1
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT: Smt Sampathi Rao Chandana,
IAddl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Karimnagar.
Friday the 20 th day of April, 2018
CALENDAR CASE No. 771 of 2007
Between:
The State through SubInspector of Police, Karimnagar II Town. (Cr.No.282/1998 of P.S.Karimnagar II town)
...Complainant.
And
A.1 Namilkonda Vishweshwar Rao, S/o Govind Rao, 48 years, Brahmin, r/o H.No.511122, Glat No.406, Shubhadarshini Residency Nayeem Nagar, Hanmakonda.
A.2 Anandpad Kumar, S/o Poshetti, 43 years, Mochi, Occ: Accountant Sri Shathavahana, Grameena Bank, presently Choppadandi Branch, r/o H.No.94589, Sapthagiri Colony, Karimnagar.
A.3 M.Srirama Rao, S/o Muralidhar Rao, 45 years, Velma, now working as 2nd Accountns officer, Sri Shathavahana Grameena Bank, Odela Branch, r/o H.No.1101187, Chaithanyapuri, Karimnagar.
A.4 Dhulipala Chandrashekar Babu, S/o Venkateshwar Rao, 45 years, Kamma native of Narsaraopet of Guntur Dist now at r/o H.No.101471 Santhoshangar, Bhagyanagar, Karimnagar now working as Manager (planning head office Sri Shathavahana Grameena Bank, Karimnagar.
…Accused
This case is coming before me on 06.04.2018 for final hearing in the presence of learned Sr.P.P., for the state and Sri E.Madhusudhan Rao counsel for A.1 to A.3 and of Sri M.Anil Kumar, counsel for A.4, having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The SubInspector of Police, Karimnagar II Town Police Station has laid the Charge Sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 379, 408, 420, 427, 467, 468, 477A, 201 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code.
2.The brief allegations in the Charge sheet are as follows:
On 03111998 at 1115 hours the LW.1 complainant/Gunda
Chandramouli came to Police Station and lodged complaint stating that he was working as Branch Manager of Sri Shathavahana Grameena Bank, Karimnagar 2 and in their Bank misappropriation took place by the staff for an amount of
Rs.19.17 lakhs. He furnished the details of forged/fictitious accounts and the dates of withdrawal of the amount from the bank by concealing and tampering of documentary evidence viz., counter foils, vouchers cash books etc., he suspected the involvement of the staff with the convenience of outsiders. He stated that on perusal of the term deposit receipts the transaction said to be made from Jammikunta and Peddapalli branches was proved to be false. In the scrutiny of the cash payment register, the names of Accused No.1 to 4 were found.
3.On receipt of said complaint the Sub Inspector of Police, Karimnagar II town has registered a case in Cr.No.282/1998 for the offence U/Sec.408, 420, 477A, 465, 468 IPC and took up investigation. He examined the complainant and recorded his statement. He made efforts to collect the documents pertaining to the transaction of the amount. As the documents were tampered by the accused the bank authorities could not furnish the documents, with which the investigation was delayed. Thereafter LW.23/R.Prakaash S.I. Of
Police continued investigation and he examined Lws 2 to 12 and recorded their statements. Later LW.24/T.Srinivas Rao took up further investigation of the case and he examined Lws 13 to 21 and recorded their statements and after completion of entire investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused
No.1 to 4.
4.The case was taken on file against Accused No.1 to 4 for the offences under sections 379, 408, 420, 427, 467, 468, 477A, 201 r/w 34 of Indian
Penal Code.
5.On appearance of Accused No.1 to 4 copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
7.The Accused No.1 to 4 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the charge sheet allegations. They denied their involvement in the said offences. Hence, charges under sections 379, 408, 420, 427, 467, 468, 3 477A, 201 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, for the said offences.
8. During trial, in support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs1 to
PW9 and marked Ex.P.1 to P.20.
9.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence found against them in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same, reported no defence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant.
10.Heard the A.P.P.O and counsel for the accused.
11.Now the points for determination are:
Whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused for the offence
punishable under sections 379, 408, 420, 427, 465, 468, 477A, 201 r/w 34
of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?
12.P O I N T
The accused No.1 to 4 are charged for the offences under sections 379, 408, 420, 427, 467, 468, 477A, 201 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as I.P.C.,) The accusation against them are that they misappropriated for an amount of Rs.19,13,197/ in Shatavahana Grameena Bank.
13.As stated above, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses and got exhibited twenty documents.
14. The learned Sr.P.P argued that the evidence of PWs 1 to 9 coupled with documentary evidence Ex.P.1 to P.20 is consistent cogent and convincing to show that at the relevant time the accused No.1 to 4 have opened two fictitious accounts viz; Ac.No.324 and 393 in the name of M/s.Nava Bharath Drillers,
R/o H.No.61124, Ahsok Nagar, Karimnagar with J.Narender Rao has 4 proprietor and the other has Ms.Harika Enterprises H.No.26239/1,
Ashoknagar, Karimnagar with B.Rajesh as proprietor. The accused No.1 to 4 fabricated false and forged documents viz; STDRs (Short Term Deposit
Receipts) and transferred funds Rs.4,52,915=00 on 1141997 from
Shatavahana Grameen Bank, br.Jammikunta and Rs.4,32,827=00 from
Shtavahana Grameena Bank, branch Jammikunta on 2941997 to fictitious current account No.324, Rs.3,53,740/, on 1721998 Rs.2,52,671/, On 27 21998 Rs.4,25,000/ on 2331998 from Shatavahana Grameena Bank, br.Peddapalli two fictitious current account No.293 and a total of
Rs.19,17,197=00 were transferred to both fictitious current account number 324, 393 respectively. The A.1 to A.4 have drawn money in different days through 12 cheques. That the amount total Rs.19,12,000/ were drawn which is the handy work of A.1 to A.4 by indulging the breach of trust, cheating, forgery, tampering and tearing of documents, theft for wrong full gain with common intention. Thus the accused are liable for punishment U/s.379, 408, 420, 427, 465, 468, 477A, 201 r/w 34 IPC. As the PWs 1 to 9 supported the version of prosecution and the prosecution established that the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused are liable for conviction.
15.On the other hand the counsel for the accused No.1 to 3 (Sri E.Madusughan Rao) and the counsel for A.4 (Sri M.Anil Kumar) reported the prosecution has not examined the authorities and staff of Jammikunta and
Peddapalli Branch of Shtavahana Grameena branch from where the amount is transferred to two fictitious accounts by the accused No.1 to 4 and no piece of document has collected from Jammikunta and Peddapalli branches and the prosecution has mostly relied on the documents of enquiry conducted with in the Department. The counsel for A.1 to A.4 further stated in the Departmental enquiry preponderance of possibility is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, but in the criminal case the prosecution has to establish the guilt 5 beyond all reasonable doubt. As the entire staff of Shatavahana Grameena bank, main branch Peddapalli and Jammikunta have access to entire records in such a case the prosecution can not implicate the accused No.1 to 4 in the present case without having sufficient proof. Moreover the exhibits P.2 and P.3 does not containing the seal of the Bank. As the prosecution wholly relying on the departmental enquiry to convict the accused, but the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and requested to acquit the accused from the said charges in want of sufficient evidence.
16.In order to appreciate the rival contentions of both parties it will be appropriate at this stage to read sections 379, 408, 420, 427, 465, 468, 477(a), 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
a) Section 379 IPC:
Punishment for theft
Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
b) Section 408 IPC:
Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant
Whoever, being clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
c) Section 420 IPC:
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
d) Section 427 IPC:
Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees
Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of ei 6 ther description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both .
e) Section 465 IPC:
Punishment for forgery
Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
f) Section 468 IPC:
Forgery for purpose of cheating
Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
g) Section 477A IPC:
Falsification of accounts
Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the ca pacity of a clerk, officer or servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud, de stroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been re ceived by him for or on behalf of his employer, or willfully, and with intent to de fraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in, any such book, paper, writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with impris onment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation It shall be sufficient in any charge under this section to al lege a general intent to defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defrauded or specifying any particular sum of money intended to be the subject of the fraud, or any particular day on which the offence was com mitted.]
h) Section 201 r/w 34 IPC:
Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information
to screen offender
Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or be lieves to be false; if a capital offence shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of ei ther description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be li able to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life and if the offence is punishable with 104 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten 7 years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one fourth part of the longest term of the imprison ment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
17.The case of the prosecution is that the A.1 to A.4 created two fictitious current accounts no.324, 393 and transferred an amount of
Rs.19,17,197=00 the same have drawn in different dates in 12 cheques, thereby the A.1 to A.4 indulging in breach of trust, cheating, forgery, tampering, tearing of documents, theft for wrongful gain with common intention and A.1 to A.4 have also faced Departmental enquiry.
On hearing of both parties on perusal of record including the tenure of cross examination of prosecution witnesses this Court is considered opinion that the following facts are not disputed with the accused.
a) The A.1 to A.4 are the employees of Shatavahana Grameena Bank main branch, Karimnagar during 1997 to 1998 in the capacity of accountants (A.1 to
A.3) and Manager (A.4).
b) The A.1 to A.4 also admitted that they have faced Departmental enquiry in
Shatavahana Grameena Bank.
18. To prove its case the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.20 and Ex.D.1 is also marked on behalf of the accused. The
PW.1 is the defacto complainant; PW.2 is the employee of the Bank in the rank of Clerk from 1995 to 1999 and speaks about the fraud detected by the Audit party in the year 1998. The LW.3 to 15 were given up by the learned prosecution is the similar witnesses is that of Pws 1 and 2. PW.3 presenting officer of bank against accused No.3. PW.4 is the branch manager/Enquiry officer for the A.2 and A.3 speaks the involvement of A.1 to A.4 in the fraud and furnished the required documents to the police. PW.5 Y.Jagan Mohan Rao is 8 the enquiry officer for A.1. PW.6 Chairman of Enquiry Committee issued disciplinary proceedings against the accused. PW.7 is the enquiry officer for
A.4. PW.8 is the first Investigation Officer, who examined LWs 2 to 12 and collected documents. Ex.P.9 is the I.O., who filed the Charge sheet. Ex.P.1 is the complaint by PW.1, Ex.P.2 is the ledger sheet of current account number 324 of Navabharath drillers, Ex.P.3 is the ledger sheet of current account
No.393 of Harika Enterprises, Ex.P.4 is the Transfer credit voucher of current
Ac.No.324, dt.1141997 for Rs.4,52,959/, Ex.P.5 is the Is the Transfer Credit
Voucher of current Ac.No.324, dt.2941997, Ex.P.6 is the Transfer debit
Voucher of head office Account dt.17021998., Ex.P.7 is the Transfer credit voucher of Head office Ac.No.393, Dt.17021998, Ex.P.8 is the Transfer debit voucher of head office Account dt.27021998, Ex.P.9 is the Transfer credit voucher of current account No.393 for Rs.2,52,671/, Ex.P.10 is the Transfer debit Voucher of Head Office Account dt.2331998, Ex.P.11 is the Transfer credit voucher of current Ac.No.393, dt.2331998 for Rs.4,25,000/, Ex.P.12 is the Cheque book issue Register, Page No.56, Ex.P.13 is the Cheque book issue Register page No.79/B, Ex.P.14 is the Head Office Circular No.PER/22 of 199091 dt.19101990 (attested copy, attested by C.I. Of Police, Karimnagar I town P.S.), Ex.P.15 is the Head office Circular No.PER/20 of 199192, dt.20091991 (attested copy, attested by C.I. Of Police, Karimnagar I town
P.S.), Ex.P.16 is the Enquiry Report of A.2 by PW.4, Ex.P.17 is the Enquiry
Report of A.3, Ex.P.18 is the Enquiry Report of A.1 by PW.5, Ex.P.19 is the
Enquiry Report of A.4 by PW.7 along with covering letter, Ex.P.20 is the First
Information Report in Cr.No.282/1988 of Karimnagar II town Police Station.
Ex.D.1 is marked portion of 161 Statement of PW.3 by counsel for A.4.
19. To prove the charge against the accused the prosecution has to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that A.1 to A.4 has created fictitious accounts No.324, 393 in the name of Harika Enterprises and Navabarath drillers and transferred an amount of Rs.19,17,197=00 to those two accounts 9 and the same was withdrawn by A.1 to A.4 and misappropriated the funds of the Bank and utilized the same for their own purpose with in the meaning of sections 379, 408, 420, 427, 465, 468, 477(a), 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal
Code.
20. PW.1 G.Chandramouli who worked as branch manager in Sri
Shatavahana Grameena Bank, Karimnagar during the period 491998 to
August, 2002 deposed that, the LW.2 Sheela was the then Cashiercum Clerk of their branch, LW.3/Ketham Bhagya Rekha and LW.4 were also Cashiercum clerks of their branch. Lw.7 was the field officer of their branch, LW.8 was the manager, LW.9/K.Ravinder was a messenger of their branch,
LW.10/Chakrapani was Clerk cum cashier, LW.11 and 12 were sweepers of their branch and he deposed that he know all the accused. The PW.1 further deposed that A.1 and A.2 worked as accountants in their branches previous to his post in the branch. A.3 worked as accounts officer at Head Office,
Karimnagar, A.4 was his predecessor who worked as Branch Manager. The witness further stated that in every month they conducted reconciliation at their branch to verify the inter branch transactions and reconcile, likewise in the month of October, 1998 while they were conducting reconciliation they noticed difference of amount in Head office reconciliation accounts. The PW.1 also stated the head office reconciliation team reported that, Peddapalli branch and Jammikunta branch Rs.19,17,000/ were set to be transferred from these branches into the two accounts i.e., Navabharath drillers and Harika enterprises and these are current accounts. The witness also stated that the account of Navabharth drillers was opened on 641997 and the account of
Harika enterprises opened on 821998. The fraudulent credit is approximately to the tune of Rs.8,85,000/ into the account of Navabharth drillers and the same was withdrawn in five cheques in various dates in the year 1997. The fraudulent credit approximately to the tune of Rs.10,31,000/ in to the account of Harika Enterprises through three cheques on the various dates in the year 1998. But in fact the said amounts were not transferred from 10 Peddapalli and Jammikunta branches. On their enquiry they also came to know that the said two firm proprietors and firms are not in existence and they are fictitious. The witness further deposed as per the rule position the said amounts were credited to the accounts without considering the head office advice. On their verification they also found that the withdrawn cheques were missing. As such in this regard he gave complaint to the police suspecting the involvement of staff. Ex.P.1 is his complaint. Police examined him and recorded his statement. Ex.P.1 to P.15 marked through PW.1.
In the cross examination of PW.1 by the counsel for accused deposed that the head office of Shatavahana Grameena bank is situated at Karimnagar and the Chairman of said bank is head to all branches in Karimnagar, after the
Chairman the General Manager is the head of the Department. There are four section in the said bank i.e., Accounts section, personal section, loans and
Audit sections. The witness stated he can not give the details of staff pattern in the head office of Shatavahana Grameena Bank, Karimnagar during the period 199798. The witness admitted that for every 3 months board meetings were conducted in their bank, and he do not have idea whether the agenda of previous board meeting will be discuss in the forth coming board meeting. The witness stated after verifying record that there were nearly 10 members were working as staff in the main branch of Shatavahana grameena Bank during the 199798. As the Satavahana Grameena Bank was having numerous account holders, we can not say the exact number of account holders in their branch.
The witness admitted there is a separate record room for their branch to keep all the records. The witness admitted that all the staff members are having access to enter into the record room, but all th staff members are not allowed to verify the account opening forms, vouchers, security forms and they also maintain registers for security parts. The witness further stated that when a customer approached their branch for opening an account he has to pay the amount in cash counter and later the entries were made in to a cash register by concerned clerk and the Bank authorities shall take balance sheet with 11 opening and closing balances and there was a photo system, proof of identification and introducer to the account was there in the year 199798 and the photos of customer will affix on the Pass book and account opening form.
The witness also deposed there was regular audit once in a period for one year and one and half period. When there is any chronic reconciliation problem, the head office will visit the branch. The witness also reported that they maintain a file for correspondence with head office and there was separate scroll for the transaction by maintaining transfer scroll register. The witness admitted that he can not give the details when A.1, A.2 working in their branch at
Karimnagar and he can not say how many persons worked in account department for auditing in the Head office during the period 199798 and the internal audit people will not check all the papers in their branch. The witness admitted that the Ex.P.2 to P.15 were given to police along with complaint and he has received a receipt in the form of letter from the police after filing complaint by him. The witness reported he can not say about who made entries in Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. The witness also admitted Ex.P.2 to P.12 are not having endorsement of any reconciliation authority. In Ex.P.2 andP.3 does not contain anything that they are belongs to Shatavahana Grameena Bank. The
Ex.P.4 and P.5 are having the advice of head office and no separate register will be maintained to enter the advice of head office as the details will be annexed to the corresponding vouchers. The witness added the advice of head office will comply through correspondent. The Ex.P.2 to P.15 were not having the date of reconciliation from the head office.
The PW.1 further deposed in his cross examination that he is not a member of reconciliation team and he can not say the date when the reconciliation was conducted and details of reconciliation team who conducted the reconciliation in the year October, 1998 in respect of Peddapalli and
Jammikunta branches. The PW.1 admitted that Ex.P.2 does not contain any endorsement by the reconciliation team as they were verified by the 12 reconciliation team and he can not say who has written the entries on Ex.P.2 and on first week of November, 1998 he handed over Ex.P.2 to P.15 to the police. It is true that he had filed complaint on 3111998. The PW.2 denied that the Ex.P.2 is a created document and its not reflecting true transaction.
The PW.1 has also accepted that Ex.P.3 is not showing any details to which bank its belongs to it and the person who made the entry in Ex.P.3. The PW.1 denied that the accounts were opened by their bank after verifying the identify the concern by the name Navabrarthi drillers and Harika enterprises. The witness added that any details of account sent by other branches in the recorded ledger book and accounts book in general practice. The PW.1 admitted that he has not filed any documents which are showing the head office advice in relation to amounts transferred from Peddapalli and
Jammikunta branch to Karimnagar. The PW.1 also admitted that he can not state that whose hand writing it is on Ex.P.6 and P.7 and except Ex.P.12 and
P.13 there are no records to show the acknowledgement of cheques by the account holders. Finally the PW.1 denied his suggestions made by the counsel
for the accused that the accused is not responsible for tearing of Ex.P.5 and
P.13 and the accused is not responsible for the missing of withdrawn cheques and the allegations made against the accused are all fabricated but not real.
The PW.1 also denied that to cover up the lapses in the due course in the bank, they have falsely foisted this case against the accused.
21. The PW.2 L.Sheela who worked as a Clerk at main branch of Shatavahana
Grameena bank during 199599 deposed that PW.1 was the branch manager,
LW.3 to 6 and LW.8 were her collegues, LW.7 was the officer of the branch,
Lw.9 was the attender, Lws 10 to 12 were employees of the Bank. A.1 and A.2 were the accountants of main branch, Karimnagar. A.3 is the accountants officer of head office, Karimnagar and A.4 is the Manager of their branch,
Karimnagar. The witness further deposed, during the year 1998 two benami accounts were opened in their main branch in the name of Harika Enterprises 13 and Navabharath Drillers enterprises in the help of those two accountants their bank internal funds to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/ misappropriated and the
Binami accountants were opened by the accused and thereby misappropriate an amount of Rs.20,00,000/.
In the cross examination of PW.2 deposed that at the time of the present incident there were 10 staff members in the main branch of Satavahana grameena bank. The witness also admitted that there was a work distribution
Register maintained in their bank and after the joining of the employee the branch manager allots the duties to the concerned staff. The witness admitted in case any staff member is on leave or not attended to the duties the available staff will look after their duties. The documents, account opening forms, cheque books, cash voucher will be kept in strong room. There are two keys for Strong room, one key with one accountant and another key is deposited with concerned link banks. The witness also reported the accountant will open the strong room door and take the necessary document for that day and after completion of the work all the documents will be kept in strong room. The witness admitted to open an account in their bank, one old customer of their bank must introduce the new account holder, the passport size of photograph of the account holder will affixed on the application and on the account book.
As per the norms of the Bank there was no system of KYC (known your customer) and the witness deposed that she has not remember now whether full particulars of Nava Bharath drillers and Harika Enterprises were mentioned in the account opening forms. In case of any withdrawal made through cheque it will be handed over to the concerned clerk and after verifying the balance in the accounts the concerned clerk will forward the same to passing officer, after passing officer the concerned the cashier will pay the amount to the customer. Finally the PW.2 deposed that she has no idea when their head office conducted internal audit in their office in her tenure and finally denied that she deposed false to help the case of prosecution.
14
22. The PW.3 C.Ramana Murthy, presenting officer of the bank against A.3 deposed that he know Pws 1 and 2 and Lws 3 to 12 and Lws 17 to 21 as all of them are their bank employees. During the year 199798 two current accounts at Shatavahana grameena bank fraud took place to the tune of Rs.19,00,000/ in that regard charges framed and departmental proceedings were initiated against A.1 to A.4 and he has acted as presenting officer and in the enquiry proceedings charges against A.1 to A.4 were proved and punishment was given.
In the cross examination of PW.3 deposed that he is unable to recollect that he has acted as presenting officer to the enquiry conducted by their bank against A.1 to A.4 and subsequently A.1 to A.4 were punished. The witness denied that their chairman Mr.Kanaka Sundaram appointed him as an enquiry officer to find out the role of A.3 and submitted a report and that he enquired in to the matter and submitted report to the chairman. The same is marked as
Ex.D.1 (relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., Statement). Finally the PW.3 denied that he is deposing false against the accused at the instance of prosecution.
23. The PW.4 K.Krishnaiah who worked as branch Manager in Shatavana
Grameena bank, main branch, Karimnagar deposed that he know A.1. A.1 to
A.4 are the employees of main branch, Karimnagar and during the year 1997 to 1998 I came to know that current account numbers 393 of Navabarath
Drillers and current account of 324 of Harika Enterprises Karimnagar had been misappropriate for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/ in this regard he was appointed as a enquiry officer against A.2 and A.3. The witness further deposed that he conducted disciplinary enquiry against A.2 on 2892001 to 2002 and he has framed with three charges against A.2.
Charge No.1: The C.S.O has authorized for opening of a Current
Account whose bonafides are suspicious. He has permitted operations in the account, violating the Banks instructions.
15 Charge No.2: During the course of Audit of our Karimnagar branch from January, 1998 to February, 1998 the C.S.O (A.2) has assisted the Branch
Inspector, Sri S.Narsimha Rao, and audited Head Office account. The C.S.O.
(A.2) has deliberately suppressed material information about a few entries as a result the fraudulent transaction in Head Office Account remained unnoticed.
Charge No.3: The C.S.O. ( A.2) has not ensured safety of records such as account opening forms vouchers, registers etc., which has resulted in removal of vital information from the branch records.
In his enquiry all the above three charges were established against A.2.
Ex.P.16 is the enquiry report against A.2. He has also conducted enquiry against A.3 from 2792001 to 20102003 and four charges framed against
A.3 in his enquiry.
Charge No.1 The C.S.O. (A.3) has failed to ensure proper conduct of
Head Office Account and other Inter Bank Accounts viz, a Banker Cheque
Branches accounts and Special Banker cheques accounts branches.
Charge No.2: The C.S.O. (A.3) has failed to monitor the reconciliation work of Head Office account and not ensured timely elimination of entries in
Head Office account.
Charge No.2(a) The C.S.Os (A.3) failure to timely elimination of unreconciled entries of Head Office account at our Karimnagar branch resulted in non detection of frauds committed during April, 97 and March, 1998.
Charge No.3: The C.S.O. (A.3) has visited our Karimnagar Bracnh on a few occasions and have deliberately overlooked the high value entries relating to the fraud.
Charge No.4: The C.S.O. (A.3) had aided and abetted third party in the perpetration of fraud in April, 1997 and deliberately suppressed detection of frauds, at our Karimnagar Branch.
In his enquiry charge No.1 and Charge No.4 not established and Charge
No.2 and Charge No.2(a) established. Ex.P.17 is the enquiry report of A.3.
In the cross examination conducted by the counsels for the accused No.1 to 4 the PW.4 admitted that the Ex.P.16 and P.17 does not contain the list of 16 documents considered by him during the enquiry. Finally the PW.4 deposed that he has denied that Ex.P.16 and P.17 are prepared at the directions of his head office.
24. The PW.5 Yadagiri Jagan Mohan Rao Enquiry officer of A.1 deposed that he worked as Branch Manager, in Telangana Grameena Bank and he know A.1 as A.1 worked as accountant in his bank at Karimnagar branch.
Previously he has conducted an enquiry against A.1 with regard to misappropriation of funds and he held enquiry as per the instructions of his superior. The PW.5 further deposed that during the enquiry he has framed six charges against the A.1.
The enquiry proceedings against A.1 was conducted during the year 200304 and charges framed against him are as follows;
1. That A.1 prepared vouchers and passed raising debts to head office accounts and credited to a fictitious current account.
2. That A.1 not ensured safety of deposits such as account opening form, vouchers, registers etc., which has result in removal of vital information from the branch records.
3. (a) That A.1 issued a special term deposit with out receiving cash for no valid consideration in the name of Sri D.Sampath Kumar and sanctioned over draft against such fictitious term deposit.
4. That A.1 issued Banker cheques without consideration and fraudulently encashed the same for self benefit in connivance with third party the bank books of accounts are fabricated and tampered.
5. That A.1 passed fictitious entries for adjusting the bankers cheques issued without consideration and paid subsequently.
6. That A.1 aided and abated the Branch Manager for window dressing of
Branch deposits without actually received full consideration by resorting to sanctioning of demand notes as on 31398 and closed on 30498.
Charge No.1, 2 were established in his enquiry, Charge No.3 not established in his enquiry. Charge No.4 vide Charge No.4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) is established.
Charge NO.5 is also established, Charge No.6 was not established. Ex.P.18 is the enquiry report filed by him.
17 In the cross examination of PW.5 he deposed that he was appointed as
Branch Manager in Shatavahana Grameena Bank in the year 1984 and he has admitted that the system of known your customer (KYC) was introduced for the norms of Bank subsequent to his appointment as branch manager. Witness further admitted that to open a new account the customer who is already having an account must introduce the new customer. Finally the PW.5 denied that he is deposing false under the influence of his superiors.
25. The PW.6 B.P.Ravindra Kumar, who is the Chairman of Enquiry committee issued disciplinary proceedings against the accused deposed in his chief examination that he know the accused No.1 to 4 so also Pws 1 to 5 as they were employees of Satavahana Grameena bank. On completion of entire proceedings against A.1 to A.4 by the different enquiry officers they handed over their final enquiry reports to his predecessor K.Krishna Rao and on 2052004 he imposed for A.1 removal from Service, for A.2 reduction by one stage for three years without cumulative effect, for A.3 reduction of one stage for three years with cumulative effect, for A.4 reduction by one stage without cumulative effect. The above punishment was given by him by way of show cause notice to all the accused and the accused have given (15) days of time for giving explanation, in meanwhile i.e., within these 15 days he took up charge from K.Krishna Rao as a chairman of Satavahana Grameena bank and after laps of 15 days of time all the accused submitted their explanation and on observing the same he did not satisfied with their explanation and on considering the case facts PW.6 proposed punishment by the disciplinary authority i.e., his predecessor.
In the cross examination the PW.6 deposed that he has not personally enquired the accused persons with regard to the alleged fraud committed by the accused and witness also admitted that he has not made any endorsement on Ex.P.16, P.17 to show that he has verified those documents before confirming the proposed punishment given by his predecessor. Finally the 18 PW.6 has denied that he has not verified the enquiry reports before confirming the proposed punishment given by his predecessor and he is deposing false.
The PW.6 admitted that he has not filed any authorization before the court to show the bank was authorized him to confirm the punishment given to the accused by his predecessor. The PW.6 denied the police not examined him and recorded statement and admitted that A.4 was censured by the appellate authorities by considering it was his first kind of negligence without having any malafied intention.
26. The PW.7 K.Rajamouli Chary enquiry officer for A.4 deposed in his chief examination that he do not know A1 to A.3, but he know A.4 D.Chandra
Shekar Babu who was previously worked as branch manager of Shatavahana grameena bank. In the year 2002 Chairman of Satavahana grameena bank appointed him as an enquiry officer against A.4 for misappropriating the amount to the tune around Rs.19,00,000/ pertaining to the accounts of
Navabharath Drillers and Harika Enterprises pertaining to the branch,
Karimnagar. Accordingly he conducted enquiry against A.4 and charges framed against him are as follows;
The Charge No.2: you have opened a current account whose bonafide are suspicious and permitted operations in the account violating Bank norms and this charge is established.
The Charge No.7: That A.4 irregularly opened current accounts in the name of M/s.Pullen Pumps Industries Pvt. Ltd., without fulfilling proper norms, allowed operations and purchased demand drafts/cheques and passed on the benefits to the spurious persons and this charge is established.
The Charge No.12: That A.4 violated the extent instructions by making cash payments of deposit amounts etc., and this charge is established.
Ex.P.19 is the enquiry report along with covering letter.
In the cross examination of PW.7 he has admitted that he was not appointed as enquiry officer pertaining to the misappropriation alleged committed by the accused in relation to the accounts of Harika Enterprises 19 and Navabharath Drillers vide Ac.No.393, 324., and he held enquiry during the period December, 2002 to May, 2004. The PW.7 further deposed that he do not know whether the prosecution has filed any document to show that he was appointed as an enquiry officer for A.4. He further deposed that he submitted enquiry report Ex.P.19 on 1182004. On completion of his enquiry he filed a report stating that the A.4 has no role in the alleged misappropriation and the said charge against A.4 was not established. Later i.e., on submission of report against A.4, he came to know that the appellate board considered the appeal of
A.4 and censured the A.4 as he was acted negligently towards his duties.
Finally the PW.7 has admitted the charges (2, 7 and 12) mentioned in his chief are not relating to the present case.
27. Pw.8 R.Prakash who is the successor of LW.22 on 3111998 LW.22 received a complainant from PW.1 basing on that he registered a case in
Cr.No.288/1999 for the offence U/s.408, 420, 477A, 465, 468 IPC and issued
FIR. Ex.P.20 is the F.I.R. And the LW.22 also examined and recorded the statement of PW.1, later on his transfer he succeeded to his post and took up further investigation of this case. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of PW.2, Lws 3 to 12. Prior to taking of his charge the CD file has maintained by the then CI. Of police Karimnagar town and he collected Ex.P.2 to P.15, The PW.8 further deposed that on his transfer he handed over the CD file to his successor.
In the cross examination of PW.8 he deposed that the complaint does not enclosed Ex.P.2 to P.14 at the time of lodging a complaint, the witness has also admitted that the Ex.P.2 to P.14 does not contain the signature or seal or endorsement of C.L. Who received the documents to show that he received the documents and also admitted that he can not say anything about the investigation conducted by LW.22. Finally he deposed that he has prepared
Ex.P.2 to P.14 along with the statements of PW.2, Lws.3 to 12 for the purpose of this case.
20
28.The PW.9 P.Srinivas who is the successor of PW.8 deposed in his chief examination that he took up investigation in this case on 572005 and examined and recorded the statements of LW.13, 14, 15 and 17 and Pws 3 to 7 and he has also collected the copies of enquiry report of accused persons.
In the cross examination of PW.9 deposed that Ex.P.2 to P.14 has filed by him along with the charge sheet. The witness further stated that he has not collected any document with regard to the present case as his predecessor has already obtained documents and conducted investigation. The witness further admitted the Ex.P.2 to P.10 does not contain any stamp or seal of Satavana grameena bank to show that they are related to Satavahana Grameena bank.
The witness also admitted Ex.P.6, 7, 8, 10, 11 do not show the account number of the individuals. The witness further deposed that as per his investigation the accused have created two fake accounts in the name of
Harika Enterprises and Navabarath drillers and got the amount of
Rs.90,17,197/ got transferred from Peddapalli and Jammikunta with out head on difference dates and he also admitted that he has not examined any bank staff of Peddapalli and Jammikunta and also did not collect any material to show the transfer of amount from those two banks to the accounts of 324 and
393. The witness further admitted he has not collected any information that when the reconciliation was conducted by the bank authorities in the
Shatavahana Bank and whether the PW.5 to 7 was authorized by the bank management to conduct enquiry in to the misappropriation. Finally the PW.9 has denied that he has not conducted any proper investigation in the present case by colluding with the Satavahana ank authorities filed the present case against the accused to cover up the lapses in the Satavahana Grameena Bank.
29. On perusal of entire record it appears that the accused No. 1 to 4 who worked as the employees of Satavahana Grameena Bank, Karimnagar on different capacities during the years, 199798 committed the mis appropriation of amount to the tune of Rs.19,17,000/. The Pw1 who is the complainant 21 deposed in his chief examination the same contents of his complaint and through him Ex.P.1 to P.15 are marked and the exhibits clearly establishes the involvement of A1 to A3 in the missappropriation of bank fraud by creating fictitious accounts in the name of Navabharath Drillers and Harika
Enterprises. The Ex.P2, P3 which are the ledger sheets are clearly tallied with the details which are mentioned by Pw1 in his complaint, even though the counsel for the accused No.1 to 4 have taken a defense that the ledger sheets does not contain the seal or name of the bank, but the details in the Ex.P2 and
P3 are clearly tallied with the details in the enquiry reports of A1 to A3 i.e., (Ex.P18, Ex.P16 and P17) . The Ex.P.4 to P.11 which are the Transfer Credit voucher of current account numbers 324 and 393 have also clearly shows when the amount was credited and when it was debited from the current account Nos. 324 and 393. The Ex.P12 and P13 which are the details in the cheque book issue register is also corroborating with the evidence of PW.4, 5 and 7 and Ex.P13 was also torn off and the end of the page and it is also clearly corroborating with the evidence of Pw1. Moreover, the Pw2 and 3 who are the employees of Satavahana Grameena bank during the years 199798 have also supported the version of the prosecution that they know the A1 to A4 who are the employees of SGB and they have also known that the fraud committed by A1 to A4 in their bank. The enquiry officers for the A.1 to A.4 i.e.,
Pw4, 5 and 7 have also supported that they have conducted enquiry against the A1 to A4 and the exhibits P16, 17 and 18, 19 which are marked through
Pw4, 5 and 7 have also clearly showing that the Pw4, 5 and 7 are the enquiry officers for A1 to A3 and the charges against A1 to A3 were established that they have committed the offence of misappropriation to the tune of
Rs.19,17,000/ and the enquiry report of A4 which was marked through Pw7 shows that the charges which are framed against the A4 in relation to the present case i.e., Charge No.2 and 12 are proved, but the charge No.7 was not proved against the A.4 and the appellate board has considered his appeal and censured him as he was acted negligently towards his duties.
22
30. The Pw6 who was the chairman of Satavahana Grameena Bank during the years 3.04.2005 to April, 2006 deposed that he has received the enquiry reports against the A1 to A4 from different enquiry officers through his predecessor and he has confirmed the punishment given by his predecessor.
The Pw 8 & 9 who are the investigation officers of the present case have also supported the version of the prosecution.
31.The defence counsel have conducted extensive cross examination and taken several defences by posing different questions to the witnesses Pw1 to
Pw9, the main defence taken by the counsel for accused No.1 to 4 that at the time of opening an account there must be an introducer of the account, but the prosecution has not established how the accounts were opened and also failed to submit the account opening forms. The defence counsel for accused have also raised that when the strong room of a bank is opened to all the staff members there is every chance of committing the alleged offences by any one of the staff members. The defence counsel has tried to elicit that the exhibits P.2 and P.3 does not contain the seal or name of the Satavahana Grameena bank.
Moreover the exhibits P4 to P10 does not contain the stamp or seal of
Satavahana Grameena Bank and exhibits P6 to P11 do not show the account numbers of individuals. The exhibits P.1 to P.19 which are collected by the
Circle Inspector of Police Karimnagar from whom the file was received by the
Pw8 does not contain any endorsement on the exhibits to show that they have received by CI of Police Karimnagar. These are the main defences taken by the counsels for the accused No.1 to 4.
32.The prosecution through PW1 to PW9 and exhibits P.1 to P.20 answered the questions raised by the defence counsel, the Pw1 himself deposed in the Ex.P.1 and in his chief examination that the account opening forms are not found as they kept in the strong room which is under the control 23 of second officer of the bank. The exhibits P.14 and P.15 are also explaining the duties and responsibilities of second officer of the Bank.
33. The Pw2 and 3 who are the employees of the Satavahana Grameena bank during the years 199798 have deposed that in their chief examination that the staff members of the bank will not have any access to the strong room where the account opening forms, cheque book cash vouchers are kept. As the key of the strong room is always with the accountant. Even though the exhibits P2 and P3 does not contain any seal or stamp of the SGB but the details in the Ex.P.2 and P.3 are clearly tallied with the details Ex.P16, P.17 and P.18 which are the enquiry reports of accused No.1 to 3. Even though, the
Ex.P.6, P.8 and P.10 does not contain the account number as raised by the defence counsel, but the other transfer credit vouchers are clearly shows the account numbers of 324 and 393 and the amount in those exhibits are also tallied with the exhibit P.2 and P.3. The defence counsel has not raised any question with regard to Ex.P.12 and P.13 which are the page numbers of 56 and 79/B of cheque book issue register, where it is clearly mentioned that the cheque numbers 955376400, 178701178750 are mentioned were issued to current account nos. 324 and 393. Even though the exhibits P2 to P15 does not contain the endorsement of C.I., of Police Karimnagar, who collected the documents that alone cannot be taken into consideration for validating the exhibits P.2 to P.15 when the contents in the exhibits P2 to P15 are corroborating with the oral evidence of Pw1 to Pw9. Moreover the defence counsel for A.1 to A.3 has not produced any evidence in their favour to disprove the contentions made by the prosecution through their witnesses and documents. The counsel for A.1 to A.3 got marked Ex.D.1 i.e, marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3, but the Ex.D.1 does not raise any doubt with regard to the involvement of A.1 to A.3 the alleged offence. The counsel for A.1 to A.3 had continuously raised the questions to all the witnesses that there is no direct evidence to prove that A.1 to A.3 have committed the offence 24 and it is not appropriate to attach the liability to A.1 to A.3 as they were accountants of the Bank. In order to disprove that the alleged offence not committed by A.1 to A.3 the counsel for A.1 to A.3 not produced any evidence to show that it was committed by some other persons. Moreover the counsel for A.1 to A.3 have not produced any evidence to prove that the account numbers 324 and 393 are not the fictitious accounts by got examining the account holders i.e., J.Narender Rao and B.Rajesh who are shown as proprietors of M/s.Navabharath Drillers and Harika Enterprises respectively that itself is establishing the evil motive of A.1 to A.3 and the alleged offence against A.1 to A.3 is purely technical in manner no other person can commit this kind of offences as the entire acts done by the accused No.1 to 3 is purely involved with the procedural aspects of a Bank. The citations filed by counsels for A.1 to A.3 and A.4 to support their version that the prosecution have wholly relied on the Departmental enquiry, as in the department enquiry to prove a case establishing the guilt of the accused preponderance of possibility is sufficient, but in case of criminal case beyond all reasonable douibt is required to prove the case of the prosecution, herein this case the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by producing documentary and oral evidence which is corroborating which each other, hence the citation which are given by counsels for A.1 to A.4 not having much relevancy in the presence case. Finally the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused No1. to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt and the counsel
for the accused No.1 to 3 is failed to disprove the case against the accused
No.1 to 3.
34.In view of the above discussion it is clear that the A.1 to A.3 who worked as accountants during the years 199798 have committed mis appropriation to the tune of Rs.19,17,000/ and they were said to be transfer from Peddapally and Jammikunta Branch into the two accounts Nawabarath
Drillers and Harika Enterprises, thereby the acts of A.1 to A.3 have fulfilled the 25 ingredients of sections 379, 408, 420, 427, 465, 468, 477A, 201 r/w 34 of IPC.
As the evidence produced by the prosecution in form of oral and documentary corroborating to each other and clearly establishes the guilt of the accused
No.1 to 3.
35.After careful analysis as made above with the assistant of oral and documentary evidence available on record it is clearly established by the prosecution that A.1 to A.4 were culprits for the offence alleged against them.
However when it comes to the case of A.4 the prosecution has not produced any documentary evidence in support of its case against A.4. Moreover the
PW.7 who is the enquiry officer for A.4 himself deposed in his cross examination that the charge No.7 was established against A.4 which is mentioned in his chief examination is not pertaining to the present case and he has also came to know that the action which was taken against A.4 in the departmental enquiry that reduction by one stage with cumulative effect and the same was preferred through an appeal by A.4, there the appellate Court made a finding that the charges against A.4 was not established and he was censured by the appellate board censured the A.4 as he was acted negligence towards his duties. As the prosecution has failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the A.4 by producing appropriate evidence this Court finds that the guilt of the A.4 was not established beyond all reasonable doubt.
Hence accused No.4 is acquitted from the alleged charges made by the
prosecution.
36.In the result, accused No.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 379, 408, 420, 427, 465, 468, 477A, 201 r/w 34 of
Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are convicted under section 248(2)
Cr.P.C., and accused No.4 is found not guilty for offences punishable under sections 379, 408, 420, 427, 465, 468, 477A, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., His bonds shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal period.
26
Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, Corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20 th day of April, 2018.
I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar
The A.1 to A.3 are present and this court questioned them in respect of quantum of sentence and A.1 to A.3 are submitted that;
Heard, the learned counsel for the accused and perused the record. In view of nature of offence this Court feels that they are not entitled for the benefit of provisions under section 3 and 4 of P.O. Act. Taking in to consideration of above fact and circumstances of this case and mitigating facts stated by accused and also considering the nature of offence this Court feels that, sentencing the accused as under would meet ends of justice.
In the result, accused No.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence under section 379, 408, 420, 427, 465, 468, 477A, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly A.1 to A.3 are convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under section 379, 408, 420, 427, 465, 468, 477A, 201 r/w 34 of
IPC and A.1 to A.3 are sentenced to under go Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC and further A.1 to A.3 under go Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ (Rupees One thousand only) each, in default of payment of fine they shall under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 408 IPC., Further A.1 to A.3 shall under go Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ (Rupees One thousand only) each in default of payment of fine they shall under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC. Further A.1 to A.3 shall pay a fine of
Rs.1000/ (Rupees One thousand only) each, in default of payment of fine they shall under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence 27 U/Sec.427 IPC. Further A.1 to A.3 shall pay a fine of Rs.1000/(Rupees One thousand only) each, in default of payment of fine they shall under go Simple
Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence U/Sec.465 IPC.
Further A.1 to A.3 shall under go Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ (Rupees One thousand only) each in default of payment of fine they shall under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 468 IPC. Further A.1 to A.3 shall under go Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ (Rupees One thousand only) each in default of payment of fine they shall under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 477A IPC. Further A.1 to A.3 shall pay a fine of Rs.1000/ (Rupees One thousand only) each, in default of payment of fine they shall under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence U/Sec.201 r/w 34 IPC. Total fine amount imposed against A.1 to A.3 is
Rs.21,000/ (Rupees Twenty one thousand only). All the punishments shall run concurrently.
The remand period which were already undergone by A.1 to A.3 if any shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C., There is no property in this case the
A.1 to A.3 are explained their right of appeal against the above conviction and sentence before the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Karimnagar, they can seek legal aid in preferring appeal as per the provisions of legal services authorities act.
The office is directed to give a copy of judgment on free of cost to the accused forthwith.
Typed my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20 th day of April, 2018.
I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar.
28
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: NIL
PW1Gunda Chandramouli PW2Lavudya Sheela PW3C.Ramaan Murthy PW4K.Krishnaiah PW5Y.Jagan MohanRao PW6V.P.Ravindra Kumar PW7K.Raja Mouli Chary PW8R.Prakash, S.I. of Police PW9T.Srinivas Rao, S.I. of Police
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P1is the Complaint by PW.1 Ex.P2Is the ledger sheet of current Ac.No.324 of Nava Bharath Drillers Ex.P3Is the ledger sheet of current Ac.No.393 of Harika Enterprises Ex.P4is the Transfer Credit Voucher of current Ac.No.324, dt.1141997 for Rs.4,52,959/. Ex.P5Is the Transfer Credit Voucher of current Ac.No.324, dt.2941997 Ex.P6Is the Transfer debit Voucher of head office Account dt.17021998. Ex.P7is the Transfer credit voucher of Head office Ac.No.393, Dt.17021998 Ex.P8Is the Transfer debit voucher of head office Account dt.27021998 Ex.P9Is the Transfer credit voucher of current account No.393 for Rs.2,52,671/ Ex.P.10Is the Transfer debit Voucher of Head Office Account dt.2331998 Ex.P.11Is the Transfer credit voucher of current Ac.No.393, dt.2331998 for Rs.4,25,000/ Ex.P.12Is the Cheque book issue Register, Page No.56 Ex.P.13Is the Cheque book issue Register page No.79/B ExP.14Is the Head Office Circular No.PER/22 of 199091 dt.19101990 (attested copy, attested by C.I. Of Police, Karimnagar I town P.S.) Ex.P.15Is the Head office Circular No.PER/20 of 199192, dt.20091991 (attested copy, attested by C.I. Of Police, Karimnagar I town P.S.) Ex.P.16Is the Enquiry report of A.2 by PW.4 Ex.P.17Is the Enquiry report of A.3 by PW.4 Ex.P.18Is the Enquiry report of A.1 by PW.5 Ex.P.19Is the Enquiry report of A.4 by PW.7 along with covering letter Ex.P.20Is the First Information Report
FOR THE DEFENCE: Ex.D.1 marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.3
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
Nil –
I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar.
29