Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5 In this case, the case of the prosecution hinges mainly upon the evidence of Narayanan (P.W.2), Manager, Canara Bank and Chandrasekar (P.W.3), Special Assistant, Canara Bank. http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Narayanan (P.W.2) was examined-in-chief on 07.04.2005. In the chief-examination, Narayanan (P.W.2), has stated that he is the Manager in Canara Bank; Suparshva, run by Dilipkumar, was holding a Current Account in the branch; the company was importing iron; the import documents like invoice, bill, etc. will be received by the branch and after the payment is made, the same will be intimated to the bank of the exporter; on 16.02.2001, the branch received two invoices, one from APIC Import and Export and another from Asian Import and Export through Sampath Bank, Colombo; the receipt of the document was informed to Suparshva; the documents were in the custody of Chandrasekar (P.W.3) of the Invoice Department; the petitioner met Chandrasekar (P.W.3) and requested him to show the documents; on trust, Chandrasekar (P.W.3) handed over the documents to the petitioner and thereafter, he was busy attending to other work; the petitioner returned the documents, saying that he would make the payment and take delivery; the petitioner did not make any payment for a long time and therefore, on 27.07.2001, Canara Bank returned the documents to Sampath Bank, Colombo; after some time, Canara Bank received a communication from Sampath Bank, Colombo, stating that one set of the documents was found missing and the party had taken delivery of the goods, through his Clearing and Forwarding Agent; on coming to know of this, he (P.W.2) personally met the petitioner and enquired him about this; initially, the http://www.judis.nic.in petitioner was in the mode of denial; on further enquiry, the petitioner accepted that he had removed one set of the documents from the original and had taken delivery of the consignment; he gave a letter dated 15.09.2001 (Ex.P1) and also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in the bank; again on 25.09.2001, he gave another letter (Ex.P2) and remitted Rs.40,000/-; on 27.09.2001, the petitioner deposited Rs.50,000/- and also gave a letter (Ex.P4); on 20.07.2002, the petitioner gave a letter (Ex.P5) stating that he would sell his property and clear the bank dues; on 20.09.2002, the petitioner sent another letter (Ex.P6), stating that he will deposit the amount on 30.09.2002 and requested the bank, not to take any coercive action; Sampath Bank, Colombo demanded payment for the bills and Canara Bank made the payment; the total amount due from the petitioner is Rs.5,92,045/-.

7 Narayanan (P.W.2) was not cross-examined on the same day. He was re-called and cross-examined on 08.02.2006. In the cross-examination, Narayanan (P.W.2), has stated that Suparshva was maintaining accounts with Canara Bank from 1991; they are into import of iron and steel scrap; on receipt of import documents, the bank would inform the customer; on the amount being paid by the customer, the documents will be released; on 16.02.2001, documents were received from Sampath Bank, Colombo; after that, the concerned official of the bank informed the http://www.judis.nic.in petitioner of this in person; on 26.07.2001, the documents were sent back to Sampath Bank, Colombo; for about five months, the bank waited; the bank will not normally send back the documents immediately, but, will give reasonable time for the party to make payment and only thereafter, the documents will be returned; on 17.08.2001, Canara Bank received a communication from Sampath Bank, Colombo, stating that the negotiable part of the bill of lading was not returned and it should be either returned or the amount paid; from 16.02.2001 to 26.07.2001, they were under the belief that the documents were safe with them and they realised that one set of the documents had gone missing only in August 2001, when they received the communication from Sampath Bank, Colombo; Chandrasekar (P.W.3) was the staff in charge of the foreign bills section; normally, the goods should be released only after an endorsement is made by the bank that the amount has been remitted; but, in this case, the goods were released without the endorsement of the bank. Ultimately, it was suggested to him that on account of the negligence of Chandrasekar (P.W.3), the incident had occurred and only in order to safeguard him, a false case has been put against the petitioner, which suggestion, he denied. It was also suggested to him that various letters were obtained from the petitioner by coercion, which also, he denied. Except the suggestion part, the rest of the questions posed in the cross-examination appears, as if the witness was being examined in-chief. http://www.judis.nic.in 8 Chandrasekar (P.W.3), the concerned staff of Canara Bank was examined-in-chief on 07.04.2005. In the chief- examination, he has stated that he was working in Canara Bank as Special Assistant; Suparshva was having account in the bank; they are into import and export business; the petitioner was the Managing Director of Suparshva; import documents like invoice and bill of lading will be received by the bank; in this case, two bills of lading valued at USD 7868.74 from Sampath Bank, Colombo were received; this was informed to the petitioner; the petitioner used to get the details and will make payment for only one bill at a time; this was his practice; on 18.02.2001, the petitioner came to the bank as usual and asked him to show the documents which were received; accordingly, he handed over the documents to the petitioner for perusal and was attending to demand drafts clearing duty; since the petitioner was a known customer, he handed over the documents to him; the petitioner returned the documents saying that he will make payment later; four months later, i.e., on 26.07.2001, the documents were sent to Sampath Bank, Colombo, since no payment was made by the petitioner; thereafter, Canara Bank received a communication from Sampath Bank, Colombo to the effect that one set of documents was found missing and the party had taken delivery of the goods; on coming to know of this, Narayanan (P.W.2) met the petitioner and questioned him about this; the petitioner accepted everything and http://www.judis.nic.in repaid Rs.1,90,000/- and thereafter, he did not make any payment.

9 Chandrasekar (P.W.3) was cross-examined only on 08.02.2006. In the cross-examination, he has stated that from 16.02.2001 to 26.07.2001, the documents sent by Sampath Bank, Colombo were available in the branch; since the payment for the bills was not forthcoming, the documents were sent to Sampath Bank, Colombo; while returning the documents on 26.07.2001, he did not notice the missing set of documents. It was suggested to him that on account of his negligence only, the document went missing and in order to escape departmental action, a case has been foisted on the petitioner, which suggestion, he denied.