Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

A charge sheet came to be filed by the Police Inspector, CBI, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") and under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the P.C.Act'), against accused Nos.1 to 3.
Accused No. 1, being the Bank Manager and a public NC: 2026:KHC-D:190 HC-KAR servant, was acquitted. The present appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, and 420 of the IPC by the impugned judgments.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that since accused No.1 has been acquitted, the appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal for the remaining offences, namely, the offences under Sections 468, 471, and 420 of the IPC.

6. Alternatively, Sri Ganapati M. Bhat and Sri D. L. Ladkhan would contend that, in the event this Court confirms the judgment of the trial Court, leniency may be shown having regard to the advanced age and health conditions of the appellants by imposing a reasonable fine and reducing the period of imprisonment.

19. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties, acquitted accused No.1, and convicted the present appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, and 420 of the IPC, sentencing them as referred to supra.

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:190 HC-KAR

20. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court.

21. Sri Ganapati Bhat and Sri D. L. Ladkhan, reiterating the grounds set out in the appeal memorandum as aforesaid, contended that leniency may be shown in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction.

25. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has meticulously perused the material on record. Upon such perusal, the following points arise for consideration:

i. Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the appellants are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, and 420 of the IPC?
ii. Whether the appellants have made out a case that the impugned judgment suffers from legal infirmity and perversity?