Madras High Court
Joint Chief Controller Of Imports And ... vs K.K. Govind Rajan, G. Murugesan And ... on 4 April, 2006
JUDGMENT S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.
1.The appeal in Crl.A.No.895 of 1995 has been filed against the acquittal of A2, A3 and A6 in E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Madras as per the judgment dated 30.12.1994.
2. The appeal in Crl.A.No. 896 of 1995 has been filed against the acquittal of A2, A3, A6 and A7 in E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984 on the file of the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Madras as per the judgment dated 30.12.1994.
3. The appeal in Crl.A.No.897 of 1995 has been filed against the acquittal of A2, A3, A4, A7, A6 and A8 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985 on the file of the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Madras as per the judgment dated 30.12.1994.
4. Since the offence involved in all the three matters are similar in nature and some of the respondents/accused and the appellant are also one and the same, all the three cases have been taken for joint hearing and disposed of by this common judgment.
5. The brief facts that led to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-
(a) In E.O.C.C.Nos.563 of 1984 and 1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.A.Nos.895 and 896 of 1995, A1 is the fictitious firm floated by A2 to A5; A3 and A4 are sons of A2; and A5 is the wife of A2. A6 in E.O.C.C.Nos.563 and 564 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.Nos.895 and 896 of 1995 and A7 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985 was the Lower Division Clerk working in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras (JCC I & E). A7 in E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.No.896 of 1995 and A6 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.A.No.897 of 1985 was the Upper Division Clerk working in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras (JCC I & E). A8 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.A.No.897 of 1995 was Class IV employee in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras, assisting A6 and A7 in handling the files.
(b) Cash compensatory support is given by the Government of India to eligible exporters and they are eligible at 10% of the export value. The exporter should be eligible member in the Handloom Export Promotion Council and it should have been a registered firm as exporter. A declaration in the prescribed form is to be submitted along with application that no such application was preferred for grant of cash compensatory support with details of invoice, exported goods value and the name of the party to whom they have exported, the particulars as to the ship through which they were exported, income tax declaration, membership certificate issued by the Handloom Export Promotion Council(HEPC) and the registration certificate issued by the said Council, bank certificate in original in the prescribed form and shipping bills giving the details of the cargo. Cash compensatory support should be given only through the bank negotiated or the bank nominated by the firm, if the firm applies for the first time for payment of cash compensatory support.
(c) In E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.No.895 of 1995, A1 firm applied on 30.3.1983 to the JCC I & E, Madras for cash compensatory support to the tune of Rs.91,940/- as if they have exported handloom clothes to the value of Rs.9,91,400/-. A6 prepared voucher in 'C' form which contained all the particulars relating to the issue of cash compensation to A1 firm. A cheque for Rs.91,940/- was issued in favour of the Indian Overseas Bank, Madras for payment to A1 firm. A2 gave a receipt in the letter-head of Shri Krishna Kumar Textiles for Rs.91,940/- and has signed as Krishnakumar in the letter-head of A1 firm. Account was opened in the Indian Overseas Bank, Washermanpet, Madras by A3 as Krishnakumar. A4 and A5 accompanied A3 to the Bank when account was opened. A3 operated the account by signing as Krishnakumar and withdrew the money. Thus, A1 to A6 entered into a criminal conspiracy and A2 produced false and forged documents and in pursuance of the conspiracy A3 opened account in the fictitious name and A6 having prepared 'C' form with false particulars she abetted the other accused. Accordingly, charge-sheet has been filed against A1 to A6 punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 471 and 468 I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
(d) In E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.No.896 of 1995, A1 firm applied for cash compensatory support on 31.10.1982 for Rs.96,160/-, on 20.12.1982 for Rs.93,910/- and on 3.1.1983 for Rs.96,160/-, on 29.11.1982 for Rs.92,410/- and on 22.3.1983 for Rs.91,660/-. These applications were processed by A6 and one application by A7 in the office of the JCC I & E, Madras. On these applications payments were made by cheques and the cheques were despatched by registered post to A1 firm. A7 made the first despatch while the despatch in respect of other cheques was made by A6. All these cheques were despatched in the account No.301 opened in the Bank of Madura Limited, Triplicane, Madras, in the name of M/s. Rajaram Textiles (A1). The amounts were withdrawn from the above account and deposited in the account of S.Ramkumar opened by A3 and they were later withdrawn. Thus A2 to A5 with the active connivance of A6 and A7 entered into criminal conspiracy, submitted false claims to the JCC I & E office towards cash compensatory support to the total sum of Rs.4,70,290/- and obtained the same for which they were not entitled to and that A6 and A7 failed to prepare the cheques in the name of the bank and enabled the cheques to be despatched to A1 firm. Accordingly, charge-sheet has been filed against A1 to A7 punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 471 read with 467, 419 and 468 I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
(e) In E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.A.No.897 of 1995, A1 firm applied for cash compensatory support on 16.10.1982 for Rs.95,410/-, on 25.11.1982 for Rs.89,910/-, on 20.12.1982 for Rs.95,180/- and also on 27.1.1983 and 4.3.1983. Some of the applications were processed by A6 and some of the applications by A7 in the office of the JCC I & E, Madras. After perusing all the papers, payments were made by cheques and the cheques were despatched by registered post to A1 firm. A8 used to collect the despatch details relating to claims of A1 firm and pass them on to A2. All these cheques were despatched in the bank and amounts were withdrawn. Thus, A2 to A5 with the active connivance of A6 to A8 entered into criminal conspiracy, submitted false claims to the JCC I & E office towards cash compensatory support to the total sum of Rs.4,62,300/- and obtained the same for which they were not entitled to and that A6 and A7 failed to prepare the cheque in the name of the bank and enabled the cheques to be despatched to A1 firm. Accordingly, charge-sheet has been filed against A1 to A8 punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 471 read with 468 I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
6. In all the three cases separate evidence was let in before the trial Court. In E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984, subject matter of the appeal in Crl.A.No.895 of 1995, P.Ws.1 to 23 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-69 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked and against such evidence, the accused in the said case marked Ex.D-1. In E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984, subject matter of the appeal in Crl.A.No.896 of 1995, P.Ws.1 to 42 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-299 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked and against such evidence, the accused in the said case marked Exs.D-1 and D-2. In E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985, subject matter of the appeal in Crl.A.No.897 of 1995, P.Ws.1 to 33 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-306 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked and against such evidence, the accused in the said case marked Exs.D-1 and D-2.
7. As per trial Court judgment, when the accused in E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984 were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating evidence made available against them, A1 to A5 have stated that they do not know anything, A6 has stated that she was attached to the despatch section and she was asked to attend to this work and therefore she filled up the 'C' form and thereafter she handed over the file to the Dealing Assistant. At that stage, on the application made by A1, A4 and A5 under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C., they were discharged from the charges levelled against them on 23.10.1987. Then charges were framed against other accused, viz., under Sections 120B, 420, 471 read with 467 and 468, I.P.C. and Section 5 of Imports and Exports Act against A2; under Section 120B, 420, 419, 468, 471 read with 468 I.P.C. and Section 5 of Imports and Exports Act against A3; and under Section 120B I.P.C. and Section 5 of Imports and Exports Act against A6. When questioned A2, A3 and A6, they pleaded not guilty to the charges. Then after further cross-examination of all the witnesses, A2, A3 and A6 were questioned under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C. and they stated that they have nothing to do with the case. Eventhough they stated that they have got witnesses to be examined in defence, they did not examine any witness.
8. As per trial Court judgment, when the accused in E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984 were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating evidence made available against them, A2 to A5 have admitted that they were partners of M/s.Ranganayaki Extraction Company, Kumarapalayam and the transaction with regard to that company with Bank and other offices and they have denied all other evidence against them. A6 and A7 admitted having prepared the 'C' forms and they stated that they have nothing to do with the cases. At that stage, on the application made by A1, A4 and A5 under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C., they were discharged from the charges levelled against them on 23.10.1987. Then charges were framed against other accused, viz., under Sections 120B, 471 read with 467 (two counts), 471 read with 468, 419, and 468 (two counts) I.P.C. and Section 5 of Imports and Exports Act against A2; under Section 120B, 419, 468, 471 read with 468 I.P.C. and Section 5 of Imports and Exports Act against A3; and underSection 120B I.P.C. and Section 5 of Imports and Exports Act against A6 and A7. When questioned A2, A3, A6 and A7, they pleaded not guilty to the charges. Then P.Ws.43 and 44 were examined on the side of prosecution and the accused were given opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses. Thereafter accused were questioned under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C. and they stated that they have nothing to do with the case. The accused did not examine any witness in defence.
9. As per trial Court judgment, when the accused in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985 were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them, A2 to A5 have admitted that they were partners of M/s.Ranganayaki Extraction Company, Kumarapalayam and the transaction with regard to that company with Bank and other offices and they have denied all other evidence against them. A6 stated that the applications will be checked at the Special Counter and then only they will be sent to him. A7 stated that she is only attached to despatch and that since the Dealing Assistant was not available she was asked to attend the preparation of 'C' forms. A8 also denied the evidence against him. At that stage, on the application made by A1 and A5 under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C., they were discharged from the charges levelled against them on 23.10.1987. Then charges were framed against other accused, viz., under Sections 120B, 420, 471 read with 467, 471 read with 468 (two counts), 419 and 468 I.P.C. and Section 5 of Imports and Exports Act against A2; under `Section 120B, 419, 468, 471 read with 468 I.P.C. and Section 5 of Imports and Exports Act against A3 and under Section 120B I.P.C. and Section 5 of Imports and Exports Act against A4 and A6 to A8. When questioned A2, A3, A4 and A6 to A8, they pleaded not guilty to the charges. Then P.Ws.34 and 35 were examined on the side of prosecution. Thereafter accused were questioned under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C. and they stated that they have nothing to do with the case. The accused did not examine any witness in defence.
10. The trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced on either side, by recording finding that A2, A3 and A6 in E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984; that A2, A3, A6 and A7 in E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984 and that A2 to A4 and A6 to A8 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985 are not guilty in respect of the charges levelled against them, acquitted them by separate judgments. Challenging the said judgments, these appeals are filed by the Complainant.
11.Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases for the appellant/complainant and the learned counsel for the respondents in all the appeals.
12. The firm A1 in all the three cases, viz., M/s.Sri Krishna Kumar Textiles, Madras 21 in E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.No.895 of 1995; M/s.Rajaram Textiles, Madras-21 in E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.No.896 of 1995; and M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Textiles, Madras-21 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.A.No.897 of 1995; A4 G.Chandrasekaran and A5 Rangnayaki in E.O.C.C.Nos.563 and 564 of 1984; and A5 Ranganayagi in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985 were discharged on 23.10.1987 by the trial Court as no case is made out for framing charges as per order dated 23.10.1987 at the instance of the counsel for the said accused.
13.With regard to E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984 subject matter of Crl.A.No.895 of 1995, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases for the appellant/complainant vehemently contended that the finding of the trial Court not considering the evidence of P.Ws.2, 8, 9, 18, 21 and 22 with regard to the identity of the accused, is not correct, in that the above witnesses had ample opportunities to see the accused earlier for identifying the accused in the Court and as such, the test identification parade was not at all necessary to identify the accused. He also submitted that the trial Court is not proper in rejecting the evidence of P.W.19, Handwriting Expert that there were dissimilarities in the writing compared by the Expert, though Expert has given evidence that there are no dissimilarities. He further submitted that the trial Court is not correct in rejecting the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 16 showing that A6 was privy to the obtaining of cash compensatory support by fraudulent means by the other accused in the case. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that A6 as a public servant misconducted herself in the transactions as per the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 16.
14.With regard to E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984 subject matter of Crl.A.No.896 of 1995, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases for the appellant/complainant vehemently contended that the finding of the trial Court not considering the evidence of P.Ws.2, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 12 with regard to the identity of the accused, is not correct, in that the above witnesses had ample opportunities to see the accused earlier for identifying the accused in the Court and as such, the test identification parade was not at all necessary to identify the accused. He also submitted that the trial Court is not proper in rejecting the evidence of P.W.34, Handwriting Expert that there were dissimilarities in the writing compared by the Expert, though Expert has given evidence that there are no dissimilarities. He further submitted that the trial Court is not correct in rejecting the evidence of P.Ws.23 and 26 showing that A6 and A7 were privy to the obtaining of cash compensatory support by fraudulent means by the other accused in the case. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that A6 and A7 as public servants misconducted themselves in the transactions as per the evidence of P.Ws. 14 and 16.
15. With regard to E.O.C.C. No. 1410 of 1985 subject matter of Crl.A.No.897 of 1995, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases for the appellant/complainant vehemently contended that the finding of the trial Court not considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 28, 30 and 31 with regard to the identity of the accused, is not correct, in that the above witnesses had ample opportunities to see the accused earlier for identifying the accused in the Court and as such, the test identification parade was not at all necessary to identify the accused. He also submitted that the trial Court is not proper in rejecting the evidence of P.W.27, Handwriting Expert that there were dissimilarities in the writing compared by the Expert, though Expert has given evidence that there are no dissimilarities. He further submitted that the trial Court is not correct in rejecting the evidence of P.Ws. 16, 17 and 18 showing that A6, A7 and A8 were privy to the obtaining of cash compensatory support by fraudulent means by the other accused in the case. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that A6, A7 and A8 as public servants misconducted themselves in the transactions as per the evidence of P.Ws. 14 and 16.
16. Mr. V. Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/A2 and A3 in all the cases vehemently contended that the applications claiming cash compensatory support for the purported export business by floating fictitious firms, viz., M/s.Krishnakumar Textiles, M/s.Rajaram Textiles and Ramakrishnan Textiles in Washermanpet and Old Washermanpet, Madras enclosing false and forged documents, were not marked on the side of the prosecution and that only 'C' forms, as per which sanction for cash compensatory support was granted and the cheques issued in pursuance of such sanction orders alone were produced on the side of the prosecution and as such, there is nothing to indicate that necessary applications were actually submitted by A2 to the office of JCC I & E, Madras during the relevant time claiming cash compensatory support. Merely because 'C' forms, as per which sanction for cash compensatory support was granted and the cheques issued in pursuance of such sanction orders, have been marked on the side of the prosecution, no inference can be drawn that A2 and A3 by impersonating fictitious persons, viz., Krishnakumar, Rajaram and Ramakrishnan by floating the firms, viz., M/s.Krishnakumar Textiles, M/s.Rajaram Textiles and M/s.Ramakrishnan Textiles and opening the fictitious accounts in the Indian Overseas Bank, Washermanpet, Madras; Bank of Madura, Triplicane, Madras; and Andhra Bank, Ashok Nagar, Madras had withdrawn the cash compensatory support of Rs.91,940/-, R.4,70,300/- and Rs.4,63,300/- respectively and cheated the JCC I & E.
17. It is also argued by the learned senior counsel for R1 and R2/A2 and A3 that much reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of P.Ws.2, 8, 9, 18, 21 and 22 in E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.No.895 of 1995; P.Ws.2, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 12 in E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.No.896 of 1995 and P.Ws.1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 28, 30 and 31 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.A.No.897 of 1995 in identifying A2 and A3, in that test identification parade was also not conducted to identify A2 and A3 by the said witnesses.
18. Then, it is argued by the learned senior counsel for A2 and A3 in all the appeals that the evidence and the opinion of the Handwriting Experts cannot be a conclusive proof to identify A2 and A3 and conviction cannot be made solely on the opinion of the Experts. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relied on the decision in Magan Bihari Lal vs. State of Punjab reported in 1977 Criminal Law Journal 711, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:-
It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction.
19. Learned senior counsel for A2 and A3 in all the appeals further contended that inasmuch as the trial Court recorded proper finding and such finding being not perverse and there is no compelling reasons for interference and if two views are possible this court cannot reevaluate the evidence and take different view, the acquittal of A2 and A3 in all the cases need not be disturbed in the appeals against acquittal. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel for A2 and A3 in all the cases relied on the following decisions:-
(1) Awadhesh v. State of M.P. reported in 1988 Criminal Law Journal 1154, (2) Garasia Ratubha Hanubha v. State of Gujarat reported in 1997 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 195, (3) Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P. Reported in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 432 and (4) Kunju Muhammed v. State of Kerala reported in 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 1425.
20. The learned counsel appearing for Mohan Raj Sundaram R4(A7) in Crl.A.No.896 of 1995 and R5(A6) in Crl.A.No.897 of 1995 submitted that Mohan Raj Sundaram, was the Upper Division Clerk working in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras, during the relevant period and no case is made out against Mohan Raj Sundaram by the prosecution and the prosecution also failed to establish the guilt of the said accused, in that Shenbagam, A7 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985, who is the lower division clerk was in-charge of processing and custody of the entire file and she only prepared 'C' forms and signed on the reverse of it and she being the lowest officer dealing with the cash compensatory support application and the relevant file have to be checked and verified by four or five sections including account section and till such time, the cheque is finally prepared, the application is scrutinised and endorsed in the respective sections. It is further submitted that above the rank of Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk, there have been Licensing Assistant, to find out whether the papers are in order and Mohan Raj Sundaram(A6 in Crl.A.Nos.896 and 897 of 1995) and and Rachel Shenbagam had filled up only 'C' forms and put up to the Dealing Assistant and further orders have to be passed only by the Controller after verifying the check slips and notes put up by the Dealing Assistant concerned. A6, Mohan Raj Sundaram cannot be held responsible for the issuance of the cheques concerned in these cases and which amounts, it is alleged had been withdrawn by A2 and A3 by opening accounts in the Indian Overseas Bank, Washermanpet, Madras; Bank of Madura, Triplicane, Madras; and Andhra Bank, Ashok Nagar, Madras, in fictitious names of Krishnakumar, Rajaram and Ramakrishnan. It is further submitted that merely because Mohan Raj Sundaram A7 in E.O.C.C.No.564 and A6 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985 was contacted by A2 before processing applications cannot be a basis to conclude that all the accused conspired together to cheat JCC I & E by furnishing false particulars and forged documents to get the amounts.
21. Learned counsel appearing for Mohan Raj Sundaram R4(A7) in Crl.A.No.896 of 1995 and R5(A6) in Crl.A.No.897 of 1995 further argued that when there are two views possible, the view favourable to the accused is to be adopted and the finding can be interfered only if perverse findings are recorded by the trial Court and when there is no flaw in appreciation of evidence by the trial Court, the acquittal cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view was possible. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions:-
(1) C.Antony v. K.G.Raghavan Nair , (2) Jagan M.Seshadri v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2002 Criminal Law Journal 2982 and (3) Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. reported in 2002 Criminal Law Journal 3751.
It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:-
Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference.
The said decision also relied on by the learned counsel appearing for Mohan Raj Sundaram R4(A7) in Crl.A.No.896 of 1995 and R5(A6) in Crl.A.No.897 of 1995.
22. It is admitted by A2 to A5 in E.O.C.C.Nos.564 of 1984 and 1410 of 1985 that they were partners of M/s.Ranganayaki Extraction Company, Kumarapalayam and also the transactions with regard to that company with the bank and other offices. It is admitted by A6 Rachel Shenbagam and A7 Mohan Raj Sundaram that they prepared 'C' forms.
23. Further as stated by Assistant Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras that 'C' forms in respect of the claims prepared by the accused Shenbagam(A6 in Crl.A.Nos.895 and 896 and A7 in Crl.A.No.897 of 1995) for sanctioning the cash compensatory support for the fictitious firms, viz., viz., M/s.Krishnakumar Textiles, M/s.Rajaram Textiles and M/s.Ramakrishnan Textiles do not contain the signature of Krishnakumar, Rajaram and Ramakrishnan and other persons concerned. Even the related cheques also do not contain the signature of the representative of firms viz., M/s.Krishnakumar Textiles, M/s.Rajaram Textiles and M/s.Ramakrishnan Textiles.
24. As rightly observed by the trial Court, it has not been proved that A2 and A3 opened the accounts in the Indian Overseas Bank, Washermanpet, Madras; Bank of Madura, Triplicane, Madras; and Andhra Bank, Ashok Nagar, Madras in fictitious names in the names of fictitious persons, viz., Krishnakumar, Rajaram and Ramakrishnan so as to say that subsequently they withdrawn the amounts sanctioned by way of cash compensatory support and they have not been identified by the witnesses concerned. It does not stand to reason as to how bank officials were able to identify that it is only A2 and A3, who opened such accounts. Then, this Court left only with the evidence of Handwriting Experts and the report filed by the Handwriting Experts.
25. It is well settled that the evidence and opinion of the Handwriting Experts cannot be conclusive proof and relying on such evidence, it cannot be said that A2 and A3 committed the offences as alleged, in that such evidence is not corroborated. Further, the Handwriting Experts (P.W.19 in E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984, P.W.34 in E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984 and P.W.27 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985) have stated in their evidence that they are under the administrative control of C.B.I. and they are working as Senior Scientific Officer-cum-Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Government of India; Senior Scientific Officer, Documents, Scientific Aid Unit, CBI Madras; and Chemist Grade-I, Bank Note Press, Dwas, Madhya Pradesh.
26. As regards the accused Mohan Raj Sundaram, upper division clerk and Rachel Shenbagam, lower division clerk were working in the office of the JCC I & E during relevant period. Rachel Shenbagam was only in-charge of processing and custody of the entire file and she only prepared 'C' forms and signed on the reverse of it. Above upper division clerk and lower division clerk, there have been Licensing Assistant to verify the papers as to whether they are in order and the accused Mohan Raj Sundaram and Rachel Shenbagam had only filled up the 'C' forms and further orders have to be passed after verifying the check slips and note put up by the Dealing Assistant concerned. Therefore, Mohan Raj Sundaram and Rachel Shenbagam cannot be held responsible for the issuance of cheques concerned in these cases and which amounts, it is alleged, had been withdrawn by A2 and A3 by opening accounts in the Indian Overseas Bank, Washermanpet, Madras; Bank of Madura, Triplicane, Madras and Andhra Bank, Ashok Nagar, Madras in fictitious names, viz., Krishnakumar, Rajaram and Ramakrishnan floating fictitious firms viz., M/s.Krishnakumar Textiles, M/s.Rajaram Textiles and M/s.Ramakrishnan Textiles.
27. It is in evidence that A2 contacted A7 before processing application and from that it cannot be said that all the accused conspired together to cheat JCC I & E by enclosing false and forged documents to get cash compensatory support.
28. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents also lend support to the contentions that if two views are possible, the finding of acquittal cannot be interfered with since there is nothing to show that perverse finding has been recorded by the trial Court. There is no compelling and accepting reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal made by the trial Court.
29. The trial Court in appreciating the evidence let in on either side rightly recorded finding that no case is made out against the respondents in these cases, subject matter of these appeals and accordingly, no perverse findings were recorded in acquitting the said accused. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court do not call for any interference.
30. In the result, all the three appeals fail and are dismissed. The separate judgments dated 30.12.1994, passed in E.O.C.C.Nos.563 and 564 of 1984 and 1410 of 1985 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Madras, acquitting the respondents are confirmed.