Bangalore District Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Smt.B.K.Usha Devi on 31 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XLVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR
C.B.I. CASES (CCH-48), BENGALURU.
Dated this the 31st day of July 2015
Present: SRI.ASWATHA NARAYANA, B.Sc., LL.M.,
XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
SPECIAL CRIMINAL CASE No.128/1999
COMPLAINANT: Central Bureau of Investigation,
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Anti Corruption Branch,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
-Vs-
ACCUSED: Smt.B.K.Usha Devi,
Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Anandanagara Branch,
HMT Layout,
Bengaluru-560 024.
R/o."Harusha" No.755 (New No.64),
II Main, II Stage, 'E' Block,
Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru-560 010.
(By Sri.S.R.Krishna Kumar,
Advocate.)
2 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
1. Nature of Offence: Offence punishable under
Sections 409, 468, 471 and
477-A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Sections
13(2) r/w. 13(1)(c) and (d)
of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Date of Commission of
Offence: In between 1996 and 1998.
3. Date of First Information
Report: 18.06.1998.
4. Date of Arrest of the
Accused: Not Arrested.
5. Date of Commencement
of Evidence: 07.11.2002.
6. Date of Closure of
Evidence : 17.01.2008.
7. Date of Pronouncement
of Judgment: 31.07.2015.
8. Result of the Case : Acquitted.
(ASWATHA NARAYANA)
XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Bengaluru.
-o0o-
3 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
JUDGMENT
This Charge Sheet is filed alleging that, while the Accused was functioning as Public Servant in the capacity of the Manager of Punjab National Bank, Anandanagara Branch (for short, 'the Bank'), during the period between 1996 and 1998, abusing her official position dishonestly and fraudulently opened Savings Funds Accounts (for short, 'the S.F.A/c.s) in the names of fictitious and non-existing persons, namely-Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri; fraudulently showed credit of Rs.2,63,626/-, Rs.2,63,840/- and Rs.5,52,241/- to those accounts purportedly from the proceeds of closed Fixed Deposit Accounts; withdrawn Rs.10,87,570/- in all from those Accounts; misappropriated the said amount; caused wrongful loss to the Bank and made corresponding wrongful gain for herself, by creating false Transfer Debit and Transfer Credit Vouchers and other documents and also by forging the signatures of Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri; altered or manipulated entries in the Books of Accounts of the Bank with an intention to defraud the Bank and that 4 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] thereby, she has committed the offence punishable under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act).
2. After appearance of the Accused before this Court, Copies of Charge Sheet and other documents were furnished to her. After hearing both the sides before framing Charge, on 04.10.2002, the then Presiding Officer of this Court framed Charge against the Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477-A of the IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act. The same was read over and explained to the Accused. She pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried.
3. Then, the Complainant got examined 28 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.28, got marked 95 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.95 and also got marked one material object as M.O.1 on his behalf. With that evidence, he closed his side.
5 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
4. On examination of the Accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.,'), she did not admit the incriminating evidence appearing against her. She also filed her Statement of Defense in writing. She got examined one witness as D.W.1 and got marked 14 documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.14 on her behalf. With that evidence, the Accused also closed her side.
5. During the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out some typographical errors in the Charge. After hearing both the sides, on 30.05.2015, the then Presiding Officer of this Court framed Amended Charge in respect of those errors. When the same was read over and explained to the Accused, she pleaded not guilty to the same. When an opportunity was given to both the sides for adducing additional evidence, if any, on the Amended Charge, both the parties did not choose to adduce any additional evidence. As no such additional evidence was adduced and as the examination of the Accused made already under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., covered all the incriminating evidence against 6 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] the Accused, the Court found it not necessary to examine the Accused further.
6. Heard arguments of both the sides. Perused Written Arguments filed on behalf of both the parties. Records also perused.
7. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused has relied upon the following citations:-
(1) Anil Kumar Bose -Vs- State of Bihar [AIR 1974 SUPREME COURT 1560];
(2) Bhagirath -Vs- State of
Madhya Pradesh [1976,
Supreme Court 975
(MANUPATRA)];
(3) Abdul Karim Madar Sahab -Vs-
State of Mysore [AIR 1979
Supreme Court 1506];
(4) Nand Kumar -Vs- State of
Bihar [AIR 1992 Supreme Court
1939];
7 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
(5) Balakrishnan -Vs- The State by
Special Police Establishment
Madras Branch [1994-CRI.L.J.
1258 MANU/TN/0101/1992];
(6) Jarnail Singh -Vs- State of
Punjab [AIR 1996 SUPREME
COURT 755];
(7) Subhash Kharate -Vs- State of
M.P. [2000 Criminal.L.J.1178];
(8) Ramesh Thete -Vs- State of
Madhya Pradesh [2010
Criminal.L.J.2300]
8. Sum and substance of the principles laid down in the decisions of the above citations are as follows:-
For the purpose of holding the Accused guilty, the evidence adduced must establish mens rea on their part, beyond reasonable doubt.
When substratum of evidence examined by prosecution was found to be false only course open to Court was to reject the prosecution case in entirety.
It is well settled that the Prosecution can succeed by substantially proving the very story it alleges. It must stand on its own legs. It cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defence. Nor can the court, on its own
8 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] make out a new case for the prosecution and convict the accused on that basis.
It is not open to the Court to draw an adverse inference against the defence merely because the explanation given by the Accused is not convincing.
In criminal trial, burden lies on Prosecution and it cannot fall back solely open evidence adduced by the Accused in his defence.
The burden on the Accused to prove his explanation or the defence is not the same as lie on the shoulders of the prosecution. If the explanation furnished by the Accused is substantiated to probabilize his defence, it discharges the burden of Accused.
9. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and principles of law of the decisions of the above citations, this case is dealt with.
10. The Points that arise for determination in this case are as follows:-
(1) Whether the Complainant has proved that the Accused dishonestly and fraudulently opened S.F.A/c.s in the names of fictitious and non-existing persons, namely- Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri by creating false documents as alleged?
9 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] (2) Whether the Complainant has proved that the Accused dishonestly and fraudulently transferred and credited money to the said fictitious Accounts by creating false Transfer Debit Vouchers, Transfer Credit Vouchers and other documents as alleged?
(3) Whether the Complainant has proved that the Accused dishonestly and fraudulently withdrawn a sum of Rs.10,87,570/- by creating false Credit and Debit Slips and also Withdrawal Slips from those fictitious Accounts as alleged?
(4) Whether the Complainant has proved that the Accused fraudulently and dishonestly altered and manipulated entries in the Books of Accounts of the Bank with an intention to Cheat and Defraud the Bank as alleged?
(5) Whether the Complainant has proved that the Accused misappropriated Rs.10,87,570/- and that thereby she caused wrongful loss to the Bank to that extent as alleged?
(6) Whether the Complainant has proved that the Accused is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477-A of the IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(c) and
(d) of the PC Act as alleged?
(7) What Order?
10 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
11. Findings of this Court on the above Points are as follows:-
Point-1: Negative;
Point-2: Negative;
Point-3: Negative;
Point-4: Negative;
Point-5: Negative;
Point-6: Negative;
Point-7: See final portion of this Judgment.
REASONS
UNDISPUTED FACTS
12. The Accused was a Public Servant within the meaning of Section 2 of the P.C. Act working in the capacity of the Manager of the Bank from 01.02.1995 to 23.02.1998. In her capacity of Public Servant as a Manager of the Bank, she was entrusted with the funds of the Bank.
13. While the Accused was working in the Bank in the capacity of Manager, on 13.01.1998, she sent a Weekly Statement of Affairs of the Bank as per Ex.P.2 11 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] pertaining to the week ending 09.01.1998 to the Regional Office of the Bank. Later, she took back that Statement from the Regional Office on the ground that there were clerical errors and submitted Revised Weekly Statement as per Ex.P.3 to the Regional Office.
14. P.W.1-Sri.Purushan Vava was the Regional Manager of the Punjab National Bank, Bengaluru Region during 1996 to 1999. The Bank is in Bengaluru Region. After receipt of Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3, the Regional Office suspected some irregularities in the transactions of the Bank. On this ground and on the ground that P.W.1 was receiving anonymous telephone calls about the illegalities in the transactions of the Bank, P.W.1 sent P.W.6- Sri.Govindraj Shetty for inspection. P.W.6 was working as Senior Manager in the Audit Section of Regional Office at that time. After receiving Report from P.W.6 as per Ex.D.10, P.W.1 informed the same to Zonal Office. Subsequently, Sri.G.R.Sundar Raj and P.W.17-Sri.V.Vijay Kumar, who were the Inspectors of Punjab National Bank, and also P.W.6 inspected the Bank about the alleged illegalities and 12 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] submitted Reports as per Ex.D.9, Ex.D.12 and Ex.D.7 respectively.
15. Meanwhile, by an Order dated 21.02.1998, the Accused was transferred to Bengaluru City Office. P.W.2-Sri.Jaiprakash took charge of the post of Manager by relieving the Accused. Ex.P.4 is the Charge Taking Report in this regard. P.W.2 was working as Assistant Manager in the Bank on deputation from 10.11.1997 to 27.03.1998.
16. On the allegations of illegalities in the Bank transactions, the Accused was kept under suspension on 27.02.1998. Ex.D.4 is the Copy of Suspension Order in this regard. Ultimately on 29.10.1998, she was dismissed from the service by holding a Departmental Enquiry. Ex.D.8 is the Copy of Order in respect of that Enquiry. Ex.P.81 is the History Sheet of the Accused regarding her services in the Punjab National Bank.
17. During internal inspection and investigation, Reports regarding Fraud were also submitted as per Ex.P.6, Ex.D.2, Ex.D.3, Ex.D.13 and Ex.D.14 to the 13 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Superior Officers of the Bank. On the basis of all the Internal Inspection and Investigation Reports, on 18.06.1998, P.W.1 lodged Complaint as per Ex.P.1 to the Complainant. On the strength of that Complaint, P.W.28-Sri.P.K.Ramachandran, the then Inspector of Police of the Complainant, registered the case and submitted FIR as per Ex.P.87.
18. On 25.06.1998, on the strength of the Search Warrant issued by the Court, Inspector Sri.Ramakrishna searched the factory premises of Vishal Industries belonged to the husband of the Accused and seized articles as mentioned in the Search List-Ex.P.90.
19. On the same day, on the strength of Search Warrant issued by the Court, P.W.28 searched the house of the Accused and seized articles as mentioned in the Search List-Ex.P.88. Ex.P.89 is the Inventory prepared by him in this regard.
20. On 10.07.1998, P.W.28 seized Pay-in-Slips- Ex.P.7 & Ex.P.33, Specimen Signature Card-Ex.P.10, Debit Vouchers-Ex.P.11, Ex.P.15 & Ex.P.47, 14 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Withdrawal Slips-Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14 & Ex.P.16, Letter-Ex.P.17, Ledger Sheets-Ex.P.35, Ex.P.46 & Ex.P.49, Debit Slip-Ex.P.36 and F.D.Receipt-Ex.P.43 from the then Manager of the Bank under Seizure List Ex.P.91. Ex.D.5 is the Copy of Letter written by P.W.28 and Ex.D.6 is the Letter given by the Bank in this regard.
21. On 06.10.1998, P.W.28 seized Payment Vouchers-Ex.P.21 & Ex.P.22, Credit Vouchers-Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.31 & Ex.P.37, Specimen Signature Card- Ex.P.52 and Ledger Sheets-Ex.P.57 & Ex.P.58 from the then Manager of the Bank under a Seizure Memo- Ex.P.92.
22. On 07.10.1998, P.W.28 collected Report on Actual or Suspected Frauds in Banks-Ex.P.6 from the then Manager of the Bank under a Receipt Memo- Ex.P.93.
23. On 12.10.1998, P.W.28 collected Withdrawal Slip-Ex.P.12, Cashier's Long Books- Ex.P.19 & Ex.P.20, Cash Book-Ex.P.34, Debit Slip- Ex.P.36, Debit Voucher-Ex.P.47, Cash Order-Ex.P.50, 15 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Cash Book-Ex.P.55 and Transfer Journal Book-Ex.P.56 from the then Manager under a Receipt Memo- Ex.P.94.
24. On 09.01.1999, P.W.28 collected Cash Orders-Ex.P.42 & Ex.P.50 and FD Receipt-Ex.P.44 from P.W.10-Sri.Sheikh Shamshuddin, who was the Officer working in the Bank from July 1966 to April 1999.
25. On 12.01.1999, P.W.28 collected Extracts of Statement of Accounts-Ex.P.64 & Ex.P.65 from P.W.15-Sri.Mahalinga Bhat under a Receipt Memo- Ex.P.66.
26. On 20.04.1999, P.W.28 seized SB Account Pass Book-Ex.P.59 from P.W.12-Dr.Gopal Krishna Murthy under a Seizure Mahazar-Ex.P.60.
27. On 07.06.1999, P.W.28 seized Weekly Statement of Affairs-Ex.P.2 & Ex.P.3, Letter dated 08.10.1996-Ex.P.72, Letter dated 14.08.1994- Ex.P.74, Letter dated 10.08.1994-Ex.P.75, Letter dated 01.02.1994-Ex.P.76, Letter dated 08.06.1993- Ex.P.77 and Letter dated 19.11.1991-Ex.P.78 from 16 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] P.W.19-Sri.Y.J.Rai, who was the Senior Manager working at Bengaluru Regional Office of the Punjab National Bank during the year 1999 under a Seizure Memo-Ex.P.80. On the same day, under another Seizure Mahazar-Ex.P.79, P.W.28 seized Charge Taking Report-Ex.P.4 from P.W.19.
28. On 17.06.1999, P.W.28 seized Letter dated 09.11.1996-Ex.P.17 and Day Book-Ex.P.68 under Seizure Memo-Ex.P.95.
29. On 07.07.1999, P.W.28 sent Account Opening Form-Ex.P.9, Specimen Signature Card of Smt.Saraswathi Amma-Ex.P.10, Credit Voucher dated 19.07.1996-Ex.P.11, Withdrawal Slips-Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13 & Ex.P.14, Debit Vouchers-Ex.P.15, Ex.P.47, Ex.P.53 & Ex.P.67, Letter dated 09.11.1996 for closing S.F.A/c.No.7186-Ex.P.17, Payment Vouchers- Ex.P.21 & Ex.P.22, Debit Slip-Ex.P.36, Credit Vouchers-Ex.P.37 & Ex.P.48, Account Opening Form relating to S.F.A/c.No.7300-Ex.P.51, Specimen Signature Card-Ex.P.52, Letter dated 8.10.1996- Ex.P.72, Letter dated 05.07.1995-Ex.P.73, Letter dated 14.08.1994-Ex.P.74, Letter dated 10.08.1994- Ex.P.75, Letter dated 01.02.1994-Ex.P.76, Letter 17 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] dated 08.06.1993-Ex.P.77, Letter dated 19.11.1991- Ex.P.78 and Specimen Writing and Signatures of the Accused-Ex.P.84, to P.W.27-Sri.M.Krishna, the then Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for examination. After examination, P.W.27 returned all those Documents to P.W.28 along with his Opinion-Ex.P.85 and Reasons for his Opinion- Ex.P.86.
30. On 21.08.1998, P.W.28 seized a Typewriter- M.O.1 from Captain Ravi.
31. On 23.04.1999, P.W.28 seized Computer Printer from P.W.13-Sri.B.K.Venkatesh Prasad, who is the brother of the Accused, under a Seizure Memo- Ex.P.61 and Mahazar-Ex.P.62.
32. After completing investigation, P.W.28 filed Charge Sheet against the Accused. He did not take sanction for Prosecution of the Accused on the ground that as on the date of filing of the Charge Sheet, the Accused was not in service having been dismissed from the service.
18 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
33. The Complainant has filed one more case in Special Criminal Case No.129/1999 against the Accused. Some of the documents produced in that case are marked in this case also and vice-versa. Similarly, some of the witnesses examined in that case are examined in this case also and vice-versa. However, P.W.11-Sri.Ayyappan Kutty, P.W.23- Sri.Poonacha and P.W.24-Sri.Afzal Ahamed examined in this case are the witnesses pertaining to Special Criminal Case No.129/1999 and they are not relevant witnesses to this case. All these facts are not under dispute.
POINT-1
34. According to the Complainant, on 19.07.1996, the Accused opened S.F.A/c.No.7186 in the name of fictitious and non-existing person, namely-Smt.Saraswathi Amma and on 20.11.1996, she also opened another S.F.A/c.No.7300 in the names of fictitious and non-existing persons, namely- Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri fraudulently and dishonestly by creating false documents. The Accused has denied the said contention of the Complainant. Having regard to the alleged transactions, evidence 19 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] placed and contentions raised, it is just and convenient to determine this Point under the following heads:-
A) Opening of S.F.A/c.No.7186 in the name of Smt.Saraswathi Amma.
B) Opening of S.F.A/c.No.7300 in the names of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt. Gowri.
C) Fictitiousness and Non-existence of Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri.
D) Conclusion.
A) Opening of S.F.A/c. No.7186 in the name of Smt. Saraswathi Amma:-
35. P.W.5-Smt.Anuradha was working as Clerk-
cum-Cashier in the Savings Funds Accounts Section of the Bank from August 1996 to July 1998. She has deposed that as Branch Manager, the Accused has opened S.F.A/c.No.7186 in the name of Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Ex.P.9 is the Account Opening Form in respect of that Account, Ex.P.33 is the Pay-in- Slip for having deposited Rs.300/- for opening that Account, the Accused has signed as an Introducer of 20 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] the Account Holder and also as an Authorised Officer for opening that Account and that except the signature of Smt.Saraswathi Amma in Ex.P.9, all the writings of Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.33 are in the hand writing of the Accused. She has further deposed that on the basis of entries in Ex.P.9, she has written name and address of the Account Holder in the Ledger Sheet- Ex.P.18 and that, entries from July 1996 to 02.08.1996 in Ex.P.18 are in her hand writing. She has also deposed that on the basis of Ex.P.33, she has made credit entry of Rs.300/- in the Cash Book- Ex.P.34 at Ex.P.34(a).
36. P.W.3-Smt.Padma Govindaswamy was working in the Bank as Special Assistant from February 1993 to August 1997 and she was in-charge of Savings Funds Accounts Branch. In her evidence, P.W.3 has deposed that the Accused has signed in the Introducer's column of Ex.P.9 as Introducer of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and that she has also signed in that document as an Authorised Official for opening Account. She has identified Ex.P.9(a) and Ex.P.9(b) as the said signatures of the Accused in Ex.P.9. She has further deposed that except the signatures of 21 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Smt.Saraswathi Amma, entire Ink written contents of Ex.P.9 are in the handwriting of the Accused. She has further deposed that Ex.P.10 is the Specimen Signature Card of Smt.Saraswathi Amma relating to the said Account, name and address of the Account Holder mentioned in that document are in the handwriting of the Accused and that the Accused has attested the signatures of Smt.Saraswathi Amma in that document by putting her signature as per Ex.P.10(a). She has also identified Ex.P.18 as the Ledger Sheet pertaining to the said S.F.A/c.No.7186. In her Cross-examination, P.W.3 has admitted that officials of the Bank, including herself, used to fill up the Account Opening Forms and Withdrawal Slips on the request of the customers.
37. P.W.18-Smt.B.Malathi Balakrishna was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Bank from June 1997 to August 1998. She has deposed that Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 pertain to S.F.A/c.No.7186 and that, entries in those documents are in the handwriting of the Accused.
38. P.W.6-Sri.Govindraj Shetty was working as Senior Manager in the Audit Section of Regional 22 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Office, Punjab National Bank, Bengaluru. He has made preliminary investigation about the alleged illegal transactions of the Bank. In his evidence, P.W.6 has deposed that S.F.A/c.No.7186 of Smt.Saraswathi Amma was opened on 19.7.1996 with initial deposit of Rs.300/-, Ex.P.18 is the Ledger Sheet pertaining to that Account and that the Accused introduced the Account Holder-Smt.Saraswathi Amma for opening that Account, Ex.P.9 is the Account Opening Form, Ex.P.33 is the Cash Credit Voucher for having deposited Rs.300/- on 19.07.1996 to that Account and that, contents of Ex.P.33 as well as writings in the name of Smt.Saraswathi Amma with her address in Ex.P.9 are in the handwriting of the Accused. In his Cross-examination, P.W.6 has also admitted that Bank officials also fill up Forms and other documents in order to assist the customers for opening Accounts and for other transactions.
39. P.W.17-Sri.Vijayakumar was working as Inspector in the Head Office of Punjab National Bank and he inspected the Bank between 05.03.1998 and 27.04.1998. His evidence also corroborates the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.18 about 23 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] the opening of S.F.A/c.No.7186 in the name of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and introduction of Smt.Saraswathi Amma by the Accused herself for opening that Account.
40. Contents of Ex.P.9, Ex.P.10, Ex.P.18, Ex.P.33 and Ex.P.34(a) fully corroborate the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.18. The Accused has not disputed the said evidence placed by the Complainant. On the other hand, in her examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., she has admitted the said evidence. There is no reason to disbelieve the said evidence available on record.
41. On considering the above evidence, it is clear that the S.F.A/c.No.7186 was opened in the Bank in the name of Saraswathi Amma on 19.07.1996; the Accused herself introduced Smt.Saraswathi Amma for opening that Account; she has filled up particulars of Smt.Saraswathi Amma in the Account Opening Form, Specimen Signature Card and Pay-in-Slip; she attested the signature of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and that she authorized and permitted for opening that Account in the capacity of Manager of the Bank.
24 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] B) Opening of S.F.A/c.No.7300 in the names of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri:-
42. P.W.10-Sri.Sheikh Shamshuddin was working as Officer in the Bank from July 1996 to April 1999.
He was dealing with the Sections of Current Account Fixed Deposits, Clearing, Dispatch, Safe Deposit Lockers and Establishment in the Bank. In his evidence, P.W.10 has deposed that S.F.A/c.No.7300 was opened in the names of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri on 20.11.1996, Ex.P.51 is the Account Opening Form and Ex.P.52 is the Specimen Signature Card relating to that Account and that contents of Ex.P.51 and Ex.P.52 have been filled up by the Accused, Ex.P.51(a) to Ex.P.51(d) and Ex.P.52(a) are the signatures of the Accused and that Ex.P.35 is the Ledger Sheet in respect of that Account. He has also deposed that the Accused herself has introduced those parties to the Bank by attesting the signatures of those parties.
43. In his evidence, P.W.17 has fully supported the evidence of P.W.10. P.W.6 has also deposed that Ex.P.35 is the Ledger Sheet relating to S.F.A/c. No.7300 standing in the names of Smt.Saraswathi and 25 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Smt.Gowri. This evidence also supports the evidence of P.W.10. Contents of Ex.P.35, Ex.P.51 and Ex.P.52 fully corroborate the evidence of P.W.6, P.W.10 and P.W.17. In her examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the Accused has admitted the said evidence of P.W.6, P.W.10 and P.W.17. As such, the said admission of the Accused also fortifies the evidence of P.W.6, P.W.10 and P.W.17. There is no reason at all to disbelieve the said evidence available on record.
44. From the above undisturbed evidence of P.W.6, P.W.10 and P.W.17 and the contents of Ex.P.35, Ex.P.51 and Ex.P.52 coupled with the admission of the Accused, it is clear that the S.F.A/c. No.7300 was opened in the Bank in the names of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri on 20.11.1996; the Accused herself introduced Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri for opening that Account; she attested the signatures of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri and that she authorized and permitted in the capacity of Manager of the Bank to open that Account.
45. Ex.P.39 is a Deposit Receipt dated 28.12.1995 standing in the name of Smt.Saraswathi.
26 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Contents of the said document show that after closing that Deposit, said Smt.Saraswathi received the proceeds of the same by putting her signature as 'Saraswathi Amma' on the back portion of that Receipt. Ex.P.42 is the Cash Order received by said Smt.Saraswathi Amma in respect of that Deposit. As such, it is clear that said 'Saraswathi' and 'Saraswathi Amma' refer to one and the same person. It is not disputed by both the sides also that said 'Smt.Saraswathi' referred to above in respect of S.F.A/c.No.7300 is none other than 'Smt.Saraswathi Amma' referred to above in respect of S.F.A/c. No.7186.
C) Fictitiousness and Non-existence of Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri:-
46. As per Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10, address of Smt.Saraswathi Amma is shown as "No.978, 3rd Main, Koramangala, Bangalore". As per Ex.P.51 and Ex.P.52, address of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri is shown as "No.1548, 3rd Cross, Thyagarajanagar, Bangalore".
27 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
47. According to the Complainant, said Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri are fictitious and non-existent persons. In order to substantiate the said contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.14, P.W.16, P.W.20, P.W.27 and P.W.28
48. In her evidence, P.W.3 has deposed that she has not seen the Account Holder-Smt.Saraswathi Amma. She has again stated that she does not remember as to whether she had seen that person. However, she has further stated that she has not seen Saraswathi Amma at any time. This evidence of P.W.3 shows her inconsistent stand. In her Cross- examination, P.W.3 has stated that she can recognize about 100 to 200 customers out of about 2000 Account Holders, who were having Accounts in the Bank during 1992-1993, and that she can recognize the customers, who had approached her in connection with their Bank transactions. This evidence of P.W.3 shows that she cannot recognize all the 2000 Account Holders of the Bank, but, she can recognize about 100 to 200 customers that too who had approached her in the Bank in connection with their Bank transactions.
28 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] This witness has not stated that Smt.Saraswathi Amma is a fictitious or non-existing person. It appears that this witness had no occasion to meet Smt.Saraswathi Amma. Merely because this witness has not seen Smt.Saraswathi Amma, it cannot be inferred that Smt.Saraswathi Amma or Smt.Saraswathi is a non-existent or fictitious person. This witness has not stated that Smt.Gowri is a fictitious and non-existent person. As such, the evidence of P.W.3 is of no assistance to the Complainant to substantiate his contention.
49. P.W.28 has deposed that he sent three separate Letters through Registered Post as per Ex.P.54 and Ex.P.63 as well as Ex.P.24 of Spl.C.C.129/1999 to Smt.Saraswathi, Smt.Gowri and Smt.Saraswathi Amma and that those Letters returned unserved with Endorsements that there were no such addressees. Endorsements on Ex.P.54 and Ex.P.24 of Spl.C.C.129/1999 made by the Postman do not show that there were no such addressees. On the other hand, as per the said Endorsements, the said addresses were not in the 3rd Beat. So also, the Endorsement on Ex.P.63 indicates that House No.978 29 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] was not in the 9th Beat. As such, the evidence of P.W.28 is inconsistent with and contrary to the said Endorsements. On the other hand, in his Cross- examination, P.W.28 has clearly admitted that Smt.Sarawathi Amma, Sri.Krishna Bhat and Smt.Gowri had different kinds of Fixed Deposit Accounts. He has also specifically admitted that Sri.Krishna Bhat is the husband of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and that both these persons are existing persons and that he had met them. All these answers of P.W.28 clearly show that Smt.Saraswathi Amma or Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri are not fictitious and non-existent persons as alleged by the Complainant. This evidence negatives the contention of the Complainant.
50. P.W.7-Smt.K.Pankajavalli is the Speed Post Woman working in Beat No.3 of Thyagarajanagara Post Office during 1998. As per her evidence, Ex.P.54 was entrusted to her for delivery to Smt.Saraswathi, the House Number of that address was not in the 3rd Beat and accordingly she made Endorsement on Ex.P.54 as per Ex.P.54(a) as "Try in another Beat". It is also her evidence that Postman-Sri.Subramanyam, 30 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] who was working in 3rd Beat, has also made similar Endorsement as per Ex.P.54(b). Though Ex.P.24 of Spl.C.C.129/1999 was also entrusted to P.W.7 for delivery, she has not stated anything about the same. However, Endorsement made by P.W.7 on Ex.P.24 is similar to Ex.P.54(a).
51. P.W.14-Sri.H.S.Muniraju was working as Postman in the Post Office at 6th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore during 1998-99 and he was entrusted to do the work on Beat No.9 at that time. He has deposed that Registered Letter-Ex.P.63 dated 06.08.1998 addressed to Smt.Saraswathi Amma, No.978, 3rd Main, Koramangala, Bangalore-95, was entrusted to him for delivery, he went to 9th Beat area, but, he found that Door No.978, 3rd Main was not at all in existence in his area and that he made an endorsement on that Registered Letter as per Ex.P.63(a), as "no such number in this 9th Beat, try to other Beat" and that after making such endorsement, he returned that Letter to Postal Delivery Clerk.
52. P.W.20-Sri.M.H.Raghuveer was working as Postman in the Sub-Post Office of Koramangala 6th 31 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Block during 1998 and he was entrusted to work in Beat No.8. He has deposed that Ex.P.63 was entrusted to him for delivery in the month of August 1998, 8th Beat covers 8th Block of Koramangala, 3rd Main Road is available in 8th Block of Koramangala and that after search, he made endorsement in Ex.P.63 as per Ex.P.63(c) as "said address was not available in the 8th Beat" and that, then he returned Ex.P.63 to the Post Office.
53. P.W.16-Sri.K.S.Srinivasa Reddy was working as Delivery Clerk at Koramangala Post Office during 1998. He has deposed that he entrusted Ex.P.63 to P.W.14, who returned it to him on 11.08.1998 saying that no such address existed on his Beat. He has further deposed that thereafter he entrusted Ex.P.63 to P.W.20, who also returned it with an endorsement as "no such address on his Beat" and that thereafter, he has made an endorsement as per Ex.P.63(b), as "insufficient address, hence return to the sender"'.
54. As per the said evidence of P.W.7, P.W.14, P.W.16 and P.W.20 as well as the Endorsements on Ex.P.24 of Spl.C.C.129/1999, Ex.P.54 and Ex.P.63, 32 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] the addresses of Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri as mentioned in Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 were not in Beat No.3, Beat No.8 and Beat No.9 and the said addresses were insufficient for delivering Letters to those persons. It is not at all the evidence of the said witnesses that Smt.Saraswathi Amma or Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri are fictitious or non-existent persons. As such, the evidence of P.W.7, P.W.14, P.W.16 and P.W.20 also does not assist to the Complainant to substantiate his contention.
55. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused has relied upon the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.15 and P.W.17 to rebut the contention of the Complainant.
56. P.W.4-Smt.Asha Pannalkar was working as Chief Cashier in the Bank from 1993 to 1997. In her evidence, she has stated that as a Cashier on duty, she paid amount in cash mentioned in Withdrawal Slips-Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13, Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.16 to Smt.Saraswathi Amma, who was the Account Holder of S.F.A/c.No.7186, and that she paid the amount in 33 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] cash mentioned in Payment Vouchers-Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 to Smt.Gowri, who was the Account Holder of S.F.A/c.No.7300/-. This evidence of P.W.4 negatives the contention of the Complainant that Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Smt.Gowri are fictitious or non-existent persons. By seeking permission to Cross-examine P.W.4 on the ground that P.W.4 turned hostile, the learned Public Prosecutor Cross-examined her. In her Cross-examination, she has stated that she has not seen the Account Holders-Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Smt.Gowri and that she has paid the amount to the Accused. However, in the Cross- examination made on behalf of the Accused, P.W.4 has stated that the Cashier, who makes payment of the amount mentioned in the instrument, must take the signature of the person who receives the amount in the cash counter. She has stated that she has not violated the Rules framed by the Punjab National Bank and also the Circulars issued from time to time. She has further stated that she has stated before the Investigating Officer that she has made payment to the party, after taking signature on the reverse of the instrument presented for payment. She has also admitted that there are signatures of the Account 34 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Holders on the reverse of Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13, Ex.P.14, Ex.P.16, Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22. As per these answers of P.W.4, it is clear that after taking signatures of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Smt.Gowri on Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13, Ex.P.14, Ex.P.16, Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22, who are the Account Holders of the concerned Accounts, P.W.4 has paid amount to them in the Cash Counter. This evidence clearly negatives the contention of the Complainant that Smt.Saraswathi Amma or Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri are fictitious and non- existent persons.
57. P.W.15-Sri.Mahalinga Bhat is the son of Sri.S.Krishna Bhat and Smt.Saraswathi Amma. He has deposed that since 1991, he is residing in the house bearing No.296, 6th 'A' Main, HMT Layout, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru-32 and that during 1995-96, his parents were residing with him and that rest of the time, they were residing at Uppinangadi. He has further deposed that his parents were having Accounts at SSI Branch of Canara Bank, Peenya and F.D.s., at Anandanagara Branch of Punjab National Bank and that as per the instructions of his parents, he used to handle those accounts. In his Cross-examination, he 35 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] has stated that his parents were having S.B.A/c.s., also at Punjab National Bank, Anandanagara Branch. Ex.P.64 is the Statement of Account relating to the S.B.A/c. of Sri.S.Krishna Bhat at Canara Bank, SSI Branch and Ex.P.65 is the Statement of Account relating to Smt.Saraswathi Amma at Canara Bank, SSI Branch. As per the said evidence of P.W.15, Smt.Saraswathi Amma had Fixed Deposit Accounts and Savings Bank Account in the Bank as well as at Canara Bank, SSI Branch. As such, it is clear that Smt.Saraswathi Amma or Smt.Saraswathi is not fictitious and non-existent person. It is not at all the evidence of P.W.15 that Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Smt.Gowri were not residing in the address given in Ex.P.9, Ex.P.10, Ex.P.51 and Ex.P.52 and that they had not opened S.F.A/c.s bearing No.7186 and 7300 in the Bank. This evidence negatives the contention of the Complainant.
58. P.W.17, who has inspected the Bank, has admitted that Sri.Krishna Bhat and Smt.Saraswathi Amma were having Fixed Deposits in the Bank from 1993 itself and that Smt.Saraswathi Amma had Savings Bank Account in that Bank. He has also 36 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] deposed that Sri.Krishna Bhat and Smt.Saraswathi Amma have renewed their Fixed Deposits twice before 15.11.1996. This evidence of P.W.17 also negatives the contention of the Complainant that Smt.Saraswathi Amma or Smt.Saraswathi is fictitious and non-existent person.
59. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that, even if it is considered that Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri are not fictitious and non-existent persons, as the Accused has opened Accounts by forging their signatures, it has to be held that the said S.F.A/c.s are fictitious. In order to substantiate the said contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has strongly relied upon the evidence of P.W.27 by contending that P.W.27 has given his Opinion by comparing the Questioned Signatures of Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri with the Specimen Handwritings of the Accused, which prove that the Accused herself has put the signatures of Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri.
37 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
60. By relying upon several Judgments of Apex Court and various High Courts, the learned Authors- M.C.Sarkar, S.C.Sarkar and Prabhas C.Sarkar, in their book-'SARKAR'S LAW OF EVIDENCE', Fifteenth Edition 1999, Volume-1, at Pages-915, 916, 917, 920 and 922 have observed as follows:-
Expert evidence must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of handwriting expert. In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court has pointed out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the Court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial.
The evidence of handwriting expert is a rather weak type of evidence and the courts do not generally consider it as offering conclusive proof and, therefore, not safe to rely upon the same without seeking independent and reliable corroboration.
Having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered and in appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought.
Mere resemblances between two writings in hand-movement or curve or pen-pressure or such other things are not at all sufficient to create the conviction that they are written by one and the same person. Comparisons in these matters are not of much moment. It is the many peculiarities, 38 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] or eccentricities of a man's handwriting or spelling, or his mannerisms, if there are any, that afford good materials for comparison. The peculiarities must be of such a striking nature that a conclusion as to the identity of the writer becomes irresistible.
One of the most useful tests in a case of forgery is to see whether a clear dissimilarity of habit can be traced through the documents tendered. If there exists such a dissimilarity, then it is difficult to say that the same person wrote them all.
In examining a disputed document, the true test is not the extent of the similarities observed when compared with genuine documents, as forged documents usually are good limitations, but the nature and extent of the dissimilarities noticed. It is these differences, which expose the true character of the document in question.
The science of handwriting is not an exact science unlike the science of fingerprints. Even experts tend to commit errors in giving their opinions on the genuineness of the signatures and handwriting. Even in genuine writing, at times, the pen hesitates or even stops especially when the author is under great physical or mental strain. Sometimes, it would be difficult for an expert to examine even the genuineness of different writings, each having its own individuality, but all by the same author. It requires intelligent comparison to differentiate the genuine signature from the forged one.
Keeping in view the position of law as per above observations, it is necessary to appreciate the contention of the Complainant with reference to the evidence of P.W.27.
39 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
61. According to the Complainant, Ex.P.84, Ex.P.84(1) and Ex.P.84(2) are the Specimen Writings of the Accused. According to the Complainant, S.1 to S.4 of Ex.P.84 consist of Specimen Writings (Signatures) of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri made by the Accused and S.5 to S.8 of Ex.P.84 are the Specimen Writings (Signatures) of Smt.Saraswathi Amma made by the Accused. P.W.28 has deposed that on 14.7.1998, he obtained the said Specimen Writings of the Accused as per S.1 to S.8 in the presence of Witnesses. In his Cross-examination, he has stated that he obtained Specimen Writings of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Smt.Saraswathi in Kannada language. This answer indicates that P.W.28 obtained Specimen Writings from Smt.Saraswathi Amma and also Smt.Saraswathi. But, he has not identified as to which are those Specimen Writings. He has denied that S.1 to S.8 are not the writings made by the Accused and that after obtaining the Signatures of the Accused on blank papers, the said Writings have been made. In her Examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., also, the Accused has contended that S.1 to S.8 are not her Writings and that P.W.28 took her signatures only on blank papers. It is not the evidence 40 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] of P.W.28 that those Specimen Writings were given by the Accused voluntarily. On the other hand, as it is the evidence of P.W.28 that he obtained those Writings from the Accused during investigation, it is clear that those Writings cannot be the Writings given by the Accused voluntarily. Further more, though P.W.28 has stated that he obtained those Writings in the presence of the Witnesses, he has not given the details of those Witnesses. None among those Witnesses has come forward to support the version of P.W.28. Under these circumstances, it is not safe to rely upon the bare statement of P.W.28 that S.1 to S.8 are the Writings made by the Accused. As such, it is not possible to accept the contention of the Complainant that S.1 to S.8 are the Specimen Writings made by the Accused voluntarily.
62. P.W.27 has deposed that on examination of the Standard Writings and Signatures in the Questioned Writings, he came to the conclusion that the person, who wrote the Standard Writings stamped and marked as S.1 to S.8 also wrote the Questioned Documents similarly stamped and marked as Q.17 to Q.19 of Ex.P.9, Q.16 of Ex.P.10, Q.8 to Q.11 of Ex.P.51 and Q.1 of Ex.P.52 and that he has given his 41 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Opinion in this regard as per Ex.P.85 and that Reasons for the said Opinion as per Ex.P.86.
63. Q.1 of Ex.P.52 consists of Questioned Signatures of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri. Separate question number is not given to the Questioned Signatures of Smt.Gowri in this document. Q.9 and Q.11 of Ex.P.51 are the Questioned Signatures of Smt.Gowri. Though P.W.27 has stated in his evidence as well as in Ex.P.85 and Ex.P.86 that the person who wrote S.1 to S.8 also wrote Q.1, Q.9 and Q.11, he has not given any reason either in his evidence or in Ex.P.86 to come to such a conclusion. In fact, in Ex.P.86, he has not at all referred to the signatures of Smt.Gowri. He has admitted the said fact in his Cross-examination also. As such, it is clear that the said Opinion of P.W.27 in respect of the Questioned Signatures of Smt.Gowri relating to Q.1, Q.9 and Q.11 is without any reason. As it is the settled principle of Law that Opinion of an Expert without reason is nothing but scrap of paper and that it has no value, it is not fit to accept the bare statement of P.W.27 in his evidence as well as in 42 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.85 and Ex.P.86 that those Questioned Signatures were made by the person, who wrote S.1 to S.4.
64. As observed above, according to the Complainant, S.1 to S.4 consist of Specimen Signatures of Smt.Gowri made by the Accused. Ex.D.1 is a Photocopy consisting of those Specimen Signatures of Smt.Gowri shown in S.1 as well as the Questioned Signatures of Smt.Gowri marked as Q.1, Q.2, Q.3, Q.4, Q.4(b), Q.9 and Q.11. During Cross- examination of P.W.27, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused confronted Ex.D.1 to P.W.27. At that time, P.W.27 has stated that the word, 'Gowri' appearing in Questioned Writings and the word 'Gowri' of Standard Writings are by the same person. He has stated that, he stated so by believing that Ex.D.1 is the photograph of the document submitted by the CBI to him for examination. This answer indicates that the reason given by P.W.27, to state that Questioned Writings and Standard Writings of 'Gowri' are by the same person, is based only on the belief that Ex.D.1 was sent to him for his examination by the CBI. This circumstance shows that even without examining the documents, this P.W.27 43 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] gives his Opinion only on his belief. As such, it is not safe to rely upon his evidence and Opinion.
65. By exercising powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with the help of a powerful magnifying lens, this Court compared the Specimen Writings of Smt.Gowri appearing in S.1 to S.4 with the Questioned Signatures of Smt.Gowri appearing in Q.1, Q.9 and Q.11. On such comparison, it is noticed that size, construction, alignment, slant and style of letters, space in between the letters, pen lifts, speed and movement of those letters and also the line quality of the writings appearing in S.1 to S.4 are severely dissimilar to the letters in Questioned Signatures of Smt.Gowri. In fact, even for bare eyes, it is possible to notice such several severe dissimilarities in the Writings of Questioned Signatures and Specimen Writings. Under all these circumstances, it is not fit to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Accused has made those Questioned Signatures of Smt.Gowri.
66. Q.17 to Q.19 of Ex.P.9 and Q.16 of Ex.P.10 consist of Questioned Signatures of Smt.Saraswathi 44 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Amma, Q.8 and Q.10 of Ex.P.51 and Q.1 of Ex.P.52 consist of Questioned Signatures of Smt.Saraswathi. As observed above, according to the Complainant, S.1 to S.4 consist of Specimen Signatures of Smt.Saraswathi and S.5 to S.8 consist of Specimen Signatures of Smt.Saraswathi Amma. For his Opinion that Writings of S.1 to S.8, Q.1, Q.8, Q.10 and Q.16 to Q.19 are of the same person, P.W.27 has given Reasons in Ex.P.86 at Para-5 as under:-
"Similarities have also been observed in the vernacular writing such as: manner of writing letter 'sa' along with the shape of the initial curved part and movement of the terminal part as well as the manner of combining it with its terminal stroke along with the direction of its finish, shape of the oval part of 'ra' as well as manner of combining it with terminal stroke along with the direction of its finish with similar variations; location, direction and combination of letter 'th', shape of its lower curved part as well as the manner of combining it with the vowel sign of 'ikar' in the word 'Sarswathi", shape of the two loops of the letter 'Aa' along with the movement in the terminal part and
45 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] direction of its finish as well as the nature of the body part of the subsequent stroke, simplified nature of the character representing to the half 'misappropriated' along with its extended nature of its finish as observed in the disputed writings are similarly exemplified in the standard writings with similar variations."
67. P.W.27 has admitted in his Cross- examination that for comparison of the said Questioned Signatures of Smt.Saraswathi Amma, previous admitted Writings were not provided to him and that only the Specimen Writings were provided to him. When a passage at Page No.32 of the Book- 'Questioned Documents' written by A.S.Osborn was brought to the notice of P.W.27, P.W.27 has stated that he does not agree with the Opinion of A.S.Osborn in that passage that Specimen Writings are not the best standards for comparison. According to P.W.27, if the Specimen Writings are given voluntarily and if the said Specimen Writings are made freely, such Specimen Writings can be relied upon exclusively. According to P.W.27, in the case on hand, the Accused has given the Specimen Writings freely. But, he has admitted in the Cross-examination that 46 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] the Accused has not written the said Specimen Writings in his presence and that thereby, he cannot say that the Accused has given it voluntarily or freely. This answer of P.W.27 negatives his Statement that Specimen Writings relied upon by him were given by the Accused freely and voluntarily. As observed above, there is no acceptable evidence to show that S.1 to S.8 are the Writings made by the Accused. This circumstance also goes against the Statement of P.W.27.
68. In his Cross-examination, P.W.27 has denied that the Opinion given about Handwriting, based exclusively on the Specimen Writing in the absence of admitted Writing, is not a Good Opinion. However, he states that when the Specimens are good, proper and freely written, Specimen Writings alone can be used for comparison. He has stated that the said Opinion is his Personal Opinion based on his experience and that he does not remember that his said view is supported by any observation in any Authorized or Standard Texts. He has admitted that, if only Specimen Writings are provided, before giving any Opinion, he has to come to conclusion that the Specimen Writings are 47 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] given freely, they are good and adequate. He has stated that in his Opinion, he has mentioned that Specimen Writings supplied to him are written freely and that they are consistent among themselves forming suitable data for comparison. But, he has stated that he formed such Opinion about Specimen Writings regarding its consistency, free nature and also adequacy, only after comparison with Questioned Writings. This answer of P.W.27 shows that before comparison and examination of Questioned Writings, he did not verify and come to a conclusion that the Specimen Writings are given freely, they are good and adequate. On scrutiny of S.1 to S.8, even with bare eyes, one can say easily that those Specimen Writings are not made freely and voluntarily as there are several unnatural pen lifts, over writings, retraces, application of pressure, unusual joining and ending of strokes etc., in the said Writings. This circumstance also goes against the Statement of P.W.27, which makes difficult to accept his version.
69. As observed above, Smt.Saraswathi Amma is a living person, she had several Accounts in the Bank and in other Banks also and P.W.28 had met her 48 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] during investigation. As such, securing of admitted Signatures of Smt.Saraswathi Amma was not all difficult for P.W.28. But, he has not done so. For giving his Opinion in a better manner, P.W.27 could have secured those admitted Writings of Smt.Saraswathi Amma from P.W.28. But, he has also not done so. There is no explanation from P.W.27 and P.W.28 in this regard. In the absence of such an explanation, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the Complainant for not placing best available evidence. This circumstance strongly goes against the Complainant.
70. In his Cross-examination, P.W.27 has stated that his reasoning does not contain details in respect of each and every letter. He admits that comparison of each and every letter is necessary. To a question that as to whether whatever letter and words compared by him are reflected in his reasons, P.W.27 has stated that only significant features of the Disputed Documents as well as the Standard Writings have been mentioned by him in his Reasoning. These answers as well as contents of Ex.P.86 show that P.W.27 did not examine each and every letter of the 49 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Questioned and Specimen Writings to form an Opinion.
71. In the Cross-examination, P.W.27 has admitted that while examining a Document, dissimilarities have to be pointed out by an expert. But, he has stated that there are no dissimilarities between the Standard Writings and Disputed Writings. He has denied that though dissimilarities are apparent, he has deliberately not mentioned in his Reasoning. He has admitted that one single significant difference between letters of two writings indicate that it is by two different persons.
72. By exercising powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with the help of powerful magnifying lens, this Court compared the Questioned Signatures of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Smt.Saraswathi with the Specimen Signatures available in S.1 to S.8. On such comparison, this Court found several significant dissimilarities in the construction, shape, movement, location and direction of the letters, the manner of combining parts of those letters, formation of loops, retraces and also space in between the letters of all those Questioned Signatures 50 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] on the one part and those of letters in the Specimen Writings on the other part. Several breaks, stops and retraces are found in each of the letters of Specimen Writings. But, they are absent in the Questioned Signatures. In fact, the said dissimilarities are noticeable even for bare eyes. In view of these significant dissimilarities, it has to be inferred that the Specimen Writings and Questioned Writings are not of one and the same person. Without observing these dissimilarities and without even comparing each and every letter of the Questioned as well as Specimen Writings, P.W.27 has given his Opinion in a single sentence. Under these circumstances and in view of other discrepancies observed above in the evidence of P.W.27 and also keeping in view the question of law regarding expert evidence on handwriting, as observed above, it is not at all safe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.27 and his Opinion. Hence, it is not fit to accept the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the Accused herself has put the Signatures of Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri for opening of S.F.A/c.s., and that as such, the said S.F.A/c.s., are fictitious.
51 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] D. Conclusion:
73. From the appreciation of facts, evidence and the circumstances placed on record, as observed above, it is clear that names of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Smt.Saraswathi refer to one and the same person; said Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Smt.Gowri are not fictitious and non-existent persons; in the capacity of the Manager of the Bank, the Accused permitted to open S.F.A/c.No.7186 in the name of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and S.F.A/c.No.7300 in the name of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri; the said Accounts are not Fictitious Accounts and that there is no acceptable evidence to prove that the Accused opened those accounts by forging signatures of Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri and also by creating false documents. It has come out in the evidence placed by the Complainant that the Accused did not take photos of Account Holders, did not fill up Forms completely etc. The said lapses may amount to irregularity, but not illegality. For all these reasons, Point-1 is answered in the Negative.
52 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] POINT-2
74. According to the Complainant, by creating false Transfer Debit Vouchers and Credit Vouchers, the Accused credited Rs.2,63,626/- on 19.7.1996 and Rs.2,63,840/- on 20.07.1996 to the S.F.A/c.No.7186 of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and also credited Rs.5,52,241/- on 20.11.1996 to the S.F.A/c.No.7300 of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri, illegally. In order to substantiate the said contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.17.
75. It is the evidence of P.W.17 that on 19.07.1996, an amount of Rs.2,63,626/- was credited to the S.F.A/c.No.7186 by showing as "Proceeds of FD-MBD No.934 of Smt.Saraswathi Amma", Ex.P.11 is the Transfer Debit Voucher and that Ex.P.53 is the Transfer Voucher in this regard. He has also deposed that about that credit, there is an entry in Ex.P.18- Ledger Sheet of that Account. The evidence of P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 corroborate the evidence of P.W.17. Further, the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.5 shows that contents of Ex.P.11 are in the Handwriting of the Accused, who has authorized for crediting the amount 53 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] to the S.F.A/c. by putting her signature as per Ex.P.11(a). Contents of Ex.P.11, Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.53 fortify the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.17 regarding crediting of Rs.2,63,626/- to the S.F.A/c.No.7186 as "Proceeds of FD-MBD No.934 of Smt.Saraswathi Amma" as authorized by the Accused. The Accused has not disputed the said evidence placed by the Complainant. On the other hand, in her examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., she has admitted the said transaction.
76. As per the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.17, on 20.07.1996, as authorized by the Accused, an amount of Rs.2,63,840/- was credited to the S.F.A/c.No.7186 as "Proceeds of FD-MBD No.930 of Sri.S.Krishna Bhat"
as per Ex.P.48-Transfer Debit Voucher and Ex.P.47- Transfer Voucher. Their evidence also indicates that writings in Ex.P.47 and Ex.P.48 are in the handwriting of the Accused and that those documents bear the signatures of the Accused as an Authorised Officer. It is their evidence that there is also an entry in Ex.P.18- Ledger Sheet in respect of that transaction. Contents of Ex.P.18, Ex.P.47 and Ex.P.48 corroborate the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.17. The Accused has not 54 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] disputed this part of evidence also. On the other hand, in her examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., she has admitted the said evidence.
77. It has come out in the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.17 that on 20.11.1996, an amount of Rs.2,83,514/- was credited to the S.F.A/c.No.7300 of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri by showing debit to FD-MBD No.934 of Smt.Saraswathi and that on the same day, an amount of Rs.2,68,677/- was credited to the same S.F.A/c. by showing debit to FD-MBD No.1048 of Sri.Krishna Bhat and that in all Rs.5,52,241/- was credited to that S.F.A/c. on that day as authorized by the Accused as per Ex.P.37- Transfer Debit Voucher and Ex.P.36-Transfer Voucher. It is also their evidence that writings of Ex.P.36 and Ex.P.37 are in the Handwriting of the Accused and that the Accused has duly signed on those Documents as an Authorised Officer. Contents of Ex.P.36 and Ex.P.37 fortify the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.17. The Accused has not disputed this evidence also and on the other hand, she has admitted in her examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., about the said transaction.
55 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
78. From the above evidence, it is clear that the Accused credited Rs.2,63,626/- on 19.07.1996 to the S.F.A/c.No.7186 of Smt.Saraswathi Amma by showing as "Proceeds of FD-MBD No.934 of Smt.Saraswathi Amma", Rs.2,63,840 was credited on 20.07.1996 to the said S.F.A/c. by showing as "Proceeds of FD-MBD No.930 of Sri.S.Krishna Bhat" and that she also credited Rs.5,52,241/- on 20.11.1996 to the S.F.A/c. No.7300 of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri by showing as "Proceeds of FD-MBD No.934 of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and FD-MBD No.1048 of Sri.Krishna Bhat".
79. P.W.17 has deposed that the said transaction dated 19.7.1996 crediting Rs.2,63,626/- is unauthorized and that it is not a genuine transaction. According to P.W.17, if the said transaction was a genuine transaction, there should have been entry in respect of that transaction in Ex.P.41, but, there is no such entry. According to P.W.17, the said FD-MBD A/c.No.934 of Smt.Saraswathi Amma was closed on 15.11.1996 and proceeds of that deposit were paid to Smt.Saraswathi Amma as per Pay Order-Ex.P.42 and as such, no amount could have been transferred from 56 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] that FD A/c. to the S.F.A/c.No.7186 on 19.07.1996 and thus, the said transaction dated 19.07.1996 is fake and illegal. P.W.6 has also given evidence to that effect. Ex.P.38 and Ex.P.39 are F.D. Receipts and Ex.P.41 is the Ledger Sheet relating to FD A/c. No.934 standing in the name of Smt.Saraswathi Amma. Ex.P.41 indicates that there is no entry regarding transfer of Rs.2,63,626/- on 19.07.1996 to the S.F.A/c.No.7186. Ex.P.41 and Ex.P.42 indicate that Fixed Deposit A/c. No.934 was closed on 15.11.1996 and that proceeds of that Fixed Deposit Account i.e., Rs.2,83,564/- was paid to Smt.Saraswathi Amma through Pay Order-Ex.P.42. But, amount mentioned in Ex.P.42 do not tally with the amount mentioned in Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.53.
80. P.W.17 has deposed that the said transaction of crediting Rs.2,63,840/- on 20.07.1996 to the S.F.A/c.No.7186 is also an unauthorized transaction. According to P.W.17, in respect of Ex.P.47 and Ex.P.48 relating to the said transaction, supporting Fixed Deposit Receipts are not available. According to P.W.17, Fixed Deposit Account No.930 mentioned in Debit Voucher-Ex.P.47 was actually closed on 57 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] 15.11.1996 as per F.D. Ledger Sheet of Account No.930-Ex.P.46, proceeds of the said Fixed Deposit were paid to Sri.Krishna Bhat as per Pay Order dated 15.11.1996-Ex.P.45 and there is no entry in Ex.P.46 for transfer of Rs.2,63,840/- on 20.7.1996 to the S.F.A/c.No.7186 and as such, the said transaction dated 20.7.1996 is an illegal transaction. The evidence of P.W.6 supports the evidence of P.W.17. Fixed Deposit Receipt-Ex.P.44 and Fixed Deposit Ledger Extract-Ex.P.46 indicate that Fixed Deposit Account No.930 standing in the name of Sri.S.Krishna Bhat was closed on 19.11.1996. Pay Order-Ex.P.45 indicates that Rs.2,83,794/- being the Proceeds of the said Fixed Deposit were paid to Sri.S.Krishna Bhat on 15.11.1996. Ex.P.46 also indicates that there is no entry in that document for transfer of Rs.2,63,840/- to the S.F.A/c.No.7186 of Smt.Saraswathi Amma.
81. P.W.17 has further deposed that transaction dated 20.11.1996 showing credit of Rs.5,52,241/- to the S.F.A/c.No.7300 standing in the names of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri is also an unauthorized and illegal transaction. According to him, as FD-MBD A/c. No.934 standing in the name of 58 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Smt.Saraswathi was closed on 15.11.1996 and the Proceeds of that Deposit were paid to Smt.Saraswathi Amma on that day through Pay Order-Ex.P.42, there was nothing in that Fixed Deposit Account for transfer of Rs.2,83,564/- on 20.11.1996 to the S.F.A/c. No.7300 as per Vouchers-Ex.P.36 and Ex.P.37. According to P.W.17, as FD-MBD A/c.No.1048 standing in the name of Sri.Krishna Bhat as per Fixed Deposit Receipt-Ex.P.40 was closed on 15.11.1996 and as Rs.2,68,777/- being the proceeds of the said Fixed Deposit were paid to Sri.Krishna Bhat on the same day through Pay Order-Ex.P.50, there was nothing in that Fixed Deposit Account for transferring Rs.2,68,677/- on 20.11.1996 to the S.F.A/c.No.7300 as per Vouchers-Ex.P.36 and Ex.P.37. According to him, even there is no entry in Ledger Extract of Fixed Deposit Account No.1048-Ex.P.49 regarding transfer of Rs.2,68,677/- on 20.11.1996 to S.F.A/c.No.7300. The evidence of P.W.6 corroborates the evidence of P.W.17. Contents of Ex.P.38, Ex.P.39, Ex.P.41, Ex.P.42, Ex.P.49 and Ex.P.50 indicate the facts as stated by P.W.6 and P.W.17 in their evidence. However, Ledger Sheet-Ex.P.35 relating to S.F.A/c. No.7300 is available in respect of the transactions 59 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] only from 01.04.1997 onwards. Though the said Account was opened on 20.11.1996, Ledger Sheet relating to the transactions from 20.11.1996 up to 31.03.1997 is not produced. There is no acceptable explanation from the Complainant in this regard.
82. As observed above, the Accused has not disputed the credit transactions dated 19.07.1996, 20.07.1996 and 20.11.1996 referred to above. It is her explanation that all these transactions are genuine transactions as the said credits were made from the concerned Deposit Accounts as shown in the relevant Vouchers. It is her explanation that there is practice in the Bank to assign one Fixed Deposit Account Number for each Depositor. It is her further explanation that Fixed Deposit Account Holder can keep several Fixed Deposits in the same Account Number under different Deposit Receipts. It is the explanation of the Accused that Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Sri.Krishna Bhat had several Fixed Deposits under different Fixed Deposit Receipts, but, through one Fixed Deposit Account each in their names and that details of said Fixed Deposits will be available in the Account Opened and Closed Register 60 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] of Fixed Deposits and Balance Book pertaining to Fixed Deposits. According to the Accused, as the disputed credits are made out of the proceeds of the concerned Fixed Deposits, details of which will be available in Account Opened and Closed Register of Fixed Deposits and Balance Book pertaining to Fixed Deposits, those credits are genuine transactions. According to the Accused, as the Complainant and the Bank did not produce those Books, inspite of issue of directions by the Court, she is unable to substantiate her contention and as such, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the Complainant for withholding material evidence.
83. In the Cross-examination, P.W.6, P.W.10 and P.W.17 have admitted that in respect of one Fixed Deposit Account, there can be more than one Fixed Deposit Receipts. P.W.10 has admitted that separate sheet in the Ledger would be opened for each F.D.Receipt. P.W.17 has further admitted that one Fixed Deposit Account can have more than 2 Ledger Sheets. P.W.6 has admitted that even a person having more Fixed Deposit Receipts in the same Account, after maturity of one of the Fixed Deposit Receipt, he 61 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] can continue that Account in respect of other F.D.Receipts. Thus, it is clear that in one Fixed Deposit Account, the Account Holder can keep several deposits, each deposit will have separate Fixed Deposit Receipt and Ledger Sheet and that even after closure of one Fixed Deposit, the Fixed Deposit Account will continue in respect of other Fixed Deposit Receipts.
84. In the Cross-examination, P.W.28 has admitted that during the course of investigation, he came to know that Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Sri.Krishna Bhat, Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri had Accounts in the Bank even before 1994. So also, P.W.17 has admitted that there were several Fixed Deposits belonging to Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Sri.Krishna Bhat even since 1993 and that there were several renewals and closures of those Fixed Deposits. In the Cross-examination, P.W.6 has stated that he does not know as to how many Accounts were in the names of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri in the Bank and that he felt that it was not necessary to verify the Accounts. He has stated that he does not know that during the course of his investigation, he came across 62 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] so many Fixed Deposit Receipts and connecting Ledger Sheets in the names of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri. But, he has not denied the contention of the Accused that there were several Fixed Deposits in the names of Smt.Saraswathi, Smt.Gowri and Sri.Krishna Bhat in the Bank. As such, from the above evidence of P.W.6, P.W.17 and P.W.28, it can be inferred that there were several Fixed Deposits in the names of Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Smt.Gowri and Sri.Krishna Bhat in the Bank since 1993 itself and that those Depositors had renewed and closed their deposits several times.
85. But, all the details of those Fixed Deposits standing in the names of Sri.Krishna Bhat and Smt.Saraswathi Amma are not placed before the Court. P.W.17 has stated vaguely that in respect of 3 Accounts, records were not available and that Fixed Deposit Receipts relating to Proceeds referred to in the transactions dated 19.07.1996, 20.07.1996 and 20.11.1996 were not available. P.W.6 and P.W.17 have stated that they did not ask the Accused about those missing records. It is not explained by P.W.6 and P.W.17 as to why they did not ask clarification or 63 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] explanation from the Accused herself during their inspection. As observed above, P.W.6 did not make any attempt to ascertain about all the Fixed Deposits standing in the names of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri. In his Cross-examination, P.W.28 has stated that he did not investigate to know as to totally how many Accounts Smt.Saraswathi Amma had in the Bank. He has stated that he made request to the Bank to produce Account Opening Forms and other documents pertaining to Fixed Deposit Accounts of Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Sri.Krishna Bhat, Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri and that he presumed that the Bank had produced all the relevant documents. He has also stated that he did not secure all the Registers of the Bank pertaining to the period commencing from the opening of the Branch till 31.03.1998 in respect of the Account Opened and Account Closed Register of Fixed Deposit Account. This evidence of P.W.28 indicates that he also did not secure and verify all the relevant documents relating to Fixed Deposits of Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Sri.Krishna Bhat and Smt.Gowri.
64 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
86. In his Cross-examination, P.W.17 has admitted that there is a Register called "Account Opened and Closed Register of Fixed Deposits" in respect of Fixed Deposit Accounts and that he had seen that Register pertaining to the period from 01.02.1995 to 31.03.1998. He has also stated that he had seen the "Balance Book of Deposits" pertaining to Fixed Deposits for the period from 1995-96 to 1997-
98. In the Cross-examination, P.W.28 has admitted that in respect of Fixed Deposits, a Register by name "Balance Book of FD-MBD" is maintained. He has stated that he does not know about "Deposit Correspondence File". But, he has stated that he does not remember as to whether he gone through that File during the course of investigation. This evidence also supports the contention of the Accused that P.W.6, P.W.17 and P.W.28 did not make proper investigation with reference to all the material documents.
87. Account Opened and Closed Register relating to Fixed Deposits, Balance Book of Fixed Deposits and Deposit Corresponding File show all the details of Opening and Closing of Fixed Deposits and Transactions made in respect of those Deposits. As 65 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] such, to appreciate the contention of the Complainant that there were no deposits or money in the Deposits referred to in the credit transactions of 19.07.1996, 20.07.1996 and 20.11.1996 and that those credit transactions are fake and illegal and that to appreciate the contention of the Accused that there were such Deposits and that those credit transactions are legal, the said documents are very very material. But, the Complainant has not produced the same. He has not given any explanation in this regard. On an Application filed by the Accused on 02.01.2007, this Court passed an Order directing the Branch Manager of the Bank to produce all those documents along with other documents. In pursuance of that direction, though the Branch Manager i.e., D.W.1 produced Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.14, he did not produce the above referred 3 material documents relating to Fixed Deposits. There is no explanation from D.W.1 also in this regard. As the said 3 documents are very very material to this case and as there is no explanation from the Complainant as well as D.W.1 for non- production of those documents, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the Complainant and in 66 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] favour of the Accused. This circumstance strongly goes against the Complainant.
88. In his Cross-examination, P.W.17 has stated that in respect of the credit entries dated 15.11.1996 and 20.11.1996, there must be entries in the Ledger Sheet, Discharge Vouchers, Original Fixed Deposit Receipts, Transfer Journal and Long Book and that those documents were not available in the Bank. He has admitted that during the course of inspection, the Accused was the Branch Manager. As such, P.W.17 could have asked the Accused as to what happened to those documents. But, he has not done so. The said documents, referred to by P.W.17, should be in the custody of Record Keeper or concerned Section Official of the Bank. But, P.W.17 has not stated as to who was the custodian of those documents. However, P.W.10 has stated that Daftari would be the custodian of those documents. But, there is nothing in the evidence of P.W.17 to show about his attempts to secure those documents. If at all those documents were not available in the Bank, P.W.17 should have reported the same to the Higher Authorities of the Accused, who in turn would have taken suitable action 67 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] to secure those documents from the concerned persons. But, no such thing happened. There is no explanation from the Complainant in this regard. This circumstance indicates suppression of material evidence by the Complainant and the Bank.
89. However, Transfer Journals referred to by P.W.17 have been produced in this case as per Ex.P.56 and Ex.P.70. Entries as per Ex.P.56(a) and Ex.P.56(b) at Page No.84 of Ex.P.56 show the transaction dated 20.11.1996 regarding Rs.5,52,241/-. Entries as per Ex.P.70(a) at Page No.89 of Ex.P.70 show the transaction dated 19.7.1996 regarding Rs.2,63,626/-. Similarly, entries as per Ex.P.70(b) at Page No.90 of Ex.P.70 show the transaction dated 20.07.1996 regarding Rs.2,63,840/-. As such, these entries clearly negative the evidence of P.W.17 and show that he did not investigate the case properly.
90. P.W.17 has deposed that Smt.Saraswathi Amma was not having Special Fixed Deposit Account No.293/37/96 in the Bank and that the said Special Fixed Deposit Account No.293/37/96 referred to in Ex.P.47 corresponds to some other Account Holder 68 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] and that at present, he is unable to name him. He has further stated that he traced Account Holder of that Special Fixed Deposit Account No.293/37/96 in the Ledger Account Book and that in the course of his inspection, he came to know that as to whom the said Account belonged to. As per this evidence of P.W.17, Special Fixed Deposit Account No.293/37/96 referred to in Ex.P.47 does not belong to Smt.Saraswathi Amma and that it belonged to some one else. Said Ex.P.47, referred to by P.W.17, pertains to the transaction dated 20.07.1996 regarding credit of Rs.2,63,840/- to the S.F.A/c.No.7186. In Ex.P.47, there is no reference at all about the Special Fixed Deposit Account No.293/37/96. On the other hand, in Ex.P.47, it is stated that the said document pertains to "Proceeds of FD-MBD 930" of Sri.Krishna Bhat. This circumstance also shows that P.W.17 has not made investigation properly.
91. Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Sri.Krishna Bhat and their son-P.W.15 are the proper persons to speak about genuineness or otherwise of the above 3 transactions. It is not the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.17 that during their investigation, they enquired 69 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] with those 3 persons about the said disputed transactions. On the other hand, P.W.17 has stated that he did not meet Sri.Krishna Bhat and Smt.Saraswathi Amma. In his Cross-examination, though P.W.28 has stated that he had met Sri.Kishna Bhat and Smt.Saraswathi Amma, it is not his evidence that he got confirmed from them that the disputed transactions were not genuine transactions. Though P.W.15 has given his evidence in this case by contending that he was operating the Accounts of his parents, it is not his evidence that there were no deposits in the names of his parents for crediting the 3 disputed amounts to the S.F.A/c.No.7186 and S.F. A/c.No.7300 and that those 3 disputed transactions are fake. This circumstance strongly goes against the Complainant.
92. According to P.W.6, P.W.17 and P.W.28, though there were no such Fixed Deposits in the names of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Sri.Krishna Bhat, amounts have been credited to the S.F.A/c.No.7186 and S.F.A/c.No.7300 on 19.07.1996, 20.07.1996 and 20.11.1996. If the things had happened as contended by P.W.6, P.W.17 and P.W.28, there should not have 70 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] been tally in the Accounts of the Bank. It is not the evidence of P.W.6, P.W.17 and P.W.28 or the case of the Complainant that because of those 3 transactions, there was no tally in the Accounts in the Balance Sheet of the Bank. On the other hand, in his Cross- examination, P.W.6 has stated that monthly Manager's Certificate certifying the balance have been sent to Regional Office, he has perused those Certificates and that according to those Statements, there was tally in the balance.
93. P.W.18 has stated that in the Day Book Register, summary of the previous day's transactions will be mentioned by the Day Book Department on the basis of Vouchers, Transfer Journal, Cash Book and Clearing Register and that Officer-in-charge of the Day Book Department will check the Register. He has further stated that after making entries in the Day Book in respect of each head, entries will be made in the General Ledger and that on the basis of the said entries in the General Ledger, Weekly Statement will be prepared and sent to the Regional Office. P.W.1 has also stated that Weekly Statements of the Bank will be prepared on the basis of the entries in the 71 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] General Ledger. He has further stated that if any mistake is noticed in the entries of the General Leger, Subsidiary Ledgers and Primary Registers including Day Book will be verified and that after verification, errors or mistakes will be corrected. He has further stated that the Development Department of the Regional Office receives the Weekly Statements of the Branches and that if there is any abnormality regarding growth or non-growth as per the figures in the Statements, concerned Officers and Managers of the Bank will be advised properly. P.W.21 has also deposed that each transaction carried out on a particular day will be carried out in the Day Book on the following day, which is known as 'Day Book Tallying' and that in the process of tallying, entries in the debit side should agree with the entries in the credit side and that all the books will come to the Day Book Department for the purpose of tallying. He has further stated that tallying work will be done by Day Book Writer and that the entries in the Day Book will be checked and verified by the Day Book Officer or Special Assistant, who is in-charge of the Section. He has further deposed that the Officer-in-charge of that Section will also sign on the Vouchers passed and 72 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ledgers and that Branch Manager will be over all in- charge of the entire transactions of the Branch. He has further stated that after looking into Debit and Credit Vouchers and comparing the same with the relevant entries made, checking will be done. As per this evidence of P.W.1, P.W.18 and also P.W.21, there will be a check, verification and supervision at the Branch level and the Regional Office level by various Officers about the figures of the transactions of the Bank. As such, if there was no tally in the balance, after the disputed transactions, some one among those Officers would have noticed the same. But, no such thing happened. This circumstance also goes against the Complainant.
94. If at all there were no such Fixed Deposits or amounts in the Accounts of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Sri.Krishna Bhat for crediting to the S.F.Accounts, the said amounts must have been taken from the Account of any other person or from the Bank money. None of other Account Holders of the Bank has come forward to complain that those amounts were taken from his Account. It is also not shown that the said amounts were taken from the Bank money. If at all 73 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] the things had happened as contended by P.W.6, P.W.17 and P.W.28, the Bank would have suffered loss to that extent. But, it is not the evidence of P.W.6, P.W.17 and P.W.28. In the Cross-examination, P.W.17 has stated that any loss sustained by the Bank will be shown in the Contingent Liability Statement or Protested Advance Statement or Suspense Statement. He has stated that he does not know as to whether loss to the Bank is shown in those Statements. As such, the said Statements are very material to appreciate the contention of the Complainant. But, those Statements are not produced. Though the Court directed the Bank to produce those Statements also, the Bank did not produce the same. There is no explanation from the Complainant and the Bank in this regard. As such, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the Complainant for non-production of the material evidence. This attitude of the Complainant and the Bank in not producing the material evidence shows that the Complainant and the Bank is suppressing the real state of affairs. This circumstance creates a serious doubt in the case of the Complainant. Benefit of this doubt must go to the Accused. However, there is nothing to show that any 74 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] other Account Holder or the Bank suffered loss due to credit of those 3 disputed amounts. As there is nothing to show that the said disputed amounts were taken from any other Account of the Bank or from the Bank money and as the Complainant as well as the Bank has suppressed the material evidence, it has to be inferred that the said 3 disputed credit amounts were the Proceeds of the Fixed Deposits standing in the names of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Sri.Krishna Bhat and that as such, the said credit transactions cannot be said as unauthorized or illegal or fake and that Vouchers and other documents in respect of those transactions cannot be said as false or fabricated as contended by the Complainant. For all the above reasons, it has to be held that the Complainant has failed to prove that the Accused fraudulently transferred and credited money to the S.F.A/c.No.7186 and S.F.A/c.No.7300 as contended by him and hence, Point-2 is answered in the Negative.
POINT-3
95. According to the Complainant, the Accused has illegally withdrawn amounts from S.F.A/c.No.7186 and S.F.A/c.No.7300 as under:-
75 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] From S.F.A/c. No.7186 Rs.1,60,000/- on 19.07.1996;
Rs.3,60,000/- on 20.07.1996;
Rs. 7,400/- on 02.08.1996;
Rs. 10,170/- on 09.11.1996.
From S.F.A/c. No.7300
Rs.2,80,000/- on 21.11.1996;
Rs.2,70,000/- on 23.11.1996.
In order to substantiate the said contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.6, P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.17, P.W.25 and P.W.26.
96. P.W.4 has deposed that Rs.1,60,000/- was withdrawn on 19.07.1996 from S.F.A/c.No.7186 under Withdrawal Slip-Ex.P.12; Rs.3,60,000/- was withdrawn on 20.07.1996 from S.F.A/c.No.7186 under Withdrawal Slip-Ex.P.13; Rs.7,400/- was withdrawn on 02.08.1996 through Withdrawal Slip-Ex.P.14 from S.F.A/c.No.7186; Rs.10,170/- was withdrawn on 09.11.1996 through Withdrawal Slip-Ex.P.16 from 76 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] S.F.A/c.No.7186; Rs.2,80,000/- was withdrawn on 21.11.1996 through Withdrawal Slip-Ex.P.21 from S.F.A/c.No.7300 and that Rs.2,70,000/- was withdrawn on 23.11.1996 through Withdrawal Slip- Ex.P.22 from S.F.A/c.No.7300. It is her further evidence that Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13, Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.16 were passed for payment by P.W.3 and that as a Cashier, she paid amounts under those documents. She has further stated that in respect of those payments, she has made entries in Cashier's Long Books-Ex.P.19 & Ex.P.20 as per Exs.P.19(a) to Ex.P.19(d) and Ex.P.20(a) to Ex.P.20(c). The evidence of P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.17, P.W.25 and P.W.26 materially corroborates the said evidence of P.W.4. It has come out in the evidence of the said witnesses that contents of those Withdrawal Slips except the signatures of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Smt.Gowri, are in the handwriting of the Accused and that she has also put her signature on those documents in the capacity of Manager. Contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14, Ex.P.16, Ex.P.19 to Ex.P.22 also show that amounts were withdrawn from the S.F.A/c.No.7186 and S.F.A/c. No.7300 as stated by P.W.4. The Accused has not 77 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] disputed the said withdrawals. As such, it is clear that amounts were withdrawn from the S.F.A/c.No.7186 and S.F.A/c No.7300 on six dates as stated by P.W.4, which is supported by the evidence of other witnesses as observed above.
97. However, none of the above witnesses, except P.W.4, has stated that the Accused herself has withdrawn the said amounts. In order to substantiate her contention that the Accused has withdrawn the said amounts, the learned Public Prosecutor has strongly relied upon the evidence of P.W.4. As observed above, P.W.4 was working as Chief Cashier in the Bank during the relevant period. She has stated in her Examination-in-chief evidence that as a Cashier on duty, she paid amount in cash mentioned in Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13, Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.16 to Smt.Saraswathi Amma, who was the Account Holder of S.F.A/c.No.7186, and that she paid the amount in cash mentioned in Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 to Smt.Gowri, who was the Account Holder of S.F.A/c.No.7300. This evidence negatives the contention of the Complainant that the Accused herself has withdrawn the said amounts.
78 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
98. But, the learned Public Prosecutor Cross- examined P.W.4 on the ground that she turned hostile. In that Cross-examination, P.W.4 has stated that she has not seen the Account Holders- Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri and that she has paid cash involved in this case to the Accused. This statement of P.W.4 shows her inconsistent stand. However, in the Cross-examination made on behalf of the Accused, P.W.4 has stated that Cashier, who makes payment of the amount mentioned in the instrument, must take the signature of the person, who receives the amount in the Cash Counter. In fact, in her Examination-in-chief itself, while explaining the procedure regarding payment of cash, P.W.4 has stated that in the Cash Counter, payment mentioned in the passed instrument will be paid to the party after obtaining his signature on the reverse page of the instrument, signature of the party will be verified with that of the signature of the party taken by the Officer while passing the instrument. As such, it is clear that there is Rule and Procedure in the Bank that Cashier shall make payment to the person, who presents the instrument in the Cash Counter, by taking his signature on the reverse page of the 79 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] instrument. P.W.4 has admitted in her Cross- examination that she has discharged her duties as a Cashier as per the Rules and Circulars of the Bank and that she has not violated those Rules and Circulars. She has admitted that on the reverse of Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13, Ex.P.14, Ex.P.16, Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22, there are two signatures of the Account Holders. She has also admitted that she has stated before the Investigating Officer that she has made payments to the party after taking signature on the reverse of the instrument presented for payment. These admissions of P.W.4 clearly show that Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13, Ex.P.14, Ex.P.16, Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22, through which the disputed amounts were withdrawn, bear the signatures of the Account Holders on the reverse page of those instruments and that she has made payments under those instruments to those parties, after taking such signatures. Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13, Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.16 pertain to S.F.A/c.No.7186 of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 pertain to the S.F.A/c.No.7300 of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri. In view of the specific admission of P.W.4, as observed above, that those instruments contain signatures of the Account Holders and that she made 80 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] payments to those Account Holders after taking their signatures, it is clear that the amounts mentioned in those instruments have been paid to Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Smt.Gowri. This circumstance negatives the contention of the Complainant that the Accused received those payments.
99. The learned Public Prosecutor has strongly relied upon the evidence of P.W.27, his Opinion Report given as per Ex.P.85 and also Reasons given for the said Opinion as per Ex.P.86. As per the evidence of P.W.27, he examined the Questioned Signatures of Smt.Saraswathi Amma made as per Q.12, Q.12(b), Q.13, Q.13(b), Q.14, Q.14(a), Q.15 and Q.15(b) in Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13, Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.16 respectively and Questioned Signatures of Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri made as per Q.2, Q.3, Q.4, Q.4(b) in Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 by comparing with the Specimen Signatures given by the Accused as per S.1 to S.8. According to P.W.27, the person who wrote S.1 to S.8 also wrote the said Questioned Signatures. He has given Common Reasons in Ex.P.86 at Para-5 in respect of Q.1, Q.8, Q.10 and Q.16 to Q.19 as well as in respect of Q.2, Q.3, Q.4, Q.4(b), Q.12, Q.12(b), 81 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Q.13, Q.13(b), Q.14, Q.14(a), Q.15 and Q.15(b). The said Reasons given by him are already extracted in Para-66 of this Judgment. As observed above, while dealing with Point No.1, this Court has given finding, by assigning several reasons, that it is not at all safe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.27 in respect of the said Opinion. This Court compared those Questioned Signatures with the Specimen Signatures with the help of a powerful magnifying lens. On such comparison, this Court found several significant dissimilarities as observed in Para-72 of this Judgment. For the said reason as well as for the same reason given while dealing with Q.1, Q.8, Q.10 and Q.16 to Q.19, it is not at all safe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.27 and his Opinion in respect of Q.2, Q.3, Q.4, Q.4(b), Q.12, Q.12(b), Q.13, Q.13(b), Q.14, Q.14(a), Q.15 and Q.15(b) also.
100. As observed above, Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Smt.Gowri are living persons and P.W.15 being the son of Smt.Saraswathi Amma was operating the Accounts of his parents. Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Smt.Gowri did not come forward to give evidence that they did not receive the amounts mentioned in 82 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13, Ex.P.14, Ex.P.16, Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 and that signatures in those documents are not their signatures. Though P.W.15 has come as a witness on behalf of the Prosecution, it is also not his evidence that Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Smt.Gowri did not receive the disputed amounts and that Questioned Signatures in respect of withdrawal of those amounts are not the signatures of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Smt.Gowri. On the other hand, as it is the evidence of P.W.4 that she paid amounts under Ex.P.12 to P.16, Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 to the Account Holders of S.F.A/c.No.7186 and S.F.A/c.No.7300 after taking their signatures on the reverse of those documents and that those documents contain the signatures of those Account Holders, it is clear that Smt.Saraswathi Amma and Smt.Gowri received amounts under those documents. All these circumstances strongly go against the Complainant.
101. On considering all the above facts, evidence and circumstances, it is not fit to accept the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that the Accused herself has put the signatures of Smt.Saraswathi Amma, Smt.Saraswathi and Smt.Gowri for 83 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] withdrawing the amounts and that as such, the Accused herself has withdrawn the disputed amounts.
102. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that out of Rs.3,60,000/- withdrawn on 20.07.1996 from the S.F.A/c.No.7186, the Accused used Rs.2,13,111.40 for settling totally 9 Accounts standing in her name and in the names of her friends and that she received remaining amount of Rs.1,46,888.60 by cash from the Bank and that as such, it is clear that the Accused has illegally withdrawn Rs.3,60,000/- from S.F.A/c.No.7186 of Smt.Saraswathi Amma and that she utilised the said amount. In order to substantiate the said arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.8, P.W.12, P.W.13, P.W.17 and P.W.25.
103. P.W.17 has deposed that on 20.07.1996, the Accused has credited Rs.2,13,111-40 to 9 different Accounts as under:-
1. Rs.5,868/- to the SSI A/c.No.8/31 of Sri.B.A.Keshava Jayaram through Credit Voucher-Ex.P.23;
84 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
2. Rs.502/- to the Vehicle Loan-T/L No. 6/123 of the Accused through Credit Voucher-Ex.P.24;
3. Rs.21,401/- to the Consumer Loan-
T/L No.6/129 of the Accused through Credit Voucher-Ex.P.25;
4. Rs.69,403.40 to the OD A/c.No.623 of the Accused through Credit Voucher- Ex.P.26;
5. Rs.3,451/- to the Demand Loan A/c.No.1125 of the Accused through Credit Voucher-Ex.P.27;
6. Rs.97,992/- to the COD A/c.No.628 of the Accused through Credit Voucher- Ex.P.28;
7. Rs.13,620/- to the COD A/c.No.566 of Dr.H.R.Gopalakrishna Murthy through Credit Voucher-Ex.P.29;
8. Rs.50/- to the COD A/c.No.567 of Smt.Vimala through Credit Voucher- Ex.P.30;
85 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
9. Rs.824/- to the D/L A/c.No.1217 of the Accused through Credit Voucher- Ex.P.31.
P.W.17 has deposed that there are signatures of the Accused in the Remitter's column of Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.31. He has further deposed that there are entries in the Cashier's Scroll Book-Ex.P.19 at Ex.P.19(b) in respect of the said credits. The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.25 materially corroborates the said evidence of P.W.17. P.W.25 has further deposed that Ex.P.29 and Ex.P.30 bare the signatures of the Accused for having credited the amounts mentioned in those documents. The Accused has not disputed the said credits made by her.
104. P.W.17 has deposed that the Accused credited the said amount of Rs.2,13,111-40 to the 9 Accounts, referred to above, out of Rs.3,60,000/- withdrawn under Ex.P.13. In his Examination-in-chief evidence, P.W.17 has not stated as to what was the basis to show that the amounts mentioned in Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.31 were credited out of Rs.3,60,000/- relating to Ex.P.13. But, in his Cross-examination, he has 86 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] stated that the basis for his statement is entry about such credit in Ex.P.19(b) and also reference on the reverse side of Ex.P.13. On perusal of Ex.P.19(b), it is not possible to say that credits made under Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.31 were out of Rs.3,60,000/- relating to Ex.P.13 as there is no reference at all in Ex.P.19(b) or Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.31 relating to any of the entries in Ex.P.13. In fact, P.W.17 has himself admitted that basing exclusively on Ex.P.19(b), it cannot be said that Rs.3,60,000/- has been utilized for crediting to 9 different Accounts.
105. On the reverse of Ex.P.13, there are writings of various figures in different handwritings and different Ink. The said writings are as under:-
100 x 1400 - 140000 360000.00 10 x 200 - 2000 213111.40 142000 146888.60 500 x 9 - 4500 146500.00 146500 388.60 146500.00 388.60 146888.60 87 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] These writings do not specifically indicate that the amounts credited under Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.31 were out of the proceeds of Ex.P.13 as there is no reference at all in Ex.P.13 about Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.31.
106. P.W.17 has not stated as to who made the above entries on the reverse Page of Ex.P.13. As observed above, P.W.4 has paid cash of Rs.3,60,000/- to the Account Holder i.e., Smt.Saraswathi Amma in respect of Ex.P.13. As such, she is the proper person to speak about the writings made on the reverse Page of Ex.P.13. But, she has not whispered about the same. It is not at all the evidence of P.W.4 that she made those entries and that she credited amounts as per those entries to the 9 different Accounts relating to Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.31. In her Cross-examination made by the learned Public Prosecutor, P.W.4 has stated that it is true that she made statement before the Investigating Officer that the amount mentioned in the Payment Voucher dated 20.07.1996 was brought by the Accused to her Cash Cabin, she counted the total amount mentioned in the Credit Vouchers, deducted the said amount from the total amount in the Payment Voucher and that balance of 88 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Rs.1,46,888.60 was given to the Accused. As per the said statement, P.W.4 has stated before the Investigating Officer that the Accused brought the amount relating to Voucher dated 20.07.1996 to the Cash Cabin of P.W.4, P.W.4 deducted the total amount mentioned in the Credit Vouchers and that she paid balance amount of Rs.1,46,888.60 to the Accused. But, P.W.4 has not stated in her evidence before this Court that the Accused brought the said cash to her Cash Cabin and that by deducting the amount of Credit Voucher from the total amount, she paid Rs.1,46,888.60 to the Accused. As the admission of P.W.4 shows that she paid Rs.3,60,000/- under Ex.P.13 to Smt.Saraswathi Amma, question of bringing the said amount again by the Accused to the Cash Cabin of P.W.4 and taking back Rs.1,46,888.60 by her does not arise. As the facts said to have been stated by P.W.4 before the Investigating Officer have not been stated by her before this Court, the said statement made by P.W.4 before the Investigating Officer has no value. Furthermore, it is not the evidence of P.W.4 that the said statement made by her to the Investigating Officer was with reference to Ex.P.13. As such and as there is no evidence to show 89 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] that the Accused received Rs.3,60,000/- under Ex.P.13 and that on the other hand, as the evidence of P.W.4 shows that she paid the said amount of Rs.3,60,000/- to Smt.Saraswathi Amma, it is not possible to accept the bare statement of P.W.17 that amount credited under Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.31 by the Accused was out of Rs.3,60,000/- relating to Ex.P.13.
107. Ex.P.23 pertains to the SSI A/c.No.8/31 of Sri.B.A.Keshava Jayaram, who is P.W.8. P.W.8 has deposed that P.W.13-Sri.B.K.Venkatesh Prasad, who is the brother of the Accused, is his friend and that as per the request of P.W.8, a loan of Rs.17,000/- was taken in his (P.W.8) name from the Bank for purchasing a Printer, P.W.13 stood as Guarantor to that loan, he had undertaken to repay the said loan and that he did not go to the Bank for the purpose of that loan. He has stated that though Ex.P.23 stands in his name, it does not belong to him and that no amount was credited to his Account as per that document. However, in his Cross-examination, he has stated that P.W.13 has taken that loan amount and that the said loan is already discharged.
90 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
108. P.W.13 has deposed that as he was doing a Project Work along with P.W.8, they applied to the Bank for a loan in the name of P.W.8 for purchasing a Printer, he stood as Guarantor to that loan and that he was paying loan installments through the Accused. He has further stated that Ex.P.23 is the Pay-in-Slip for having paid a sum of Rs.5,868/- on 20.07.1996 to that loan and that he had paid that amount to his sister.
109. As per the said evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.13, loan was taken in the name of P.W.8 from the Bank, P.W.13 was repaying loan installments through the Accused and he had paid Rs.5,868/- relating to Ex.P.23 to the Accused towards repayment of loan. This evidence shows that the amount relating to Ex.P.23 was paid by P.W.13 at the hands of the Accused, who was his sister, and that as such, it is clear that amount relating to Ex.P.23 was paid by P.W.13 through the Accused. As the Accused is the sister of P.W.13, it is not wrong or illegal on the part of the Accused to credit that amount to the Bank. This evidence negatives the contention of the Complainant that the amount relating to Ex.P.23 was 91 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] paid by the Accused out of Rs.3,60,000/- relating to Ex.P.13.
110. P.W.12-Dr.Gopala Krishnamurthy has deposed that as the Accused used to bring her children for treatment under him, he got acquainted with her. He has further deposed that he had 2 Loan Accounts bearing Nos.566 and 567 in his name and in the name of his wife-Smt.Vimala respectively in the Bank. He has further stated that as the house of the Accused was in midway between his Clinic and his House, he used to handover the loan installment amount to the Accused for crediting to the Loan Accounts. He has further stated that he had paid Rs.13,620/- to the Accused for crediting to his Account No.566 and that he had paid Rs.50/- to the Accused for crediting to his wife's Account No.567. He admits that Ex.P.29 and Ex.P.30 relate to those credits. He identifies Ex.P.57(a) and Ex.P.58(a) as the relevant entries in the Ledger Sheets-Ex.P.57 and Ex.P.58 regarding the said credits. He has also stated that he paid those amounts to the Accused by withdrawing amount from his S.B.A/c. in Vishweshwariah Co-operative Bank, Subramanya 92 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Nagar, Bengaluru. He has identified Ex.P.59 as the Passbook of that S.B.Account. Contents of Ex.P.59 fortify the evidence of P.W.12. This evidence of P.W.12 indicates that he had paid amount pertaining to Ex.P.29 and Ex.P.30 at the hands of the Accused for crediting the same to his loan Account and also to the loan Account of his wife. This evidence also negatives the contention of the Complainant that the amounts relating to Ex.P.29 and Ex.P.30 were paid by the Accused out of Rs.3,60,000/- relating to Ex.P.13.
111. Other 6 credit transactions relating to Ex.P.24 to Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.31 pertain to the personal loans of the Accused. It is not at all the contention of the Complainant or any of the witnesses examined by the Complainant that the Accused did not possess any amount on that day for making credits as per Ex.P.24 to Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.31. P.W.6, P.W.17 and P.W.28 are the proper persons to investigate the said aspect and to depose the same. But, they have not done so. There is nothing on record to show that the said credits in respect Ex.P.24 to Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.31 relate to Ex.P.13 in any manner. Hence, it is not fit to accept the bare contention of the Complainant that 93 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] credits in respect of Ex.P.24 to Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.31 were out of Rs.3,60,000/- relating to Ex.P.13.
112. As observed above, the evidence of P.W.4 shows that Rs.3,60,000/- as per Ex.P.13 was received by Smt.Saraswathi Amma. As observed above, said Smt.Saraswathi Amma has not come forward to state that she did not receive the said amount. As observed above, though her son-P.W.15 has given evidence on behalf of the Prosecution, it is also not his evidence that his mother did not receive the said amount. There is no acceptable evidence on behalf of the Complainant to show that said amount of Rs.3,60,000/- went to the hands of the Accused in any manner. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to accept at any stretch of imagination that the Accused utilized Rs.2,13,111.40 out of Rs.3,60,000/- being the proceeds of Ex.P.13 for crediting as per Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.31.
113. On considering all the above facts, circumstances and the evidence available on record, it is clear that there is no acceptable evidence to show that the Accused has illegally withdrawn the amounts from the S.F.A/c.No.7186 and S.F.A/c.No.7300 and 94 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] that she utilized the same for crediting to her Loan Accounts and to the Loan Accounts of her friends as alleged. For all these reasons, this Point is also answered in the Negative.
POINT-4
114. According to the Complainant, with an intention to Cheat and Defraud the Bank, the Accused altered and manipulated the entries in the Books of Accounts of the Bank illegally. In the Charge Sheet, it is alleged that the Accused altered entries in the Books of Accounts of the Bank during the period between 19.07.1997 and 23.11.1996. In the Charge framed by the then Presiding Officer of this Court on 04.10.2002, it is alleged that the Accused altered/manipulated certain entries from 19.07.1996 to 19.11.1996 in the Books of Accounts of the Bank. However, from the facts of the case, it appears that the alleged alteration or manipulation is during the period from 19.07.1996 to 23.11.1996. Both the sides also did not dispute this fact about the relevant period. In order to substantiate the contention of the Complainant, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied 95 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] upon the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.6, P.W.17, P.W.18, P.W.21 and P.W.22.
115. As observed above, on the basis of Internal Enquiry Reports, P.W.1 lodged Complaint in this case. In his evidence, P.W.1 has stated that on verification of Weekly Statements-Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3, which pertain to the week ending 09.01.1998 sent by the Accused, figures were changed at 2 places by making corrections in Ex.P.3 as per Ex.P.3(a) and Ex.P.3(b). But, it is not the evidence of P.W.1 that those corrections were made altering or manipulating entries in the Books of Accounts of the Bank relating to the period from 19.07.1996 to 23.11.1996. On the other hand, as per the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the entries of Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3, the said corrections relate to the transactions pertaining to the week ending 09.01.1998. It is not the evidence of P.W.1 that the said corrections have any bearing over the transactions relating to the period from 19.07.1996 to 23.11.1996.
116. P.W.1 has further stated that P.W.6 informed him through phone that during his inspection, tampering of figures by applying white 96 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] fluids on the original figures and writing new figures over it in the General Ledger under the head of 'Fixed Deposit' were found. But, the details of the said tampering are not stated by P.W.1. It is not at all his evidence that the said tampering relate to the period from 19.07.1996 to 23.11.1996. Further, it is not at all the evidence of P.W.1 that the said tampering was made by the Accused. As such, the evidence of P.W.1 is of no assistance to the Complainant to substantiate the allegation of manipulation or alteration of entries in the Books of Accounts by the Accused as alleged.
117. In his evidence, at Para-8, P.W.6 has stated that when he went to the Bank in the month of February 1998 for investigation, the Accused placed General Ledger and Weekly Statement of Affairs before him and that on seeing the entries in the General Ledger, he found certain figures, pertaining to the Head 'Interest Accrued on Deposits' and 'Fixed Deposits', were altered by the Accused by using white fluid. He has not stated that the said alterations were related to the period from 19.07.1996 to 23.11.1996. On the other hand, if the said evidence in Para-8 is read with his evidence at Para-10, it appears that 97 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] alteration, referred to by P.W.6, relate to Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3, which pertain to the Week ending 09.01.1998. Hence, the evidence of P.W.6 is also of no assistance to the Complainant to substantiate his contention that the Accused manipulated or altered Books of Accounts pertaining to the period from 19.07.1996 to 23.11.1996.
118. Though P.W.17 has stated that the Accused made illegal transactions dated 19.07.1996, 20.07.1996, 02.08.1996, 09.11.1996, 20.11.1996, 21.11.1996 and 23.11.1996 by preparing fraudulent documents, it is not his evidence that the Accused manipulated or altered entries of Books of Accounts pertaining to the said transactions. As observed above, the evidence on record does not show that the said transactions are illegal transactions as contended by the Complainant. As such, the evidence of P.W.17 is also of no assistance to the Complainant to substantiate his contention.
119. In Para-4 to Para-9 of his evidence, P.W.18 has stated about corrections made by the Accused by putting whitener in respect of the entries in Weekly Statement of Affairs for the Week ending 09.01.1998- 98 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.2, Revised Weekly Statement of Affairs for the Week ending 09.01.1998-Ex.P.3, Day Book-Ex.P.68 and General Ledger-Ex.P.69 relating to the period from 15.10.1997 to 31.03.1998. But, it is not his evidence that the said corrections relate to the Books of Accounts pertaining to the period from 19.07.1996 to 23.11.1996. Though he has stated in Para-11 of his evidence about the entries made by the Accused in Transfer Journals-Ex.P.56, Ex.P.70 and Ex.P.71 pertaining to the period from 22.06.1995 to 14.11.1997, it is not his evidence that those entries are altered or manipulated entries. Hence, evidence of P.W.18 is also of no assistance to the Complainant to substantiate his contention.
120. P.W.21 has deposed that in Page-45 of Transfer Journal-Ex.P.71 at Sl.No.5 and Sl.No.6, Debit side entries are made by the Accused as per Ex.P.71(b), there are some over writings done by the Accused at Sl.No.6 and that in Sl.No.25, figure '25' has been altered as figure '24(a)' by the Accused as per Ex.P.71(c). She has further stated that entries in Sl.No.2 and Sl.No.3 on the Credit side do not tally with Sl.No.2 and Sl.No.3 on the Debit side and that 99 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] therefore to make up the difference, an entry at Sl.No.25 on the Debit side is made by her as per the instructions of the Manager. In her Cross-examination, P.W.21 has stated that by altering figure '25' to figure '24(a)' as per Ex.P.71(c), no change has occurred in the amount of Rs.30,000/- relating to that entry. It is not at all the evidence of P.W.21 that in order to Cheat or Defraud the Bank or to make Wrongful Gain, the Accused has done so. In fact, it is not the evidence of P.W.21 that the said alterations are manipulations. Further more, the said alterations, referred to by P.W.21, as per Ex.P.71(b) and Ex.P.71(c) do not relate to the period from 19.07.1996 to 23.11.1996. It is not at all the evidence of P.W.21 that the said alterations as per Ex.P.71(b) and Ex.P.71(c) have any bearing on any of the transactions for the period from 19.07.1996 to 23.11.1996. Hence, the evidence of P.W.21 is also of no assistance to the Complainant to substantiate his contention.
121. P.W.22 has deposed that there are over writings and corrections in the entries of Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.69 as per Ex.P.69(b) made by the 100 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Accused in respect of Weekly Statement for the period ending 09.01.1998 and that those corrections are not authenticated by putting initials or signatures. The said alterations referred to by P.W.22 in Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.69 are as stated by P.W.1 and P.W.18. Said alterations referred to by P.W.22 do not pertain to the period from 19.07.1996 to 23.11.1996. It is not the evidence of P.W.22 that those alterations have any bearing in respect of any of the transactions relating to the period from 19.07.1996 to 23.11.1996. As such, the evidence of P.W.22 is also of no assistance to the Complainant to substantiate his contention.
122. There is no other evidence on behalf of the Complainant. As observed above, the evidence of witnesses relied upon by the Complainant does not in any way assist him to substantiate his contention that the Accused altered or manipulated entries in the Books of Accounts of the Bank relating to the period from 19.07.1996 to 23.11.1996 with an intention to Defraud or Cheat the Bank. For all these reasons, Point-4 is answered in the Negative.
101 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] POINT-5
123. According to the Complainant, by making illegal and fraudulent transactions dated 19.07.1996, 20.07.1996, 02.08.1996, 09.11.1996, 20.11.1996, 21.11.1996 and 23.11.1996, referred to above, the Accused misappropriated Rs.10,87,570/- belonging to the Bank and thereby, she caused loss to that extent to the Bank. But, as observed above, the evidence placed by the Complainant does not show that the said transactions, referred to by the Complainant, are illegal or unauthorized or fraudulent as contended by the Complainant. The said evidence also does not show that the Accused received amount in respect of those transactions. There is also no evidence to show that the Accused used or disposed the amounts relating to the said transactions in violation of any Law, Rule or Direction of her Superiors. The Complainant has not placed any evidence to show actually how and in what manner the Bank sustained loss. As observed above, it has come out in the evidence of P.W.17 that any loss sustained by the Bank will be shown in the Contingent Liability Statement or Protested Advance Statement or Suspense Statement. If at all the Bank had sustained 102 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] loss due to the alleged acts of the Accused, as contended by the Complainant, there should have been entries in the said Statements. But, the Complainant did not produce the said Statements. As observed above, though the Court directed the Bank to produce those Statements, the Bank also did not produce the same. Under these circumstances, by drawing an adverse inference against the Complainant, the only inference that could be drawn is that the Complainant failed to show the alleged loss caused by the Accused. For all these reasons, it is not possible to accept the bare contention of the Complainant that the Accused misappropriated the Bank money and that she caused loss to the Bank. Hence, Point-5 is also answered in the Negative.
POINT-6
124. In view of the negative findings on Points-1 to 5, as observed above, it is clear that the Complainant has failed to place acceptable evidence to prove that the Accused committed Criminal Breach of Trust, Forgery, used forged documents as genuine documents and that she falsified Books of Accounts as alleged. As the Complainant has failed to substantiate 103 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] the said Charges, it has to be held that he has also failed to prove the alleged Criminal Misconduct of the Accused. For all these reasons, Point-6 is answered in the Negative.
POINT-7
125. In view of the negative findings on Points-1 to 6, the Accused is entitled for acquittal. In the result, the following Order is passed:
ORDER Under Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Accused is acquitted from the Charge of the offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13(2) r/w.
13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and she is set at liberty.
104 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] M.O.1-Typewriter be returned to Captain Ravi after expiry of the period fixed for filing Appeal.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 31st day of July 2015.) (ASWATHA NARAYANA) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT WITH THE DATES OF THEIR EXAMINATION:
P.W.1 Sri.Purushan Vava 07.11.2002, 02.01.2003.
P.W.2 Sri.Jayaprakash 06.03.2003, 03.04.2003.
P.W.3 Smt.Padma Govindaswamy 29.05.2003, 24.06.2003 P.W.4 Smt.Asha Pannalkar 28.07.2003, 02.09.2003.
P.W.5 Smt.Anuradha 13.10.2003.
105 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
P.W.6 Sri.Govinda Rajashetty 03.11.2003,
04.11.2003,
11.02.2004
&
20.03.2004.
P.W.7 Smt.K.Pankajavalli 30.07.2004.
P.W.8 Sri.Keshava Jayaram 30.07.2004.
P.W.9 Smt.Vidyulatha Shetty 30.07.2004.
P.W.10 Sri.Sheikh Shamshuddin 30.07.2004,
14.12.2004,
13.01.2005.
P.W.11 Sri.Ayyappan Kutty 22.03.2005.
P.W.12 Dr.Gopalakrishna Murthy 23.03.2005.
P.W.13 Sri.B.K.Venkatesh Prasad 23.03.2005.
P.W.14 Sri.H.S.Muniraju 24.03.2005.
P.W.15 Sri.Mahalinga Bhat 24.03.2005,
26.03.2005.
P.W.16 Sri.K.S.Srinivasa Reddy 26.03.2005.
P.W.17 Sri.V.Vijayakumar 05.07.2005,
10.11.2005,
20.07.2006,
09.08.2006,
&
28.08.2006.
P.W.18 Smt.B.Malathi Balakrishna 06.07.2005,
07.07.2005.
P.W.19 Sri.Y.J.Rai 07.07.2005.
P.W.20 Sri.M.H.Raghuveer 11.11.2005.
106 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
P.W.21 Smt.Hemalatha Prakash 11.11.2005,
20.01.2006.
P.W.22 Sri.M.Subbarayudu 14.11.2005,
26.04.2006.
P.W.23 Sri.Poonacha K.K. 16.11.2005,
19.07.2006.
P.W.24 Sri.Afzal Ahamed 17.11.2005,
02.01.2007.
P.W.25 Smt.Usha Ramashesan 12.10.2006.
P.W.26 Smt.Aravinda Shenoy 13.10.2006.
P.W.27 Sri.M.Krishna 17.10.2006.
P.W.28 Sri.P.K.Ramachandran 02.01.2007,
26.11.2007,
27.11.2007,
&
17.01.2008.
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE OF THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint given by P.W.1 to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W.1 in Ex.P.1. Ex.P.2 : Weekly Statement of Affairs for the Week ending 09.01.1998.
Ex.P.2(a) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.2 regarding Rs.5,60,00,493.53.
107 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.2(b) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.2 regarding Rs.12,68,549.70.
Ex.P.2(c)&(d) : Signatures of the Accused in Ex.P.2. Ex.P.2(e) : Stamp affixed by Regional Office in Ex.P.2.
Ex.P.2(f)&(g): : Signatures of P.W.22- Sri.M.Subbarayudu in Ex.P.2.
Ex.P.2(h) : Relevant entry regarding Balance with Head Office.
Ex.P.3 : Revised Weekly Statement of Affairs for the Week ending 09.01.1998.
Ex.P.3(a) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.3 regarding Rs.5,57,00,493.53.
Ex.P.3(b) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.3 regarding Rs.15,68,549.70.
Ex.P.3(c)&(d) : Signatures of the Accused as incumbent in-charge on Ex.P.3.
Ex.P.3(e) : Regional Office Stamp in Ex.P.3. Ex.P.3(f) : Endorsement in Ex.P.3 regarding 'Revised and Correct one'.
Ex.P.3(g) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.3 regarding Rs.34,55,821.67.
Ex.P.4 : Charge Taking Report. Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of P.W.2 in Ex.P.4. Ex.P.4(b) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.4. Ex.P.5 : Office Copy of Covering Letter Dated
28.02.1998 regarding sending of Fraud Proforma Report.
108 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.6 : Report on Actual or Suspected Frauds in Banks dated 28.02.1998.
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of P.W.2 in Ex.P.6. Ex.P.7 : Pay-in-Slip dated 02.03.1998.
Ex.P.7(a) : Xerox Copy of Ex.P.7.
Ex.P.7(b) : Signature of P.W.24-Sri.Afzal.
Ex.P.7(c) : Signature and Endorsement of P.W.23-
Sri.Poonacha K.K.
Ex.P.7(d) : Handwriting of the Accused in Ex.P.7.
Ex.P.7(e) : Handwriting and Signature of Sri.Afzal.
Ex.P.7(f) : Handwriting of Sri.Afzal.
Ex.P.8 : Copy of Confirmation Letter.
Ex.P.9 : Account Opening Form in respect of
Smt. Saraswathi Amma relating to
S.F.A/c.No.7186.
Ex.P.9(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.9.
Ex.P.9(b) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.9.
Ex.P.10 : Specimen Signature Card of
Smt.Saraswathi Amma relating to
S.F.A/c.No.7186.
Ex.P.10(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.10. Ex.P.11 : Transfer Debit Voucher dated 19.07.1996 for Rs.2,63,626/-.
Ex.P.11(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.11 Ex.P.11(b) : Signature of P.W.3 in Ex.P.11.
109 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.12 : Withdrawal Slip dated 19.07.1996 for Rs.1,60,000/-.
Ex.P.12(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.12. Ex.P.12(b) : Signature of P.W.3 in Ex.P.12. Ex.P.13 : Withdrawal Slip dated 20.7.1996 for Rs.3,60,000/-.
Ex.P.13(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.13. Ex.P.13(b) : Signature of P.W.3 in Ex.P.13. Ex.P.14 : Withdrawal Slip dated 2.8.1996 for Rs.7,400/-.
Ex.P.14(a) : Signature of P.W.3 in Ex.P.14. Ex.P.15 : Transfer Debit Voucher dated 30.10.1996 for Rs.9,800/-.
Ex.P.15(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.15. Ex.P.15(b) : Signature of P.W.3 in Ex.P.15. Ex.P.16 : Withdrawal Slip dated 9.11.96 for Rs.10,170/-.
Ex.P.16(a) : Signature of P.W.3 in Ex.P.16. Ex.P.16(b) : Token No.T-29 mentioned in Ex.P.16. Ex.P.17 : Letter dated 9.11.1996 for closing S.F.A/c.No.7186.
Ex.P.17(a) : Shara and Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.17.
Ex.P.18 : Ledger Sheet of S.F.A/c. No.7186. Ex.P.18(a) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.18 regarding Proceeds of Fixed Deposit.
110 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.18(b) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.18 regarding Rs.3,60,000/-.
Ex.P.18(c) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.18 regarding Rs.7,400/-.
Ex.P.18(d) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.18 regarding Rs.10,170/-.
Ex.P.18(e) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.18 regarding Rs.263,626/-.
Ex.P.18(f) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.18 regarding Rs.3,67,766/-.
Ex.P.18(g) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.18 regarding Rs.9,800/-.
Ex.P.19 : Cashier's Long Book.
Ex.P.19(a) : Relevant Entry at Page No.333 at Sl.No.31 regarding Rs.3,60,000/-. Ex.P.19(b) : Relevant Credit Entry at Page No.334 at Sl.No.36 to 44 regarding Rs.2,13,111.40.
Ex.P.19(c) : Relevant Payment entry at page No.329 at Sl.No.19 regarding Rs.1,60,000/-.
Ex.P.19(d) : Relevant payment entry on page No.371 at Sl.No.25 regarding Rs.7,400/-.
Ex.P.20 : Cashier's Long Book Ex.P.20(a) : Relevant Entry at Page No.283 at Sl.No.22 regarding Rs.10,170/-- SF A/c.No.7186.
111 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.20(b) : Relevant entry at Page No.319 regarding Rs.2,80,000/- - SF A/c.No.7300.
Ex.P.20(c) : Relevant entry at Sl.No.25 of Page No.327 regarding Rs.2,70,000/- in S.F.A/c.No.7300.
Ex.P.21 : Payment Voucher dated 21.11.1996 for Rs.2,80,000/-.
Ex.P.21(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.21. Ex.P.21(b) : Signature of P.W.4 in Ex.P.21. Ex.P.21(c) : Token No.36 in the Handwriting of the Accused.
Ex.P.22 : Payment Voucher dated 23.11.1996 for Rs.2,70,000/-.
Ex.P.22(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.22. Ex.P.22(b) : Signature of P.W.4 in Ex.P.22. Ex.P.23 : Credit Voucher for Rs.5,868/- dated 20.7.96.
Ex.P.23(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.23. Ex.P.24 : Credit Voucher dated 20.7.96 for Rs.502/-.
Ex.P.24(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.24. Ex.P.25 : Credit Voucher dated 20.7.96 for Rs.21,401/-.
Ex.P.25(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.25. Ex.P.26 : Credit Voucher dated 20.7.96 for Rs.69,403.40.
Ex.P.26(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.26.
112 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.27 : Credit Voucher dated 20.7.96 for Rs.3,451/-.
Ex.P.27(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.27. Ex.P.28 : Credit Voucher dated 20.7.96 for Rs.97,992/-.
Ex.P.28(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.28. Ex.P.29 : Credit Voucher dated 20.7.96 for Rs.13,260/-.
Ex.P.30 : Credit Voucher dated 20.7.96 for Rs.50/-.
Ex.P.31 : Credit Voucher dated 20.7.96 for Rs.824/-.
Ex.P.31(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.31. Ex.P.32 : Relevant portion in the Statement of P.W.4 given before the I.O., CBI.
Ex.P.33 : Pay-in-Slip dated 19.07.196. Ex.P.34 : Cash Book from 04.04.1996 to 06.08.1996.
Ex.P.34(a) : Relevant Entry at page No.170 regarding Rs.Rs.300 of S.F.A/c.No.7186.
Ex.P.34(b) : Relevant entry at Page No.172 regarding Rs.300/- of S.F.A/c.No.4499. Ex.P.34(c) : Relevant entry at Page No.172 regarding Rs.1307/-.
Ex.P.35 : Ledger Sheet of Savings A/c. No.7300 in the name of Smt.Saraswathi Amma & Smt.Gowri.
113 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.35(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.35. Ex.P.36 : Debit Slip dated 20.11.1996 for Rs.5,52,241/-.
Ex.P.36(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.36. Ex.P.37 : Credit Voucher dated 20.11.1996 for Rs.5,52,241/-.
Ex.P.37(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.37.
Ex.P.38 : FD Receipt dated 29.3.1995 relating to
A/c.No.934 in the name of
Smt.S.Saraswathi Amma.
Ex.P.38(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.38. Ex.P.39 : FD Receipt dated 28.12.1995 relating to A/c.No.934/MBD in the name of Smt.S.Saraswathi for Rs,2,51,943/-.
Ex.P.40 : FD Receipt dated 28.12.1995 relating to A/c.No.1048/MBD in the name of Sri.Krishna Bhat S. Ex.P.41 : FD Ledger Sheet dated 29.03.1995 relating to Fixed Deposit A/c.No.934 in the name of Smt.S.Saraswathi Amma.
Ex.P.41(a) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.41 regarding Rs.11,683/-.
Ex.P.42 : Cash Order dated 15.11.1996 for Rs.2,83,564/-.
Ex.P.42(a) : Signature of P.W.3-Smt.Padma in Ex.P.42.
Ex.P.42(b) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.42.
114 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.43 : FD Receipt dated 29.03.1995 relating to A/c.No.930 in the name of Sri.Krishna Bhat S. Ex.P.44 : FD Receipt dated 28.12.1995 relating to A/c.No.930/MBD in the name of Sri.Krishna Bhat S. Ex.P.45 : Cash Order dated 15.11.1996 for Rs.2,83,794/-.
Ex.P.45(a) : Signature of P.W.3 in Ex.P.45. Ex.P.45(b) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.45. Ex.P.46 : FD Ledger Sheet dated 29.03.1995 relating to A/c.No.930 in the name of Sri.Krishna Bhat S. Ex.P.46(a) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.46. Ex.P.46(b) : Entry made by P.W.21 regarding Interest.
Ex.P.47 : Debit voucher dated 20.7.1996 for Rs.2,63,840/-.
Ex.P.48 : Credit Voucher dated 20.7.1996 for Rs.2,63,840/-.
Ex.P.49 : Fixed Deposit Ledger Sheet dated 28.12.1995 relating to A/c.No.1048 in the name of Sri.Krishna Bhat S. Ex.P.49(a) : Entries made in Ex.P.49 regarding Interest.
Ex.P.50 : Cash Order dated 15.11.1996 for Rs.2,68,777/-.
115 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.50(a) : Signature of P.W.3-Smt.Padma in Ex.P.50.
Ex.P.50(b) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.50. Ex.P.51 : Account Opening Form dated 20.11.1996 relating to S.F.A/c.
No.7300.
Ex.P.51(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.51. Ex.P.51(b) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.51. Ex.P.51(c) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.51. Ex.P.51(d) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.51. Ex.P.52 : Specimen Signatures Card relating to S.F.A/c.No.7300.
[ Ex.P.52(a) : Signatures of the Accused in Ex.P.52. Ex.P.53 : Debit Voucher dated 19.7.1996 for Rs.2,63,626/-.
Ex.P.54 : Registered Postal Cover.
Ex.P.54(a) : Endorsement on Ex.P.54. Ex.P.54(b) : Endorsement on Ex.P.54. Ex.P.54(c) : Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.P.55 : Cash Book.
Ex.P.55(a) : Relevant Entry at page No.168, Sl.No.25 regarding Rs.2,70,000/- of S.F.A/c.No.7300.
Ex.P.56 : Transfer Journal Book Ex.P.56(a) : Relevant Entry at page No.84 regarding Rs.5,52,241/- of S.F.A/c. of Smt.Saraswathi.
116 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.56(b) : Relevant Entry at Sl.No.9 page No.84 regarding Rs.5,52,241/- of FD-MBD. Ex.P.57 : Ledger Sheet dated 20.07.1995 relating to A/c.No.566 in the name of Dr.H.R.Gopalakrishnamurthy.
Ex.P.57(a) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.57 regarding Rs.13,672/-.
Ex.P.58 : Ledger Sheet dated 20.07.1995 relating to A/c.No.567 in the name of Smt.Vimala.
Ex.P.58(a) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.58 regarding credit of Rs.50/-.
Ex.P.59 : Pass Book of SB Account No.11593. Ex.P.59(a) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.59 regarding debit of Rs.13,000/-.
Ex.P.60 : Seizure Memo.
Ex.P.60(a) : Signature of P.W.12 in Ex.P.60.
Ex.P.61 : Seizure Memo.
Ex.P.61(a) : Signature of P.W.13 in Ex.P.61. Ex.P.61(b) : Signature of P.W.28 in Ex.P.61.
Ex.P.62 : Seizure Mahazar.
Ex.P.62(a) : Signature of P.W.13 in Ex.P.62. Ex.P.62(b) : Signature of P.W.8 in Ex.P.62. Ex.P.62(c) : Signature of P.W.28 in Ex.P.62. Ex.P.63 : Registered Postal Cover.
Ex.P.63(a) : Endorsement on Ex.P.63 made by P.W.14.
117 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.63(b) : Endorsement on Ex.P.63 by P.W.16. Ex.P.63(c) : Endorsement of P.W.20 on Ex.P.63 made by P.W.14.
Ex.P.64 : Extract of Statement of Accounts in Canara Bank for the period from 1.10.96 to 31.12.96 of Sri.Krishna Bhat.S. Ex.P.65 : Extract of Statement of Accounts in Canara Bank for the period from 1.10.96 to 31.12.96 of Smt.Saraswathi Amma.
Ex.P.66 : Seizure Memo.
Ex.P.66(a) : Signature of Sri.Mahalinga Bhat.S. in Ex.P.66.
Ex.P.67 : Debit Voucher.
Ex.P.67(a) : Signature of the Accused.
Ex.P.68 : Day Book.
Ex.P.68(a) : Signature of P.W.18 in Ex.P.68. Ex.P.68(b) : Signature of P.W.18 in Ex.P.68. Ex.P.68(c) : Signature of P.W.18 in Ex.P.68.
Ex.P.69 : General Ledger.
Ex.P.69(a) : Corrections made at Page No.102 and 103 in Ex.P.69.
Ex.P.69(b) : Corrected portion at page No.40 in Ex.P.69.
Ex.P.70 : Transfer Journal Book.
118 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
Ex.P.70(a) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.70 regarding Rs.2,63,626/- of S.F.A/c.No.7186. Ex.P.70(b) : Relevant Entry in Ex.P.70 regarding Rs.2,63,626/- of FD-MBD 934.
Ex.P.71 : Transfer Journal Book.
Ex.P.71(a) : Credit Entry at Sl.No.4 & 5(page 45) in Ex.P.71 regarding Rs.30,000/- each of Cash Order and FD-MBD.
Ex.P.71(b) : Debit Entry at Sl.No.5 and 6 in Ex.P.71 regarding Rs.30,000/- of FD-MBD and Rs.5,000/- of SF A/c.No.2060.
Ex.P.71(c) : Handwriting of P.W.21-Smt.Hemalatha Prakash.
Ex.P.71(d) : Relevant Entry at page No.143 in
Ex.P.71 regarding Debit entry of
Rs.2,52,147/- of FD/930/MBD.
Ex.P.71(e) : Relevant Entry at page No.143 in
Ex.P.71 regarding Debit entry of
Rs.2,57,943/- of FD/930/MBD.
Ex.P.71(f) : Relevant Entry at page No.143 in
Ex.P.71 regarding Debit entry of
Rs.2,38,805/- of FD/ORD/638.
Ex.P.71(g) : Relevant Entry at page No.143 in Ex.P.71 regarding Credit entry of Rs.2,52,147/- of FD/930/MBD.
Ex.P.71(h) : Relevant Entry at page No.143 in Ex.P.71 regarding Credit entry of Rs.2,57,943/- of FD/934/MBD.
119 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.71(j) : Relevant Entry at page No.143 in Ex.P.71 regarding Credit entry of Rs.2,38,805/- of FD/1048/MBD.
Ex.P.72 : Letter dated 8.10.1996 from Manager,
Anand Nagar, Bengaluru to the
Regional Manager.
Ex.P.72(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.72. Ex.P.73 : Letter dated 5.7.1995 from the Manager to the Regional Manager regarding reimbursement of Petrol Expenses.
Ex.P.73(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.73. Ex.P.74 : Letter dated 14.8.1994 from the Manager to the Regional Manager regarding Taking of Charge of the Office.
Ex.P.74(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.74. Ex.P.75 : Letter dated 10.8.1994 from the Manager to the Regional Manager regarding Request for Transfer.
Ex.P.75(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.75. Ex.P.76 : Letter dated 1.2.1994 regarding Reporting for Duty.
Ex.P.76(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.76. Ex.P.77 : Another Letter dated 8.6.1993 regarding of Sanctioning of Leave.
Ex.P.77(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.77.
120 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.78 : Letter dated 19.11.1991 regarding not attending the Training Program at Delhi.
Ex.P.78(a) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.78.
Ex.P.79 : Seizure Memo. Ex.P.79(a) : Signature of P.W.19 in Ex.P.79. Ex.P.79(b) : Signature of P.W.28 in Ex.P.79. Ex.P.80 : Seizure Memo. Ex.P.80(a) : Signature of P.W.19 in Ex.P.80. Ex.P.80(b) : Signature of P.W.28 in Ex.P.80. Ex.P.81 : History Sheet of the Accused. Ex.P.82 : Cashier's Scroll. Ex.P.82(a) : Relevant Entry at page No.112 Sl.No.63
in Ex.P.82 regarding Rs.4,53,531/- of Sundries.
Ex.P.82(b) : Signature of P.W.23 in Ex.P.82.
Ex.P.83 : Cash Book.
Ex.P.83(a) : Relevant Receipts Entry at page No.133
Sl.No.63 in Ex.P.83 regarding
Rs.4,53,531/- of Sundries.
Ex.P.84 : Specimen Writings and Signatures of
the Accused.
Ex.P.84(a) : Signature of P.W.28 on Ex.P.84.
Ex.P.84(b) : Signature of the Accused on Ex.P.84.
Ex.P.84(1) : Specimen Writings of the Accused.
Ex.P.84(1)(a) : Signature of P.W.28 on Ex.P.84(1).
121 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.P.84(2) : Specimen Writings of the Accused. Ex.P.84(2)(a) : Signature of P.W.28 on Ex.P.84(2). Ex.P.84(2)(b) : Signature of the Accused on Ex.P.84(2).
Ex.P.84(1)(a) : Signature of P.W.28 on Ex.P.84(1). Ex.P.84(1)(b) : Signature of the Accused in Ex.P.84(1) Ex.P.85 : Opinion of the GEQD & Assistant GEQD. Ex.P.85(a) : Signature of Assistant GEQD in Ex.P.85. Ex.P.85(b) : Signature of GEQD on Ex.P.85. Ex.P.86 : Reasons for Opinion by the Asst. GEQD. Ex.P.86(a) : Signature of Asst. GEQD in Ex.P.86.
Ex.P.87 : FIR.
Ex.P.87(a) : Signature of P.W.28 in Ex.P.87.
Ex.P.88 : Search List.
Ex.P.88(a) : Signature of P.W.28 in Ex.P.88.
Ex.P.89 : Inventory.
Ex.P.89(a) : Signature of P.W.28 in Ex.P.89.
Ex.P.90 : Search List.
Ex.P.90(a) : Signature of Sri.Ramakrishna, Police
Inspector, CBI.
Ex.P.91 : List of Vouchers and other Documents
handed over to CBI by Senior Manager and Assistant Manager.
Ex.P.91(a) : Signature of P.W.28 in Ex.P.91.
Ex.P.92 : Seizure Memo.
122 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]
Ex.P.92(a) : Signature of P.W.28 in Ex.P.92.
Ex.P.93 : Seizure Memo.
Ex.P.93(a) : Signature of P.W.28 in Ex.P.93.
Ex.P.94 : Seizure Memo.
Ex.P.94(a) : Signature of P.W.28 in Ex.P.94.
Ex.P.95 : Seizure Memo.
Ex.P.95(a) : Signature of P.W.28 in Ex.P.95.
3. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF
OF THE COMPLAINANT:-
M.O.1 : Halda Typewriter bearing No.006857.
4. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED WITH DATE OF EXAMINATION:-
D.W.1: Sri.K.Rajgopalan - 25.02.2009
5. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:-
Ex.D.1 : Copy of Questioned and Standard Writings of Smt.Gowri.
Ex.D.2 : Attested Copy of Report dated 17.03.1998 on Actual or Suspected Frauds in Banks given by P.W.17 Sri.V.Vijay Kumar & Branch Manager.
Ex.D.3 : Attested Copy of Letter dated 19.5.1998 from P.W.17-Sri.V.Vijayakumar, Inspector, Punjab National Bank to the Senior Manager, I & C 123 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Department, Zonal Office, Chennai regarding fraud by Smt.B.K.Usha Devi.
Ex.D.4 : Attested Copy of Suspension Order dated 26.02.1998 given by Zonal Manager to Smt.B.K.Usha Devi.
Ex.D.5 : Attested Copy of Letter dated 10.7.1998 written by P.W.28-Sri.P.K.Ramachandran to the Senior Manager, HMT Layout, Bengaluru for production of Documents.
Ex.D.6 : Attested Copy of List of Documents dated 10.7.98 handed over by the Assistant Manager and Senior Manager of Punjab National Bank, Anand Nagar to CBI.
Ex.D.7 : Attested Copy of Report dated 04.03.1998 sent by P.W.6-Sri.K.G.Shetty, Senior Manager, Regional Office, Bengaluru to the Regional Manager, Regional Office, Bengaluru regarding fraud committed by Smt.B.K.Usha Devi.
Ex.D.8 : Attested Copy of Order dated 29.10.1998 by Zonal Manager, Disciplinary Authority, Punjab National Bank, Chennai regarding Departmental Enquiry into Charge Sheet dated 1.4.1998 served on Smt.Usha Devi.
Ex.D.9 : Attested Copy of Letter dated 18.2.1998 with Report regarding Investigation made into the State of Affairs of Anandnagar Branch Office by Sri.G.R.Sundararajan.
124 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] Ex.D.10 : Attested Copy of Report dated 13.2.1998 given by P.W.6-Sri.Govindaraja Shetty, Senior Manager to the Regional Manager regarding anonymous Complaints, Misuse of Interest Accrued on Deposits and unbanking practices at Anandnagara Branch Office.
Ex.D.11 : Attested Copy of Letter dated 28.2.1998 with Fraud Proforma Report given by P.W.2- Sri.Jayaprakash to the Zonal Manager, Inspection & Control Dept., Zonal Office, the Regional Manager, RMO, Bengaluru and also to the Chief, I & C Division, HO, New Delhi.
Ex.D.12 : Attested Copy of Investigation Report dated 27.4.1998 given by P.W.17-Sri.V.Vikjay Kumar.
Ex.D.13 : Attested Copy of Report of Actual Fraud or suspected frauds in Banks dated 21.1.1999 given by Branch Manager.
Ex.D.14 : Attested Copy of Report dated 24.2.1999 of Actual or Suspected Frauds in Bank.
(ASWATHA NARAYANA) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
125 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J] 31.07.2015:
Complainant: By P.P. Accused: By S.R.K. For Judgment:
Judgment pronounced (vide separate Judgment consisting of 124 Pages kept in the file) and the following Order is passed:
ORDER Under Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Accused is acquitted from the Charge of the offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and she is at liberty.
M.O.1-Typewriter be returned to Captain Ravi after expiry of the period fixed for filing Appeal.
[Computerized by the Judgment Writer to my dictation, corrected, revised and then pronounced by me in the Open Court, on 31.07.2015.] (ASWATHA NARAYANA) XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
126 [Spl.C.C.128/1999-J]