Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
R.Sreenivasa Rao, vs The State Of A.P., on 1 February, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.111 OF 2007
ORDER:
This is a Criminal Revision Case, filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, „the Cr.P.C‟), by the petitioner herein, who was the accused in Calendar Case No.357 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool (for short, „the learned Magistrate‟) and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2005 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool (for short, „the learned Additional Sessions Judge‟), challenging the judgment, dated 17.01.2007, in the said Criminal Appeal, where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against him in C.C. No.357 of 2001, dated 17.11.2005, for the offences under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, „the IPC‟).
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
2
AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007
3. The petitioner herein faced trial in C.C. No.357 of 2001 before the Court below for the charges under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A IPC for which he was found guilty, convicted and sentenced before the Court below. Aggrieved thereby, he filed Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2005 challenging the judgment of the trial Court, which came to be dismissed on merits. Challenging the same, the unsuccessful appellant therein approached this Court by way of this Criminal Revision Case.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the averments in the charge sheet before the Court below, is as follows:
The accused is working as Senior Assistant in the Office of Chief Planning Officer, Kurnool. He was entrusted with the job of preparing the salary bills, drawing salaries and processing of GPF loan applications/forms of other employees in the office. Accused by virtue of his employment holds all the public documents i.e., records pertaining to the salaries, GPF applications, and Service Registers of other employees. He took advantage of the possession of records pertaining to the salaries and GPF applications and fabricated some documents by forging the signatures of LWs.1 to 7 and LW.10 i.e., B. Gopal, Akula Sunkanna, M.V.Subba Reddy, 3 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 N.V. Ramana, N. Diwan Saheb, S.R.Ratna Ruth, B. Yugandhar Reddy and T. Sunki Reddy and withdrawn the GPF amounts in the form of loans. The procedure to be adopted in sanction of GPF is as follows:
"PROCEDURE OF LOAN SANCTION:
(a) The applicant has to apply for sanction of G.P.F. advance in Form "1" and for Part Final Withdrawal in Form "O" to the Drawing Officer by enclosing GPF Slip.
(b) After the receipt of applications the drawing officer will put his initial and forward it to the accused for the preparation of file and issuing necessary orders. The St. Asst. (accused) has to follow the GPF Rules and put up a note before the drawing officer (LW.1)
(c) On the sanction orders made by LW.1 (Drawing Officer) the accused (St. Asst.) has to prepare a bill in Advance Register for the purpose of office copy. The Drawing Officer will pass sanction orders on it. Again the St. Asst. has to prepare a fair copy in Bill Form (Form-40-A) and the accused has to enclose the relevant papers as Application Form. GPF slip etc., and APTC Form 101 authorizing the messenger of office to process the papers in DTO and to bring the cash. The accused has to send the bill to the DTO duly entering the particulars of Bill in Treasury Bill Register. The bill should be assigned Sl.No. of Treasury Bill Register.
(d) The DTO will receive the Fair Bill and T&R from the messenger sent by the Drawing Officer and DTO will incorporate the particulars in his bill in Inward Register 4 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 with running Sl. Number and issue token to the messenger.
(e) The DTO after the verification of papers sent by the drawing officer will pass a bill and send the same to the bank by filling the particulars of bill in bill Outward Register and assign a running number.
(f) The authorized messenger will bring the cash and the relevant registers from the DTO. The messenger shall have authorization by the drawing officer.
(g) The messenger will hand over the cash to the Office Superintendent who will hand over to the Sr. Asst. for the disbursement to the person concerned by obtaining the signature in the acquittance register.
The accused has perpetrated the offence in the following manner:
(a) The accused has fabricated the GPF application forms and forged the signatures of LWs.2, 3 and 4 and forged the signatures of them. He also forged the signatures of LW.1 (Drawing Officer) and drew the amount of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.28,000/- respectively and misappropriated the same.
(b) LW.5 was sanctioned a sum of Rs.10,000/- as G.P.F. But, the accused has altered the figure to Rs.20,000/-. Again while preparing the bills, he made it for Rs.40,000/- and the remaining Rs.20,000/- was drawn from G.P.F. Account of Yugandhar Reddy, but, in the bill the name of Krishnudu was written against the GPF Account of Yugandhar Reddy and Rs.30,000/- was misappropriated by the accused.
(c) LW.6 Ratna Ruth was sanctioned a sum of Rs.8,000/- as GPF loan by LW.1. But the bill was prepared 5 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 by the accused for Rs.18,000/- by adding the number „1‟ in the figures and Rs.18,000/- was drawn in the name of her and Rs.10,000/- was misappropriated by the accused"
5. Subsequently, the offence came to the notice of LW.1 as certain employees in the office complained about the illegal withdrawal of GPF amounts from their accounts. On the basis of the complaint of LW.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool III Town Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.128 of 1999 for the offences under Sections 408 and 468 IPC and investigated into. During investigation, he seized the records from the offices of District Treasury, Accountant General, Chief Planning Officer, Kurnool and State Bank of India, Kurnool. The Investigating Officer obtained the specimen signatures of LWs.1 to 7 and 10, which were forwarded to hand writing expert for opinion. LWs.1 to 7 and 10 gave their statements before the Investigating Officer that the accused forged their signatures and has illegally withdrawn the amounts and misappropriated the same. The handwriting expert also opined that the handwritings contained in the disputed documents are not pertaining to LWs.1 to 7 and 10. Thus, the investigation disclosed that the accused misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,21,000/- by fabricating the documents, forging the signatures of the aforesaid persons, as such he rendered himself 6 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 liable for punishment under Sections 408, 465, 466 and 477-A IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.
6. The learned Magistrate took the case on file. After appearance of the accused and after completing the necessary formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, examined him under Section 239 Cr.P.C, for which he denied the allegations of the prosecution. Then, the learned Magistrate framed charges under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A IPC, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. During course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 13 were examined before the Court below and Exs.P-1 to P-74 were marked. Further, the accused got marked Ex.D-1.
8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which he denied the same and stated that he has no defence evidence.
9. The learned Magistrate, after hearing both sides and on consideration of the material available on record, found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 7 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 and 477-A IPC, convicted him and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 409 IPC; sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 477-A IPC; sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 471 IPC; sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 468 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 465 IPC and that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
10. Felt aggrieved of the same, he preferred the aforesaid Appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool which came to be dismissed. Further aggrieved, he filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
8
AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007
11. Now in deciding this Criminal Revision Case the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2005, dated 17.01.2007, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the appellate Court?
12. Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel, representing learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the judgments passed by the Courts below are contrary to law and both the Courts below did not appreciate the evidence on record properly. He would submit that there is no legally acceptable evidence on record to prove that the petitioner signed 101 authorization forms and obtained bills from the Treasury. The prosecution did not adduce any evidence to show that the petitioner was entrusted with the job of preparation of the salary bills, drawing salaries and processing of GPF applications of other employees and that he was the custodian of the public documents, especially records relating to GPF. Both the Courts below did not consider the fact that one Senior Assistant and Superintendent are responsible persons to watch and reconcile the accounts as well as the amounts drawn in the Office and the petitioner has nothing to do with the said process. The appellate Court and the trial Court simply believed 9 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 the oral testimony of PW.1 that the petitioner was entrusted with the said work. Both the Courts below erroneously opined that there was fabrication and forging of signatures of PW.1, Drawing Officer. The trial Court and the appellate Court erred in giving finding that the signatures of the petitioner were proved by PWs.10 and 13 under Exs.P-72 and P-74. The learned Additional Sessions Judge erroneously observed that the petitioner was the custodian of the records. He would submit that it is a case where the petitioner ought to have been acquitted by extending benefit of doubt as such the Criminal Revision Case may be allowed.
13. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing learned Public Prosecutor, would submit that the prosecution adduced voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence and accused did not dispute his responsibilities insofar as preparation of salary bills, processing of GPF applications etc., and the prosecution categorically established the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and both the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly convicted the accused, as such the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
14. The prosecution has alleged that accused, by discharging the duties of Senior Assistant in the office of Chief Planning 10 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 Officer, Kurnool committed certain acts which amounts to criminal breach of trust, forgery for the purpose of cheating and further used the forged documents as genuine one. The crucial allegations in this regard are that the accused fabricated the GPF application forms and forged the signatures of PW.2 - A. Sunkanna, PW.3 - M.V.Subba Reddy and PW.4 - N. Venkata Ramana and withdrew the amounts of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.28,000/- respectively. Further allegation is that he also forged the signature of PW.1, the Drawing Officer, in this regard. It is also alleged that when N. Diwan Saheb made an application for sanction of Rs.10,000/-, accused altered the figures as that of Rs.20,000/- and further altering the same as that of Rs.40,000/-, has withdrawn the amount from the GPF account of Sri B. Yugandhar Reddy but in the name of one Krishnudu. Further allegation is that when LW.6 S.R.Rathna Ruth was sanctioned a sum of Rs.8,000/- under GPF loan, accused prepared the bill showing it as that of Rs.18,000/- by adding the word „1‟ and has withdrawn the excess amount and misappropriated the same. It is alleged that the aggrieved persons complained the issue to LW.1 and LW.1 ultimately lodged the report under Ex.P-1 to the Police. 11
AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007
15. To bring home the above said allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined LW.1 as that of PW.1 and further PWs.2 to 4, whose GPF application forms were fabricated and amount was withdrawn allegedly by the accused. The prosecution has further examined PW.5 - B. Yugandhar Reddy and PW.6 - S.R. Ratna Ruth.
16. Now, it is necessary to refer here the substance of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. PW.1 - B. Gopal is the de- facto complainant, who deposed that at the time of incident in question he worked as Chief Planning Officer, Kurnool from 1996 to 2002. In the month of November, 1998 one Sunkanna, who was Statistical Officer, N.V.Ramana and M.V.Subba Reddy, who were working as Deputy Statistical Officers, came to him and complained about the misappropriation of GPF amounts from their respective GPF accounts without their knowledge. N. Diwan Saheb, Deputy Statistical Officer, informed him that when he applied for GPF loan of Rs.10,000/- but an amount of Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn from his GPF account. Smt. S.R.Ratna Ruth, Assistant Statistical Officer, also informed him that when she applied for GPF loan of Rs.8,000/- but found an amount of Rs.18,000/- was withdrawn. Upon which, PW.1 addressed a letter 12 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 to A.G. Office to send for the GPF applications of Sunkanna, N.V.Ramana, M.V.Subba Reddy, Diwan Saheb and Smt. Ratna Ruth. On verification of xerox copies received from A.G. Office and on comparison of the same with his office copies and Treasury Records, he found that the accused by forging the signatures of applicants, who made applications for GPF withdrawals, and by forging his signatures, prepared bills for Rs.25,000/- from GPF account of Sunkanna, for Rs.28,000 from the GPF account of N.V.Ramana and Rs.20,000/- from the GPF account of M.V.Subba Reddy and withdrew the said amounts without knowing the disbursement amount in their office records. On verification of Diwan Saheb‟s application, who applied loan for GPF amount of Rs.10,000/-, it is found that accused prepared fresh application in his name for Rs.20,000/- by forging his signature and also prepared the bill for the said amount by even forging the signature of CPO - Srinivasulu. Similarly, the accused also prepared another application in the name of one D. Krishnudu for Rs.20,000/- in the same bill but has given the GPF account number of one Yugandhar Reddy against the name of Krishnudu and withdrew Rs.20,000/-, without mentioning the disbursement particulars in office record and accused also has withdrawn Rs.40,000/- on the bill but has given only Rs.10,000/- to Diwan Saheb and 13 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 misappropriated Rs.30,000/-. On verification of the GPF loan application of Smt. Ratna Ruth, who applied for Rs.8,000/-, they found that the bill was endorsed to the accused for encashment but the accused inserted his name in the original bill as second applicant for Rs.10,000/- by creating his application by forging the signature of the CPO and modified the figure to that of Rs.18,000/- and even has withdrawn the same but only paid Rs.8,000/- to Ratna Ruth. Thus, the accused has withdrawn the excess amount of Rs.1,13,000/- by forging the signatures of his staff as well CPO. Thereupon, he lodged complaint i.e., Ex.P-1 in III Town Police Station, Kurnool on 13.05.1999. PW.1 further stated that the accused removed the papers in the Treasury Bill Book (TBR) relating to the bills of Subba Reddy, Ramana and regarding Sunkanna GPF loan amount. The accused made overwriting in the TBR. Ex.P-2 is the TBR and Ex.P-3 is the relevant page. Ex.P-2 is relating to the bill of Sunkanna. Ex.P-4 is GPF and other advance register and Ex.P-5 is the relevant entry at Page No.53 regarding the bill of Diwan Saheb. Ex.P-6 is the relevant entry at Page No.48 relating to Ratna Ruth. Ex.P-7 is the Treasury Bill of M.V.Subba Reddy. Ex.P-8 is the Treasury bill of Sunkanna. Ex.P-9 is the Treasury bill of Ramana. Ex.P-10 is the 101 form for Rs.20,000/-. Ex.P-11 is the 101 form for Rs.28,000/. 14
AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 Ex.P-12 is proceedings of M.V.Subba Reddy for Rs.20,000/-. Ex.P-13 is the proceedings for N.V.Ramana for Rs.28,000/-. Ex.P- 14 is the proceedings of A.Sunkanna for Rs.25,000/-. In Exs.P-7 to P-14, he (PW.1) has not signed but the accused has forged his signatures.
17. Coming to the testimony of PW.2 - Sunkanna, he deposed that he is retired from service as Statistical Officer and prior to that he worked as such in the Office of CPO, Kurnool from 01.11.1996 to 31.12.1999. He knows PW.1 and other witnesses who worked along with him in CPO Office, Kurnool including the accused. He deposed that accused used to prepare bills, salary bills and drawing the salary and also used to attend various bills and draw the amounts. Accused also used to prepare the acquittance register and disburse the amount through the Superintendent one Radha Mohan. He came to know through his annual GPF slip relating to the year 1996-97 that in the month of November, 1998, there is a withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- from his GPF account on 05.02.1997 without there being any application from him. Hence, he reported the matter to the CPO, who in turn addressed a letter to the A.G. Office seeking to supply the xerox copies of the bills. On receipt of the xerox copies of the same, they 15 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 found that the accused received cash of Rs.25,000/- by putting his signature in the bill, Ex.P-15. The signature shown to him on Ex.P-15 at page No.3 does not belong to him and he asked the CPO to give the said amount.
18. PW.3 - M.V.Subba Reddy, who is working as Deputy Statistical Officer in CPO Office, Kurnool also deposed in similar line to that of PW.2 and deposed that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn from his GPF Account without his knowledge even though he did not apply for the same.
19. PW.4 - N.V.Ramana, who was working as Statistical Officer, in CPO Office, Kurnool deposed that he received GPF slip for the year 1997-98 in the month of November, 1998 and found a part- final withdrawal of Rs.28,000/- from his GPF Account, which he did not apply for. Accordingly, he gave a written representation to the CPO, who in turn addressed a letter to A.G. Office, Hyderabad asking for supply of the said bills. On receipt of the said bills from AG Office, they came to know that the bill was prepared in his name but encashed by the accused. He deposed that the signature shown to him on the bill does not pertain to the CPO. 16
AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007
20. PW.5 - B. Yugandhar Reddy, who is working as Deputy Statistical Officer, CPO Office, Kurnool deposed that he worked in CPO Office, Kurnool up to 1997 and later transferred to District Co-operative Office. He came to know about the withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- from his GPF Account on the application standing in the name of Krishnudu and the accused has withdrawn the said amount.
21. PW.6 - S.R.Ratna Ruth deposed that she is working as Assistant Statistical Officer in MRO Office, Kurnool and prior to that she worked as such in CPO Office, Kurnool from 1992 to 1997. She deposed that she applied for GPF loan in the year 1996 for a sum of Rs.8,000/- and on receipt of the said amount and on knowing about the fraud committed by the accused, came to know that accused has withdrawn Rs.10,000/- in excess from her account by showing Rs.18,000/- in her token but in TBR it was mentioned as Rs.8,000/-.
22. Firstly, this Court has to see as to the entrustment of various duties to the accused. As evident from the evidence of PW.1, he knows the accused, who is working in CPO Office during his tenure. As seen from the evidence of PW.2, he categorically spoken as to the fact that accused worked as Senior Assistant and 17 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 he used to prepare salary bills, drawing salary, he used to attend all the bills in their office, used to draw the amounts, prepare Acquittance Register and disburse the amount through Superintendent one Radha Mohan. During the course of cross- examination of PW.1, accused elicited that one Radha Mohan worked as Office Superintendent and further one Smt. Balamani was also with the account at that time. PW.1 denied that accused is in no way connected with the allegations and Balamani, Superintendent and that he (PW.1) are responsible for everything and that he is deposing false. Similar cross-examination of PW.2 was also done. It is to be noticed that PW.9 is the Investigating Officer, who during the course of cross-examination, deposed that it is true that there is a mention in the FIR that Radha Mohan, Senior Superintendent and Smt. S. Balamani, Senior Assistant working in the office are responsible to watch and reconcile the accounts as well as the amounts drawn. He categorically deposed that he made investigation knowing the correctness of the investigation and the investigation does not disclose any act against the said two persons. It is to be noticed that though there used to be Superintendent and one Accountant but as regards the procedure to be adopted while receiving applications under GPF putting up note before PW.1, getting orders and making entries in 18 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 the relevant registers and preparing proceedings and further submission of bills etc., the accused had every role in the said process. In my considered view, the prosecution adduced cogent evidence to show that accused used to deal with the GPF applications of the employees.
23. Now, coming to the evidence of PW.1, he categorically spoken as pointed out about the complaints made by PWs.2 to 4 that the withdrawal of the GPF amounts were made from their accounts without their knowledge. He has further spoken about the factum of the withdrawal of excess amount from the GPF accounts of one Ratna Ruth and further when Diwan Saheb made an application for withdrawal of GPF for Rs.10,000/- it was tampered and amount was withdrawn from some other‟s account etc., PW.1 categorically deposed as pointed out that he did not sign Exs.P-7 to P14 and that accused forged his signatures on Ex.P-7 to P-14. Exs.P-7 to P-14 are no other than the Treasury Bills of M.V.Subba Reddy, Sunkanna, N.V.Ramana and 101 forms for Rs.20,000/- Rs.28,000/- and proceedings in the name of said persons. So, by virtue of the evidence of PW.1, the prosecution alleged about the fabrication of the GPF applications in the name of M.V.Subba Reddy, Sunkanna, N.V.Ramana and fabrication of 19 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 Form-101 as well as proceedings in their names alleged to be signed by PW.1.
24. PW.2 specifically deposed that the signatures shown to him on Ex.P-15 i.e., the so called GPF application did not contain his signature.
25. According to PW.3, the signature shown to him on GPF loan application under Ex.P-16 is not that of him.
26. According to PW.4, the signature shown to him on Ex.P-9 is not the signature of CPO.
27. PW.5 specifically deposed that he came to know about the withdrawal of the GPF amount of Rs.20,000/- in the name of one Krishnudu from his account i.e., GPF account of PW.5. PW.6 categorically testified that when she made an application for GPF amount of Rs.8,000/- she came to know that the accused tampered it as that of Rs.18,000/- and withdrew the same.
28. PW.7 is the Assistant Director, Office of CPO, Kurnool who testified that the accused worked during his term and he came to know about the misuse of GPF amounts relating to Ratna Ruth and Diwan Saheb etc. 20 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007
29. As seen from the evidence of PW.8, he testified that previously he was Assistant Treasury Officer, Kurnool. Police examined him with regard to the procedure for GPF bill presentation. According to him, when any GPF bill is presented through TBR, it is to be verified whether the bill is prepared in Form 40-A or not and whether the bill is accompanied by an application under 101 Form. Further, the sanction order of the Drawing Officer ought to be tallied with the specimen signatures available in the Officer. Further, GPF sanction claim is to be in accordance with the GPF Rules to be enclosed with sanction proceedings.
30. The whole defence of the accused before the Court below is that he is not at all concerned with the fraud and the Superintendent and one Balamani were also there.
31. By virtue of the evidence let in, the prosecution has categorically proved the nature of the duties to be attended by the accused in the capacity of the Senior Assistant. The prosecution has further examined the aggrieved parties i.e., PWs.2 to 6 with regard to the fabrication of the GPF applications, signature of PW.1 and tampering of the entries in the relevant registers and withdrawing the amounts without there being any application of 21 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 PWs.2 to 4 and further withdrawing excess amounts of other persons.
32. Now, the crucial thing that has to be considered is as to whether the liability can be fastened against the accused with regard to these facts. To decide the same, a look into the evidence of PW.9, Investigating Officer, is necessary. PW.9 is the Investigating Officer who deposed that on 13.05.1999, he received a typed complaint at 06:00 p.m. basing on which he registered the case in Crime No.128 of 1999 for the offences under Sections 408 and 468 IPC. Ex.P-17 is the FIR. He secured the presence of PWs.1 to 4, one Diwan Saheb, who was no more, and PW.6. On 14.05.1999, he secured the presence of PWs.5 and 8, examined and recorded their statements. Later, he visited CPO office and requested PW.1 to produce all the relevant registers for the purpose of investigation. On 09.12.1999, he received a letter from CPO office informing that all the original documents are lying in the A.G. Office, Hyderabad. Basing on which, they filed requisition before the Court requesting the Court to summon documents from AG Office. Ex.P-18 is the letter addressed to SHO, III Town Police Station, Kurnool by the CPO. Ex.P-19 is the letter addressed by SHO to Court. Ex.P-20 is the letter addressed by Court to A.G. 22 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 Office. Ex.P-21 is the letter addressed by A.G. Office. Ex.P-22 is the letter addressed by Senior Accounts Officer, A.G. Office, Hyderabad dated 03.11.2000. They received the original GPF application forms of all the employees from CPO including of late Diwan Saheb. On 29.01.2001 at 09:00 a.m. he arrested the accused and sent him for remand. He took the specimen signatures of the accused in the presence of witnesses. He further deposed that on 05.02.2001, PWs.2 and 3, Diwan Saheb, P. Sreenivasulu, Krishnudu and PW.1 appeared before him and he obtained the specimen signatures of all the witnesses in the presence of Panchayatdar Sunki Reddy. He also recorded the statement of PW.7. Then he sent all the documents through Court to FSL for comparison of specimen signatures of the accused with the witnesses. On 20.02.2001, he received letter from the FSL from Court to send some more admitted specimen signatures of the accused and witnesses. He sent the requisition to CPO to send all the documents containing the signatures of accused and witnesses. Then CPO sent TA bill of Sunkanna. Ex.P-23 is the letter addressed by SHO. Ex.P-24 is the TA claimed by Sunkanna for May, 1999. Ex.P-25 is the TA Bill of Sunkanna, for June, 1999. Ex.P-26 is the CL letter of Sunkanna, dated 08.05.1999. Ex.P-27 is another CL letter of Sunkanna, dated 12.10.1999. Ex.P-28 is 23 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 Tour Diary of M.V.Subba Reddy. Exs.P-29 and 30 are CL letters of M.V.Subba Reddy dated 08.03.2000 and 07.11.2000. Ex.P-31 is the Tour Diary of Diwan Saheb. Ex.P-32 is CL letter dated 01.02.2000. Ex.P-33 is the CL letter dated 01.03.2000. Ex.P-34 is the Tour Diary of Krishnudu. Ex.P-35 is another Tour Diary. Ex.P-36 is the TA bill of Krishnudu. Ex.P-37 is CL letter of Krishnudu dated 28.01.2000. Ex.P-38 is non employment certificate of accused dated 28.05.1998. Exs.P-39 and 40 are non employment certificates of accused. Ex.P-41 is proceedings of PW.1 dated 16.05.1997. Ex.P-42 is the proceedings of PW.1 dated 28.05.1997. Ex.P-43 is the proceedings of PW.1 dated 16.05.1997. Ex.P-44 is the letter dated 15.11.1997. Ex.P-45 is the proceedings of PW.1 dated 11.05.1999. Ex.P-46 is the fax message dated 17.05.2001. Ex.P-47 is the proceedings of Srinivasulu dated 06.09.1996. Ex.P-48 is the proceedings of Srinivasulu dated 25.09.1996. Ex.P-49 is the proceedings of Srinivasulu dated 24.09.1996. Exs.P-50 to 52 are TA Claim bills for the months of February, March and April 1997. Ex.P-53 is the original GPF application of Diwan Saheb.
33. A perusal of the above evidence of PW.9 shows that he obtained the specimen signatures of accused in the presence of 24 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 the witnesses and further obtained the specimen signatures of PWs.2 to 4 and one Krishnudu. He also obtained the signatures of PW.1. He did so in the presence of Panchayat Secretary Sunki Reddy. The evidence of PW.9 in this regard is corroborated by PW.12, Panchayat Secretary, who testified that S.I. of Police, III Town Police Station obtained the signatures of the employees of CPO Office in his presence including the signatures of the accused. He (PW.12) signed in the sheets containing the signatures of employees of CPO office including the accused. During the course of cross-examination of PW.9, the Investigating Officer, nothing is suggested to him that he did not obtain the specimen signatures of the accused. So, virtually the fact that the Investigating Officer obtained the specimen signatures of the accused in the presence of PW.12 is cogently established by the prosecution.
34. The Investigating Officer, during course of cross- examination, referred the disputed signatures of PWs.1 to 4 and further the disputed documents along with the admitted signatures of PWs.1 to 4 and the accused to AP Forensic Science Laboratory. Prosecution during the course of trial examined PW.10, Scientific Assistant in Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science 25 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 Laboratory. He detailed in his evidence about the nature of the documents, he received. Here it is sufficient to refer the ultimate opinion of him. The ultimate opinion of him is divided in 8 parts. So, his opinion is as follows:
"Para-I : Person who wrote red enclosed signature marked as S.1 to S.10 did not write the red enclosed writings marked Q.1 Ex.P.1.
Para-II : A person who wrote red enclosed signatures marked as S.11 to S.20 did not write the red enclosed signatures marked Q.2.
Para-III : A person who wrote red enclosed signatures marked as S.21 to S.30 did not write the red enclosed signature marked as Q.3.
Para-IV : A person who wrote signatures marked as S.31 to S.40 did not write the red enclosed signature marked as Q.4.
Para-V : A person who wrote red enclosed signatures marked S.41 to S.50 also wrote red enclosed signatures marked as Q.5 to Q.16.
Para-VI : A person who wrote red enclosed signature marked S.51 to S.70 did not write red enclosed signatures marked as Q.17 to Q.41.
Para-VII : A person who wrote red enclosed signatures marked as S.71 to S.95 did not write red enclosed signatures marked as Q.42 to Q.55.
Para-VIII : Not possible to offer any opinion on red enclosed 26 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 signatures marked as Q.52/1. I have already submitted resulted along with my opinion. Ex.P-71 is the opinion and reasons."
35. It is necessary to point out here that the opinion under the caption 5 is relevant here. So, according to PW.10, the person who wrote red enclosed signatures i.e., the standard signatures under S.41 to S.50 also wrote the enclosed signatures Q.5 to Q.16.
36. Now, it is appropriate to look into what are the questioned signatures captioned as Q.5 to Q.16. Ex.P-55 loan application in the name of the accused is Q.5. The signature on Ex.P-55 in the name of the accused is the questioned signature No.5. Ex.P-8, the Treasury Bill of Sunkanna i.e., the alleged signature of Sunkanna is the Q.6. Ex.P-7, the signature in the Treasury Bill of M.V.Subba Reddy, is Q.7. Ex.P-56, the signature in the GPF Form 40-A, is Q.8. The signature in the Treasury Bill of N.V.Ramana under Ex.P-9 is Q.9 and Q.10. The signatures in 101 Form for Rs.20,000/- is Q.11 to Q.13. The signature on Ex.P-10 101 form for Rs.20,000/- is Q.14 to Q.16. So, Exs.P-55 and 56, Exs.P-7 to 11 contained the forged signatures which are Q.5 to Q.16 and they tallied with the standard signatures under S.41 to S.50 written by the accused.
27
AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007
37. During the course of cross-examination, PW.10 deposed that there are 6 or 7 types of forgeries generally. He deposed that he did not furnish opinion as regards Q.1 to Q.4, Q.17 to Q.41 and Q.42 to Q.55. He denied that his opinion is incomplete with regard to the specimen signatures marked as Q.5 to Q.16 and S.41 to S.50. It is to be noticed that accused did not deny his standard signatures under S.41 to S.50. Merely because PW.10 could not give certain opinion against other documents, his evidence as regards the findings with regard to Q.5 to Q.16 cannot be rejected. In my considered view, the evidence of PW.10 with regard to the comparison of disputed signatures under the above referred documents under the caption Q.1 to Q.16 is convincing.
38. It is crucial to make a mention here that examination of PW.10 before the Court below was on 27.11.2003. At the fag end of the case, the accused got referred the disputed documents again to another expert i.e., Assistant Government Examiner of questioned documents in the office of Government Examiner of questioned documents, Director of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. His evidence also gone against the accused. So, PW.13, the said expert, deposed that he is working as Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned 28 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 Documents in the office of Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Directorate of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. The documents in this case were received to their Office on 02.11.2004 from the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. The case has been allotted to him. He has gone carefully and thoroughly through the documents in this case. The documents shown to him bears his office stamp. After careful examination of the documents, he is of the opinion that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked S.96 to S.130 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q.5 to Q.16. The documents of this case were also independently examined by Sri V.G.S.Bhatnagar, Dy. Government Examiner of Questioned Documents. The opinion dated 29.11.2004 contains the signatures of Sri V.G.S. Bhatnagar and myself. The case has been forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool vide our office letter No.BH 161/2004/65. Ex.P-72 is his opinion. Ex.P-73 is the signature sheet of the accused dated 16.12.2003. During the course of cross-examination, he denied that they came to a pre-opinion that the disputed signatures sent by the Court to them are that of the accused. He denied that they are always inclined to support the 29 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 prosecution version. He denied that purposefully he gave opinion in favour of the prosecution.
39. It is quietly evident that the accused having got referred the Q.5 to Q.16 i.e., standard signatures under S.96 to S.130 ultimately tried to impeach even the testimony of PW.13. It is to be noticed that the standard signatures of the accused under S.96 to S.130 are no other than his signatures on the 313 Cr.P.C examination questionnaire and further the questionnaire under Section 239 Cr.P.C at the time of framing of charges. This Court has no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW.13. He categorically deposed that after careful and thoroughly examining the documents, he is of the opinion that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked as S.96 to S.130 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked as Q.5 to Q.16.
40. The Investigating Officer obtained the specimen signatures of the accused in the presence of PW.12 during investigation and got referred the documents to PW.10 and opinion of PW.10 went against the accused and further the accused sought to refer Q.5 to Q.16 with his admitted signatures in 313 Cr.P.C questionnaire and 239 Cr.P.C questionnaire and even then the opinion went 30 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 against him. So, the evidence of PWs.10 and 13 cannot be brushed aside. There remained nothing in their cross-examination to disbelieve their testimony. This Court is convinced with the opinion given by PWs.10 and 13 in this regard.
41. The prosecution before the Court below let in voluminous evidence in the form of oral as well as documentary evidence. A look at the GPF application of Diwan Saheb under Ex.P-53, loan applications of Krishnudu and accused under Exs.P-54 and 55 and further GPF forms under Exs.P-56 and P-60 and proceedings under Exs.P-12 to 14 reflects the overwriting. As seen from the Treasury Bill Registers, especially Ex.P-2, virtually it did not contain any entries whatsoever with regard to the so called GPF withdrawals in the name of N.V.Ramana and M.V.Subba Reddy but M.V.Subba Reddy with regard to the GPF amount of A.Sunkanna there is overwriting. So, it is clear that without there being applications of the said three persons, amounts were withdrawn without making any entries in the Treasury Bill Registers but sometimes with overwriting. At Page No.156 of Ex.P-2 in the name of N.Diwan Saheb, D.Krishnudu name was incorporated. Surprisingly, in the Treasury Bill Register, though there is no entry relating to the GPF account of D.Krishnudu, 31 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 similar is the situation with regard to GPF amount of Diwan Saheb in Ex.P-2. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that in the name of GPF application of Diwan Saheb, the amount was fabricated into Rs.20,000/- and thereafter Rs.40,000/- and excess amount was withdrawn. The evidence of PW.6 is categorical how when she made an application for withdrawal of Rs.8,000/- the figure „1‟ was added thereby an amount of Rs.18,000/- was withdrawn.
42. The accused before the Court below as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge, raised various contentions attributing something against one Balamani and ultimately the Court below as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, turned down the contention of the accused.
43. As seen from Exs.P-10 and P-11 and 101 forms, accused was authorized to get the amounts from the banks and the treasuries. The bills in the name of PWs.2 to 6 contain the signatures of the accused as if he was authorized to bring the amount from the treasury. These signatures are proved by the prosecution. There is convincing evidence that the Q.5 to Q.16 were made by the accused. As this Court already pointed out the accused being Senior Assistant was dealing with the processing of 32 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 the GPF applications of the employees in the office. So, there is cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the accused fabricated the GPF applications of PWs.2 to 4 and further tampered with records and has drawn the excessive amounts in the name of other employees as detailed out.
44. The simple defence of the accused before the Court below was denial of everything. On the other hand, the prosecution examined the proper persons to prove the guilt against the accused. The accused raised a contention before the Court below that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C was not obtained by the prosecution from the competent authority to prosecute him. The Court below gave finding that tampering, forging the documents and falsification of accounts and misappropriation of amounts is not the official duty of the accused as such no sanction is required. The accused did not raise such contention before the learned Additional Sessions Judge or before this Court in this Revision. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge furnished cogent reasons and looked into the facts and circumstances and the oral as well as documentary evidence and rightly believed the case of the prosecution. 33
AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007
45. Now, the finding of facts recorded by the Courts below is with sound reasoning and I do not have any reason to interfere with the same. Another aspect to be considered here is that whether the finding of facts recorded by the Courts below which are just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances would prove the charges framed against the accused.
46. Section 409 IPC provides punishment for criminal breach of trust. What is criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405 IPC. Here, the accused by fabricating the documents and by making false entries in the documents ultimately withdrawn the amounts under the GPF accounts of PWs.1 to 4 and further withdrawn excess amounts of others, as pointed out above, as such had domain over the said amount. There is no dispute that the accused utilized the said amounts for himself. So, the evidence on record would attract the offence of criminal breach of trust. Further, it is a case where the accused has forged the signatures in the GPF applications of PWs.2 to 4 and fabricated and further forged the signatures of PW.1. He did so with an intention to withdraw the GPF amounts wrongfully. So, it attracts the definition of forgery under Section 463 IPC punishable under Section 465 IPC. Further, the allegations would attract the 34 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 aggravated form of offence under Section 468 IPC. Further, the accused used forged documents as genuine documents and further made falsification of accounts. So, the allegations further attract the offences under Sections 471 and 477-A IPC. The evidence adduced by the prosecution would prove the charges against the accused for which he was convicted.
47. Having regard to the above, absolutely, this Court has no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2005 as such the Criminal Revision Case must fail.
48. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
49. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the trial Court and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the petitioner in C.C. No.357 of 2001, dated 17.11.2005, and to report compliance to this Court. Registry is directed to dispatch a copy of this order along with the Lower Court record, if any, to the Court below on or before 07.02.2023. A copy of this order be 35 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.111/2007 placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date: 01.02.2023 DSH