Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The said acts committed by Accused Nos.1 to 5 had caused a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.35,50,484/- to the Bank of India, Bangalore and corresponding wrongful gain for themselves by hatching a criminal conspiracy among themselves, which is reflected in the charge-sheet laid by the Investigating Officer against them. Accused Nos.1 to 5 have committed not only offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but also have committed offences under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in respect of Accused Nos.1 and 5.

12. On all these grounds, the learned counsel Shri S.G. Bhagavan contends that the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the Trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.187/2000 be set aside and the appellants in Crl.A.432 to 434/2010 / AccusedNos. 2 to 4 be acquitted of the offences levelled against them.

13. Sri Venkatesh P.Dalawai, learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 - Smt.Yashmin Fathima contends that the trial Court has seriously erred in holding that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt without appreciation of the evidence of PW.6-K.R.Kumar and PW.21 - S.Poongan. They are the important witnesses for the prosecution in respect of Accused No.1 - Yashmin Fathima and Accused No.5 - Riyazulla Baig who committed theft of "B" register meant for the purpose of inward clearing by entering into service branch in the second floor in the Bank of India, K.G. Road, Bengaluru has caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.35,50,484/- and corresponding wrongful gain for themselves and so also, hatching a criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 in respect of 85 cheques issued by Accused No.1 wherein that 85 cheques came for clearing favour various bank other than Bank of India. These allegations made against this accused in a charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer and where the accused No.1 was having access to the cheques that came for clearing at Service Branch of Bank of India, Bangalore as she being a Government Servant who was working as a Clerk in that Branch.

19. The last limb of the argument advanced by learned counsel for accused No.1 that there is no proper proof of the documents to substantiate the case against her. The entire case of the prosecution in respect of accused No.1 is revolving around the sanction accorded to prosecute as per Ex.P122 which is not a valid sanction. There is no sufficient evidence on record to show the existence of conspiracy hatching among accused Nos.1 and 5 in order to cause wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.35,50,484/- and corresponding wrongful gain for themselves. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence of hatching conspiracy among them, accused No.1 is entitled for benefit of doubt that arise in the theory of prosecution. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution should produce cogent, consistent and positive evidence to probabalise that this accused has committed such offence.

He contends that there is sufficient and satisfactory evidence to establish the overt acts of the accused No.1. The material on record would clearly enunciate the fact that Accused No.1 had hatched a criminal conspiracy with other accused and meddled with the processing of the cheques issued by herself and accused No.2 for the purpose of making wrongful gain of a large sum of money covered by the cheques by ensuring that these cheques never reached the Bank of India for collection and debit in the accounts. Further, the fact of Accused No.1 visiting RBI for bringing non-MICR cheques coupled with other overt acts and theft of 'B' Register are a clear pointer to the complicity of Accused No.1. He further contends that Accused No.2 has not denied the incriminating statements made by PW.19 regarding encashment of cheques issued by herein favour of Kismath Sales and Center and Kismath Service and Fortune Times and the amount being credited in the said accounts without there being any debits with the Bank of India. There is cogent and convincing evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with the totality of the circumstances to establish the charge levelled against the accused persons.