination a fatal act.
558. In the present case, the circulars issued by the Head Office of Syndicate Bank have been produced and spoken by the 356 Spl.C.C.253/13 J witnesses. The principles of the above decision are not attracted to the circulars relied upon by the prosecution. CIRCULARS RELIED UPON BY ACCUSED NO.1 & 3 IN SUPPORT OF THEIR DEFENCE:
559. Forty fifthly, Ex.D1 relied upon by the accused No.1 is Circular dated 26.5.2010 which contain Off-Site Monitoring of CBS Branches - Policy Guidelines. Ex.D2 to D5 are relied upon by the accused No.3 which are pertaining to setting up of Off-Site Monitoring Cells at Head Office and Regional Offices for monitoring transactions at CBS branches, policy guidelines and maintenance and preservation of misuse of GL Heads. Ex.D16 to 18 are the Circulars relied upon by the accused No.1, pertaining to verification of General Ledger Entries, voucher verification and slip building at branches and monitoring of sensitive heads of account.
Further evidence of PW.5 proves that on 6.10.2012, there was another debit of Rs.47,59,200/- from the advance against drawee bill from GL Account No.277240100 as per Ex.P80. Relevant entry is Ex.P80(a). The said amount was credited to the account of M/s. SLN Engineering 357 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Works as per Ex.P80(b) and relevant entry is at Ex.P80(c).
STATEMENT U/S 313 Cr.P.C.,:
560. Forty sixthly, it is the specific answer of accused No.1 in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., that all the transactions are true, and backed with vouchers. Further, he has explained that there is no monitory loss to the bank and he has not gained any wrongful gain from those transactions and he is not guilty and innocent. Looking to the answers given by accused No.1 for the transactions he has clearly admitted all the transactions are true transactions made by him pertaining to 25 transactions of various customers as per Ex.P52 and 106, in the accounts of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. When he has clearly admitted the transactions made by him in the books of account of various customers for debit, credit and debit to GL Head and credit to the same and transfer of the amount through NEFT to his account and account of his brother accused No.2, it is for him to prove that the transactions done by him are backed with the relevant documents. When the prosecution has discharged its burden to prove the transactions, the burden shifts upon
358 Spl.C.C.253/13 J the accused No.1 to discharge his burden to prove that the transactions are backed with bills and vouchers. Except, mere giving answers that the transactions are true and backed with bills and vouchers, no further effort is made by the accused No.1 to prove that the transactions made by him are supported from documents and those transactions are authorized and legitimate transactions done in discharge of his duty in the advance section. Therefore, the mere explanation given by the accused No.1 in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., which is contrary to the evidence placed before the court by the prosecution and not supported from any acceptable evidence of accused cannot be said to be an acceptable explanation given by him. It can be said that accused No.1 only to escape from the fraudulent transactions made by him has given such answers and explanation.
561. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused No.2 has replied that he does not know about the transactions, transfer of amount to his account from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch and issue of cheques from his account. Therefore, he is admitting the transfer of amount 359 Spl.C.C.253/13 J to his account and payments made from his account through cheques.
562. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused No.3 who was a Chief Manager in the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch has clearly admitted the transactions made by the accused No.1 pertaining to various customers and transfer of amount to the account of accused No.1. It is his only explanation that earlier he was not aware about those transactions and when one of the customer called him over mobile, he came to know about the transactions done by accused No.1.
563. He has also submitted his written statement stating that "the said 24 transactions are fictitious in nature, without bills, vouchers, request letters from the customers and sanction. Thus, the Manager's Certificate maintained in the branch will not reflect those illegal/fraudulent and fictitious transactions. Liability Register is maintained only for genuine bills. The above said 24 transactions came to his knowledge only on 26.10.2012 at about 5 P.M. All the customers contacted accused No.1. Mr. Ramu contacted me over phone on 26.10.2012 and subsequently all the illegal/fraudulent transactions came to light. On the same 360 Spl.C.C.253/13 J day, I requested Axis Bank, Madurai to block the accounts of Accused No.1 and 2. All circulars and authorizations are applicable only for legal transactions".
564. Therefore, considering the explanation and statement of accused No.3 given in writing, he has clearly admitted the transactions involved in this case, but he is contending that they have been done by the accused No.1 without his knowledge.
SANCTION ORDER:
565. Forty seventhly, it is an admitted fact that accused No.1 was serving as Asst. Manager in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch during the relevant time and a public servant. It is further admitted that accused No.3 who was serving as Chief Manager attained the age of superannuation before filing the charge sheet against him before this court. Therefore, in order to prosecute accused No.1 before this court, the sanction order was necessary. When the Accused No.3 attained the age of superannuation, there was no necessity of obtaining sanction order to prosecute him in this case. The prosecution has produced the sanction order in respect of accused No.1 as per Ex.P.212. In this regard, the 361 Spl.C.C.253/13 J evidence of P.W.43 Sri. S.D. Kaushik, who was serving as Asst. General Manager, Personnel, Syndicate Bank Head Office, Manipal is very much relevant. Looking to his evidence, he has deposed that he received investigation papers and documents from CBI through their Vigilance Department for according sanction to prosecute accused No.1 and he has gone through all the materials received by him, after applying his mind properly and independently he came to believe that there is a case against accused No.1 for due process under law and accordingly, he has accorded sanction to prosecute him as per Ex.P212.
566. As per his evidence, the CBI sent the necessary investigation records and documents to the Vigilance Department of Syndicate Bank and from the Vigilance Department, the matter was placed before PW.43. On careful perusal of the entire evidence of PW.43, he has passed the sanction order by perusing the material, applying his mind independently. Except bare denial nothing has been elicited from his mouth in his cross- examination to disprove his evidence or to say that the sanction order is invalid. Therefore, in the present case, the prosecution has established that the sanction order 362 Spl.C.C.253/13 J passed by PW.43 according sanction to prosecute accused No.1 before this court is valid and in accordance with law. OFFENCES:
ALLEGATION OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY:
567. Forty eighthly, it is alleged by the prosecution that accused No.1 to 3 entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves during 2011-2012 to cheat the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore and to misappropriate the funds of the said bank for personal gain.
568. Admittedly, accused No.1 to 3 have admitted all the transactions concerning to this case made in the accounts of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore.
569. Section 120-A of IPC defines criminal conspiracy as below: -
"120-A, Definition of criminal conspiracy - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done:
-
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation: - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
363 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
570. In the decision reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5139 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - S 120A -
Conspiracy - Agreement to do illegal act - Is essence of criminal conspiracy - Direct evidence of conspiracy is rarely available - It has to be proved on basis of circumstances prior and after occurrence - Circumstances proved however must clearly show that they were committed in pursuance of agreement between persons conspiring.
571. Secondly, in the decision reported in 2003 SUPREME COURT CASES - 2748, in the case of Ram Narain Poply Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - S. 120B - Criminal conspiracy - Ingredient of offence - Is an agreement between conspirators to do an illegal act - No overt act need be done in furtherance of conspiracy - Conspiracies are not hatched in open but are secretly planned - Direct evidence rarely available to prove conspiracy -Circumstantial evidence can be relied on
- Conspiracy is continuing offence and subsists till it is executed or frustrated by choice of necessity.
572. Thirdly, in the decision reported in (1996) 4 SCC page 659, in the case of State of Maharashtra and 364 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Others. Vs. Som Nath Thapa and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:
A. Penal Code, 1860 - S. 120-A - Criminal conspiracy - Essential ingredients of - Knowledge and intention - Knowledge of commission of illegal act or legal act by illegal means necessary - intent may be inferred from knowledge itself when in fact no legitimate use of the goods or service in question exists - Person participating in transportation of materials like RDX must be imputed the intent of its use for illegal purpose - Prosecution not required to establish that the accused knew that the said materials would be used for the purpose of bomb blasts in the country - When offence consists of a chain of actions, it is not necessary that each of the conspirators must know what the other conspirators would do - Bombay Bomb Blast case - TADA Act, 1987, Ss. 3(3) and 2(1)(a)(iii) To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain or actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use.
573. Fourthly, in the decision reported in (2004) 12 SCC page 336, in the case of Damodar Vs. State of
365 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Rajasthan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows::
F. Penal Code, 1860 - S. 120-B - Criminal conspiracy - Essential Ingredients - Nature of proof required - Held, conspiracy can be proved even by circumstantial evidence - hence lack of direct evidence in respect of a conspiracy has no consequence - overt Act is inessential when the conspiracy is to commit any punishable offence - The most important ingredient of criminal conspiracy is that there must be an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act - Express agreement need not be proved - Evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is sufficient - conspiracy continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity.
574. Fifthly, in the decision reported in 1970(1) SCC 152 in the case of Lennart Schussler and another vs. The Director of Enforcement and another the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows: -
Penal Code, 1860 (No. 45 of 1860) - Section 120-B - Criminal Conspiracy - Ingredients - Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (No.7 of 1947) - Sections 4, 5, 9, 21 and 23 - Rule 132-A of Defence of India Rules, 1962
- Violation of - Whether an offence under the Penal Code lies.
Held, (per Sikri, Ray and Jaganmohan Reddy, JJ,) that the first of the offence defined in Section 120-A, Penal Code which is itself punishable as a substantive offence is the very agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means subject however to the proviso that where the agreement is not an agreement to commit an offence the agreement does not amount to a conspiracy 366 Spl.C.C.253/13 J unless it is followed up by an overt act done by one or more persons in pursuance of such an agreement. There must be a meeting of minds in the doing of the illegal act or the doing of a legal act by illegal means. If in the furtherance of the conspiracy certain persons are induced to do an unlawful act without the knowledge of the conspiracy of the plot they cannot be held to be conspirators, though they may be guilty of an offence pertaining to the specific unlawful Act. The offence of conspiracy is complete when two or more conspirators have agreed to do or cause to be done an act which is itself an offence, in which case no overt act need be established. It is also clear that an agreement to do an illegal act which amounts to a conspiracy will continue as long as the members of the conspiracy remain in agreement and as long as they are acting in accord and in furtherance of the object for which they entered into the agreement. What has to be seen is whether the agreement between A-1 and A-2 is a conspiracy to do or continue to do something which is illegal and if it is, it is immaterial whether the agreement to do any of the acts in furtherance of the commission of the offence do not strictly amount to an offence. The entire agreement must be viewed as a whole and it has to be ascertained as to what is fact the conspirators intended to do or the object they wanted to achieve.
575. Sixthly, in the decision reported in (2001) 7 SCC 596 in the case of Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others vs. State of Kerala the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows: -
Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 120-A and 120-B - Criminal conspiracy - Nature - What constitutes - Ingredients are actus reus and mens rea - As regards the mental state, two elements are necessary viz., intent to agree and intent to promote the unlawful objective of the conspiracy - Scope of conspiracy i.e. who are the parties and what are their objectives - How to determine - Conspiracy is not only a substantive crime but on the basis of it a conspirator can also be held 367 Spl.C.C.253/13 J liable for the crime committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy -
Conspiracy can be established on the basis of circumstantial evidence - As regards admissibility of evidence strict standards are not necessary inasmuch as any declaration made by a conspirator in furtherance of and during pendency of a conspiracy though hearsay, is admissible against each co-conspirator
576. Lastly, in the decision reported in (2009) 15 SCC 643 in the case of Mir Nagvi Askari vs. CBI the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:-
A. Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 120-A - Criminal conspiracy
- Concept - Evidence for proving - Illegal advance credits by bank officials - Held, criminal conspiracy involves meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act which may not be illegal but by illegal means - The offence takes place with the meeting of minds even if nothing further is done - It is an offence independent of other offences and is punishable separately - Criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy - Direct evidence is therefore difficult to obtain or access - The offence can be proved by adducing circumstantial evidence and/or by necessary implication.
577. The above definition of criminal conspiracy shows that conspiracy consists of an agreement between two or more persons for doing an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means. To establish a charge of conspiracy, mens rea, knowledge about the indulgence to do either illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is a necessary. In the present case, there is no direct evidence to establish the 368 Spl.C.C.253/13 J alleged criminal conspiracy of accused No.1 to 3. The prosecution has mainly relied upon circumstantial evidence to support the allegation. Even a presumption can be drawn from the facts of the case. In order to establish criminal conspiracy of accused No.1 to 3, the prosecution has to prove that they were having mens rea, knowledge about indulgence in doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.
578. It is clearly admitted by accused No.1 for the transactions pertaining to this case made by him from time to time, transfer of amount through NEFT to his account and account of his brother maintained at Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai but his defence is that the transactions are legal transactions and backed with bills and vouchers. As already stated, the transactions are fictitious transactions, therefore they are unauthorized, fraudulent and fictitious transactions which are not supported from any bills and vouchers. As per Ex.P.52 and P106, out of 24 fraudulent transactions, the first fraudulent transaction came to be effected on 15.10.2011 through the account of M/s. Gayathri Structurals & Roofing Pvt. Ltd. The last transaction out of those 24 fraudulent transactions 369 Spl.C.C.253/13 J came to be effected on 26.10.2012 through the account pertaining to M/s. Siva Steels. Thereafter, there is one more fraudulent transaction on 26.10.2012 pertaining to M/s. SLN Engineering, which is a separate fraudulent transaction. Apart from the 25 transactions, the accused No.1 has done other transactions for deposit and withdrawal of cash through the accounts of customers which are already discussed above.
579. As seen from the evidence and contents of Ex.P.192, on 3.10.2012, an amount of Rs.53,75,000/- and Rs.56,41,000/- have been credited to the account of accused No.2 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch by way of NEFT from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. Further, as per the evidence and contents of Ex.P.192, on 6.10.2012, an amount of Rs.44,30,500/- and Rs.56,30,200/- have been credited to the account of accused No.2 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch by way of NEFT from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. Totally a sum of Rs.2,10,76,700/- has been credited to the account of accused No.2 through NEFT from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore and the said amount has been transferred by accused No.1.
370 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
580. After crediting this huge amount of Rs.2,10,76,700/- to the account of accused No.2, he has issued 13 cheques dated 4.10.2012 totally for Rs.2,00,00,000/- in favour of M/s. KEDIA Commodity as per Ex.P.172 to 184. Further, he has issued another cheque dated 20.10.2012 (Ex.P.185) for Rs.50,000/- in favour of M/s. Great Ventures. Even after encashment of cheques Ex.P.172 to 185 there was balance of Rs.10,03,632/- in the account of accused No.2 as on 26.10.2012. On 30.10.2012, through RTGS from M/s. KEDIA commodity an amount of Rs.2,10,06,501/- credited to his account.
581. It is an admitted fact that accused No.2 is an educated person. As seen from the transactions made by accused No.2 in his account, he was having knowledge about the credit of huge amount to his account through NEFT from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. Further, he was having knowledge of debit of amount to his account for the cheques issued by him as per Ex.P.172 to P185. It is not disputed that he has issued cheques Ex.P.172 to P185 by putting his signatures on those cheques. When the accused No.2 has issued cheques as per Ex.P.172 to P185 totally for Rs.2,00,50,000/- in favour 371 Spl.C.C.253/13 J of M/s. KEDIA commodity and M/s. Great Ventures, it cannot be said that without knowing the transaction, he has issued those cheques and he has no knowledge about the credit and debit transactions pertaining to his SB Account.
582. The evidence forthcoming before the court proves that accused No.2 has fully co-operated to accused No.1 for doing transactions through his account, having knowledge and intention about the transfer of amount to his account and doing of the transactions in his account. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution is proving the meeting of minds of accused No.1 and 2 for doing an illegal act and there was knowledge and intention to accused No.2 about the acts of Accused No.1. Therefore, the actus reus and mens rea on the part of accused No.2 can be inferred.
583. It is an admitted fact that accused No.3 as a Chief Manager was having role and responsibilities in discharge of his duties. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon Ex.P.51 and there is no dispute. The accused No.1 has also produced the copy of Ex.P.51 along with the notes of arguments. As per Ex.P.51, accused No.3 was having role and responsibility, in business development, credit, 372 Spl.C.C.253/13 J administration and others. In Ex.P.51, it is also mentioned about the role and responsibilities of the Senior Manager/ Manager under CM/AGM in VLB/ELB. It is contended by accused No.1 that it was the duty and responsibility of Senior Manager ensuring balancing and tallying of accounts pertaining to deposits and bills and preparation and submission of various statements to Regional Office and Head Office. It is further contended that it was the responsibility of the Senior Manager for supervision/control over functions like Day Book, General Ledger, Transfer Scroll and preparation and submission of common returns such as flash reports, Manager's Certificate. It is also contended about the role and responsibilities of Senior Managers (Credit) and Senior Manager (Audit). It is also contended about the role and responsibilities of Assistant Managers and it was the responsibility of Asst. Manager keeping all accounts tallied and up to date with requisite certifications and it is his duty to obtain relevant loan applications, scrutiny, process of credit proposals for sanction of branch head/higher office and keep loan documents in force and keeping track of recovery. Further, the responsibility of Asst. Manager was to present 373 Spl.C.C.253/13 J bills for acceptance, ensure collection of commission and service charges and to maintain the records.
584. Looking to the evidence of PW.1 to 9, 30, 31, and 35 who were/are the officers of the Syndicate Bank have not deposed that accused No.3 was having any knowledge and intention in the fraudulent transactions done by accused No.1 in respect of the transactions involved in this case. It is only deposed by them that all the above transactions made under the Teller ID of accused No.1 and authorized under the supervisor ID of accused No.3.
585. Admittedly, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch is a very large branch having huge banking business. Admittedly, accused No.3 being the Chief Manager was the head of the said branch during the relevant period. His duty as a Chief Manager was overall supervision of the branch. It is further admitted that there were Assistant Managers, Deputy Manager and Senior Managers working in the said branch under accused No.3 and there were Assistant Manager and Senior Manager looking after the advance section. As per Ex.P.51, it was the responsibility of the Senior Manager to balancing of loan accounts pertaining to credits.
374 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
586. In the case on hand, no doubt the accused No.3 has not changed his password from time to time as per the circular instructions issued from the Corporate Office. It is forthcoming from the evidence that accused No.1 has misused the user ID of accused No.3 and by the said user ID authorized the fraudulent transactions and for transfer of the fraud amount to his account and to the account of his brother accused No.2. On careful perusal of the contents of the circulars issued in respect of maintaining secrecy of password, it was impressed to maintain secrecy otherwise action will be taken for dereliction of duty. In the circular, it is not mentioned that such lapses are attracted criminal liability. There is no evidence of the prosecution witnesses or the contents of the documents to prove that accused No.3 has knowingly shared his password with accused No.1 and knowingly allowed him to misuse his password for the transactions. The accused No.1 who somehow came to know about the password of accused No.3 has misused the same. simply because, the accused No.1 has misused the password of accused No.3 for his illegal act, it cannot be said that accused No.3 was 375 Spl.C.C.253/13 J having knowledge and intention and co-operated for the acts of accused No.1 for doing the fraudulent transactions.
587. Looking to the evidence of the prosecution and circular instructions, there is a negligence on the part of accused No.3 in discharging his duty. Further, there are lapses on his part as listed in Ex.P.106 by PW.35 but negligence and lapses in discharge of duty cannot be said to be an offence under the criminal law.
588. In this regard, the learned counsel for accused No.3 has relied upon the decision in AIR 2004 SC 252 in the case of L. Chandraiah vs. State of U.P. and another wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that negligent act in passing vouchers and did not take requisite care before passing the vouchers and did not care to verify whether the vouchers are genuine or forged would not constitute an offence under IPC though it may expose for disciplinary action under the relevant rules.
589. In the present case, for dereliction of duty of accused No.3, causing loss to the bank by his negligent act, the competent authority has already taken disciplinary action and punished him in accordance with banking rules.
376 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
590. Therefore, negligent act of accused No.3 in maintaining secrecy of the password and not changing the password from time to time would not constitute an offence of criminal conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution. Further, there is no evidence forthcoming against accused No.3 to prove that, there was a prior meeting of minds and agreement to do an illegal act to attract the ingredients of criminal conspiracy. Even no evidence is forthcoming that accused No.3 joined hands with accused No.1 for any of the above transactions and there was a quid-pro-quo for the same. The evidence reveals that when the accused No.3 came to know about the credit and debit entry from one of the customer, he immediately taken action and made a complaint to the higher officer against accused No.1.
591. Therefore, considering the evidence of the prosecution placed before the court, there is evidence to establish the criminal conspiracy between accused No.1 and 2 to cheat the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore.
ALLEGATION OF CHEATING & DISHONESTLY
INDUCING DELIVERY OF PROPERTY:
377 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
592. Forty ninthly, it is alleged by the prosecution that in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, accused No.1 to 3 cheated the Syndicate Bank and dishonestly induced the said bank for delivery of Rs.12,22,94,260/-. The prosecution has established that the accused No.1 has done 24 fraudulent transactions as per Ex.P.52 and the amount of that transactions has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 and 2. Further, the prosecution has proved the transaction dated 6.10.2012 made by accused No.1 in the account of M/s. SLN Engineering Works for Rs.47,59,200/- and the said amount was remained in the account of M/s. SLN Engineering Works and subsequently transferred to suspense account (GL 170100400) of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch on 30.10.2012.
593. To know the offence u/s 420 of IPC, it is proper to know the definition of cheating defined u/s 415 of IPC which reads as follows: -
415. Cheating: - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induce the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he was not so deceived, and which act of omission causes or is 378 Spl.C.C.253/13 J likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation: - A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
594. As per the above discussions, the criminal conspiracy of accused No.1 and 2 is only established and alleged criminal conspiracy of accused No.3 is not established.
595. Now, I will consider whether accused No.1 to 3 have cheated the bank as alleged. It is pertinent to note that PWs.1 to 9, 30, 31 and 35 have consistently deposed the manner in which the fraudulent transactions have been done and how the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 and 2 from the account of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore. The evidence deposed by the officers/officials of bank is consistent, corroborative and supported from the documents produced before the court. There are no reason to disbelieve their oral evidence and abundant document in the form of electronic record produced before the court by the prosecution. The fraudulent transactions are supported from the electronic records produced before the court.
379 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
596. PW.35 has prepared the details of bills discounted without any genuine bills by debiting to GL 277240100 Advances Against Drawee Bills which reads as follows: -
Date of Amt. Credit to GL Acct NEFT NEFT Remitted to Teller Super Discount Rs. CASA credit Particulars User- visor by id - ID debiting to Acct No. Name CASA 15/10/2011 2808000 04281250000986 170100500 NEFT KANNAN J P1 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 1101540471967 23/02/2012 3000000 04281250000691 170100500 NEFT KANNAN J P1 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 2022352761157 16/03/2012 5000000 04281010006553 170100500 NEFT KANNAN J P1 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 2031655684986 18/04/2012 5602052 04281250000929 170100500 NEFT KANNAN J P1 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 2041859629439 21/04/2012 5112557 04281250000933 170100500 NEFT KANNAN J P1 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 2042159991271 14/08/2012 5300400 04281250000929 170100500 NEFT P1208147583 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 9046 J KANNAN 16/08/2012 4900500 04281250000691 170100500 NEFT 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S P12081676104552 J KANNAN 17/08/2012 5896752 04281010006553 170100500 NEFT 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S P12081776306529 J KANNAN 21/08/2012 5300900 04281250000880 170100500 NEFT 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S P12082176645208 J KANNAN 25/08/2012 5622529 04281250001019 170150100 NEFT P1208257712 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 9274 J KANNAN 18/09/2012 4753973 04281250000576 170150100 NEFT P1209186114 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 6964 J KANNAN 18/09/2012 5300497 04281250000185 170100500 NEFT P1209188114 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 5419 J KANNAN 03/10/2012 5375000 04281250000185 170100500 NEFT P1210038322 912010025893800 MURALIDH 557692T 194817S 2770 ARAN MURALIDHARAN 03/10/2012 5641000 04281250000205 170100500 NEFT P1210038322 912010025893800 MURALIDH 557692T 194817S 2897 ARAN MURALIDHARAN 03/10/2012 4742000 04281250000277 170150100 NEFT P1210038319 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 0760 KANNAN J 03/10/2012 5162000 04281250001061 170150100 NEFT P1210038318 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 9771 J KANNAN 04/10/2012 5272600 04281250000952 170100500 NEFT P1210048356 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 2928 KANNAN 04/10/2012 5742500 04281250000649 170100500 NEFT P1210048356 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 2910 KANNAN 06/10/2012 5630200 04281250000856 170100500 NEFT P1210068392 912010025893800 MURALIDH 557692T 194817S 5210 ARAN MURALIDHARAN 06/10/2012 5370400 04281250001080 170100500 NEFT P1210068392 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 3540 J KANNAN 06/10/2012 4430500 04281250001095 170100500 NEFT P1210068392 912010025893800 MURALIDH 557692T 194817S 4359 ARAN MURALIDHARAN 06/10/2012 4759200 04281250000576 170100500 NEFT P1210068392 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 3018 J KANNAN 06/10/2012 4759200 04281250000576 170100500 NEFT P1210068392 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 3018 J KANNAN 26/10/2012 5840300 04281250000205 170150300 NEFT P1210268694 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 2036 J KANNAN 26/10/2012 5730400 04281250000880 170150300 NEFT P1210268694 910010015164435 JKANNAN 557692T 194817S 0435 KANNAN TOTAL 12,70,53,460
597. It is reported by PW.35 about the transactions as follows: -
380 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
a) One fictitious transaction of Rs.47,59,200/- debited twice to GL277240100 on 06.10.2012 and credited to 428.125.576. Amount of Rs.47,59,200/- debited to 428.125.576 and credited to 170100150 and remitted through NEFT to J Kannan. Other credit of Rs.47,59,200/- was in CASA and branch has recovered Rs.47,59,200/- from 428.125.576 on 30.10.2012 and kept in suspense account.
b) Remittance in 24 cases amounting to Rs.12,22,94,260/- and Rs.47,59,200/- not remitted and lying in CASA 428.125.576.
c) After discounting bills and crediting the bill amount to various customers account, amount is being debited immediately to customers' accounts with narration "Miscellaneous Customers Debit" and credited to either to GL 170100500 - Remittance PGL, or GL 170150100
- Suspense on line Transactions, or GL 170100300 - TD Renewal PGL and siphon off through NEFT.
d) Amount is debited to the above GL heads on same day and remitted towards account No.910010015164435 of J. Kannan amounting Rs.10,12,17,560/- (20 remittances) and towards account number 9110025893800 of Sri Muralidharan amounting Rs.2,10,76,700/- (4 Remittances) with Axis Bank.
e) Branch is not preparing slips for debit to GL 170100500, 170150100, 170100300 and remittance through NEFT.
f) On 23.02.2012, a bill of Rs.5,73,456/- discounted for Rs.35,73,456/-. Amount of Rs.35,73,456/- credited to 428.125.691 of Digitronics Measuring Instruments and 381 Spl.C.C.253/13 J immediately debited Rs.30,00,000/- to 428.125.691 and remitted by NEFT to KANNAN J, UTR- P1 2022352761157 with Axis Bank, Madurai.
g) None of the items discounted with / without physical bills are reported in Concurrent Audit Report of respective months.
h) The above bills outstanding /overdue are not reported in subsequent Concurrent Audit reports in "List of the discounted cheques/Bills unpaid which are overdue for more than a month".
i) M/s. Raju and Prasad, Chartered Accountants, was concurrent auditor for the period from August 2011 to July, 2012.
j) There was no concurrent Auditor for August 2012 and September 2012 for the branch.
k) Sri Shekhar (Contact no 080 23642994) representative of concurrent auditor has accepted that he has not verified the Bills portfolio of the branch during the above period and not verified the above GL 277240100.
l) All amounts are credited to various customers CASA accounts and funds transferred from these CASA accounts on same day and remitted through three GL heads 170100500 - Remittance PGL, GL-170150100 - Online suspense account, GL 170100300 - TD Parking GL through NEFT to either KANNAN J or MURALIDHARAN with Axis Bank, Madurai.
m) As debit and credit takes place in the above GL heads on same day, these amounts have not appeared in Alert report.
382 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
n) All these entries are done by user-id 557692T Sri KANNAN J, Asst. Manager and authorized by 194817S Sri RAMA NAIK S G, Chief Manager.
o) Sri Kannan use NEFT instead of RTGS for remitting the huge funds may be because NEFT remittance CBS user- ids and passwords are used and for remitting through RTGS different user-ids and passwords required as RTGS in different URL.
598. PW.35 who conducted special investigation and submitted his report as per Ex.P.106 has given his detail report after verifying each and every entry in the system and the fraudulent transactions entered by accused No.1 in the account and transfer of the fraudulent amount of Rs.12,22,94,260/- to his account and account of his brother accused No.2.
599. The accused No.1 has disputed the admissibility of electronic record and raised objections for considering them as secondary evidence. In this regard, the learned counsel for accused No.1 has relied upon the provisions of Sec.65B of Evidence Act and the principles of the decision reported in 2010(4) KCCR 2757 in the case of B.N. Sampath Kumar vs. Rahimunnisa Begam, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as follows: -
"EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - Section 66 - Procedure to be followed-Before getting a secondary 383 Spl.C.C.253/13 J evidence a foundation to lead it and circumstances as to why the primary evidence not let in a must-Not laying such foundation secondary evidence cannot be let in."
600. The principles of this decision are not attracted to the matter involved in the present case with regard admissibility of electronic record. In the civil case, it is necessary to lay the foundation for secondary evidence before accepting the same by the court. In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon the electronic record which is also a document and if the conditions stipulated u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act are complied with, it shall be received as evidence in the proceedings. Therefore, the question of laying the foundation in the criminal case for electronic record does not arise.
601. Secondly, the learned counsel for accused No.1 relied upon a decision reported in 2010(4) KCCR 2677 in the case of H. Gopala vs. State of Karnataka and regarding this decision I have already discussed above while considering the admissibility of electronic records pertaining to the relevant transactions of this case. Therefore, the principles of this decision are not coming to the rescue of the accused No.1 because the electronic record has been produced along with the certificates and the same is 384 Spl.C.C.253/13 J admissible in evidence. Further, it is pertinent to note that the witnesses have spoken about the electronic records and the same is not challenged during their cross- examination which cannot be challenged at the time of argument at a later stage.
602. Thirdly, the learned counsel for accused No.1 relied upon a decision reported in 2010(4) KCCR 2765 in the case of M.T. Siddashetty and another vs. P.H. Gowda and another, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as under: -
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - Sections 61 and 65 - Primary and Secondary evidence-How to prove secondary evidence-Could secondary evidence be considered when the primary evidence is available and no efforts have been made to produce it-No.
603. The above principles have been laid down in respect of civil case which cannot be applied to a criminal case in respect of electronic record. As already stated, the primary evidence with regard to the transactions is in the form of data stored in the system of the bank containing the entire transactions cannot be expected to be brought before the court. Therefore, to avoid such situation, Section 65B has been enacted and the copy taken from the system can be allowed to be produced along with the certificate and the same is admissible in evidence as secondary evidence.
385 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Therefore, the principles of the above decision are not attracted to the facts of the present case.
604. PWs. 12 to 15, 17, 18, 20 and 27 through whose accounts the transactions were made by accused No.1 have deposed that they have not submitted any bills for discount, those transactions are not pertaining to their business transactions and they approached the accused No.1 in the bank and personally enquired him who told that they are the wrong entries mistakenly made in their accounts and the same have been reversed and they need not worry about those transactions.
605. The above evidence of the witnesses proves that inspite of their approach and enquiry with the accused No.1 in the bank he gave a wrong information stating that those transactions have been mistakenly done in their accounts. The evidence proves how accused No.1 inspite of making fraudulent transactions through their accounts for huge amount tried to suppress the illegal act done by him.
606. PWs.28, 29, 32, 33 and 34 who are the officers/officials of Axis Bank have deposed about the transfer of amount through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 and 2 from Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch and transactions 386 Spl.C.C.253/13 J done by them in their accounts for withdrawal of amount and payment of amount through cheques.
607. There is no evidence forthcoming from the evidence of the witnesses or the contents of the documents that accused No.3 involved in the fraudulent transactions and transfer of the amount. No doubt, there is a serious lapses and negligent act on the part of accused No.3 for a period of one year in not supervising the advance section properly and to maintain secrecy of the password which cannot constitute an offence of cheating. No evidence is forthcoming to prove that he has deceived the bank, fraudulently or dishonestly induced the said bank to deliver the amount to him. The evidence disclose that when he came to know about the fraudulent transactions done by accused No.1 through the customers of the bank, he has immediately taken action and reported the said matter to the higher officers. Therefore, the negligent act and serious lapses on the part of accused No.3 in respect of the above fraudulent transactions cannot be said to be a criminal offence committed by him. Therefore, there is a lack of evidence against accused No.3 to prove his 387 Spl.C.C.253/13 J involvement and alleged cheating committed by him to the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch.
608. Considering the 25 fraudulent transactions done by accused No.1, credit and debit of amount to the account of accused No.1 and 2 through NEFT, the prosecution has proved that those transactions have been done by accused No.1 with dishonest and fraudulent intention and by his act, he has induced the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch to pay an amount of Rs.12,22,94,260/- to him and to his brother accused No.2.
609. The evidence of the prosecution proves that the accused No.2 actively co-operated the accused No.1 in his fraudulent transactions and to get the amount to his account and the payments made by him in that amount to M/s. KEDIA Commodity and Great Ventures through the cheques. Therefore, the evidence proves that the accused No.2 knowing fully well about the illegal and fraudulent acts of his brother, he has consented to his brother and his act is certainly not a bonafide one and it is a dishonest concealment of facts by him. When accused No.2 received huge amount to his account, he has dishonestly concealed the transactions pertaining to his account and the said fact 388 Spl.C.C.253/13 J amounts to a deception. Therefore, accused No.1 and 2 deceived Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, fraudulently or dishonestly induced the said bank to deliver the amount of Rs.12,22,94,260/- to their respective accounts which amounts to cheating as defined u/s 415 of IPC.
610. The essential ingredients for the offence u/s 420 of IPC are:
(i) Accused cheated the complainant.
(ii) Accused did so dishonestly.
(iii) Thereby induced the complainant;
(a) to deliver some property to accused or to some other person;
(b) to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security or anything which was signed, sealed, and which was capable of being converted into valuable security.
In the case on hand, accused No.1 and 2 cheated the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, dishonestly induced the said bank to deliver an huge amount of Rs.12,22,94,260/- to them. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence u/s 420 of IPC are fulfilled. Hence, the said act of accused No.1 and 2 amounts to an offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the offence u/s 420 of IPC against accused No.1 and 2. ALLEGATION OF CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST:
389 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
611. Fiftethly, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused No.1 being a Asst. Manager while working in Advance Section of Syndicate Bank, a public servant, entrusted with the property of Syndicate Bank or with any dominion over property committed criminal breach of trust in respect of property of Syndicate Bank to the extent of Rs.12,22,94,260/- and converted to his own use and use of his own brother accused No.2 by transferring an amount of the bank through NEFT to his account to the extent of Rs.10,12,17,560/- and to the account of his brother accused No.2 an amount of Rs.2,10,76,700/- maintained with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai.
612. Section 409 defines criminal breach of trust by public servant and others as follows: -
"Sec. 409 Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent: - Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine."
613. It is an admitted fact that accused No.1 was working in the advance section of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch 390 Spl.C.C.253/13 J during the relevant period and he was dealing with advance section and looking after discount of bills and other matters of the bank. The accused No.1 himself has admitted all the transactions entered by him in the books of accounts of the bank through the Core Banking System.
614. PWs. 1 to 9, 30, 31 and 35 have consistently deposed how accused No.1 who was dealing with advance section and funds of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, made various fraudulent transactions, transferred the amount to his account and account of his brother accused No.2 and utilized the said amount for their personal use. The evidence of these witnesses is supported from the documentary evidence placed before the court.
615. PWs. 28, 29, 32 to 34 have deposed about the credit of amount to the accounts of accused No.1 and 2 in Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch and use of the said amount by them by making payments through cheques and other mode.
616. As seen from the oral evidence of the witnesses, contents of Ex.P.52 Preliminary Investigation Report, Ex.P.106 Special Investigation Report and Ex.P.116 and 192 statements of account pertaining to the account of accused 391 Spl.C.C.253/13 J No.1 and 2 proves that accused No.1 in his capacity as a public servant entrusted with property of Syndicate Bank or with any dominion over the said property, dishonestly misappropriated an amount of Rs.12,22,94,260/- and converted an amount of Rs.10,12,17,560/- for his own use by transfer of the said amount to his account and also transferred an amount of Rs.2,10,76,700/- to the account of accused No.2. Therefore, the material ingredients required for the constitution of offence punishable u/s 409 of IPC are established in the present case. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the offence u/s 409 of IPC against accused No.1.
ALLEGATION OF FORGERY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHEATING:
617. Fifty firstly, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused No.1 has committed forgery for the purpose of cheating.
618. In this regard, it is proper to know the definition of forgery and essential ingredients: -
463. Forgery: - [Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to
392 Spl.C.C.253/13 J enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
The essential ingredients are: -
(i) the making of a false document or part of it and;
(ii) such making should be with such intention as is specified in the Section viz. (a) to cause damage or injury to (i) the public, or (ii) any person; or (b) to support any claim or title;
or (c) to cause any person to part with property; or (d) to cause any person to enter into an express or implied contract; or (e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
619. To constitute an offence u/s 468 of IPC, the material ingredients are: -
(i) Document in question is forged.
(ii) Accused forged it.
(iii) In forging he intended that it shall be used for cheating.
620. It is pertinent to note that PWs.1 to 9, 30, 31 and 35 who are officers/officials of Syndicate Bank have deposed the manner in which the fraudulent entries have been entered by the accused No.1 in the accounts of GL Heads and accounts of 14 customers with regard to 25 transactions.
621. PW.3 who conducted the preliminary investigation report and submitted his report as per Ex.P.52 has deposed in detail about each and every transactions entered by the accused No.1 in the account of Syndicate Bank, verified by 393 Spl.C.C.253/13 J him and how the entries have been made. As per the evidence of PW.3 and his report Ex.P.52 which is not disputed reveals how the 24 fraudulent transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates, with the amounts transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 and 2.
622. PW.5 has deposed about each and every transaction entered by the accused No.1 in the accounts of the Syndicate Bank pertaining to 25 transactions and how the amount through different transactions mentioned in Ex.P.52 has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 and 2.
623. PW.35 who conducted special investigation and submitted his report as per Ex.P.106 has given his detail report after verifying each and every entry in the system and the fraudulent transactions entered by accused No.1 in the account and transfer of the fraudulent amount of Rs.12,22,94,260/- to his account and account of his brother accused No.2.
624. The evidence of PWs.3, 4, 5 and 35 is supported from the evidence of PWs.10 to 23 and 26 and 27. PWs. 10 to 26 394 Spl.C.C.253/13 J and 27 have deposed that they have not submitted any bills for discount and the transactions entered in their account are not pertaining to their business transactions. The evidence of those witnesses is proving that without submitting any bills for discount by them, the credit and debit entries have been made in their respective accounts for huge amount, beyond their limit and without even facility of bill discounting to some customers. Further, their evidence proves how the accused No.1 has made false entries through electronic record in their accounts to cheat the Syndicate Bank.
625. Further, it is pertinent to note the contents of Ex.P.209 which is a bills discounting register pertaining to Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch. It is proved that the entries made as per Ex.P.209(b) and (c) are made by the accused No.1 in his own handwriting. Ex.P.209(b) reveals that though the bill was presented for discounting by M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments was for Rs.5,73,456/- but the entries have been made for Rs.35,73,456/- and the alteration has been done in the entry Ex.P.209(b). Further, as per Ex.P.209(c) M/s. Delta Manufacturers is said to avail the discounting facility for Rs.9,92,775/- but 395 Spl.C.C.253/13 J an entry is made for Rs.59,92,775/- in Ex.P.209(c) and the amount is also altered. It is proved that neither the bill for Rs.9,92,775/- nor for Rs.59,92,775/- is available in the bank. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.P.209(c) the entry is made on 15.3.2012 whereas in the account entered in the system, the entry has been made on 16.3.2012 for Rs.50,00,000/-. This proves that accused No.1 altered the entries in Ex.P.209 as per Ex.P.209(b) and (c) and when the bills for such transaction is not available in the bank, it can be inferred that those bills have been destroyed. This proves that how the accused No.1 has made false document in the Register Ex.P.209 of Syndicate Bank.
626. The evidence of the prosecution proves how the accused No.1 has made false document and electronic record with intent to commit fraud in respect of the various transactions discussed above in the present case. The evidence further proves that the accused No.1 for the purpose of cheating to Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch has committed forgery. Therefore, the ingredients of offence u/s 468 of IPC are established. Hence, the prosecution has proved the offence u/s 468 of IPC against accused No.1.
396 Spl.C.C.253/13 J ALLEGATION OF USING AS GENUINE A FORGED DOCUMENT:
627. Fifty secondly, it is alleged by the prosecution that accused No.1 forged the documents of Syndicate Bank and used them as genuine documents and knowing fully well that they were forged. Before going to consider the evidence of the prosecution regarding this allegation, it is proper to know the offence defined u/s 471 of IPC which reads as follows: -
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record: - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record].
628. In the present case, the prosecution has already established the forgery of documents and electronic records committed by him. The evidence of the witnesses further proves that the accused No.1 fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine the forged documents and electronic records, which he knows to be forged for doing the fraudulent transactions. Therefore, the ingredients of offence u/s 471 of IPC are established. Hence, the
397 Spl.C.C.253/13 J prosecution has proved the offence u/s 471 of IPC against accused No.1.
ALLEGATION OF FALSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS:
629. Fifty thirdly, it is alleged by the prosecution that accused No.1 has made falsification of the accounts of Syndicate Bank for committing the fraud and siphoning off the funds of the said bank.
630. It is an admitted fact that accused No.1 being the Asst.
Manager, an officer of the bank working in Advance Section was in the possession of accounts belonging to Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch and dealing with advance and discounting of bills. Admittedly, after introducing Core Banking System in Syndicate Bank and implementing the same in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore, a password was given to the officers including the accused No.1. As per the authority given to the accused No.1 he was permitted to do the lawful entries in the accounts pertaining to the day to day transactions of the customers in the advance section and discount of bills in the said bank.
631. It is pertinent to note that PWs.1 to 9, 30, 31 and 35 who are officers/officials of Syndicate Bank have deposed the 398 Spl.C.C.253/13 J manner in which the fraudulent entries have been entered by the accused No.1 in the account of GL Heads and accounts of 24 customers. PW.3 who conducted the preliminary investigation report and submitted his report as per Ex.P.52 has deposed in detail about each and every transactions entered by the accused No.1 in the account of Syndicate Bank, verified by him and how the entries have been made. As per the evidence of PW.3 and his report Ex.P.52 which is not disputed reveals how the 24 fraudulent transactions were debited to GL 277240100 (Advance against Drawee Bills) head and were done on various dates, with the amounts transferred through NEFT to the account of accused No.1 and 2.
632. PW.5 has deposed about each and every transaction entered by the accused No.1 in the accounts of the Syndicate Bank pertaining to 24 transactions and how the amount has been transferred to the account of accused No.1 and 2.
633. PW.35 who conducted special investigation and submitted his report as per Ex.P.106 has given his detail report after verifying each and every entry in the system and the fraudulent transactions entered by accused No.1 in the 399 Spl.C.C.253/13 J account and transfer of the fraudulent amount of Rs.12,22,94,260/- to his account and account of his brother accused No.2.
634. The evidence of PWs.3, 4, 5 and 35 is supported from the evidence of PWs.10 to 23 and 26 and 27. PWs. 10 to 26 and 27 have deposed that they have not submitted any bills for discount and the transactions entered in their account are not pertaining to their business transactions. The evidence of those witnesses is proving that without submitting any bills for discount by them, the credit and debit entries have been made in their respective accounts for huge amount, beyond their limit and without even facility of bill discounting to some customers.
635. Further, it is pertinent to note the contents of Ex.P.209 which is a bills discounting register pertaining to Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch. It is proved that the entries made as per Ex.P.209(b) and (c) are made by the accused No.1 in his own handwriting. Ex.P.209(b) reveals that though the bill was presented for discounting by M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments was for Rs.5,73,456/- but the entries have been made for Rs.35,73,456/- and the alteration has been done in the entry Ex.P.209(b).
400 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Further, as per Ex.P.209(c) M/s. Delta Manufacturers is said to avail the discounting facility for Rs.9,92,775/- but an entry is made for Rs.59,92,775/- in Ex.P.209(c) and the amount is also altered. It is proved that neither the bill for Rs.9,92,775/- nor for Rs.59,92,775/- is available in the bank. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.P.209(c) the entry is made on 15.3.2012 whereas in the account entered in the system, the entry has been made on 16.3.2012 for Rs.50,00,000/-. This proves that accused No.1 altered the entries in Ex.P.209 as per Ex.P.209(b) and (c) and when the bills for such transaction is not available in the bank, it can be inferred that those bills have been destroyed.
636. It is proved by the prosecution that the amount of Rs.12,22,94,260/- pertaining to 24 transactions mentioned in the above tale of Ex.P.106 has been fraudulently transferred by accused No.1 to his account and account of his brother accused No.2. It is also proved that the amount through NEFT has been transferred without there being any request for NEFT transfer, relevant documents and against the norms of the bank for NEFT transaction. For making the NEFT, the accused No.1 has created false 401 Spl.C.C.253/13 J entries in the accounts of Syndicate Bank through electronic record.
637. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence of the prosecution placed before the court to prove that the accused No.1 being the officer of Syndicate Bank, willfully and with intent to defraud the said bank has destroyed, altered and falsified the books of accounts, electronic record, which belongs and in the possession of the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch. Therefore the ingredients of Section 477A of IPC are proved against accused No.1. Hence, the prosecution has proved the offence u/s 477A of IPC against accused No.1.
ALLEGATION FOR CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT:
638. Fifty fourthly, firstly it is alleged by the prosecution that accused No.1 and 3 being public servants dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated the funds of the bank to the tune of Rs.12,22,94,260/- and converted the said amount for their personal use which is an offence as per Section 13(1)(c) of PC Act.
639. Section 13(1)(c) of PC Act reads as follows: -
13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant: -
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence criminal misconduct: -
(a) .....
402 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
(b) .....
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
640. In the present case, there is sufficient evidence of the prosecution to prove that accused No.1 being a public servant dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated the funds of the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch to the tune of Rs.12,22,94,260/- and used the said amount for his personal use by transferring an amount of Rs.10,12,17,560/- to his account through NEFT and an amount of Rs.2,10,76,700/- to the account of accused No.2 through NEFT, maintained with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai. The evidence also proves that after crediting the amount to the account of accused No.1 and 2, they have used the said amount for their trading business by making payment from their accounts through cheques in favour of M/s. KEDIA commodities, Great Ventures, Adventures India and other accounts as already discussed above. The accused No.1 who was authorized to deal with the funds of the Syndicate Bank misappropriated huge public funds as per his will and wish 403 Spl.C.C.253/13 J without any authority and certainly his act is covered under Sec. 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
641. There is no evidence forthcoming against the accused No.3 to prove that he was involved in the misappropriation of funds by accused No.1 or benefited from the said misappropriated funds or allows the accused No.1 to do so. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused No.3 has involved in the misappropriation or received any fund for his use or allowed the accused No.1 to do so as a public servant. No evidence is forthcoming to prove that accused No.3 was a beneficiary for any portion of the misappropriated amount of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch.
642. PWs. 1 to 9, 30, 31 and 35 who are the officers/officials of Syndicate Bank have not whispered that there was any involvement of accused No.3 in the misappropriation of funds by accused No.1. Even the documentary evidence placed before the court by the prosecution is not showing any involvement of accused No.3 and transfer of funds to his account out of the misappropriated funds.
643. As per Ex.P.52 and 106 which are preliminary and special investigation reports disclose no role of accused No.3 in 404 Spl.C.C.253/13 J the misappropriation of funds and transfer of any amount to his account to make him as a beneficiary of the misappropriated funds.
644. No doubt, the accused No.3 as a Chief Manager was negligent and committed lapses in discharge of his duties but that will not constitute an offence of criminal misconduct for the offence under Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
645. Therefore, there is no cogent and acceptable evidence to prove the allegation of criminal misconduct u/s 13(1)(c) of PC Act, against accused No.3.
646. Hence, the prosecution has proved that it is accused No.1 who alone committed criminal misconduct as defined under Section 13(1)(c) of PC Act punishable u/s 13(2) of the said Act.
647. Secondly, it is alleged by the prosecution that accused No.1 being a public servant had illegally misappropriated the funds of the Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch to the tune of Rs.12,22,94,260/- and got credited the said amount to his account and to the account of accused No.2 by abusing his position as Asst. Manager while holding the 405 Spl.C.C.253/13 J said post and thereby committed an offence u/s 13(1)(d), r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
648. It is further alleged that accused No.3, the Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, i.e., public servant by illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage and allowed accused No.1 to use his supervisory ID No.194817S to transfer the amount of Rs.12,22,94,260/- to the SB accounts of accused No.1 and 2 in order to misappropriate the said fund and thereby committed an offence u/s 13(1)(d), r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
649. The evidence of the prosecution proves that the accused No.1 by illegal means misappropriated the funds of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch to the tune of Rs.12,22,94,260/- and out of the said amount obtained an amount of Rs.10,12,17,560/- for himself by transferring the said amount to his SB Account with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch, Madurai through NEFT and obtained an amount of Rs.2,10,76,700/- to his brother accused No.2 by transferring the said amount to the SB Account of accused No.2 with Axis Bank, Thallakulam Branch. The evidence further proves that the accused No.1 who was in 406 Spl.C.C.253/13 J the cadre of Asst. Manager by abusing his position as a public servant has obtained for himself and his brother accused No.2 misappropriated funds.
650. The learned counsel for accused No.1 argued that the ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct are not established against accused No.1. In support of her arguments, she relied upon the principles of decision reported in 2014 Crl.L.J. 930 in the case of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, the principles of the said decision are not attracted to the case on hand.
651. Therefore, the ingredients of Sec.13(1)(d) are well applicable to the acts of accused No.1 which amounts to an offence punishable u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
652. Further, it is pertinent to note that accused No.1 deceitfully used the supervisory ID of accused No.3 to enter the transactions in the accounts of the bank and for transfer of the amount through NEFT to his account and to the account of his brother accused No.2. When the evidence shows that accused No.1 deceitfully misused the supervisory ID of accused No.3, it cannot be said that accused No.3 knowing fully well shared his supervisory ID 407 Spl.C.C.253/13 J with accused No.1 and allowed him to do the fraudulent transactions. No evidence is forthcoming before the court from the prosecution to prove that the fraudulent transactions were within the knowledge of accused No.3 and with his active connivance and user of his supervisory ID by the accused No.1 was within his knowledge and with his consent. When the officers were working in the bank, they have to discharge their duty by using their respective user ID. In the present case, the evidence shows that accused No.1 misused the user ID of accused No.3 for which it cannot be said that the same will amount to criminal misconduct on the part of accused No.3.
653. Looking to the evidence of bank officers/officials and the customers through whose accounts the fraudulent transactions have been made, have not whispered anything against accused No.3 to prove his involvement in the fraudulent transactions or he was beneficiary in any manner to the misappropriated funds of the bank.
654. There is no evidence to prove that accused No.3 illegally received for himself or for any other person any amount out of the misappropriated funds by accused No.1. Further, there is no evidence to prove that accused No.3 408 Spl.C.C.253/13 J has abused his position as a public servant. Therefore, the ingredients of section 13(1)(d) are not established against accused No.3.
655. In the present case, considering the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 and 2 have committed an offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of funds of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to the tune of Rs.12,22,94,260/- which are punishable u/s 120B and 420 of IPC.
656. Further, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 has committed an offences of criminal breach of trust, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using forged documents as genuine documents, falsification of accounts which are punishable u/s 409, 468, 471 and 477A of IPC.
657. Further, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 being a public servant has committed an offence of criminal misconduct by dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriating the funds of the Syndicate Bank for a continuous period of one year by making fraudulent entries, for his own use and for the use 409 Spl.C.C.253/13 J of his brother accused No.2 which is punishable u/s 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
658. Further, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 has committed an offence of criminal misconduct by illegal means, by abusing his position as a public servant obtained the huge misappropriated funds of Rs.10,12,17,560/- for himself and Rs.2,10,76,700/- for his brother accused No.2 which is punishable u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
659. Therefore, the accused No.1 is found guilty for the offences punishable u/s 120B, 420, 409, 468, 471 and 477A of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) and Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
660. The accused No.2 is found guilty for the offences punishable u/s 120B and Sec. 420 of IPC. Hence, I answer Point No.1 and 2 partly in the affirmative against accused No.1 and 2. I answer Point No.3 to 6 in the affirmative. I answer Point No.7 and 8 partly in the affirmative against accused No.1 only.
661. POINT No.9: -. Hence, I proceed to pass the following 410 Spl.C.C.253/13 J ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.3 S.G. Ram Naik is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 120-B, r/w 420 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w sec. 13(1)(c) and Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.1 J. Kannan is convicted for the offences punishable u/s 120-B, 420, 409, 468, 471 and 477A IPC and Sec. 13(1)(c) and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Further, Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.2 J. Muralidharan is convicted for the offences punishable u/s 120-B and 420 of IPC.
To hear regarding sentence of accused No.1 and 2. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 16th day of December 2015) (BHEEMANAGOUDA K. NAIK) XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge And Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru City.
411 Spl.C.C.253/13 J ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Heard learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 and accused No.1 and 2 regarding the sentence.
The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI submitted that Syndicate Bank provided the employment as an officer to the accused No.1 in his young age, after joining the service within a period of 3 years, the accused No.1 has done breach of trust to his employer, who was required to protect the public funds and to serve the public has misappropriated huge funds, and caused loss to the Syndicate Bank, and accused No.2 has actively co-operated to accused No.1 to misappropriate the funds, therefore looking to the gravity of the offences, a maximum sentence may be imposed against accused No.1 and
2. In support of his submission, he relied upon the principles of the following decisions: -
(1) 2015 AIR SCW 4774 (Raj Bala vs. State of Haryana and others).
(2) AIR 2005 SC 1250 (State of U.P. Vs. Kishan). (3) AIR 2004 SC 4122 (Surjith Singh Vs. Nahararam and another).
412 Spl.C.C.253/13 J (4) AIR 2006 SCW 436 (Shailesh Jesvanthabhai and another Vs. State of Gujarath and others). (5) AIR 2005 SC 682 (State of M.P. Vs. Munna Choubey and another).
The learned counsel for accused No.1 submitted that accused No.1 is a young man, has got his old age parents, and he has to look after his parents and lenient view may be taken in imposing the sentence.
Accused No.1 personally submitted that he has got old age parents and, to take lenient view in the matter.
The learned counsel for accused No.2 submitted that accused No.2 is young boy, student and to show sympathy and take lenient view.
Accused No.2 personally submitted that he is a student and to take lenient view while imposing sentence.
In Raj Bala case referred above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that judge has duty to respond to collective cry of society, discretion conferred on court, to be exercised on reasonable and rational parameters. The discretion cannot be allowed to yield to fancy or notion, a judge has to keep in mind the paramount concept of rule of law and the conscience of the collective and balance it with the principle of 413 Spl.C.C.253/13 J proportionately but when the discretion is exercised in a capricious manner it tantamounts to relinquishment of duty and reckless abandonment of responsibility.
In Kishan's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in para-7 that "The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be."
In Shailesh Jesvantbhai case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para No.10 held that "Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment injustifiable when it is out of proportion to 414 Spl.C.C.253/13 J the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences".
In Surjit Singh case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para No.6 held that: "Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc."
In Munna Choubey case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para No.16 held that: "In Dhananjoy Chetterjee vs. State of W.B (1994) 2 SCC 220, this Court has observed that shockingly large number of criminals go unpunished thereby increasingly, encouraging the criminals and in the ultimate making justice suffer by weakening the system's credibility. The imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Court responds to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the 415 Spl.C.C.253/13 J crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment."
In the present case, accused No.1 who was serving as Asst. Manager in Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore, a responsible officer who was in the custody of funds of the bank, who was required to protect the funds of the public, with utter disregard to his devotion to duty has dealt the funds of the bank as per his will and wish for a continuous period of one year, one after the another transactions for misappropriation of huge funds by fictitious transactions through the accounts of the customers of the nationalized bank, without their knowledge and fraudulently transferred the amount of Rs.12,22,94,260/- to his account and to the account of his younger brother accused No.2 and utilized the said amount for their personal trading business.
Though the misappropriation through fraudulent transactions have been done by the accused No.1 for a period of one year, one after the another, none of the other officers in the same branch or at higher level have noticed the illegal transactions done by accused No.1. Admittedly, there is an internal audit by the Internal Auditors who were required to inspect all the transactions for huge amount and to verify the 416 Spl.C.C.253/13 J documents, but they have not pointed out any of the fraudulent transactions done by the accused No.1 for a period of one year, which shows their serious lack of attention, not properly auditing the fraudulent transactions of the bank done without bills for discounting, credit and debit vouchers and request for NEFT remittances and no proper inspection of the records to know the fraudulent transactions.
Syndicate Bank is a nationalized bank established and functioning under the Banking Companies Act and as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. Since it is a nationalized bank, the public are utilising the services for deposit and advance and the reputation of the bank has to be maintained to provide service to the various customers. In the present case, by the fraudulent transactions done by the accused No.1 by illegal means, many of the customers doubted the credibility of the bank as a result, the reputation of the said bank was lowered in the eye of the public.
As seen from the modus operandi and manner in which the fraudulent transactions have been done by the accused No.1 for a considerable period, for misappropriation of amount of Rs.12,22,94,260/-, it was beyond the imagination of a common man.
417 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Therefore, in the present case, the major role has been played by accused No.1 for doing all the fraudulent transactions, misappropriation, diversion of funds by forgery, by falsification of accounts, there are only aggravating circumstances forthcoming against him and no mitigating circumstances favouring the accused No.1 to take lenient view while imposing sentence for the offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Looking to the age, occupation and the minimum role played by accused No.2 in the criminal conspiracy and cheating the Syndicate Bank, it is proper to take some lenient view against him while imposing the sentence.
As per Section 16 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while imposing the sentence of fine for the offences under sub- section (2) of Section 13 or Section 14 of the said Act, court has to take into consideration certain matters for fixing a fine.
Section 16 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as follows: -
16. Matters to be taken into consideration for fixing fine: - Where a sentence of fine is imposed under sub-section(2) of section 13 or section 14, the court is fixing the amount of the fine shall take into consideration the amount or the value of the property, if any, which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or where the conviction is for an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the pecuniary resources or property referred to in that clause for
418 Spl.C.C.253/13 J which the accused person is unable to account satisfactorily.
While imposing sentence of fine for the offences u/s 13(2) or Section 14 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the court has to take into consideration, the amount or the value of the property if any which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence. In the present case, accused No.1 being public servant has misappropriated public funds of Syndicate Bank to the tune of Rs.12,22,94,260/- by effecting fraudulent transactions, by falsification of the records and accounts and diverted the funds to his account and to the account of his brother and utilized the said amount for their trading business. Therefore, while imposing the sentence of fine for the offences u/s 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) which are punishable u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the court has to bear in mind the value of the amount misappropriated by the accused No.1. Therefore, there are no any mitigating circumstances favouring the accused No.1 to take lenient view while imposing the punishment for the offences committed by him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
For doing such offences proper message must go out to the public, that such crimes will not be viewed sympathetically but deterrently by the courts. Therefore, I am of the view that, 419 Spl.C.C.253/13 J undue sympathy cannot be shown to accused No.1 and 2 on the grounds urged by them for taking lenient view and imposing lesser punishment. Hence, I proceed to pass the following ORDER For an offence punishable u/s 120B of IPC, Accused No.1 J. Kannan and Accused No.2 J. Muralidharan are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years each and shall also pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs only) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 9 (Nine) months each.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC, Accused No.1 J. Kannan is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 (One) year.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC, Accused No.2 J. Muralidharan is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 9 (Nine) months.
420 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Further, for an offence punishable u/s 409 of IPC, accused No.1 J. Kannan is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 468 of IPC, accused No.1 J. Kannan is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 471 of IPC, accused No.1 J. Kannan is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) year and shall also pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 477A of IPC, accused No.1 J. Kannan is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) and in default of 421 Spl.C.C.253/13 J payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, accused No.1 J. Kannan is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one and half years.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, accused No.1 J. Kannan is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one and half years.
All substantive sentences imposed to accused No.1 and both substantive sentences imposed to accused No.2 shall run concurrently and the sentence of fine imposed to accused No.1 and 2 shall run consecutively.
Acting u/s 428 Cr.P.C., the days spent by accused No.1 and 2 in judicial custody during investigation and trial of this case is given set off towards the imprisonment ordered.
422 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Free copy of judgment is supplied to the accused No.1 and 2 in the open court.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 16th day of December 2015) (BHEEMANAGOUDA K. NAIK) XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge And Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW-1: C.V. Sundaramoorthy PW-2: T. Srikrishna PW-3: N. Suresh PW-4: K. Santhosh Kamath PW-5: Tridib Kumar Bose PW-6: S.N. Haresh Nethi PW-7: Thirupathi Reddy Rondla PW-8: M.G. Sudhir Kini PW-9: K. Preetam Lal PW-10: N. Ganganarasaiah PW-11: Hemant Kumar PW-12: Sageer Ahamed PW-13: Jaijo Joseph PW-14: Anish A. Majid PW-15: Ashok Kothari PW-16: Oscar Sebastian Dass PW-17: Smt. Jalaja Manjunath PW-18: Kavitha R PW-19: T. Kempegowda PW-20: Raghunathan PW-21: Smt. Deepa Bist PW-22: Hari PW-23: R. Naveen Kumar PW-24: K. Sharavanakumar 423 Spl.C.C.253/13 J PW-25: C. Gunasekaran PW-26: K.N. Nagaraja Rao PW-27: K.N. Shivashankar PW-28: R. Kartik Prasanna PW-29: V. Vikram Karthick PW-30: S.K. Dhingra PW-31: B.P. Girish PW-32: K. Thanga Thirupathi PW-33: Smt. B. Annapoorani PW-34: Smt. J.S. Lakshmi PW-35: Pravin Tipnis PW-36: C. Krishnan PW-37: Gurusankaranarayanan PW-38: Ramesh Shetty PW-39: P. Krishnamurthy PW-40: R. Venkateshan PW-41: Anil Sharma PW-42: G. Manivannan PW-43: S.D. Kaushik PW-44: S. Mony PW-45: Vivekanand Tulsigeri PW-46: A. Sathiamoorthy LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:
- NIL -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Original Letter dated 01.07.2013 of Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore (2 sheets) Ex.P1(a): Signature of PW-1 Ex.P.2: Statement of A/c. of Saravana Kumar. K (total 16 sheets) Ex.P2(a): Signature of PW.1 Ex.P2(b) &(c): Certificates issued under Bankers Book of Evidence Act & Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P2(d) & (e): Signatures of PW=1 on the Certificates. Ex.P2(f) to (h): Relevant entries in Ex.P2 Ex.P.3: Original Letter dated 15.3.2012 (1 sheet) Ex.P3(a): Signature of PW.1 424 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.4: Account opening form of K. Saravana Kumar with enclosures (7 sheets) Ex.P.4(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P.5: Original Letter dated 11.3.2013 of Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore (1 sheet) Ex.P.6: Original account opening form of C. Gunashekaran and enclosures (4 sheets) Ex.P.6(a): Signature of PW.25 Ex.P.7: Statement of account of Sri. C. Gunasekaran & enclosures total 3 sheets Ex.P.7(a) (b):Certificates under Indian Evidence Act & Bankers' Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.7(c) to (e): Signatures of PW.1 Ex.P.7(f) to (j): Relevant entries Ex.P.8: Original SB Account opening form of C. Krishnan with A/c. No. 120298 with enclosures total 6 sheets Ex.P8(a): Signature of PW.36 Ex.P.9: Statement of account of C. Krishnan with enclosures
3 sheets.
Ex.P.9(a)(b):Copy of Certificate under Indian Evidence Act and Banker's Book of Evidence Act Ex.P.9(c) to (e): Signatures of PW.1 Ex.P.10: Original Letter dated 16.3.2013 of Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore (1) sheet.
Ex.P.10(a): Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.11: Original withdrawal slip No.664406 for Rs.5,00,000/- Ex.P.12: Withdrawal slip bearing No. 663894 for Rs.10,00,000/-
Ex.P.13: Original Credit Slip dated 17.10.2011 for Rs.5,00,000/-.
Ex.P.14: Original Credit Slip dated 17.9.2011 for Rs.5,05,000/- of C. Krishnan.
Ex.P.15: Original Credit Slip dated 17.9.2011 for Rs.5,00,000/- of C. Krishnan.
Ex.P.16: Blank Debit Slip
Ex.P.17: Credit Slip dt:12.10.2011 for Rs.5,00,000/- of
Saravanan Kumar. K
Ex.P.18: Credit Slip dt: 17.10.2011 for Rs.5,00,000/- in the
name of C. Gunasekhar.
Ex.P.19: Original letter dt. 7.2.2013 by the Chief Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore - 1 sheet 425 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.19(a): Signature of PW-1 Ex.P.20: Application form of M/s. Digitronix Measuring Instruments seeking O.D. Limit along with statement of O.D. A/c. total 58 sheets.
Ex.P.20(a): Relevant entry dt. 23.2.2012 Ex.P.20(b): Signature of PW.26 Ex.P.20(c): Statement of account Ex.P.20(c-a): Relevant entries dt. 16.8.2012 Ex.P.21: Application for OD with statement of account in respect of Gayathri Structural & Roofing Pvt. Ltd., (100 sheets) Ex.P.21(a): Signature of PW.27 Ex.P.21(b): Relevant entry dt. 15.10.2011 Ex.P.22: Application for opening of current account with statement of account in respect of Delta Manufacturers 25 sheets Ex.P.22(a): Relevant entry in page No.79 of statement. Ex.P.22(b): Statement of account Ex.P.22(c): Signature Ex.P.22(d) & (e): Relevant entries Ex.P.23: Application of O.D. with statement of account in respect of M/s. Pooja Enterprises - 36 sheets Ex.P.23(a): Signature of PW.17 Ex.P.23(b) & (c): Relevant entries dt. 18.4.2012 & 14.8.2012 respectively.
Ex.P.24: Application for O.D. with statement of account in respect of R.R. Forging Pvt. Ltd., (158 sheets) Ex.P.24(a): Signature of PW.20 Ex.P.24(b): Relevant entry dt. 21.4.2012 Ex.P.25: Application for O.D. with statement of account in respect of Sree Lakshmi Engineering Works (53 sheets) Ex.P.26: Application for O.D. with statement of account in respect of Sree Balaji Corporation - 17 sheets Ex.P.26(a): Signature of PW.21 Ex.P.26(b): Relevant entry dt. 06.10.2012 Ex.P.27: Application for O.D. with statement of account in respect of M/s. Balaji Wood Works - 60 sheets Ex.P.27(a): Signature of PW.22 Ex.P.27(b): Relevant entry dt. 06.10.2012 Ex.P.28: Application for O.D. with statement of account in respect of M/s. A.A. Associates - 33 sheets Ex.P.28(a): Signature of PW.13 Ex.P.28(b): Statement of account 426 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.28(c): Relevant entry at page 90 Ex.P.29: Application for O.D. with statement of account in respect of M/s. Karni Kemp - 37 sheets Ex.P.29(a): Signature of PW.15 Ex.P.29(b): Signature of Anju Kothari Ex.P.29(c): Statement of account Ex.P.29(d): Relevant entry in 29(c).
Ex.P.30: Application for O.D. with statement of account in respect of Ashwini Clothing Company - 36 sheets Ex.P.30(a): Statement of account Ex.P.30(b): Signature of PW.11 Ex.P.30(c): Relevant entry at page 34 Ex.P.31: Application for OD with statement of account in respect of M/s. Anand Electricals - 17 sheets Ex.P.31(a): Statement of account Ex.P.31(b) & (c): Relevant entries Ex.P.32: Application for O.D. with statement of account in respect of Manal Enterprises - 10 sheets Ex.P.32(a): Signature of PW.16 Ex.P.32(b): Relevant entries dt. 3.10.2012 Ex.P.33: Application for O.D. with statement of account in respect of SLN Engineering Works - 33 sheets Ex.P.33(a): Signature of PW.19 Ex.P.33(b) & (c): Relevant entries dt. 18.9.2012 and 6.10.2012 Ex.P.34: Application for O.D. with statement of account in respect of Gujarath Traders Ex.P.34(a): Signature of PW.14 Ex.P.34(b): Statement of account Ex.P.34(c) & (d): Relevant entries dt. 18.9.2012 & 3.10.2012 Ex.P.35: Application for O.D. with statement of account in respect of Sunil Steel & Scrap Traders - 129 sheets Ex.P.34(a): Signature of PW.23 Ex.P.34(b): Relevant entries dt. 25.08.2012 Ex.P.36: Application for O.D. with statement of account in respect of M/s. Shiva Steels - 9 sheets Ex.P.36(a): Signature of PW.18 Ex.P.36(b): Relevant entries dt. 26.10.2012 Ex.P.37: Debit Voucher dt: 23.2.2012 for Rs.5,73,456.00 Ex.P.38: Credit Voucher dt: 23.2.2012 for Rs.5,73,456.00 Ex.P.39: Copy of the Bill discounting Register Extract -
5 sheets
Ex.P.39(a) & (b): Relevant entries
Ex.P.40: Circular dt. 13.11.2010
Ex.P.41: Circular dt. 18.3.2011
427 Spl.C.C.253/13 J
Ex.P.42: Production Memo dt. 9.7.2013
Ex.P.43: Letter dt. 31.10.2012 with enclosure - 2 sheets
Ex.P.44: Letter dt. 30.10.2012 of Chief Manager, Syndicate
Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to G.M. R.O., Bangalore. Ex.P.44(a): Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.45: Letter dt. 31.10.2012 of Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Bangalore, Yeshwanthpur Branch to G.M. R.O. Ex.P.46: Certified copy of Screen Shot Print out for Rs.47,59,200/-.
Ex.P.46(a): Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.47: Letter dt. 02.08.2013 addressed to I.O. Ex.P.47(a): Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.48: Letter dt. 8.2.2013 of D.G.M to the I.O., Ex.P.48(a): Signature of PW.8 Ex.P.49: Attested copy of policy guidelines for drawee bill scheme - 3 sheets Ex.P.50: Letter dt. 25.7.2013 of DGM to the I.O. Ex.P.50(a): Signature of PW.8 Ex.P.51: Attested copy of the manual containing roles and responsibilities of Chief Manager - 5 sheets. Ex.P.52: Preliminary Verification report dt. 28.10.2012
- 2 sheets Ex.P.52(a): Signature of PW.3 Ex.P.52(b): Signature of A.G.M. Ex.P.53: Original complaint dt. 29.10.2012 Ex.P.53(a): Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.54: Letter dt. 27.10.2012 of A1 [Extra Judicial Confession Statement] - 3 sheets True Coy Ex.P.54(a): Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.54(b): Signature of A1 Ex.P.54(c): Signature of A3 Ex.P.54(d): Signature of Francis D' Souza Ex.P.55: Original letter dated 25.06.2013 Ex.P.55(a): Signature of DGM Ex.P.56: Cheque No.42913 dt. 31.10.2012 Rs.2,25,56,000/- Ex.P.56(a) Signature of A1 Ex.P.57: Cheque No.043054 dt. 31.10.2012 for Rs. 2,20,00,000/-
Ex.P.57(a): Signature of A2 Ex.P.58: Credit Voucher dt. 31.10.2012 for Rs.22556000/- Ex.P.59: Credit Voucher dt. 31.10.2012 Rs.2,20,00,000/- Ex.P.60 & 61: Cheque Return Reports.
Ex.P.62: Copy of the Letter dt. 1.11.2012 addressed to Investigating Officer by PW.4 - 1 sheet [Produced by 428 Spl.C.C.253/13 J the PW.4 not charge sheet cited document] Ex.P.63: Copy of the Letter dt. 2.11.2012 addressed to CBI by PW.4 Ex.P.64: Receipt Memo dt. 17.11.2012 Ex.P.64(a): Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.65: Letter dt: 16.11.2012 addressed to CBI by the G.M., Syndicate Bank, R.O. Ex.P.65(a): Signature of G.M. Ex.P.66: Original account opening form of J. Kannan And statement of account - 28 sheets Ex.P.67: Statement of account of M/s. Digitronix with Screen Shots & Certificate.
Ex.P.67(a): Relevant entry dt. 23.2.2012 Ex.P.67(b): Attested copy of the Remittance Parking GL Ex.P.67(c): Relevant Debit - Credit entries in Ex.P67(b) Ex.P.67(d) & (e): Certificates issued under B.B.E. Act & Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P.68: Statement of account of M/s. Gayathri Structural & Roofing Pvt., Ltd., with Screen Shots & Certificates Ex.P.68(a): Certified copy of Remittance Parking GL Ex.P.68(b) & (c): Relevant entries in Ex.P68(a) Ex.P.68(d): Statement of account Ex.P.68(e) to (g): Certificates Ex.P.69: Statement of account of M/s. Delta Manufacturers with Screen Shots & Certificates - 6 sheets Ex.P.69(a): Relevant entries Ex.P.69(b): Statement of account Ex.P.69(c): Relevant entry in Ex.P69(b) Ex.P.69(d): Screen Shot of Remittance Parking G.L. Ex.P.69(e) to (f): Relevant entries in Ex.P69(d) Ex.P.69(g) to (i): Certificates Ex.P.70: Statement of account of M/s. Pooja Enterprises with Screen Shots & Certificates - 6 sheets Ex.P.70(a): Relevant entry dt. 18.4.2012 Ex.P.70(b): Statement of account Ex.P.70(c) & (d): Relevant entries in Ex.P70(b) Ex.P.70(e): Screen Shot of Remittance Parking G.L. Ex.P.70(f) to (g): Relevant entries in Ex.P70(e) Ex.P.70(h) to (j): Certificates Ex.P.71: Statement of account of M/s. R R Forging Pvt. Ltd., with Screen Shots & Certificates - 7 sheets Ex.P.71(a): Statement of account Ex.P.71(b) & (c): Relevant entries in Ex.P71(a) Ex.P.71(d): Screen Shot of Remittance Parking G.L. 429 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.71(e) to (f): Relevant entries in Ex.P71(d) Ex.P.71(g) to (i): Certificates Ex.P.72: Statement of account of M/s. Pooja Enterprises with Screen Shots & Certificates - 6 sheets Ex.P.72(a): Relevant entries dt. 14.8.2012 Ex.P.72(b): Statement of account Ex.P.72(c): Relevant entry in Ex.P72(b) Ex.P.72(d): Screen Shot of Remittance Parking G.L. Ex.P.72(e) to (f): Relevant entries in Ex.P72(d) Ex.P.72(g) to (i): Certificates Ex.P.73: Statement of account of M/s. Digitronix Measuring with Screen Shots & Certificates - 6 sheets Ex.P.73(a): Relevant entries dt. 16.8.2012 Ex.P.73(b): Statement of account Ex.P.73(c): Relevant entry in Ex.P73(b) Ex.P.73(d): Screen Shot of Remittance Parking G.L. Ex.P.73(e) to (f): Relevant entries in Ex.P73(d) Ex.P.73(g) to (i): Certificates Ex.P.74: Statement of account of M/s. Delta Manufacturers with Screen Shots & Certificates Ex.P.74(a): Relevant entries dt. 17.8.2012 Ex.P.74(b): Statement of account Ex.P.74(c): Relevant entry in Ex.P74(b) Ex.P.74(d): Screen Shot of Remittance Parking G.L. Ex.P.74(e) to (f): Relevant entries in Ex.P74(d) Ex.P.74(g) to (i): Certificates Ex.P.75: Statement of account of M/s. Siva Steels with Screen Shots & Certificates - 6 sheets Ex.P.75(a): Relevant entry dt. 21.8.2012 Ex.P.75(b): Statement of account Ex.P.75(c) & (d): Relevant entries in Ex.P75(b) Ex.P.75(e): Screen Shot of Remittance Parking G.L. Ex.P.75(f) to (g): Relevant entries in Ex.P75(d) Ex.P.75(h) to (j): Certificates Ex.P.76: Statement of account of M/s. Sunil Steel Scrap with Screen Shots & Certificates - 6 sheets Ex.P.76(a): Relevant entry dt. 25.8.2012 in advance against drawee bills Ex.P.76(b): Statement of account Ex.P.76(c) & (d): Relevant entries in Ex.P76(b) Ex.P.76(e): Screen Shot of Remittance Parking G.L. Ex.P.76(f) to (g): Relevant entries in Ex.P76(d) Ex.P.76(h) to (j): Certificates 430 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.77: Statement of account of M/s. SLN Engineering Works with Screen Shots & Certificates - 6 sheets Ex.P.77(a): Relevant entry in advance against drawee bills Ex.P.77(b): Statement of account Ex.P.77(c): Relevant entries in Ex.P77(b) Ex.P.77(d): Statement of account Ex.P.77(e): Relevant entries in Ex.P77(d) Ex.P.77(f): Screen Shot of Suspense online transaction statement Ex.P.77(g) & (h): Relevant entries in Ex.P77(f) Ex.P.77(i) to (n): Certificates Ex.P.77(o): Screen Shot of Remittance Parking GL Ex.P.77(P): Relevant entries in Ex.P.77(o) Ex.P.78: Statement of account of M/s. Manal Enterprises with Screen Shots & Certificates - 14 sheets Ex.P.78(a): 4 entries in advance against drawee bills, Screen Shots etc., Ex.P.78(b): Statement of account Ex.P.78(c) & (d): Relevant entries in Ex.P78(b) Ex.P.78(e): Screen Shot of Suspense online transaction statement Ex.P.78(f) & (g): Relevant entries in Ex.P78(e) Ex.P.78(h): Statement of account Ex.P.78(i): Relevant entries in Ex.P78(h) Ex.P.78(j): Screen Shot of Remittance Parking GL Ex.P.78(k) & (l): Relevant entries in Ex.P.78(j) Ex.P.78(m): Statement of account of M/s. Ashwini Clothing Ex.P.78(n): Two relevant entries in Ex.P78(m) Ex.P.78(o): Relevant entry dated 3.10.2012 in Ex.P78(e) Ex.P.78(p): Screen Shot of Statement of M/s. Anand Electricals Ex.P.78(q): Two relevant entries in Ex.P78(p) Ex.P.78(r) & (s): Two relevant entries in Ex.P78(j) Ex.P.78(t) to (z) & 78(aa): Certificates Ex.P.79: Statement of account of M/s. Karni Kemp along with Screen Shots & Certificates - 8 sheets Ex.P.79(a): 2 Relevant entries in Screen Shots of Advances against drawee bills Ex.P.79(b): Statement of account of M/s. Karni Kemp Ex.P.79(c): Statement of account of M/s A A Associates Ex.P.79(d): Two Relevant entries in Ex.P79(b) Ex.P.79(e): Two Relevant entries in Ex.P79(c) Ex.P.79(f): Screen Shot of Remittance Parking GL 431 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.79(g): Two Relevant entries in Ex.P79(f) Ex.P.79(h) & (i): Relevant entries in Ex.P79(f) Ex.P.79(j) to (m): Four Certificates Ex.P.80: Statement of account of M/s. SLN Engineering Works with Screen Shots & Certificates Ex.P.80(a): 5 Relevant entries in Advances against drawee bills Ex.P.80(b): Statement of account of M/s. SLN Engineering Ex.P.80(c) to (d): Relevant entries in Ex.P.80(b) Ex.P.80(e): Screen Shot of Remittance Parking GL Ex.P.80(f): Relevant entry in Ex.P80(e) Ex.P.80(g): Statement of account of Balaji Wood Works Ex.P.80(h): Two Relevant entries in Ex.P80(g) Ex.P.80(i): Relevant entry in Ex.P80(e) Ex.P.80(j): Relevant entry in Ex.P80(h) Ex.P.80(k): Statement of account of M/s. Sree Lakshmi Engineering Works Ex.P.80(l) & (m): Two relevant entries in Ex.P80(k) Ex.P.80(n): Relevant entry in Ex.P80(e) for Rs.44,30,500/- Ex.P.80(o): Two relevant entries in Ex.P80(e) for Rs.47,59,200/-
& for Rs.53,70,400/-.
Ex.P.80(p) & (q): Relevant entries in Ex.P80(e) Ex.P.80(r) to (w): Certificates Ex.P.81: Statement of account of M/s. Anand Electricals with Screen Shots & Certificates Ex.P.81(a): 2 Relevant entries in Screen Shot of Advances against drawee bills Ex.P.81(b): Statement of account of M/s. Anand Electricals Ex.P.81(c): 2 Relevant entries in Ex.P.81(b) Ex.P.81(d): Screen Shot of TD Renewal (Parking GL) Ex.P.81(e) & (f): Relevant entries in Ex.P81(d) Ex.P.81(g): Statement of account of M/s. Shiva Steels Ex.P.81(h): Relevant entries in Ex.P81(g) Ex.P.81(i) & (j): Relevant entries in Ex.P81(d) Ex.P.81(k) & (n): 4 Certificates Ex.P.82: Attested copy of Attendance Register - 102 sheets Ex.P.82(a): Relevant sheet for month of October 2012 Ex.P.82(b): Relevant page October 2012 Ex.P.82(c): Relevant portion in Ex.P.82(b) Ex.P.82(d): Relevant Portion in Ex.P.82(b) Ex.P.83: Letter dt. 20.12.2012 Ex.P.83(a): Signature of K. Preetham Lal G. 432 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.84: Letter dt: 15.7.2013 addressed to CBI Ex.P.84(a): Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.85 to 100: 8 sets of Debit & credit vouchers dated 25.10.2012 Ex.P.85(a), 87(a), 89(a), 91(a), 93(a), 95(a), 97(a), 99(a) Initials of A1 Ex.P.101: Circular dated 7.4.2011 with annexures - 13 sheets Ex.P.101(a): Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.102: Certificate under Indian Evidence Act - 1 sheet Ex.P.102(a): Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.103: Letter dt. 30.5.2013 addressed to CBI by D.G.M. Vigilance, Syndicate Bank.
Ex.P.103(a): Signature of BNS Prasad Ex.P.104: Letter dt. To the C.V.O. Vig. Office Ex.P.104(a): Signature of Atul Kumar G. Ex.P.105: Letter dated 12.8.2013 of PW.8 addressed to I.O. Ex.P.105(a): Signature of PW.8 Ex.P.106: Attested copies of Special Investigation Report Ex.P.106(a): Signature of PW.35 Ex.P.107: Original cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- of Axis Bank, Tallakulam, Madurai in the name of PW.24 Ex.P.108: Original cheque No. 6170 in the name of PW.24 for Rs.5,00,000/-
Ex.P.109: Original Cheque No.6169 for Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of C. Gunashekara Ex.P.110: Seizure Memo dt. 12.12.2013 Ex.P.110(a): Signature of PW.26 Ex.P.111: Invoice No.68 dt. 4.2.2015 for Rs.5,73,456/-. Ex.P.112: Receipt Memo dt. 19.11.2012 Ex.P.112(a): Signature of PW.28 Ex.P.113: Letter dt. 16.11.2012 of Axis Bank Ex.P.114: Account opening form of A1 with Axis Bank, Madurai Ex.P.114(a): Signature of A1 Ex.P.115: C.C. of NEFT inward data query with Certificate 2 sheets for Rs.28,08,000/-
Ex.P.115(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.115(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.116: C.C. of statement of account of A1 at Axis Bank, Madurai Ex.P.116(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.116(b) & (c): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.117: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.30,00,000/- Ex.P.117(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.117(b): Signature of PW.32 433 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.118: C.C. of NEFT data query for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P.118(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.118(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.119: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.56,02,052/- Ex.P.119(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.119(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.120: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.51,12,557/- Ex.P.120(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.120(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.121: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.53,00,400/- Ex.P.121(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.121(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.122: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.49,00,500/- Ex.P.122(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.122(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.123: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.58,96,752/- Ex.P.123(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.123(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.124: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.53,00,900/- Ex.P.124(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.124(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.125: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.53,75,000/- Ex.P.125(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.125(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.126: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.56,22,529/- Ex.P.126(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.126(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.127: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.47,53,973/- Ex.P.128(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.128(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.129: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.57,42,500/- Ex.P.129(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.129(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.130: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.52,72,600/- Ex.P.130(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.130(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.131: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.47,59,200/- Ex.P.131(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.131(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.132: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.53,70,400/- Ex.P.132(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.132(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.133: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.57,30,400/- Ex.P.133(a): Signature of Branch Head 434 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.133(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.134: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.58,40,300/- Ex.P.134(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.134(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.135: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.56,41,000/- Ex.P.135(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.135(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.136: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.47,42,000/- Ex.P.136(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.136(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.137: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.51,62,600/- Ex.P.137(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.137(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.138: C.C. of RTGS Outward data query for Rs.2,27,54,688/-
Ex.P.138(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.138(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.139: C.C. of RTGS Outward data query for Rs.2,27,54,688/-
Ex.P.139(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.140: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.56,30,200/- Ex.P.140(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.140(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.141: C.C. of NEFT Inward data query for Rs.44,30,500/- Ex.P.141(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.141(b): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P.142: C.C. of Online Interest debit transaction slip 17.8.12 for Rs.17,00,000/-
Ex.P.142(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.143: C.C. of Online Interest debit transaction dt. 18.8.12 for Rs.20,00,000/-
Ex.P.143(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.144: C.C. of Online Interest debit transaction dt. 20.8.12 for Rs.20,00,000/-
Ex.P.144(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.145: C.C. of Interest debit transaction slip dt. 22.8.12 for Rs.20,00,000/-
Ex.P.145(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.146: C.C. of Online debit transaction slip dt. 23.8.12 for Rs.20,00,000/-
Ex.P.146(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.147: C.C. of Axis Bank, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai, debit transaction slip dt. 24.8.12 for Rs.14,00,000/- Ex.P.147(a): Signature of Branch Head 435 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.148: Axis Bank, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai, online debit transaction slip dt. 27.8.12 for Rs.20,00,000/- Ex.P.148(a): Signature of Branch Manager Ex.P.149: Axis Bank, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai, online debit transaction slip dt. 27.8.12 for Rs.20,00,000/- Ex.P.149(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.150: Axis Bank, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai, online debit transaction slip dt. 29.8.12 for Rs.10,00,000/- Ex.P.150(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.151: Axis Bank, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai, online debit transaction slip dt. 31.8.12 for Rs.6,00,000/- Ex.P.151(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.152: Axis Bank, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai, online debit slip dt. 19.9.12 for Rs.20,00,000/-
Ex.P.152(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.153: Axis Bank, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai, online debit slip dt. 19.9.12 for Rs.20,00,000/-
Ex.P.153(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.154: Axis Bank, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai, online debit slip dt. 20.9.12 for Rs.20,00,000/-
Ex.P.154(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.155: Axis Bank, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai, online debit slip dt. 21.9.12 for Rs.20,00,000/-
Ex.P.155(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.156: Axis Bank, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai, online debit slip dt. 22.9.12 for Rs.20,00,000/-
Ex.P.156(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.157: Cheque No.020142 dt. 17.8.2012 for Rs.50 lakhs Ex.P.157(a): Signature of A1 Ex.P.158: Axis Bank Cheque No.020141 for Rs.50 lakhs Ex.P.158(a): Signature of A1 Ex.P.159: Axis Bank Cheque No.020148 for Rs.50 lakhs Ex.P.159(a): Signature of A1 Ex.P.160: Axis Bank Cheque No.020149 for Rs.50 lakhs Ex.P.160(a): Signature of A1 Ex.P.161: Axis Bank Cheque No.020146 for Rs.50 lakhs Ex.P.161(a): Signature of A1 Ex.P.162: Axis Bank Cheque No.020147 for Rs.50 lakhs Ex.P.162(a): Signature of A1 Ex.P.163: Axis Bank Cheque No. 42912 for Rs.2,27,54,688/- Ex.P.163(a): Signature of A1 Ex.P.164: Axis Bank Cheque No. 6172 for Rs.18,00,000/- Ex.P.164(a): Signature of A1 436 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.165: Axis Bank Cheque No. 6173 for Rs.30 lakhs Ex.P.165(a): Signature of A1 Ex.P.166: Axis Bank Cheque No. 6174 for Rs.50 lakhs Ex.P.166(a): Signature of A1 Ex.P.167: Axis Bank Cheque No. 6175 for Rs.50 lakhs Ex.P.167(a): Signature of A1 Ex.P.168 : Axis Bank Cheque No. 6180 for Rs.30 lakhs Ex.P.168(a): Signature of A1 Ex.P.169: Axis Bank Cheque No. 6176 for Rs.7,00,000/- Ex.P.169(a): Signature of A1 Ex.P.170: Axis Bank Cheque No. 6177 for Rs.7,00,000/- Ex.P.170(a): Signature of A1 Ex.P.171: Axis Bank Cheque No. 6179 for Rs.8,00,000/- Ex.P.171(a): Signature of A1 Ex.P.171(b): Signature of PW.29 Ex.P.171(c): Signature of Nirmala Ex.P.172: Axis Bank Cheque No. 34543 Ex.P.172(a): Signature of A2 Ex.P.173: Axis Bank Cheque No. 34544 for Rs.50 lakhs Ex.P.173(a): Signature of A2 Ex.P.174: Axis Bank Cheque No. 34545 for Rs.50 lakhs Ex.P.174(a): Signature of A2 Ex.P.175: Axis Bank Cheque No. 34546 for Rs.50 lakhs Ex.P.175(a): Signature of A2 Ex.P.176: Axis Bank Cheque No. 34547 for Rs.50 lakhs Ex.P.176(a): Signature of A2 Ex.P.177: Axis Bank Cheque No. 1168 for Rs.50 lakhs Ex.P.177(a): Signature of A2 Ex.P.178: Axis Bank Cheque No. 34548 for Rs.50,000/- Ex.P.178(a): Signature of A2 Ex.P.179: Axis Bank Cheque No. 34549 for Rs.50,000/- Ex.P.179(a): Signature of A2 Ex.P.180: Axis Bank Cheque No. 34550 Ex.P.180(a): Signature of A2 Ex.P.181: Axis Bank Cheque No. 1162 for Rs.45,50,000/- Ex.P.181(a): Signature of A2 Ex.P.182: Axis Bank Cheque No. 1163 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P.182(a): Signature of A2 Ex.P.183: Axis Bank Cheque No. 1166 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P.183(a): Signature of A2 Ex.P.184: Axis Bank Cheque No. 34542 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P.184(a): Signature of A2 Ex.P.185: Axis Bank Cheque No. 43052 for Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P.185(a): Signature of A2 437 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.186: Axis Bank Cheque No. 89759 for Rs.2,25,57,000/- Ex.P.186(a): Signature of A2 Ex.P.187: Credit Voucher dt. 31.10.12 for Rs.2,25,57,000/- Ex.P.188: Account opening form of A2 at Axis Bank Ex.P.188(a): Signature of A2 Ex.P.189: Axis Bank Letter dt. 6.4.2013 Ex.P.189(a): Signature of Branch Head Ex.P.190: Attested copy of Attendance Register for May to July 2012 - 13 sheets Ex.P.191: Office Order dt. 11.5.2012 with certificate-11 sheets Ex.P.192: Statement of account in respect of A2 from 12.5.2012 to 15.11.2012 - 5 sheets Ex.P.192(a): Signature of the Branch Head Ex.P.193: Axis Bank Letter dt. 10.12.2012 addressed to CBI Ex.P.193(a): Signature of PW.28 Ex.P.194: Letter dt. 9.11.12 of Syndicate Bank to G.M. Vigilance Dept. - 1 sheet Ex.P.194(a): Signature of PW.30 Ex.P.195 to 200: Circulars - 9 sheets Ex.P.201: Original search list dt. 1.11.2012 Ex.P.201(a) Signature of PW.37 Ex.P.201(b) Signature of PW.42 Ex.P.202: One file containing documents seized from the House of A1 - 43 sheets Ex.P.203: Specimen Signature/hand writings of A2(S31 to S40) Ex.P.203(a): Signature of PW.38 Ex.P.204: Specimen signature/handwritings of Smt. P. Nirmala (S51 to 60) - 10 sheets Ex.P.204(a): Signature of PW.38 Ex.P.205: Specimen signature of A1 (S1 to S30) - 20 sheets Ex.P.205(a): Signature of PW.40 Ex.P.206: Specimen signature of P. Krishnamurthy (S41 to S50) 10 sheets Ex.P.206(a): Signature of PW.40 Ex.P.207: Expert's Opinion dt. 6.9.2013 - 6 sheets Ex.P.207(a): Signature of PW.41 Ex.P.208: Covering Letter dt. 13.9.2013 of CFSL Ex.P.208(a): Signature of the Director CFSL, New Delhi. Ex.P.209: Original Bill discounted Register of Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch, Bangalore.
Ex.P.209(a): Writings of A1 (Q.7) (at page 089) Ex.P.209(b): Writings of A1 (Q.8) (at page No.090) Ex.P.209(c): Writings of A1 (Q.9) at page 091. Ex.P.210: Specimen signature of a1 (S1 to S10) 10 sheets 438 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.P.210(a): Signature of PW.44 Ex.P.211: Specimen signatures and writings of A1 (S61 to 79) Ex.P.211(a): Signature of PW.44 Ex.P.212: Sanction order dt. 23.11.2013 - 15 sheets Ex.P.212(a): Signature of PW.43 Ex.P.213: Original F.I.R.
Ex.P.213(a): Signature of SP/CBI/ACB/BLR Ex.P.214: Record made u/s 165 Cr.P.C., Ex.P.214(a): Signature of PW.45 Ex.P.215: Search List dt. 1.11.2012 Ex.P.215(a): Signature of PW.45 Ex.P.215(b) & (c): Signatures of independent witnesses Ex.P.216: Letter dt. 22.11.12 of Syndicate Bank, Vig. Dept., Blr to CBI Ex.P.217: Letter dt. 8.4.13 of Axis Bank, to CBI Ex.P.218: Attendance details for the month October 2012 of Axis Bank, Tallakulam, Madurai - 1 sheet Ex.P.219: Certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act - 1 sheet Ex.P.220: Letter dt. 23.2.2012 of Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpur Branch to Bank of Maharashtra, Foreign Exchange Department, Bangalore - 1 sheet Ex.P221: Letter dt. 22.2.2012 of M/s. Digitronix to Syndicate Bank, Yeshwanthpura Branch, Bangalore with enclosure - 9 sheets Ex.P222: Letter of credit of Bank of Maharashtra dt. 4.1.2012 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D-1: Circular dated 26.5.2010 Ex.D-2: Circular Letter dated 13.6.2008 bearing No. 135-2008- BC-INS-02 - 1 sheet Xerox copy Ex.D-3: Circular dated 29.4.2009 bearing No.101-2009-BC-INS-
02-04 - 3 sheets Xerox copy Ex.D-4: Circular dt. 17.6.11 bearing No. 170-2011-BC-INS-03 5 sheets Xerox copy Ex.D-5: Copy of the Circular dt. 10.11.2012 bearing No. 320-
2012-BC-INSP-14-OMC. - 1 sheet Ex.D-6: Certified copy of the Branch Visit Report dt. 12.9.2012 Ex.D-7 to D-15: Xerox copies of DD's (available in Ex.P202) Ex.D-16: Notification regarding verification of General Ledger entries Ex.D-17: Notification regarding voucher verification slip building at branches 439 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Ex.D-18: Notification regarding monitoring of sensitive Heads of accounts.
LIST OF MATERAIL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
-
- NIL -
(Bheemanagouda K. Naik) XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge And Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru City.
440 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Judgment pronounced in open court, vide separate detailed order.
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.3 S.G. Ram Naik is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 120-B, r/w 420 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w sec.
13(1)(c) and Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.1 J.
Kannan is convicted for the offences punishable u/s 120-B, 420, 409, 468, 471 and 477A IPC and Sec. 13(1)(c) and Sec.
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Further, Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.2 J.
Muralidharan is convicted for the offences punishable u/s 120-B and 420 of IPC.
To hear regarding sentence of accused No.1 and 2.
(Bheemanagouda K. Naik) XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, and Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
441 Spl.C.C.253/13 J Order pronounced in open court, vide separate detailed order.
For an offence punishable u/s 120B of IPC, Accused No.1 J.
Kannan and Accused No.2 J.
Muralidharan are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years each and shall also pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs only) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 9 (Nine) months each.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC, Accused No.1 J. Kannan is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 (One) year.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC, Accused No.2 J. Muralidharan is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 9 (Nine) months.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 409 of IPC, accused No.1 J. Kannan is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years and 442 Spl.C.C.253/13 J shall also pay a fine of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 468 of IPC, accused No.1 J. Kannan is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 471 of IPC, accused No.1 J. Kannan is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) year and shall also pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 477A of IPC, accused No.1 J. Kannan is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 443 Spl.C.C.253/13 J 1988, accused No.1 J. Kannan is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one and half years.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, accused No.1 J. Kannan is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one and half years.
All substantive sentences imposed to accused No.1 and both substantive sentences imposed to accused No.2 shall run concurrently and the sentence of fine imposed to accused No.1 and 2 shall run consecutively.
Acting u/s 428 Cr.P.C., the days spent by accused No.1 and 2 in judicial custody during investigation and trial of this case is given set off towards the imprisonment ordered.
Free copy of judgment is supplied to the accused No.1 and 2 in the open court.
(Bheemanagouda K. Naik) XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, and Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.