Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor in his arguments submits that, accused No.1 being a Senior Branch Manager of the Basavanagudi Branch, Canara Bank, Bengaluru misusing his official position as a Branch Manager in conspiracy with accused No. 2 to 4 has siphoned Rs.1,34,44,019/- which was deposited by PW20 who is an NRI residing in the United Kingdom without the knowledge of PW20 by creating forged documents and deposited in the account of accused No.3. He further submits that, PW20 had made deposits from London in Great Britain Pound Sterling and accused No.1 had facilitated accused No.3 who was in acute financial crisis to withdraw the deposit amount by creating forged documents with the help of accused No.2 and accused No.4 and thereby, they all have committed the alleged offence. He further submits that, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the criminal activities done by all the accused persons with the help of documents and also by producing witnesses to that effect. As the next limb of his arguments he submits that, accused No.1 after opening new FCNR deposit on the instructions of PW20 with No. FCNR 45/2001 which is marked as Ex.P25, instead of sending the original deposit certificate to PW20 had handed over the same to accused No.3 who misused the same by forging the signatures of original depositors and withdrew the deposit amount before the maturity period. Later, accused No.1 managed to obtain a blank certificate stationary from Canara Bank, Mayo Hall Branch and printed the details of the original certificate by forging the signatures of bank officials and also by affixing his signature and the same was sent to the original depositors PW20 and this said fake certificate seized from the custody of the bank is also produced by the prosecution before this court and marked as Ex.P24. The signatures of PW20, his wife and his son who are the original depositors of the FNCR 45/2001 were forged by accused No.3 and accused No.1 allowed accused No.3 to obtain the fruits of the deposits and accused No.1 also allowed accused No.3 to open fake bank accounts jointly in the name of PW20 and accused No.3 for which accused No.4 was the introducer and thereby, facilitated the proceeds of Ex.P25 to be transferred to the fake accounts created for this purpose and thereafter, the amount was transferred from that fake account to the individual account of accused No.3. Advancing his arguments he submits that, the deposition of PW20 before this court clearly proves the fraudulent acts committed by the accused persons and the Ex.P2, P3, P4 which are the accounts of accused No.3 maintained with the Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch and Ex.P5, P6 statements of accounts pertaining to these bank accounts also prove the withdrawal of proceeds of Ex.P25 by accused No.3. The evidences of witnesses such as PW5, PW6, PW7 also proves the fraudulent acts committed by the accused persons as accused No.1 to 4 have forged the signatures of these witnesses in Ex.P24 fake deposit certificate which was sent to PW20. His further submission is that, the Investigating Officer had sent the admitted signatures and the questioned signatures of accused No.2 and accused No.3 for obtaining Expert Opinion from Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (the GEQD in short) and the GEQD certificate Ex.P53, P54, P55, P56 coupled with the oral testimony of PW18 the GEQD also clinchingly proves the prosecution case. He further states that, all the witnesses were elaborately cross-examined by the learned respective counsel appearing for accused No.1 to accused No.4, but none of them could shake the prosecution case in any way. Lastly it is the submissions of the learned Senior Public Prosecutor that, from the cumulative reading of the documents along with the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt its case and hence, all the accused persons deserve to be punished for their culpable activities with the highest punishment prescribed under law for the offences charged against them.

8. He further vehemently argued and attacked the Ex.P53 to 56, Expert Opinion Reports given by PW18 on the ground that, they cannot stand on its own and they can only be considered as a corroboratory piece of evidence. If there are other evidences to prove the forgery, then the opinion of the expert can be used to corroborate the same. But, here in his case there is not even a single document produced by the prosecution to show that, accused No.2 had forged signatures of anybody and during investigation accused No.2 was asked to imitate the signatures and handwriting found in the questioned documents and those imitated signatures and handwritings of accused No.2 were considered as specimen signatures and writings of accused No.2 and then, it is said to have been compared with questioned documents and opinion is given by the GEQD which is totally unacceptable. Ex.P12 and P13 cheques are produced by the prosecution to prove the involvement of accused No.2 into this case, but the cheques bear names of one Ananthkumar and one Kumar. The prosecution has not marked the signatures found in the reverse of the cheques to prove that the person named in the cheque has withdrawn the money. The signature on the overleaf was not sent for Expert Opinion and these aspects would not prove that, accused No.2 had in fact received money and therefore, the evidences adduced to that effect is inadmissible. It is his further argument that, the procedure adopted by the Investigating Officer in collecting the signatures and sending the disputed signatures of the accused persons and that of PW20 seeking opinion form the GEQD is also not as per law. The Investigating Officer did not obtain three sets of signatures to send them to GEQD. Instead of comparing the questioned signatures and writing with admitted signatures and writing and specimen signatures and writings, the Investigating Officer collected only specimen signatures and writings and the GEQD also did not insist on the relevancy of admitted signatures and writings before pronouncing his opinion on questioned signatures and writings.

10. The learned counsel for accused No.3 has tried to impress upon this court that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of charges leveled against accused No.3 is only imaginary and without any basis and she submitted her arguments at length taking the defence of alibi states that, as on the dates of the alleged period of fraudulent transactions, accused No.3 was not at available in India and she places reliance on the copies of Passports of accused No.3 to demonstrate that accused No.3 was staying in Singapore and Dubai at the relevant period of time. She further submits that, there is absolutely no evidence against accused No.3 in the entire reading of the prosecution records to bring accused No.3 into this case. Expatiating her contention the learned counsel contends that, accused No.3 did not know PW20 at all and this is admitted by PW20 himself in his substantive evidence before this court. She further argues that, the prosecution allegation is that accused No.3 had maintained three different accounts with the Canara Bank Basavanagudi branch, but the prosecution has not produced any document to show that the accounts were actually opened by accused No.3. She further states that, the fraudulent account No. SB NRE 56193 which is alleged to have been fraudulently opened by accused No.3 in the joint name of accused No.3 and PW20 and the account No.SB NRE 56142 alleged to have been opened by accused No.3 in his individual name were not in fact opened by him. He had no knowledge of opening of these accounts and accused No.1 who was the bank manager during that period have fraudulently opened these accounts in the name of accused No.3 and PW20 without the knowledge of either of accused No.3 or PW20. Her further submission is that, the account No.NRE SB 56037 said to have been opened by accused No.3 with the Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch is admitted but the documents produced by the prosecution i.e., Ex.P4 are denied by accused No.3 as the signatures and Ex.P4 are fake documents since the address and phone numbers mentioned in Ex.P4 does not belong to accused No.3 and therefore, treating the signature found in Ex.P4 as admitted signature of accused No.3 and comparing the same with the signatures found in account No.SB NRE 56193 and 56142 cannot be accepted. Her further submission is that, several documents pertaining the account details and FCNR certificates were seized from the custody of bank by the Investigating Officer, but those documents were not sent to obtain the opinion of GEQD at the earliest point of time and hence, those documents surround with the cloud suspicion and hence, cannot be relied upon. Her further submission is that, none of the witnesses who were bank officials examined before this court have deposed that, accused No.3 had come to the bank counter to obtain money and nobody has seen accused No.3 physically except the signatures on cheque. Advancing her arguments she further submits that, after opening SB NRE 56037, accused No.3 went to Singapore and accused No.1 in connivance with other accused persons did all the other mischief at the back of accused No.3 by skipping over all the procedures of banking laws and committed the offence. It is her arguments that, accused No.3 had no role in transferring the FCNR maturity amount from Canara Bank, Palani Branch to Basavanagudi Branch at Bengaluru. She further argues that, Ex.P2 account opening form of SB NRE 56193 shows that the same was signed at London on 4.4.2001 and PW9 who was the bank manager of Canara Bank, Girigaon Branch, Mumbai deposed before this court that, he saw accused No.3 personally at Mumbai on 4.4.2001 as there is an account opened by accused No.3 with Canara Bank, Girigaon Branch, Mumbai as account No.35375. Prosecution has not produced any document to show that, such an account was opened by accused No.3 except the oral evidence of PW9. Therefore, from the conjoint reading of the evidence of PW9 and the prosecution documents it emerges that, accused No.3 was present on 4.4.2001 in Mumbai, in Bangalore and also in London which is practically impossible and hence, the prosecution story of accused No.3 opened accounts on the said date at Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru and Girigaon Branch, Mumbai are false in toto. Her further argument is that, even though the Investigating Officer had the local address of accused No.3 with him, he did not conduct any search at the residence or office premises of accused No.3 in Bengaluru and accused No.3 was not arrested during the investigation period. She submits that, from the entire prosecution records there is no oral or documentary evidence to prove the involvement of accused No.3 in this case except the Handwriting Expert's Report which is inadmissible in evidence as it has to be viewed with suspicion because from the evidence of PW21 the Investigating Officer, it is clear that the documents were sent to Handwriting Expert by the Investigating Officer through one Ramesh and this Ramesh is not a witness in this case and hence, the material sent for obtaining opinion itself surrounds with cloud of suspicion. She further submits that, accused No.4 in his 313 (5) Cr.P.C. statement has stated that, he had signed blank account opening form and therefore, it is clear that, he did not see accused No.3 affixing his signature either in Ex.P2 or P3 account opening forms. Even though accused No.4 states that he had acquaintance with accused No.3 as Ex.P2 and P3 are disputed by accused No.3 his acquaintance with accused No.4 has no relevance in this case. The Investigating Agency has compared the signatures of accused No.3 found in the questioned documents Ex.P2 and P3 without obtaining his admitted signatures of accused No.3 and hence, the opinion of GEQD will take no relevance to support the prosecution case. Her further case is that, taking undue advantage of the absence of accused No.3 in India, accused No.1, accused No.2 and accused No.4 misused the documents which were available with accused No.1 pertaining to accused No.3 and hence, accused No.3 deserves to be acquitted as he is totally innocent in this case.

42. Therefore, the question arises who has forged the signature of PW20 in Ex.P2 account opening form, Ex.P18 request letter to prematurely break the fixed deposit, Ex.P38 and P39 account opening forms of two new FCNR 49/2001 and FCNR 50/2001 and Ex.P19 request letter to break the FCNR 49/2001. Here, name of accused No.3 Shyam Ganglani is found as joint account holder with PW20 and PW20 in his evidence has stated that, he do not know any person by name Shyam Gangalani and denied the signature in Ex.P2 which corroborates with the opinion of PW18, the GEQD. But the learned counsel appearing for accused No.3 tries to impress this court that, all the mischievous acts and fraudulent acts were done by accused No.1 who was the bank manager of Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch who knew that accused No.3 was absent in India and taking the advantage of his absence in India accused No.1, 2 and 4 have manipulated and forged the signatures of accused No.3 and have committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution. All deeds were done at the back of accused No.3 and hence, accused No.3 has no knowledge about the alleged opening of joint account NRE SB 56193 and individual account NRE SB 56142.