Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. Per contra, the Learned Senior Counsel for the CBI/respondent submitted that, in this case, PW-3 M.Ganapathy is the father of the depositor Sivakumar. The witness had specifically deposed that his son is in Germany and _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis on his behalf, he is maintaining his accounts with the Indian Bank, Thiruporur Branch. This witness is not a stranger to the accused. He is brother-in-law of the accused and there is no reason to suspect him for falsely deposing against the accused. PW-3 had categorically stated that his son Sivakumar deposited Rs.3 lakhs in the Indian Bank, Thiruporur Branch, for which the accused gave him the RIP receipt bearing No: 206505 (Ex.P-15). This RIP receipt proved to be a valuable security entrusted to the accused by PW-4, which has been dishonestly converted to misappropriate the fund of the Bank. PW-3 had deposed that the signature on the reverse of RIP receipt No: 210660 which is the original receipt is not his son’s signature. His son never requested the bank to sanction loan on his deposit. Therefore, the trial Court had rightly convicted the accused for cheating the depositor as well as the Bank, committed breach of trust, fabricated valuable security and other documents. Using the forged documents as genuine, misappropriated the money and obtained pecuniary advantage.

25. The accused with intention to cause damage to the depositor had retained the original RIP (Ex.P-5) with him. To deceive the depositor, he had given the duplicate RIP (Ex.P-15). Thus, the prosecution has proved that the depositor been cheated by the accused, when he dishonestly gave the duplicate RIP receipt Ex.P-15 with intention to use the original for raising loan and to deceived by make them believe that Ex.P-15 is the original RIP receipt. This satisfied the ingredient required to prove the charge of cheating. Later, the original RIP Ex.P-5 been dishonestly used for raising loan, without the consent and knowledge of the depositor. By filing up RIP receipt No:206505 (Ex.P-15) in his hand and affixing his signature for both the authorised signatories. Thus, the charge of forging _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis valuable security stands proved on handing over the forged RIP receipt Ex.P-15 to P.W-3 Mr.Ganapathi with dishonest intention as if it is the genuine RIP, the charge of using the forged valuable security as genuine stands proved. From the testimony of P.W-4 and Ex.P-19 the entrustment of Ex.P15 to the accused, his dominion over it and conversion to his own use stands proved. Being a public servant, the proven facts also attracts the offence of misconduct by a public servant punishable u/s.13(2) r/w13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.