C.C.No.444-2017 1 dt:21.02.2025.
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS ::TIRUPATI
Present:- Smt. Y.Saritha V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.
Friday, this the Twenty First (21 st ) day of FEBRUARY, 2025.
Calender Case No.444 of 2017
Between:
State represented by The Inspector of Police, ... Complainant
Central Crime Station, Tirupati.
And
1 D.Nagamani, age 32 years, W/o D.S.Nagaraja Babu, Accountant, Balaji urban Cooperative Bank Limited, D.No.240, Gandhi Road, Tirupati, R/o D.No.81, Kola Street, Tirupati. 2 D.Srinivasa Nagaraja Babu, age 33 years, S/o D.Rajendra Babu, Cashier in Balaji urban Cooperative Bank Limited, D.No.240, Gandhi Road, Tirupati, R/o D.No.10-15-54, K.K.Layout, Tirupati. 3 C.S.Dayakar Gupta, age 30 years, S/o C.R.Satyanarayana Setty, Computer Operator in Balaji urban Cooperative Bank Limited, D.No.240, Gandhi Road, Tirupati, R/o D.No.267, Marimanu Street, Tirupati. 4 N.Madhava Kumar, age 34 years, S/o N.Subramanyam, Attender, Balaji urban Cooperative Bank Limited, D.No.240, Gandhi Road, Tirupati, R/o D.No.2-181-1, M.R.Palli, Tirupati. 5 P.Srinivasulu, age 29 years, S/o late P.Bhaskar, Proprioetor, Pattabhi Sweet Stall, D.No.224, Bazaar Street, Tirupati, R/o D.No.19-9-42B, Knnedy Nagar, Tirupati.
C.C.No.444-2017 2 dt:21.02.2025.
6 P.Revathi, age 24 years, W/o M.Padmanabham, TTD, D-Type Quarters, Behind Varashaswamy Temple, K.T.Road, Tirupati. … Accused
This case is coming before me on 17.02.2025 for final hearing in the presence ofAssistant Public Prosecutorfor the State, and Sri K.B.Nagaraja and Sri Poojari Muni Reddy, Advocates for A1,
Sri K.Balachandra Mouli, Advocate for A2, Sri L.Madhusudhan Reddy,
Advocate for A4, Sri P.Hemachandra Reddy, Advocate for A5 & A6 and Sri I.Ramesh, Advocate for A3 and upon hearing their arguments and perusing the documents available on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.A1 to A6 are indicted for the offences punishable u/Secs. 409, 420, 120-B, 464, 477-A of of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.2/2008 by the
Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Tirupati.
2. The succinct facts of the charge sheet are summarized as follows:
The defacto complainant A.Muniramaiah (PW1) is the then Manager,
Balaji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Gandhi Road, Tirupati (herein after called as the Bank). D.Nagamani (A1) is the then Accountant, D.Srinivasa Nagaraja
Babu (A2) was the Cashier and he is the husband of A1. C.S.Dayakar Guptha (A3) worked as Computer Operator, N.Madhava Kumar (A4) worked as
Attender, P.Srinivasulu (A5) and (A6) P.Revathi are the account holders of the
Bank.
A1 being the accountant was incharge of vouchers, transactions and also carrying out the work of accounting all transactions. A2 Nagaraja Babu was incharge of cash transactions including receipts and payments of cash.
During the verification of accounts of the Bank, it has been found that both A1 and A2 indulged in various fraudulent transactions and siphoned off banks
C.C.No.444-2017 3 dt:21.02.2025.
funds to a tune of nearly Rs.113.39 crores. To perpetrate the fraud, they have used Clearing House Adjustment Account, Interest Paid on Deposit Account,
Interest received on Mortgage Loans, Matured Deposits Account, Interest
Payable on Deposit Account, Closed Savings Bank Account and Contingency
Account. As and when the Deposits were matured, Interest was calculated and transferred to the Savings Bank Account of the Depositor or Paid to the
Depositor directly or Credited to the Depositor’s Account. But an extra amount was added to the Interest actually credited to the Depositor and the difference was credited to the Savings Bank Accounts Nos. 396, 795, 413, 1025, 23, 24, 802, Current Account no.137 and cash was withdrawn from these accounts.
Even though there were no interest payments for the day amounts were transferred as Interest and Credited to the above Savings Bank Account and cash was withdrawn. The amount that was credited to the Savings Banks
Account or Current Account were not banked by any Deposit. The Interest actually paid on Deposits and debited to interest paid on Deposit Accounts has no relevance and the Interest Paid on Deposit Account got inflated resulting in loss to the Bank, though the Bank was actually profit earning.
On 28.09.2022, Cumulative Fixed Deposits Nos.1017, 1226, 1231, 1233, 1234 were Matured. The total interest payable Rs.21,729/-, but GL3083 interest was debited by Rs.24,949/- and the difference of Rs.3,320/- was transferred to the Savings Bank Account 396 from which cash was withdrawn.
In the same manner on 08.12.2003, an amount of Rs.17,510/- was debited
GL5065 interest on Term Deposits and an amount of Rs.10,850/- was debited to GL3038 interest on Cumulative Deposits total amount into Rs.28,000/- and the same was credited to the Savings Bank Account 396 and withdrawn. The summary of several transactions are enlisted in the charge sheet. Similarly,
Matured Deposit Account, Fixed Deposit Account were debited with different amounts as enlisted in the charge sheet on various dates.
C.C.No.444-2017 4 dt:21.02.2025.
The Clearing House Account has been used for the the fraudulent withdrawal of cash. This account was indiscriminately debited and corresponding credits were given to Savings Bank Account 396, 795, 1025 and Current Account 137 and money was withdrawn from the said accounts.
Similarly, Interest on Mortgage/Deposits Loan Account was debited and money was withdrawn by either transferring to Savings Bank Account or by creating
Deposit Accounts. During the course of investigative Audit, number of instances of Debits to Interest on Deposit Accounts on various Contingencies
Account and interest on Loans Account have come to light. This has resulted in loss, negative net worth and liquidity crunch lead to a crisis in the Bank.
A1 by colluding with her husband A2 destroyed some of the vouchers pertaining to the above said transactions in collusion with the Attender A4.
After the fraud came into light, the Bank Officials recovered only a part of the amount of Rs.92,08,500/-. As per the confession letters given by A1 and A2, they misappropriated an amount of Rs.113.39 lakhs. The S.P. Systems,
Computer Service Providers also colluded with the accused, deleted some of entries in the system. The Board of Directors of the Bank took the misappropriation to the notice of the Reserve Bank of India, later an investigative audit was conducted into the fraud. PW1 the then Bank
Manager, Balaji Urban Cooperative Bank, Tirupati went to Central Crime
Station, Tirupati and lodged a report.
Sri P.Abhisekham, the then Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station,
Tirupati (PW21) registered the report as case in Cr.No.2/2008 for the offences punishable u/Secs. 409, 420, 120-B, 464, 477A of Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, Sri P.Abhisekham, the then Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Station, Tirupati (PW21) examined PW1 to PW4 and recorded their statements u/Sec.161 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code. On 11.01.2008, he seized documents from the possession of PW1 under the cover of police
C.C.No.444-2017 5 dt:21.02.2025.
proceedings in Balaji Urban Cooperative Bank, Tirupati. On 19.03.2008, at about 6.00 pm., in front of D.No.81, Kola Street, Tirupati, he arrested
A1/D.Nagamani, A3/Dayakar Guptha and A4/Madhava Kumar in the presence of mediators. Later, he produced them before this Hon’ble Court and obtained judicial remand.
As per the confession made by A1, A3 and A4 about A2 D.S.Nagaraja
Babu, husband of A1, he arrested him on 22.03.2008 at about 7.00 am., in front of D.No.10-15-24, K.K.Layout, Tirupati in the presence of mediators.
Later, he produced him before this Honourable Court and obtained judicial remand. On 31.03.2008 at about 10.30 am., he seized account opening forms of 38 different accounts from the Bank under the cover of Police Proceedings.
On 21.07.2008 at about 9.30 am., he arrested A5/P.Srinivas in front of
D.No.19-9-42B, Kennedy Nagar, Tirupati and produced before the Honourable
Court and obtained judicial remand. On 12.08.2008 A6 P.Revathi obtained anticipatory bail orders vide Crl.M.P.No.1100/2008 dated:05.08.2008 from the
Court of Hon’ble IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati. After obtaining sufficient solvencies, released her on bail.
On 16.02.2013, O.Ramachandra Reddy, the then Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Station, Tirupati (PW22) took up further investigation in this case. He examined PW6 Himagiri Rao, the then Branch Manager,
Vishakapatnam Cooperative Bank, Tirupati, PW5 P.Krishnamurthy Former
CEO/MD of Balaji Urban Cooperative Bank, Tirupati and seized documents from them on 16.02.2013 at about 11.00 am., under the cover of police proceedings. On 15.04.2014, M.Munwar Hussain, the then Inspector of
Police, Central Crime Station, Tirupati (PW24) took up further investigation in this case, he sent specimen signatures of A1 to A6 to the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Hyderabad along with admitted signatures for comparison.
On 03.05.2015, B.Mallikarjuna Guptha, the then Inspector of Police, Central
C.C.No.444-2017 6 dt:21.02.2025.
Crime Station, Tirupati (PW25) examined some more witnesses and recorded their statements u/Sec.161 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code. He seized the
Audit Report of PW17 N.L.Narasimha, Charted Accountant, Premgopal & Co., under the cover of Police Proceedings on 04.05.2015 at about 1.00 pm., After receiving opinion of expert and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against A1 to A6 for the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 120-B, 465, 477A of Indian Penal Code.
3.Cognizance was taken by my learned predecessor in office for the offences punishable u/Secs. 409, 420, 120-B, 465, 477(A) of Indian Penal
Code against A1 to A6.
4.After appearance of A1 to A6 the copies of case documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.
5.A1 to A6 were examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code.
Charges were framed against them for the offences punishable u/Secs.409, 420, 120-B, 465, 477A of Indian Penal Code. The accusation leveled against them for the said charges was explained in Telugu for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.
6. The prosecution in order to substantiate its contention, examined PW1 to
PW26and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P151. The learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW7 and LW23 as died, LW10, LW11 and LW13, LW24, LW25, LW26 and LW27 has been closed on special report.
On behalf of the accused no witnesses were examined and Ex.D1 is marked on their behalf.
C.C.No.444-2017 7 dt:21.02.2025.
7. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A6 were examined under
Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code with the incriminating material against them available in the prosecution evidence for which they denied and further reported no defence evidence.
8. Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused nos.1 to 6.
9. Now the point for determination is:
“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A1 to A6, beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable u/Secs.409, 420, 120-B, 465, 477A of Indian Penal Code, 1860?”.
POINT:
10.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW26. Among them, PW1 is the defacto complainant and Manager of Sri Balaji Urban
Cooperative Bank, Tirupati, PW2 to PW6 are the employees of the Bank, PW7 to PW12 are the various Savings Bank account holders, PW13 the owner of
S.P.Systems, Secunderabad who provided Software to the Bank, PW14,
PW16 are the Ex-Directors of the Bank, PW15 is the Branch Manager,
Vishakapatnam Cooperative Urban Bank, Tirupati, PW17 is the Charted
Accountant M/s Premgopal and Company, PW18 is the then Chairman of the
Bank, PW19 is the mediator for arrest of A2, PW20 is the Scientific Officer,
Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and PW21 to PW26 are the
Investigating Officers.
11.The testimony of PW1, A.Muniramaiah, the then Manager, Balaji Urban
Cooperative Bank, Tirupati goes to show that he worked as Manager from year 1999. By that time A1 was working as Accountant, A2 was Cashier, A3 was
Computer Operator and A4 was the Attender, A5 and A6 were the account
C.C.No.444-2017 8 dt:21.02.2025.
holders of their Bank. PW2 Devayani, PW3 Dasaradha Raju, PW4 Ravindra
Reddy are the employees of their Bank. One year prior to 2008, he observed that one account holder drawn excess amount than that of the amount deposited. The names of some of the account holders who maintained
Savings Bank Account are deleted from Computer. He also observed the fraud committed in Clearing House Adjustment, Account Interest Paid on
Deposit, Interest received on the mortgage Loans, Matured Deposit account, closed Savings Bank Account, Interest payable on Deposit Account and in
Contingency Account. The Matured Deposit and Fixed Deposit Amounts were credited to Savings Bank Account no. 396, 795, 1025, 24, 345 and Current
Account No.137 and an amount of Rs.12,40,000/- was misappropriated. The total fraud was committed to a tune of Rs.1,13,39,000/- ( Rupees one Crore
Thirteen lakhs and Thirty nine Thousands only). On enquiry A1 to A3 voluntarily stated that they have committed fraud and to that extent A1 has addressed Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 Letters to the Chairman, Balaji Cooperative Urban
Bank Ltd., Tirupati by confessing her guilt. A2 and A3 also executed letters under Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 by admitting their guilt. Further, Ex.P1 to Ex.P132 are marked through PW1. In the year 2002, he found decrease in the profits of the
Bank and also in the transactions. Later, he informed to the Superintendent of
Police, Communications Secunderabad who came and verified the records and found the alleged fraud. He addressed a letter to the Investigating Auditor,
Hyderabad, they conducted auditing and submitted report showing where the fraud was committed. He observed an amount of Rs.1,11,39,000/- in the account of A1, an amount of Rs.1,72,000/- in the account of A3. On enquiry,
A1 to A6 voluntarily confessed their guilt and returned the entire amount, except Rs.10,00,000/-. Later, as per the directions of Board of Directors he lodged Ex.P132 report to the Police. (PW1 was not cross-examined as he died).
C.C.No.444-2017 9 dt:21.02.2025.
12.The testimony of PW2 Y. Devayani, who worked as Computer Operator in the Bank, Tirupati goes to show that prior to the year 2008 concurrent audit was conducted in their Bank. During the Audit, they found differences of amount relating to credit and debit transactions in their Bank. Then PW1 informed the same to P.Chengal Rayulu the then Chairman, Balaji Cooperative
Bank, Tirupati (PW18). He inturn informed the alleged incident to the Reserve
Bank of India, later the RBI authorities inspected their bank and found there was differences in the debit and credit transactions, Matured Deposits,
Clearing House adjustment account, Interest paid on Deposits, Interest received on mortgaged loans, closed Savings Bank Account and interest payable on Deposits Account. A1 transferred excess interest amount to the account holders and the excess amount was transferred to other non account holders.
13. Later, she turned hostile to the prosecution and did not state anything against remaining accused. During the course of cross-examination by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor she deposed that she is having knowledge about the misappropriation amount of Rs.1,13,39,000/- in their Bank and also about repayment of Rs.90,81,000/- by A1 and an amount of Rs.1,27,500/- by
A3. She admitted her 161 (3) of Cr.P.C statement under Ex.P133. Admittedly, she stated that having computer knowledge, A1 deleted the entries in the
Computer and not added new entries due to which the alleged fraud was committed. The cross-examination by learned counsel for A1 goes through the procedure of deposit and withdrawal of amounts in the Bank. The main server of their bank is under the control of third party service provider. She did not witness when A1 deleted the entries in the Computer. The cross- examination by learned counsel for A2 is also with regard to the procedural aspect of the Bank. During the cross-examination by the learned counsel for
C.C.No.444-2017 10 dt:21.02.2025.
A3, she stated that the duty of A3 is to make entries in the Computer at the request of account holders and the duty of A4 is stamping on withdrawal of cheques. During the cross-examination by learned counsel for A5 and A6, she deposed that the concurrent audit authorities found various suspicious deposits in the Joint account of A5 and A6 bearing Account No.396. She do not have knowledge about the crime registered against their Bank in
Cr.No.387/2007 dated: 01.12.2007 on the report given by A5 and A6.
14.Further, PW3 V.Dasaradha Raju who worked as gold appraiser in the
Bank deposed that, on 10.01.2008 he came to know through PW1 and audit authorities that an amount of Rs.1,13,39,000/- fraud was committed in their
Bank, for that an amount of Rs.90,81,000/- was recovered from A1 and
Rs.1,27,500/- was recovered from A3. He turned hostile to the prosecution and did not state anything against the accused. During the course of cross examination by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, he admitted his Ex.P134
Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement. During the cross-examination by learned counsel for A2, he stated that he worked on contract basis as gold appraiser.
He do not have personal knowledge about the alleged fraud committed.
15The testimony of PW4 V. Ravindra Nath Reddy, the then Loan Recovery
Assistant of the Bank would goes to show that on verification of vouchers in their Bank on suspicion PW1 verified and found out fraud was committed in their Bank. After verifying by the Audit Authority they found that an amount of
Rs,1,13,39,000/- was committed fraud by way of withdrawal by forging the signatures. He also deposed about the repayment of Rs.90,81,000/- by A1 and Rs.1,27,500/- by A3. His cross-examination by learned counsel for A1 to
A3 shows the procedural aspects of the Bank, conducting monthly and yearly audits and also the merging of the Bank in the year 2012 with Vishaka
Cooperative Bank.
C.C.No.444-2017 11 dt:21.02.2025.
16Evidence of PW5 P.Krishna Murthy who worked as advisor to
Vishakapatnam Cooperative Bank and former CEO of Balaji Cooperative Bank goes to show that after his joining in Balaji Cooperative Bank, he came to know about the fraud committed by A1 to A4. On verifying the records, he came to know that Rs.1,13,39,000/- was committed fraud by A1 to A4 and also repayment of amount by A1 to A3 by admitting their guilt. During the course of cross-examination, admittedly he stated that he omitted to state before the
Police that after going through the records, he came to know about the alleged fraud and also about recovery of amount from A1 and A3.
17Further, the testimony of PW6 G.Himagiri Babu goes to show that in the month of November, 2011 the Bank was merged with Vishaka Coperative
Bank and he submitted payslips, withdrawal forms, clearing vouchers to the
Police of Balaji Co-operative Bank, Tirupati. He also deposed about the amount of fraud and recovery of Rs.90,00,000/-. During his cross-examination by learned counsel A1, he deposed that the Manager of Bank is custodian for payslips, withdrawal forms and other vouchers. He do not have personal knowledge about fraud committed in Balaji Cooperative Bank and also about repayment of Rs.91,00,000/- and also about merging of Balaji Cooperative
Bank with Vishaka Bank. During his cross examination by learned counsel A2 he deposed that he did not work in Balaji Cooperative Bank during the period of commission of alleged offence.
18.PW7 P.Deenasekhar, PW8 K.Surendra Babu, PW9 M.Raja Reddy,
PW10 K.Venkata Sathyanarayana, PW11 P.Prabhakar Reddy and PW12
C.Ramana Murthy are the Savings Bank Account holders of the Bank. Among them, PW12 C.Ramana Murthy turned hostile to the prosecution. Except admitting his transaction through the said Bank, he did not state anything
C.C.No.444-2017 12 dt:21.02.2025.
against the accused. During his cross examination by the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor, he admitted that five cheques and five debit slips under
Ex.P76 are belongs to his account No.137.
19.The evidence of other account holders PW7 to PW11 further reveals that during the years, 2000, 2003 and 2004, some amounts were deposited into their accounts by unknown persons and the same was withdrawn on the same day without their knowledge. According to PW7, in the year 2003 an amount of Rs.13,000/-, Rs.2000/-, Rs.4,000/- and an amount of Rs.7,000/- in total
Rs.26,000/- was withdrawn from his account. Ex.P50 statement of account
No.SB 863 relating to PW7 reveals the same. During his cross-examination by learned counsel for A1 and A2, he stated about the procedural aspect of withdrawing amount from the Bank physically. Further, according to PW8 an amount of Rs.5,000/- was deposed into his account on 13.09.2002 and the same was withdrawn on the same day by some unknown offenders. Ex.P42 his statement of account bearing No.SB362 reveals the same. During his cross-examination, he clearly stated that he do not know who had deposited
Rs.5,000/- into his account and withdrawn Rs.4,000/-. In the same manner,
PW9 also deposed about depositing of an amount of Rs.4,290/- into his account on 23.04.2004 and its withdrawing on the same day by some unknown persons by forging his signature. On 13.06.2004, again an amount of Rs.9,000/- was deposited into his account, the same was withdrawn on 17.06.2004. Ex.P52 his statement of account of Savings Bank Account no.346 reveals the same. During his cross-examination, he clearly stated that he do not know who had deposited and withdrawn the amount from his account.
20.The testimony of PW10 also shows about depositing of an amount of
Rs.8,000/- into his account on 06.10.2003 and the same was withdrawn.
When he went to the Bank and enquired with the Authorities, they didn’t gave
C.C.No.444-2017 13 dt:21.02.2025.
proper reply. Further, evidence of PW11 reveals that from the year, 2003 to 2005 frequently some amounts were being deposited and withdrawn through his account without the transactions being done by him. Then he approached the Bank Authorities two to three times and enquired about said transactions, but they did not gave proper reply. Later after going through the News Paper, they came to know about the alleged fraud committed in the Bank. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he had done bank transaction till the alleged fraud committed in the Bank.
21.Further the testimony of PW13 R.Chandra Sekhar, who run IT Company under the name and style of SP Systems goes to show that they used to provide Software and Hardware to Indian Business Houses such as
Pharmaceuticals, Distributors, Food Product Distributors and Banks etc., One of their customers is Balaji Cooperative Bank, Tirupati. In the year 1999, they entered into an agreement with Balaji Cooperative Bank, Tirupati for providing entire IT Solutions till the year 2009. They provided Software Training to the
Employees and rectify the problems arising out of the IT Solutions. They used to rectify the said problems in the presence of A1 who was the whole System
Incharge in the said Bank. In the year 2006 or 2007, PW1 found that the
Clearing House Account was keep swelling (Debit Balance of the Bank keep on increasing). PW1 informed them to rectify the problem. They went to the
Bank several times, but A1 did not cooperate with them. She did not allow them to go through the records in the System or with the physical records.
Once in the absence of A1, they verified the records in the System, taken back up and compared with the existing record in the server and found the electronic record was tampered. They found that the main reasons of Clearing
House Swelling is because of tampering of Electronic Record. Clearing House
Means, debiting of cheque amount in another’s bank account without
C.C.No.444-2017 14 dt:21.02.2025.
honouring by the other party. Accordingly, they submitted Ex.P121 report to
PW1. During his cross-examination, he deposed that each employee of the
Bank will have separate password for their computers. As PW1 found disturbance in the Clearing House Account, he asked them to come to Tirupati to solve the internal accounting problems. Admittedly, they are unable to rectify the earlier Software, after installing new software they recovered data.
22.PW14 M.Ramalingeswar Prabhu, who acted as Director of the Bank from the year 2005 to till it was merged with Vishaka cooperative Bank deposed that the RBI Authorities suggested names of one Premsagar and
PW17 N.L.Narasimha to Audit the Bank. Accordingly, they verified the Bank accounts and found that an amount of Rs.1,13,00,000/- was committed fraud.
In the Committee appointed by the Bank Authorities, he was one of the members. A1 and others purchased gold ornaments with the above said amount. A1 used to credit amounts in fictitious account of A5, being the cashier A2 withdraw the amount from the account of A5. An amount of
Rs.1,02,00,000/- was recovered from A1 and others. A1 deposited gold ornaments in the account of A4. They both admitted the commission of offence. His cross-examination also reveals about the procedure of withdrawal and depositing the amounts and about conducting auditing every financial year by RBI Authorities. Admittedly, he omitted to state before the police that A1 purchased gold ornaments and kept them in the Bank Account of A4.
23.Further, the testimony of P.Dilli Rao, the Manager Vishaka Cooperative
Bank, Tirupati (PW15) goes to show that he handed over 35 vouchers under
Ex.P121 and one declaration with regard to mortgage of gold ornaments by A1 in the name of A4 under Ex.P123 and Ex.P124 the declaration given by A4 to
C.C.No.444-2017 15 dt:21.02.2025.
recovery committee and Ex.P122 report given by S.P. Systems to the Balaji
Cooperative Bank, Tirupati. During his cross-examination, nothing was elicited in favour of the accused.
24.PW16/K.V.Ramanaiah,PW17/N.L.Narasimhamam,PW18/
P.Chengalrayulu are the members of Recovery Committee formed by the
Chairman of Balaji Cooperative Bank, Tirupati. Evidence of PW16 reveals about conducting of Audit by the RBI Authorities every year and about their failure in finding the fraud. After identifying the fraud by PW1, he informed to
RBI Authorities. Later, a committee was formed with PW17 and others to verify the accounts in the Bank. They found that an amount of
Rs.1,13,00,000/- was committed fraud. Further, A1 confessed about commission of fraud in the presence of Chairman of the Bank and to that effect she also executed a Confession Letter. In the Recovery Committee formed by the Chairman with PW14, PW16 and PW1, they recovered an amount of
Rs.90,00,000/- from A1. They came to know that by transferring the interest amount to some other accounts and withdrawing it for their personal use, A1 committed fraud. During his cross-examination, he deposed that at the beginning 3 to 4 years, the Bank was in profit. But later there was no profit in the Bank.
25.Further the another member of Auditing Committee, PW17
N.L.Narasimhan deposed that he is one of the members of Auditing
Committee, they found financial misappropriation in the Bank of an amount of
Rs.1,13,00,000/-, they noticed fictitious entries in the Clearing House Account where the cheques were sent for collection. They also noticed fictitious transactions in the interest on mortgage loans, interest on Fixed Deposits.
These amounts were credited to several Savings Bank Accounts and cash
C.C.No.444-2017 16 dt:21.02.2025.
was withdrawn from them. They have submitted Ex.P115 report. During his cross-examination, he deposed that on verifying the Auditor reports from the date of institution of the Bank, they found out short comings. In Ex.P115 report it was clearly mentioned that access to the Systems was not properly controlled in the Bank.
26.PW18 P.Chengalrayulu, the Ex Chairman of Balaji Cooperative Urban
Bank, Tirupati also deposed in the same lines of PW17. He clearly stated about the formation of Auditing Committee and also about recovery of amount from A1 to A4. During his cross-examination, he stated that he do not remember in which year the Auditing committee was appointed. In the special audit report, they came to know about the misappropriation in the Bank.
Admittedly, he stated that a case in Cr.No.387/2007 was registered against himself and four others under Ex.D1.
27.PW19 P.Hari Kumar who is the mediator for arrest of A1,A3 and A4 turned hostile to the prosecution. Though he admitted his signature on
Ex.P136 mediators report, he did not state anything against A1. Though the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross-examined him at length nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution.
28.PW20 A.Raja Naik, Scientific Officer, Document Section, Forensic
Laboratory Hyderabad deposed that the examined all the documents containing questioned and admitted signatures and issued Ex.P137 opinion/report. During his cross-examination, he deposed that by using tools and method of test only they will give opinion as to handwriting. He did not follow the procedure of Pen pressure, Measurement, Shading for forming the opinion as at present they are following a different procedure. Admittedly, he mentioned in Ex.P137 report that there are fundamental similarities with ‘S129
C.C.No.444-2017 17 dt:21.02.2025.
to S162’ with ‘Q86 to Q216’. ‘S1 to S6’ are the account opening forms. He compared contemporary signatures of the year 2000, 2002 and 2013.
29.The testimony of PW21 P.Abhisekham, the then Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Station, Tirupati goes to show that he received endorsed report under Ex.P132 by the PW26 the Sub-Divisionl Police Officer, Tirupati. He registered the same in Cr.No.2/2008 for the offences punishable u/Secs.409,420,120-B, 464 and 477-A of Indian Penal Code under Ex.P138
First Information Report. His evidence further goes to show that on 11.01.2008 his visiting of Balaji Urban Cooperative Bank, Tirupati, examination of witnesses and recording their Statements u/Sec.161 (3) of Criminal
Procedure Code. He seized Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 letters and Ex.P92 Cheques from PW1 under the cover of Ex.P139 Police Proceedings Dated:11.01.2008 at 11.00 am., On 19.03.2008, he arrested A1, A3 and A4 under the cover of
Ex.P140 Arrest Mahazarnama dated:19.03.2008 at about 6.00 pm., He produced them before the Hon’ble II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati and obtained judicial remand. On 22.03.2008 he arrested A2 under the cover of
Ex.P141 Arrest Mahazarnama Dated:22.03.2008 at 7.00 am., On 27.03.2008, he obtained police custody of A1 to A4 and recorded Ex.P142 Confession
Mahazarnama dated:27.03.2008. On the next day, he visited the Balaji Urban
Cooperative Bank, Tirupati and seized Ex.P17 to Ex.P65 from PW1 under the cover of Ex.P143 Seizure Mahazarnama dated:28.03.2008 at 11.00 am., On 21.07.2008, he arrested A5 at Kennedy Nagar, Tirupati, produced him before the Hon’ble II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati and obtained judicial remand. On 12.08.2008, A6 obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble
IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, after obtaining sufficient solvencies, he released her on bail.
C.C.No.444-2017 18 dt:21.02.2025.
30.During course of his cross-examination, he stated that he did not secure any independent mediators at the scene of offence as he already secured mediators. Admittedly, there is a delay of nine to ten months in between Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and Ex.P132 report filed by PW1. He denied the suggestion that he did not seize material documents like Ledger of day to day transactions and
Auditing Report. As per his investigation, the alleged offence took place from the years 2004 to 2007. A1 to A4 misused nearly 40 accounts for the alleged misappropriation. Admittedly, Ex.D1 First Information Report in
Cr.No.387/2007 of Central Crime Station was registered by him basing on court endorsement.
31.Further, PW22 O.Ramachandra Reddy, the then Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Station, Tirupati deposed that after receiving CD file from PW21, he proceeded with further investigation. On 16.02.2013, he visited Vizag
Cooperative Town Bank, Tirupati and secured the presence of PW5 and PW6, examined them and recorded their statements u/Sec.161 (3) of Cr.P.C. He seized payslips, withdrawal forms, Clearing House Paid Debit and Credit
Vouchers of A5 and A6 of Account No.396, PW2 Y.Devayani SB Account
No.967, C.Munichandra Reddy SB Account No.2216 and Venkata Subbaiah
SB Account No.55 alleged to be used by the accused under the cover of
Ex.P145 Police Proceedings. On 20.06.2013, he seized staff salary bill register containing signatures of A1 to A4, encashed original withdrawal forms of A1 of SB Account No.11, A2 Nagaraju Babu SB Account No.13, A3
C.S.Dayakar Guptha SB Account No.15, A4 N.Madhava Kumar SB Account
No.20 under the cover of Ex.P146 Police Proceedings. He sent the said documents to the Expert for examination. During the course of his cross- examination, he stated that he do not have knowledge about Ex.D1. He did not verify the entries of Original Passbook of account no.396.
C.C.No.444-2017 19 dt:21.02.2025.
32.Further, the testimony of PW23 M.Giridhara Rao, the then Inspector of
Police, Central Crime Station, Tirupati who received CD file from PW22 goes to show that he filed Ex.P147 memo dated:06.12.2013 before this Hon’ble
Court seeking permission to return certain documents including the questioned documents as mentioned in para no.6 of the memo. PW24 Syed Munwar
Basha who took up further investigation from PW23 deposed that on 15.04.2014, he sent the seized documents along with Ex.P148 letter of advice to the Forensic Science Laboratory. During the course of cross-examination, he deposed that Ex.D1 is pertaining to Cr.No.387/2007. In this case entire amount was not recovered from A1 to A4. After registering the First
Information Report in the year 2008 all the relevant documents were seized in this case.
33.PW25 B.Mallikarjuna Guptha the then Inspector of Police, Central Crime
Station, Tirupati who proceeded with further investigation deposed that he examined PW13 R.Chandra Sekhar at his Office i.e., S.P.Systems situated at
Sarojinidevi Road, Secunderabad who provided the Software and Hardware to the Balaji Cooperative Bank, Tirupati, examined him and recorded his statement u/Sec.161 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code. Further, he seized
Ex.P116 to Ex.P120 from PW13 under the cover of Ex.P149 Police
Proceedings. On 04.05.2015, he examined PW17 N.L.Narasimhan, Charted
Accountant Prem Gopal and Company examined him and recorded his statement u/Sec.161 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code. He seized covering letter addressed to the Investigating Officer and submitted interim investigative audit report, a copy of the interim investigative audit report of Balaji
Cooperative Bank Ltd., Tirupati containing 41 pages, copy of final investigative audit report dated: 04.01.2008, copy of letter dated:31.03.2007 under the cover of Ex.P150 Police proceedings. On 06.05.2015, he examined PW15
C.C.No.444-2017 20 dt:21.02.2025.
and recorded his statement u/Sec.161 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code and seized Ex.P115 to Ex.P132 under the cover of Ex.P151 Police Proceedings.
After receiving report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.
34. During the course of his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not seize Passbook of individual customer of Balaji Cooperative Bank Ltd., Tirupati and not produced the same before this court. PW13 omitted to state before him that in the year 2006 or 2007 PW1 found that Clearing House Account was keep swelling. But PW3 stated before him that there were differences in the Electronic Records and Physical Records of the Bank. A5 and A6 are the joint account holders vide SB Account No.396. The alleged misappropriation took place in between the years 2002 to 2006. Even though the signatures of
PW7 to PW11 and LW13 were tallied with the signatures of Opening and
Withdrawal Forms of SB Accounts, they were not added as accused in this case because as per their testimony they are not aware of transaction made through their accounts. He denied the suggestion that as A5 and A6 lodged
Ex.D1 report against the Bank Authorities, employees and as they did not withdrawn the case a false case was registered against them.
35. PW26 C.H.Rajaiah, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central
Crime Station , Tirupati deposed that on 10.01.2008, at about 6.00 pm., he received Ex.P132 report from PW1 A.Muniramaiah and he endorsed it to
PW21 the then Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Tirupati to register a case for the offences punishable u/Secs. 409, 420, 120-B, 464, 477-A of
Indian Penal Code and to take up investigation in this case. On the same day at about 8.00 pm., PW21 issued Ex.P138, First Information Report.
C.C.No.444-2017 21 dt:21.02.2025.
36. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that the evidence of PW1 to PW26 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P151 clinchingly establishes about the commission of offences u/Secs.409, 420, 120-B, 465, 477Aof Indian
Penal Code, 1860. The evidence of all prosecution witnesses is supported by documentary evidence and the prosecution could successfully proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against A1 to A6 and they are to be convicted.
37. Per Contra, the learned counsels for A1 to A6 argued that PW1 was not cross-examined in this case as he died after his examination in chief. As such all the accused has lost their valuable right of cross-examination of PW1.
Hence, his evidence can not be taken into consideration. The signatures of all accused are taken after a lapse of several years as such the report of Forensic
Expert cannot be relied upon. A5 and A6 has already set the criminal law into motion by way of filing Ex.D1 report. A2 is only the cashier, A3 is only computer operator and A4 is attender they are no way concerned with the alleged offences. Only for being employees of the Bank, they were falsely implicated in this case. The prosecution utterly failed to prove the alleged offences against A1 to A6 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, they are entitled for an acquittal.
38. The learned counsel for A1 filed arguments in written. He relied on the authorities of Narendrasinh Keshabhaizala V. State of Gujarat, 2023 (2)
Crimes 325 (SC); Pradeep Kumar V. State of Chattishgar 2023 (2) Crimes 98 (SC); N.Raghavendar V. State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 (2) ALD (Crl.)19 (SC),
Jarnail Singh and another V. State of Punjab AIR 2022 SC (Cri)1096;, Magan
Bihari Lal V. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 1091, Pitta Daniel Ratnakumar V.
State of Andhra Pradesh 2024 (2) 460 (AP.,) Yudhishtir V. The State of
Madhya Pradesh 1971 SCC (Cri.) 684, Vadde Pallepu Sekhar V. State of
C.C.No.444-2017 22 dt:21.02.2025.
Andhra Pradesh 2011 (2) ALD (Cri.) 396 (AP.,), The State of Jammu and
Kashmir V. Davindar Kumar and another 2023 (3) Crimes 1 (J&K), Gopal
Saran V. Satyanarayanan AIR 1989 SC 1143.
39.In order to marshelling the facts, at first I want to impress upon the
Register of Wages of the year 2005 under Ex.P67 which reveals the actual position of working of A1 to A4 in the Balaji Urban Co-operative Bank, Tirupati which was seized by PW22 the investigating officer. As per Ex.P67, PW1
A.Muni Ramaiah worked as Manager, A1/ D.Nagamani was the then
Accountant, A2/ D.S.Nagaraja Babu was the Cashier, A3/C.S.Dayakar Guptha was computer operator, A4/N.Madhava Kumar was the attender. PW2/
Y.Devayani worked as computer operator and PW3/ Dasaradha Raju worked as Gold Appraiser. According to Ex.P115 Audit report, the said Balaji Co- operative Bank was instituted in the year 1999 and since then A1 to A4 worked in the same capacity in the Bank. Hence, there is no discrepency to say that
A1 to A4 were the employees of the Bank since the date of its institution.
40.PW7 P.Deenasekhar, PW8 K.Surendra Babu, PW9 M.Raja Reddy,
PW10 K.Venkata Sathyanarayana, PW11 P.Prabhakar Reddy and PW12
C.Ramana Murthy are the Savings Bank Account holders of Balaji Cooperative
Bank, Tirupati. A Perusal of evidence of PW7 to PW11 coupled with their statements of accounts under Ex.P42, Ex.P50 and Ex.P52 clearly reveals about depositing of amounts into their accounts by some unknown persons at different dates during the period 2000, 2003 and 2004 and also withdrawing the same amount on the same day without their knowledge. Among them,
PW12 C.Ramana Murthy turned hostile to the prosecution. According to PW7, in the year 2003 an amount of Rs.13,000/-, Rs.2000/-, Rs.4,000/- and an amount of Rs.7,000/- in total Rs.26,000/- was withdrawn from his account.
C.C.No.444-2017 23 dt:21.02.2025.
Ex.P50 statement of account No.SB863 relating to PW7 reveals the same.
Further, according to PW8 an amount of Rs.5,000/- was deposed into his account on 13.09.2002 and the same was withdrawn on the same day by some unknown offenders. Ex.P42 his statement of account bearing No.SB362 which reveals the said transaction. In the same manner, PW9 also deposed about depositing of an amount of Rs.4,290/- into his account on 23.04.2004 and its withdrawing on the same day by some unknown person by forging his signature. On 13.06.2004, again an amount of Rs.9,000/- was deposited into his account, the same was withdrawn on 17.06.2004. Ex.P52 his statement of account of Savings Bank Account no.346 reveals the same. During cross-examinations they clearly stated that they do not know who had deposited and withdrawn the amounts from their accounts. Anent to the about discussion, the evidence of account holders PW7 to PW11 coupled with
Exhibits P50, P42 and P52 clearly proves that from the year 2003 some misappropriation took place in their accounts . Thus, the foundation was laid for commission of alleged offences from the year 2002 and 2003.
41.PW1 being the Manager of the Bank, one year prior to 2008, on verification he found out withdrawing of excess amounts, deletion of names of some of the account holders of Savings Bank Account from electronic records of computer. He also observed the fraud committed in Clearing House
Adjustment Account, Interest Paid on Deposit, Interest received on the mortgage Loans, Matured Deposit account, closed Savings Bank Account,
Interest payable on Deposit Account and in Contingency Account. The
Matured Deposit and Fixed Deposit Amounts were credited to Savings Bank
Account no.396, 795, 1025, 24, 345 and Current Account No.137 and a total amount of Rs.12,40,000/- was misappropriated. The total fraud was committed to a tune of Rs.1,13,39,000/-. On enquiry A1 to A4 confessed their guilt and
C.C.No.444-2017 24 dt:21.02.2025.
executed Exhibits P3 to P7 Confession Letters before the Chairman. In order to lodge criminal prosecution against them he lodged Exhibit P132 Report.
42.The learned counsels for A1 to A6 vehemently argued that as PW1 was not subjected to cross-examination as he died, they lost their valuable right of cross-examination. As PW1 is not cross-examined, no evidentiary value can be given to his examination in chief. At this juncture, the learned counsel for
A1 relied on the authority of Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in The
State of Jammu and Kashmir V. Davindar Kumar and another 2023 (3)
Crimes 1 (J&K) wherein it was held that at para nos.10, 11, 12 & 13:
10. It is evident from the afore-quoted section 138 of the Evidence Act that examination of witness includes examination-in-chief and cross-examination and re-examination shall be directed to explain the matters referred to in the cross- examination and if new facts are introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross examine upon those fact(s). Section 138 enables the opposite party to cross examine a witness as regards information tendered by him in his examination-in-chief and the scope of this provision stands further enlarged by Section 146 of Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter alia, in order to test his veracity. Therefore, examination-in-chief of a witness cannot be taken into consideration to fasten any liability, unless the opposite party is afforded a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine said witness as regards information tendered by him in his examination-in-chief. Reference in this regard may be made to para 11 of "Subash Krishnan vs. State of Goa" reported as AIR 2012 SC 3003, whereby the Apex court has clearly ruled that court, in such circumstances, has no option but to ignore the testimony of the witness who did not offer himself for cross-examination.
11. Identical view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Gopal Saran vs Satyanarayan" reported as AIR 1989 SC 1141, relevant excerpt whereof is reproduced below for the facility of reference:- "........It may be mentioned that the plaintiff had not subjected himself to cross-examination in spite of the order of the Court after the remand, therefore, it would not be safe to rely on the examination-in- chief recorded which was not subjected to cross-examination before the remand was made. .........."
C.C.No.444-2017 25 dt:21.02.2025.
12. It is evident from the afore-quoted case law that it shall be highly unsafe to consider the chief examination of a witness, who is not subjected to cross- examination and court in such circumstances, is left with no option, but to ignore such testimony.
13. True it is, that under Section 33 of the Evidence Act, the evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a later stage of the said proceedings, the truth of facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, provided the adverse party had the right and opportunity to cross-examine. It is manifest from the proviso appended to Section 33 that evidence given by a witness, who is dead or cannot be found, is relevant in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding for the purpose of proving the truth of facts which the witness states, only when the affected party had the right and opportunity to cross examine the said witness.
43. Placing reliance on the above authority, the evidence of a witness who is not cross-examined shall not be relied upon. If PW1 fails to appear before the court inspite of giving directions evidence of PW1 has no evidentiary value.
But, in this case the situation in which PW1 failed to appear before this court is entirely different. Here in this case the trial was commenced on 18-02-2019 and examination in chief was continued on 19-02-2019, 21-02-2019, 26-02-2019 and finally on 27-02-2019 and as many as Exhibits P1 to P132 were marked.
Later, posted for cross examination on 29-03-2019. It is pertinent to note down the docket order dated: 29-03-2019 for just appreciation.
“All accused except A3 called present. Absence of A3 is condoned on petition. PW1 present. Counsel for accused reported not ready. Call on 26-04- 2019 for cross examination of PW1 on costs of Rs.500/-. Bind over PW1.”
Docket order on next date of adjournment 26-04-2019 as it is mentioned
below: “All accused except A1,A5 and A6 present. Absence of A1, A5 and A6 is condoned on petition. Pw1 is present. Costs paid. Counsel for accused reported not ready. For cross examination call on 17-05-2019.”
C.C.No.444-2017 26 dt:21.02.2025.
From the above mentioned two docket orders it has been clear that PW1 was called present before the court and ready to face the cross examination on the next date of hearing dated 29-03-2019 itself. But, it is the accused who were sought adjournment and even after payment of cost of Rs.500/- they did not choose to cross examine PW1 on next date of hearing. It is pertinent to note here section 138 of Indian Evidence Act, which reads as follows:
Sectionr138. Order of examinations.—Witnesses shall be first examined-in chief then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.
The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts but the cross- examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.
Direction of re-examination.—The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.
The above provision of law clearly explains the order of examination of a witness. It is settled principle of law and enunciated in catena of decisions by the Honourable Supreme Court that the examination in chief and cross examination shall be done on the same day. At this juncture I want to rely on the authority of honourable Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar v. State of
Punjab , (2015) 3 SCC 220 , (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 226, (2015) 1 SCC (L&S)
712, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 53 at page 246 it was held that, 57.4. In fact, it is not at all appreciable to call a witness for cross-examination after such a long span of time. It is imperative if the examination-in-chief is over, the cross- examination should be completed on the same day. If the examination of a witness continues till late hours the trial can be adjourned to the next day for cross-examination. It is inconceivable in law that the cross-examination should be
C.C.No.444-2017 27 dt:21.02.2025.
deferred for such a long time. It is anathema to the concept of proper and fair trial.
Placing reliance on the above said authority and basing on the above docket orders dated: 29-03-2019 and 26-04-2019, PW1 called present and ready to face the cross examination. But, the learned counsel for accused failed to cross examine PW1 on the respective date of adjournments even on imposing costs. After that due to Covid-19 and filing of Criminal miscellaneous petition no.1165 of 2019 by learned counsel for A5 and A6 there was inordinate delay in cross examination of PW1 and afterwards as PW1 died he was not subjected to cross examination. But, there is no willful disobedience on the part of PW1 for not subjecting him to cross examination. No instances of disobeying the court order has been recorded. It is the accused who failed to cross examine him when he was called present before this court. Hence, I did not find any sustainability in the argument of the learned counsels for A1 to A6 that they lost their valuable right of cross examination of PW1. Thus, in the said facts and circumstances, in my humble view as there is no fault on PW1 in subjecting him to cross examination, his evidence became reliable which is corroborated by abundant documentary evidence and his evidence in examination in chief is found relevant.
44.It is pertinent to note here section 4 and 5 of The Banker’s Book
Evidence Act, 1891 which reads as follows:
Section 4: Mode of proof of entries in bankers’ books:
Subject to the provisions of this Act, a certified copy of any entry in a banker’s book shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry, and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded in every case where,
C.C.No.444-2017 28 dt:21.02.2025.
and to the same extent as, the original entry itself is now by law admissible, but not further or otherwise.
Section 5: Case in which officer of bank not compellable to produce
books: No officer of a bank shall in any legal proceeding to which the bank is not a party be compellable to produce any banker’s book the contents of which can be proved under this Act, or to appear as a witness to prove the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded, unless by order of the Court or a Judge made for special cause.
In view of section 4 of The Banker’s book Evidence Act,1891 Ex.P8 to
Ex.P131 are all attested copies of PW1 and are relevant to the case of prosecution and considered in evidence. The said exhibits are valid concerning the accounts and this court did not find any irregularity on the part of the prosecution.
45.Exhibits P1 to P4 are the confession letters executed by A1 in favour of the Chairman and Directors of Balaji Co-operative Bank. Particularly Ex.P2 is the confession letter, dated 22-03-2017 of confessing her guilt about the fraudulent transactions made by her from different accounts by way of tampering the electronic records. Exhibits P1, P3 and P4 reveals the repayment of an amount of Rs.96.5 lakh rupees by various modes of payment i.e., by way of giving cheques and account transfer etc., and also mentioning that she will repay the entire amount within seven days. Particularly the letter executed by her dated:12-03-2007, with the subject as “the remaining
fraudulent amounts withdrawn by me in various accounts without
keeping evidences in the bank (some of the accounts) I confess that the
entire amount, which I have drawn in various accounts will be paid to the
bank within 7 days time. I also agree and confirm that the evidences of
withdrawals/cheques in various accounts were tampered by me. I also
agree all these frauds done by me knowingly.”
C.C.No.444-2017 29 dt:21.02.2025.
In Exhibit P115 final audit report it has been clearly mentioned that A1 being the accountant, having access over the systems she tampered the electronic records and transferred amounts to other accounts and misappropriated the amount for her personal. As per the confession made by
A1 coupled with Ex.P115 Auditors report some of the fraudulent transactions are as follows. To commit the misappropriation A1 used the following account:
Clearing House adjustment account Interest paid on deposits accountable Interest Received on mortgage Loans Interest Received on Deposit Loans Matured Deposits Accountant Closed SB Account Interest Payable on Deposits Accountant Contingencies Accountant and Savings Bank and Current account.
46.According to the Auditors report the Modus Operandi of A1 is, money has been debited from various above said accounts and deposited in the Savings Bank accounts. The amounts so transferred were withdrawn from those accounts. Some of the savings bank accounts frequently used by A1 are account nos.
396,795,413,1025,23,24,802 etc., Some of the transactions are :
Interest paid on deposits:
On 07-04-2005 an amount of Rs.50,118 (F.L.Code 3115-Rs.25,039+ Glcpde 5065 Rs.25079/-) was debited as interest paid account and credited to the SB account no.396 which was withdrawn in cash. But, the same was not backed by any deposits.
C.C.No.444-2017 30 dt:21.02.2025.
Clearing House Account :
An amount of Rs.42,500/- was made as Rs.1,42,500/-. The entry in clearing house statement was Rs.42,500/- only. But the realization proceeds were recorded as Rs.1,42,5000/- and the same was credited to savings bank account no.396 from which the cash was withdrawn.
The above stated are some of the fraudulent transactions made by A1.
After committing the fraudulent transactions A1 repaid nearly 96.5 lakh rupees to the recovery committee. She also clearly mentioned in her confessions letter that there is no coercion or compulsion on her from the side of either the directors or the Manger of said Bank. Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 clearly showing about the repayment of amount by way of Cheques and account transfer etc.,
47. A perusal of evidence of PW7 to PW11 clubbed with the exhibits reveals that there was misappropriation of accounts of various account holders without their knowledge. Nothing was elicited in favour of the accused in the cross examinations of PW7 to PW11. As per Ex.P115 audit report, the amount of depositors was misappropriated by transferring excess amounts to the other accounts without the knowledge of account holders and withdrawn the same by forging the signatures of account holders EX.P34 to Ex.P66,
Ex.P68 and Ex.P73 to Ex.P90 statements of accounts along with debit and credit vouchers proves that the misappropriated amount was fraudulently withdrawn. Further, Exhibits P91, P92 and P109 to P114 cheques and Exhibits
P93 to P109 proves the transactions done by misusing the accounts.
48.Further, the crucial point which is to be discussed in this case is the
Extra Judicial Confession made A1. It is the settled principle of law that the extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and it has to be examined by the court with great care and caution. At this juncture the court wants to rely
C.C.No.444-2017 31 dt:21.02.2025.
on the authority of Sahadevan v. State of T.N. , (2012) 6 SCC 403 : (2012) 3
SCC (Cri) 146 : 2012 SCC Online SC 422 at page 412, where in it was held
that,
16.Upon a proper analysis of the above referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra- judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused: (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.
In State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram , (2003) 8 SCC 180 : 2003 SCC (Cri)
1965 : 2003 SCC OnLine SC 852 at page 192, it was held that
19.An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words
C.C.No.444-2017 32 dt:21.02.2025.
spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility.
In Pedakapu Kannayya V. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, 2017 SCC Online Hyd
495,
16.From the judgment, (2 supra), it is clear that extra judicial confession is weak type of evidence and it has to be examined by the Courts with greater care and caution. However, if the extra-judicial confession is the basis for conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. Further, extra judicial confession statement alone cannot be made the basis to confirm the conviction, when it is doubtful or when it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
Placing reliance on the above said authorities, the extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and it has to be examined by the court with great caution and care and the same was done by this court. After careful perusal of evidence of PW1, PW14 to PW17 coupled with Exhibits P132 and P1 to P4 more particularly Ex.P2 which shows that the accused has prayed for seven days time to repay the amount addressing to the Bank Chairman and this court did not find any involuntariness or force or pressure used against the accused regarding the extra-judicial confession. Admittedly, A1 herself had addressed
Ex.P2 letter to the Chairman praying for seven days time and the extra-judicial confession inspires confidence as it was voluntary and she herself reported no compulsion by the Board of directors or the Manager and the exhibits cannot be planted by the police at all and hence, the extra judicial confession is inspiring the confidence.
C.C.No.444-2017 33 dt:21.02.2025.
49.As per ExP132 report PW1 came to know about the misappropriations on verifying the excess amount withdrawn by a account holder and transfer of amounts of various deposits and its withdrawal on verifying the records. Ex.P1 to EX.P4 more particularly the various withdrawals forms under Ex.94 to
Ex.P107 clearly shows that A1 misappropriated the money of the bank and repaid the same. Though A1 has taken the plea of Compulsion by the Bank
Manager in repayment of the amount in her section 313 Code of Criminal
Procedure examination, she did not take any legal action against them questioning their acts. Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 clearly reveals her mentioning of no compulsion by either the Chairman or Manager/PW1 and also repayment of amount by her. She repaid an amount of Rs.96,50,000/- , which is not a meager amount. Even after repaying the amount she did not take any legal action against the Chairman or Board of Directors or the Manager. Instead she requested them to stop the proceeding against her after repayment of above said amount. She misappropriated the public money and used for her personal. Under the above stated facts and circumstances, the plea of A1 in her section 313 Cr.P.C examination is not tenable.
50.A1 is a banker in the capacity of the public servant who occupy a position of highly confidential nature involving great power of control over property entrusted to them and the misappropriation committed can not be considered in the liberal way in view of the below mentioned judgments.
In ANZ Grindlays Bank P.I.C. v. Shipping and Clearing (Agents)
Private Ltd. , 1991 SCC OnLine Cal 445 : 1992 Cri LJ 77 at page 81
10. From the above it is clear, therefore, that normally the relation between a bank and the customer regarding the money deposited is that of a debtor and a creditor but under special arrangement relationship of trust may be created.
C.C.No.444-2017 34 dt:21.02.2025.
In Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI , (2009) 8 SCC 1 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri)
646 : 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1482 at page 25
64. An offence of criminal breach of trust by a public servant attracts the penal provision of Section 409 of the Penal Code. Indisputably, the Bank entrusted its funds to its officers; they had the dominion over the said property; they were holding the said money in trust which is a comprehensive expression, inter alia, to denote a relationship of master and servant. The act of criminal breach of trust per se may involve a civil wrong but a breach of trust with an ingredient of mens rea would give rise to a criminal prosecution as well.
51.Further, this court had carefully weighed the evidence with the ingredients of Sections 420, 409 and 465, 120-B, 477-A of Indian Penal Code as follows:-
In R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam , (2019) 16 SCC 739 : (2020) 2
SCC (Cri) 454 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 208 at page 745, the Honourable
Apex Court discussed the ingredients to constitute an offence under
section 420 IPC:
19.The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows: 19.1.A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and 19.2.The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. 20.Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420.
C.C.No.444-2017 35 dt:21.02.2025.
In Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar , (2009) 8 SCC 751 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri)
929 : 2009 SCC Online SC 1594 at page 757, it has been held by the
honourable apex court,
18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
Further, In Archana Rana v. State of U.P. , (2021) 3 SCC 751 : 2021 SCC
Online SC 156 at page 754, the Honourable Apex Court has discussed
the essential ingredients of section 415 of Indian Penal Code,
8.“Cheating” is defined under Section 415 Indian Penal Code. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him: The person who was induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or the person who was induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived.
C.C.No.444-2017 36 dt:21.02.2025.
Thus, a fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 415 Indian Penal Code. A person who dishonestly induced any person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.
In the instant case, A1 did not induce any person and did not got the property delivered and hence the prosecution could not prove the essential ingredients of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Thus, A1 is entitled for benefit of doubt for the said charge under section 420 of Indian Penal Code.
52.In order to discuss the Ingredients of Section 409 of IPC, It is
pertinent to discuss the Ingredients of Sec.406 of IPC/Criminal breach of
trust:
(i) Mens rea is essential ingredient of offence
(ii) There must be an entrustment, there must be misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use, or use in violation of a legal direction or of any legal contract.
(iii)The accused was entrusted with the property or domain over it.
(iv)He dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use such property;
(v)He dishonestly used or disposed of that property or willfully suffered any other person to do so in failure of -
(a) Any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or
(b) Any legal contract made touching upon the discharge of such trust.
In R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam , (2019) 16 SCC 739 : (2020) 2
SCC (Cri) 454 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 208vat page 744,
C.C.No.444-2017 37 dt:21.02.2025.
12.Section 405 of the Penal Code reads thus:
“405. Criminal breach of trust.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.”
13.A careful reading of Section 405 shows that the ingredients of a criminal breach of trust are as follows: 13.1.A person should have been entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property; 13.2.That person should dishonestly misappropriate or convert to their own use that property, or dishonestly use or dispose of that property or willfully suffer any other person to do so; and 13.3.That such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust.
Mens reais very much present concerning the accused no.1 as she converted the money for her own use on which she has domain over it and she misappropriated for his own use by transferring the money to others accounts without the knowledge of the customers, being a banker and hence the prosecution could successfully prove the essential ingredients of Criminal breach of trust as defined under Sec.406 of Indian Penal Code.
53.Ingredients of Sec.409 of Indian Penal Code:-The essential ingredients of the offence under Sec.409 Indian Penal Code are as follows:
1. Accused shall be a public servant, or a banker or merchant or agent or factor or broker or an attorney;
2. In such capacity accused was entrusted with a certain property or he gained domain over such property which was not his own;
C.C.No.444-2017 38 dt:21.02.2025.
3. Accused committed criminal breach of trust with respect of such property.
In Mustafikhan v. State of Maharashtra , (2007) 1 SCC 623 : (2007) 1
SCC (Cri) 399 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 1334 at page 626,
12. It is not necessary or possible in every case to prove as to in what precise manner the accused had dealt with or appropriated the goods. In a case of criminal breach of trust, the failure to account for the money, proved to have been received by the accused or giving a false account of its use is generally considered to be a strong circumstance against the accused. Although onus lies on the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused, yet where the entrustment is proved or admitted it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove the actual mode and manner of misappropriation and in such a case the prosecution would have to rely largely on the truth or falsity of the explanation given by the accused. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the entrustment.
In the instant case, the accused no.1 is a banker and the evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with the exhibits clearly shows that she had done transactions without the knowledge of the customers and the same is undisputed and the accused no.1 has got domain over the public money being a banker and she had committed criminal breach of trust with respect of such property and hence the prosecution could successfully prove the essential ingredients of Sec.409 of Indian Penal Code. Thus, A1 is liable for conviction for the said charge.
54. Ingredients of offence U/Sec.464 punishable under section 465 of
Indian Penal Code are as follows:
(I) The accused prepared a false document or electronic record;
(ii) The accused did it with false meaning of writing instrument for the purpose of fraud or deceit
(iii) The document or electronic record was prepared dishonestly or fraudulently;
C.C.No.444-2017 39 dt:21.02.2025.
(iv) He did it with the intention of causing wrongful gain to someone and wrongful loss to another.
In Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581 : (2018) 3 SCC
(Cri) 275 : 2018 SCC Online SC 522 at page 585
17.At this juncture, it is pertinent to have a look at the definition of “forgery” and the precedents on this aspect. “463. Forgery.—Whoever makes any false documents [or false electronic record] or part of a document [or electronic record], with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.”
18. It would also be necessary to understand the scope of Section 464 IPC in this context: “464. Making a false document.—A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record— First.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently— (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.—Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication
C.C.No.444-2017 40 dt:21.02.2025.
cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration. Explanation 1.—A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery. Explanation 2.—The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery. Explanation 3.—For the purposes of this section, the expression “affixing electronic signature” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.”
In Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar , (2009) 8 SCC 751 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929 : 2009 SCC Online SC 1594 at page 756,
14. An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories: 1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed. 2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person. 3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
In short, a person is said to have made a “false document”, if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
C.C.No.444-2017 41 dt:21.02.2025.
As per the available material and exhibits, it is clear that in order to gain wrongfully, a written instrument, in order to deceive the bank were prepared dishonestly and fraudulently causing loss to the customers of the bank and the same is admitted by A1 herself vide Exs.P1 to P4 more particularly Ex.P2 and the same is corroborated by the evidence of PW1 to PW25 and the documents themselves speaks about the transactions and hence, the prosecution could successfully prove the essential ingredients of Sec.465 of IPC. Thus, A1 is liable for conviction for the said charge.
55. The essential ingredients of section another charged offence under section 477A of Indian Penal Code as held In N. Raghavender v. State of
A.P. , (2021) 18 SCC 70 : 2021 SCC Online SC 1232 at page 96,
Ingredients necessary to prove a charge under Section 477-A IPC
53. The last provision of IPC with which we are concerned in this appeal, is Section 477-A, which defines and punishes the offence of “falsification of accounts”. According to the provision, whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in that capacity, willfully and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or wilfully and with intent to defraud, or if he abets to do so, shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment which may extend to seven years. This Section through its marginal note indicates the legislative intention that it only applies where there is falsification of accounts, namely, book keeping or written accounts.
54. In an accusation under Section 477-AIPC, the prosecution must, therefore, prove—
C.C.No.444-2017 42 dt:21.02.2025.
(a) that the accused destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified the books, electronic records, papers, writing, valuable security or account in question; (b) the accused did so in his capacity as a clerk, officer or servant of the employer; (c) the books, papers, etc. belong to or are in possession of his employer or had been received by him for or on behalf of his employer; (d) the accused did it willfully and with intent to defraud.
In the present case on hand it is manifest from the evidence of PW1, PW13 to PW18 coupled with Ex.P115 Audit report and Ex.P2 that A1, destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified the books, electronic records and papers. The modus operandi of A1 is falsification of electronic records. In her Ex.P2 confession letter she categorically admitted about the falsification of electronic record by her. She deleted number of entries in the electronic records. She did so in the capacity of accountant of the bank. Thus, the prosecution could successfully established the essential ingredients for the offence punishable under section 477A Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence,
A1 is liable for conviction for the said charge under section 477A of Indian
Penal Code.
56. Coming to the role of Accused no.2 : A2 D.Srinivasa Nagaraja Babu is the Cashier of Balaji co-operative Bank and he is the husband of A1. Being the cashier he is entrusted with the cash transactions of the Bank. It is his duty to issue the withdrawal amounts after properly tallying the signature of the drawer at his Teller. After proper identification he issues the withdrawal amounts or credits to the account of concerned account holders. But, as per the discussion made supra, it has been proved that the amounts were withdrawn from various accounts of different account holders without their
C.C.No.444-2017 43 dt:21.02.2025.
knowledge. Evidence of PW7 to PW11 coupled with Exhibits P42, P50 and
P52 proves the same. Ex.P93 to Ex.P107 withdrawal forms of various account holders reveals that the said amounts were withdrawn without their consent.
The entire cash transactions in a bank will be done through the cashier only.
He has to authenticate each and every cash transaction every day. When
Ex.P93 to Ex.P107 were not presented by the concerned account holders how the cashier authenticated the said transactions and how the amounts were withdrawn. It creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of this court about the involvement of A2 in the criminal conspiracy along with A1 in the misappropriation of amounts. Being husband of A1, he cooperated with A1 in the misappropriation. As an accountant she forged the signatures of various account holders and being the cashier A2 supported A1 in encashing the amounts.
57. Anent to the above discussion and placing reliance on the above said authority in Mustafikhan v. State of Maharashtra , (2007) 1 SCC 623 in the instant case, the accused no.2 is a banker and the evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with the exhibits clearly shows that he had entrusted dominion over cash transactions, conspired with A1 to withdraw public money without the knowledge of the customers and the same is undisputed and being a banker and he had committed criminal breach of trust with respect of such property and hence the prosecution could successfully prove the essential ingredients of Sec.409 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. Thus,
A2 is liable for conviction for the said charge under section 409 of Indian Penal
Code.
In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu , (2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 1715 : 2005 SCC OnLine SC 1132 at page 689, it has been held
that
C.C.No.444-2017 44 dt:21.02.2025.
96.There is one particular observation made by Jagannatha Shetty, J. In Kehar Singh case [(1988) 3 SCC 609 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 711] which needs to be explained. The learned Judge observed: (SCC p. 733, para 275) “It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.” The expression “physical manifestation” seems to be the phraseology used in the article referred to by the learned Judge. However, the said expression shall not be equated to “overt act” which is a different concept. As rightly stated by the learned Senior Counsel Mr Gopal Subramanium, the phrase has reference to the manifestation of the agreement itself, such as by way of meetings and communications.
58.The essential ingredients to constitute an offence of criminal conspiracy are enunciated in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu , (2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715 : 2005 SCC OnLine SC 1132 at page 686,
Conspiracy.
85.As conspiracy is the primary charge against the accused, we shall now advert to the law of conspiracy, its definition, essential features and proof. Section 120-A IPC defines criminal conspiracy. It says: “120-A. When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,— (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:”
Section 120-B prescribes the punishment to be imposed on a party to a criminal conspiracy. As pointed out by Subba Rao, J. In Major E.G. Barsayv.State of Bombay [(1962) 2 SCR 195 : AIR 1961 SC 1762 : (1961) 2 Cri LJ 828] : (SCR p. 228)
C.C.No.444-2017 45 dt:21.02.2025.
“The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts.”
94.In the case of Statev. Nalini [(1999) 5 SCC 253 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 691] S.S.M. Quadri, J., fter a survey of case-law made the following pertinent observations: (SCC at pp. 568-69, para 662) “In reaching the stage of meeting of minds, two or more persons share information about doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. This is the first stage where each is said to have knowledge of a plan for committing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Among those sharing the information some or all may form an intention to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Those who do form the requisite intention would be parties to the agreement and would be conspirators but those who drop out cannot be roped in as collaborators on the basis of mere knowledge unless they commit acts or omissions from which a guilty common intention can be inferred. It is not necessary that all the conspirators should participate from the inception to the end of the conspiracy; some may join the conspiracy after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them and some others may quit from the conspiracy. All of them cannot but be treated as conspirators. Where in pursuance of the agreement the conspirators commit offences individually or adopt illegal means to do a legal act which has a nexus to the object of conspiracy, all of them will be liable for such offences even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those offences.”
From the discussion made supra it has been clear from the evidence of PW1 coupled with Exhibit 115 that A1 and A2 both conspired together in committing
C.C.No.444-2017 46 dt:21.02.2025.
the offence and misappropriated the public money. Having enormous standing in the bank in the same capacities from the inception of the bank both A1 and
A2 gained control over the bank in their branches. As such they both conspired together and committed the alleged offences. The prosecution established the essential ingredients of section 120B Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, A1 and A2 are liable for conviction for the offence punishable under section 120-B of Indian Penal Code.
59.As per section 120-B Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-- (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 2 [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
It is pertinent to note here section 109 Indian Penal Code, Punishment
for the offence under section 107 of Indian Penal Code:
Section 109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is
committed in consequence and when no express provision is made for
its punishment. Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
C.C.No.444-2017 47 dt:21.02.2025.
Explanation.—An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.
60.Further with regard to A3 Dayakar Guptha, he worked as computer operator in the Bank. Ex.P5 Letter addressed by A3 dated:25.03.2007 stating that his employee code and password was used without his consent and he will pay the amount if any difference is found by the Auditor, Ex.P7Another confession letter given by A3 dated:31.03.2007 reveals that his employee code and password were misused and also his confession to pay any difference amount found by the auditor. Except Ex.P5 and Ex.P7, in the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses there is no whisper about the role and involvement of A3 in this case along with A1 and A2. It is also to be noticed that his confession is revealing about the misuse of his employee ID and password.
On perusing Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 it appears that being accountable to his seat he undertook to pay any difference amount found by the auditors. No corroborating evidence is available to prove that A3 was involved in commission of alleged offences along with A1 and A2. The prosecution miserably failed to prove any of the ingredients of offences punishable under sections 420, 409, 465, 477A and 120 B of Indian Penal Code against A3.
Thus, he is entitled for benefit of doubt for the alleged offences and entitled for an acquittal.
61. The next accused in this case is A4 Madhava Rao, attender of the
Bank. With regard to A4, PW14 M.Ramalingeswar Prabhu, who acted as
Director of Balaji Cooperative Bank from the year 2005 deposed that A1 and others purchased gold ornaments with the misappropriated amount and A1 deposited said gold ornaments in the account of A4 at Bank of Travancore.
C.C.No.444-2017 48 dt:21.02.2025.
But, during his cross-examination he categorically admitted that he omitted to state before the police about purchasing of gold ornaments by A1 and depositing the same in the account of A4 at Bank of Travancore, Tirupati. He improved his version while deposing evidence before this court. Hence, his evidence can not be relied upon. Further, evidence of PW15 Dilli Rao, reveals the execution of Ex.P123 letter executed to the Recovery Committee of Balaji Co-operative Bank by A1 and Ex.P125 Declaration given by A4, about pledging of gold ornaments by A4 for A1 in his Travancore Bank account and giving an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to A1. The said exhibits reveals only about the pledging of gold ornaments by A4 at the request of A1 but, nothing more than that. No iota of evidence is available in the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses to prove that A4 having knowledge about the purchasing of gold ornaments by A1 with the misappropriated amounts he pledged or kept them in his bank account in order to help her. No essential ingredients of Criminal
Conspiracy has been proved against A4. Under such circumstances, there appears a reasonable doubt about involvement of A4 in commission of the alleged offences or he is involved in any criminal conspiracy along with A1 and
A2. Merely helping A1 to pledge her gold ornaments in his account wound not amounts to commission any offence. A Perusal of Ex.P123 and Ex.P124 clearly reveals that as A4 pledged the gold ornaments in his bank account, the investigating officer added him as accused in this case. The prosecution utterly failed to prove any of the essential ingredients for the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 120-B, 465 or 477-A of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt against A4. Thus, the accused no.4 is entitled for benefit of doubt for the alleged offences. He is entitled for an acquittal.
62. Finally coming to the role of A5 Srinivasulu and A6 P.Revathi who are the joint account holders of the bank, According to PW1, the Matured
C.C.No.444-2017 49 dt:21.02.2025.
Deposit and Fixed Deposit Amounts were credited to Savings Bank Account no. 396, 795, 1025, 24, 345 and Current Account No.137 and a total amount of
Rs.12,40,000/- was misappropriated. During the cross-examination of PW2 by learned counsel for A5 and A6, she deposed that the concurrent audit authorities found various suspicious deposits in the Joint account of A5 and A6 bearing Account No.396. According to PW22 O.Ramachandra Reddy, the investigating officer he seized Ex.P127 to Ex.P130 pay in slips, withdrawal forms, Clearing House Paid Debit and Credit Vouchers of A5 and A6 bearing
Account No.396, PW2 Y.Devayani SB Account No.967, C.Munichandra Reddy
SB Account No.2216 and Venkata Subbaiah SB Account No.55 allegedly used by the accused under the cover of Ex.P145 Police Proceedings.
63.A perusal of cross examination of PW25 reveals that A5 and A6 are the joint account holders vide SB Account No.396. Even though the signatures of
PW7 to PW11 and LW13 who are the account holders were tallied with the signatures of Opening and Withdrawal Forms of SB Accounts, they were not added as accused in this case because they were not aware of the transactions. But, it has not been explained by the prosecution that why A5 and A6 were added as accused in this case exempting PW7 to PW11.
64.On perusing the documentary evidence Ex.P126 to EX.P130 reveals that the said documents were used by A1 for withdrawal of amounts. A5 and
A6 during their examinations under section 313 Code of Civil Procedure contented that they are not aware of any of the transactions done through their accounts. The learned counsel for A5 and A6 vehemently argued that after knowing about the alleged transactions through their joint account A5 and A6 filed a case against the bank authorities, which was registered under Ex.D1
First Information Report in Cr.No.387/2007 of Central Crime Station prior to
C.C.No.444-2017 50 dt:21.02.2025.
filing of this case. During the course of his cross examination PW21 the investigating officer categorically admitted about registering of Ex.D1 by him basing on court endorsement. PW18 also in his cross-examination categorically admitted that a case in Cr.No.387/2007 was registered against himself and four others under Ex.D1. Anent to the above discussion it is clear that after having knowledge about the fraudulent transactions in their account
A5 and A6 lodged a case in Cr.No. 387 of 2007 under Ex.D1 First Information
Report.
65.Further, during the cross examination PW21 the investigating officer deposed that A1 to A4 misused nearly 40 accounts for the alleged misappropriations. It is also admitted by the investigating officers that several withdrawal and deposits forms were destroyed by A1. A perusal of the above discussion reveals that basing on Exhibits P127 to P130 the investigating officer might have believed that A5 and A6 are involved in the said criminal conspiracy. Basing on Ex.P137 Opinion/Report given by PW20 Scientific
Expert as their signatures were tallied they were added as accused in this case. But, the investigating officer did not add the remaining account holders of 40 accounts whose signatures were tallied in this case. Except Ex.P137 report of PW20, no other incriminating material is available against A5 and A6.
It is settled principle of law that the evidence of scientific expert is only corroborative in nature and conviction cannot be based on the sole evidence of Scientific Expert. When no corroborative evidence is available it is not safe to rely on the evidence of scientific expert as conclusive proof. Under the above stated facts and circumstances, I am of the humble view is that in order to prove the fraudulent withdrawals from different accounts, and also as major withdrawals are done through the joint account no.396 of A5 and A6 they might have added as accused in this case. Because, PW14 the
C.C.No.444-2017 51 dt:21.02.2025.
investigative auditor categorically deposed that A1 used to credit amounts in fictitious account of A5, being the cashier A2 withdraw the amount from the account of A5. There appears a reasonable suspicion in the mind of this court about their knowledge of depositing amounts and their involvement in criminal conspiracy in committing the alleged offences. From the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses no essential ingredients has been proved against A5 and A6 for the alleged offences u/secs. 409, 420, 120-B, 465, 477-A of of
Indian Penal Code. The prosecution utterly failed to prove the essential ingredients of above said offences beyond reasonable doubt against A5 and
A6. Thus, they are entitled for benefit of doubt and entitled for an acquittal for the charged offences under sections 409, 420, 120-B, 465, 477-A of of Indian
Penal Code.
66. IN THE RESULT, I find A3, A4, A5 and A6 not guilty of the offences punishable u/Secs.409, 420, 120-B, 465, 477A of Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, they are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
The bail bonds of A3 to A6 and their respective sureties shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as required u/Sec.436-A of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
As regards A2, he is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Secs.420, 465, 477-A of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/
Sec.248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences. Whereas, A2 is found guilty for the offences punishable u/Secs.409, 120-B of Indian Penal
Code. Accordingly, he is convicted u/Sec.248 (2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure Code.
C.C.No.444-2017 52 dt:21.02.2025.
With regard to A1, she is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/
Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, she is acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) of
Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. Whereas, she is found guilty for the offences punishable u/Secs.409, 465, 477A, 120-B of Indian
Penal Code. According, she is convicted u/Sec.248 (2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure Code for the said offences.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected in my laptop and pronounced by me in open court, on this 21 st day of FEBRUARY, 2025.
Sd/- Y.Saritha
V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.
When questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against
A1 and A2, A1 pleaded that she is having only son and there is no one to look after him and prayed to take a lenient view while imposing the sentence.
A2 pleaded that he is having old aged parents and prayed to take a lenient view while imposing the sentence.
However, keeping in view the nature of offence committed by A1 and A2 and its’ gravity, this court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to invoke benevolent provisions of Section 360 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
However, considering the family circumstances of A1 and A2, lenient view has been taken while imposing the sentence against A1 and A2.
IN THE RESULT, A1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) for the offence punishable u/Sec.409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months.
C.C.No.444-2017 53 dt:21.02.2025.
A1 is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year for the offence punishable u/Sec.465 of Indian Penal Code.
A1 is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year for the offence punishable u/Sec.477A of Indian Penal Code.
Further, A1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year for the offence punishable u/Sec.120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
All the sentences shall run concurrently against A1.
The remand period undergone by A-1 from 29-03-2008 to 03-04-2008 shall be given set off U/s.428 of Criminal Procedure Code.
With regard to A2, he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) for the offence punishable u/Sec.409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Three (3) months.
Further, A2 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year for the offence punishable u/Sec.120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently against A2.
The remand period undergone by A-2 from 29-03-2008 to 02-04-2008
shall be given set off U/Sec.428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
A1 and A2 are appraised of their right to prefer an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by this court. A1 and A2 are further appraised of their right to get free Legal Aid in preferring the appeal through
District Legal Services Authority, Chittoor.
Total fine amount is Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousands Only) paid by A1 and A2 each of Rs.10,000/-.
C.C.No.444-2017 54 dt:21.02.2025.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
witnesses examined
Prosecution:Accused:
P.W1:A.Muniramaiah-Nil-
P.W2:Y.Devayani
P.W3:E.Dasaradha Raju
P.W4:B.Ravindra Reddy
P.W5:P.Krishna Murthy,
P.W6:S.Himagiri Rao,
P.W7:P.Deena Sekhar
P.W8:R.Surendra Babu
P.W9:Milliapalli Raja Reddy
P.W10: K.Venkata Satyanarayana
P.W11: Pullirogur Prabhakar Reddy
P.W12: Chinthala Ramana Murthy
P.W13: R.Chandrasekhar,
P.W14: M.R.L.Prabhu
P.W15: P.Dilli Rao
P.W16: K.V.Ramanaiah
P.W17: N.L.Narashima
P.W18: P.Chengalrayulu
P.W19: P.Hari Kumar
P.W20: A.Raja Naik
P.W21: P.Abhishekam, the then Inspector of Police
P.W22: O.Ramachandra Reddy, the then Inspector of Police
P.W23: M.Giridhar Rao, the then Inspector of Police
P.W24: M.Munwar Hussain, the then Inspector of Police
P.W25: B.Mallikarjuna Gupta, the then Inspector of Police
P.W26: Ch.Rajaiah, the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
C.C.No.444-2017 55 dt:21.02.2025.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1Letter dated:03.03.2007 executed by A1 in favour of Chairman, Balaji Urban Cooperative Bank, Tirupati. Ex.P2Letter dated:22.03.2007 executed by A1 in favour of Chairman, Balaji Urban Cooperative Bank, Tirupati. Ex.P3Statement of A1 dated:27.02.2007. Ex.P4Another letter given by A1 dated:22.03.2007 stating that her mother has given eight cheques for Rs.5 lakhs each. Ex.P5Letter addressed by A3 dated:25.03.2007 stating that his employee code and password was used without his consent and he will pay the amount if any difference is found by the Auditor Ex.P6Confession letter issued by A2 dated:27.02.2007 Ex.P7Another confession letter given by A3 dated:31.03.2007. Ex.P8Opening Form of P.Srinivasulu (A5) for opening Savings Bank Account dated:31.10.2000. Ex.P9Application of A5 for allotment of A-Class Shares seized on 31.03.2008. Ex.P10Application of A5 for allotment of A-Class Shares seized on 31.03.2008. Ex.P11Account Opening Form of one Munichandra Reddy for opening SB Account dated:10.02.2005. Ex.P12Opening Form of one Swathi for opening SB Account
dated:16.09.1999.
Ex.P13Opening Form of one Prabhakar Reddy for opening SB Account
dated:15.11.2000.
Ex.P14Opening Form of one Sunder Babu for opening SB Account
dated:19.09.2000.
Ex.P15Opening Form of one Sekhar Babu for opening SB Account
dated:17.01.2001.
Ex.P16Opening Form of one Naresh Babu Rao for opening SB Account
dated:26.04.2005.
Ex.P17Opening Form of one Deenasekhar for opening SB Account
dated:16.10.2000.
Ex.P18Opening Form of one Dilip Kumar for opening SB Account
dated:05.05.2003.
Ex.P19Opening Form of one Prasanth Kumar for opening SB Account
C.C.No.444-2017 56 dt:21.02.2025.
dated:29.04.2002.
Ex.P20Opening Form of one Raja Reddy for opening SB Account
dated:09.09.2000.
Ex.P21Opening Form of one Srinivasa Murthy for opening SB Account
dated:20.01.2002.
Ex.P22Opening Form of one Siva Sankar Reddy for opening SB Account dated:18.10.2000. Ex.P23Opening Form of one Krishna Kumar for opening SB Account
dated:16.09.2000.
Ex.P24Opening Form of one Thulasi Kumar for opening SB Account
dated:15.09.2000.
Ex.P25Opening Form of one Akbar Basha for opening SB Account
dated:25.10.1999.
Ex.P26Opening Form of one Velu Muragan for opening SB Account
dated:26.03.2002.
Ex.P27Opening Form of one Surendra Babu for opening SB Account
dated:16.09.2003.
Ex.P28Opening Form of one M.Chandra Sekhar for opening SB Account dated:06.09.1999. Ex.P29Opening Form of one Y.Devayani for opening SB Account
dated:30.04.2003.
Ex.P30Opening Form of one D.Latha Rani for opening SB Account
dated:02.08.2000.
Ex.P31Opening Form of one Gopi Nath for opening SB Account
dated:10.05.2000.
Ex.P32Opening Form of one T.K.Srinivasulu for opening SB Account
dated:08.06.2001.
Ex.P33Opening Form of one S.Venkata Subbaiah for opening SB Account dated:01.11.1999. Ex.P34Statement of Account No.SB802 relating to Venkata Reddy including debit and credit receipts. Ex.P35Statement of Account No.SB55 relating to Venkata Subbaiah. Ex.P36Statement of Current Account No.60 relating to Mahalakshmi Traders including one receipt. Ex.P37Statement of Account No.SB94 relating to Chengal Rayan including one receipt. Ex.P38Statement of Account No.SB795 relating to P.Srinivasulu
C.C.No.444-2017 57 dt:21.02.2025.
including debit and credit receipts. Ex.P39Statement of Account No.SB413 relating to Prabhakar Reddy including debit and credit receipts. Ex.P40Statement of Account No.SB1222 relating to K.Srinivasulu including one receipt. Ex.P41Statement of Account No.SB1025 relating to Surendra Babu including debit and credit receipts. Ex.P42Statement of Account No.SB362 relating to Sundar Babu including one receipt. Ex.P43Statement of Account No.SB314 relating to Latha Rani including one receipt. Ex.P44Statement of Account No.SB353 relating to Gopi Nath including debit and credit receipts. Ex.P45Statement of Account No.SB1137 relating to Sekhar Babu including one receipt. Ex.P46Statement of Account No.SB2306 relating to Naresh Babu. Ex.P47Statement of Account No.SB720 relating to Sharmila including debit and credit receipts. Ex.P48Statement of Account No.SB24 relating to Chandra Sekhar including debit and credit receipts. Ex.P49Statement of Account No.SB381 relating to Hari Kumar including one receipt. Ex.P50Statement of Account No.SB863 relating to Deena Sekhar including one receipt. Ex.P51Statement of Account No.SB770 relating to Prasantha Kumar including one receipt. Ex.P52Statement of Account No.SB346 relating to M.Raja Reddy including one receipt. Ex.P53Statement of Account No.SB1262 relating to Venkata Ranga Rao including debit and credit receipts. Ex.P54Statement of Account No.SB892 relating to Rayulu including debit and credit receipts. Ex.P55Statement of Account No.SB725 relating to Srinivasa Murthy including debit and credit receipts. Ex.P56Statement of Account No.SB390 relating to Siva Sankar Reddy including one receipt. Ex.P57Statement of Account No.SB357 relating to Krishna Kumar
C.C.No.444-2017 58 dt:21.02.2025.
including one receipt. Ex.P58Statement of Account No.SB354 relating to Thulasi Kumar including debit and credit receipts. Ex.P59Statement of Account No.SB50 relating to Akbar Basha including one receipt. Ex.P60Statement of Account No.SB576 relating to Srinivasulu including debit and credit receipts. Ex.P61Statement of Account No.SB758 relating to Velumurugan including one receipt. Ex.P62Statement of Account No.SB22 relating to Swathi including debit and credit receipts. Ex.P63Statement of Account No.SB2216 relating to Munichandra Reddy including debit and credit receipts. Ex.P64Statement of Account No.SB967 relating to Devayani including debit and credit receipts. Ex.P65Statement of Current Account No.107 relating to Suryatheja Enter Prizes including one receipt. Ex.P66Statement of Current Account No.19 relating to Balaji Jewellers including one receipt. Ex.P67Pay Bill Register of Balaji Urban Cooperative Bank, Tirupati for the period from January, 2005 to December, 2005. Ex.P68Statement of Account of A5 and A6 vide Account No.396 for the period from 31.10.2000 to 29.09.2007. Ex.P69Five Withdrawal Forms relating to A3 vide SB Account No.15 Ex.P70Four Withdrawal Forms relating to A1 vide SB Account No.11 Ex.P71Three Withdrawal Forms relating to A4 vide SB Account No.20 Ex.P72Four Withdrawal Forms relating to A2 vide SB Account No.13 Ex.P73Statement of account one Chengalrayulu Chetty vide SB Account No.29 along with Credit Form. Ex.P74Statement of account one Siva Sankar vide SB Account No.762. Ex.P75Statement of account one Raja and D.S.Guptha vide SB Account No.345 with two Withdrawal Foms. Ex.P76Statement of account one Harizan Builders vide Current Account No.137 along with Five Cheques and Five Debit Slips. Ex.P77Statement of account one Rama Kumar vide SB Account No.769 with Withdrawal Form. Ex.P78Statement of account one Intiyas vide SB Account No.2887 with
C.C.No.444-2017 59 dt:21.02.2025.
one Withdrawal Form. Ex.P79Statement of account one Fraudulent drawls relating to SB Account No.369 audited by Auditors. Ex.P80Statement of account relating to Y.Devayani vide SB Account No.967 for the period 30.04.2003 to 30.01.2008. Ex.P81Statement of account relating to P.Srinivasulu vide SB Account No.795 for the period 06.06.2002 to 21.11.2005. Ex.P82Statement of account relating to P.Prabhakar Reddy vide SB Account No.413 for the period 15.11.2000 to 28.11.2007. Ex.P83Statement of account relating to K.Srinivasulu vide SB Account No.1222 for the period 12.03.2004 to 29.09.2007. Ex.P84Statement of account relating to K.Surendra Babu vide SB Account No.1025 for the period 16.09.2003 to 29.09.2007. Ex.P85Statement of account relating to M.Chengalrayan vide SB Account No.94 for the period 01.03.2003 to 31.03.2003. Ex.P86Statement of account relating to M.Chandra Sekhar vide SB Account No.24 for the period 02.02.2004 to 12.04.2006. Ex.P87Statement of account relating to T.Sekhar Babu vide SB Account No.1137 for the period 17.01.2004 to 13.05.2006. Ex.P88Statement of account relating to Gopi Nath vide SB Account No.353 for the period 10.01.2002 to 29.09.2007. Ex.P89Statement of account relating to M.T.Venkata Reddy vide SB Account No.802 for the period 03.02.2003 to 23.02.2004. Ex.P90Statement of account relating to B.Swathi being minor represented by mother guardian G.Anjili Devi vide SB Account No.23 for the period 16.09.1999 to 29.09.2007. Ex.P91One Cheque bearing No.0007671 for Rs.2,50,000/-
dated:23.02.2004 with 128 withdrawal Forms relating to A6.
Ex.P92One Cheque bearing No.0010160 for Rs.4,000/-
dated:05.04.2005, Cheque bearing No.0006490 for Rs.20,000/-
dated:23.06.2003, Cheque bearing No.0008158 for Rs.6,500/-
dated:04.01.2004, Cheque bearing No.0008157 for Rs.6,500/-
dated:27.12.2003, Cheque bearing No.0008153 for
Rs.2,10,000/- dated:30.10.2003, Cheque bearing No.0008149 for Rs.10,000/- dated:12.07.2003, Cheque bearing No.0008145 for Rs.42,000/- dated:25.02.2003, Cheque bearing No.0008141 for Rs.50,000/- dated:11.09.2002 with 32 Withdrawal Forms relating to A5.
C.C.No.444-2017 60 dt:21.02.2025.
Ex.P93Seven withdrawal Forms relating to one Chandra Sekhar SB Account No.24 Ex.P94Four withdrawal Forms relating to one Devayani vide SB Account No.967. Ex.P95Eight withdrawal Forms relating to one P.Thulasi Ram vide SB Account No.354. Ex.P96Fourteen withdrawal Forms relating to SB Account No.1025. Ex.P97Two withdrawal Forms of P.Gopi Nath vide SB Account No.353. Ex.P98Withdrawal Forms of D.Latha Rani vide SB Account No.314. Ex.P99Withdrawal Form of Venkata Babu vide SB Account No.770. Ex.P100Withdrawal Form of Srinivasa Murthy vide SB Account No.725. Ex.P101Withdrawal Form of Velu Muragan vide SB Account No.758. Ex.P102Withdrawal Form of Naresh Babu Rao vide SB Account No.2306. Ex.P103Withdrawal Form of Depositor vide Savings Account No.1137. Ex.P104Withdrawal Form of Depositor vide Savings Account No.362. Ex.P105Withdrawal Form of Depositor vide Savings Account No.390. Ex.P106Two Withdrawal Forms of Raja Reddy vide Savings Account No.346. Ex.P107Three Withdrawal Forms of Deena Sekhar vide Savings Account No.863. Ex.P108Statement of Account relating to S.Sharmila for the period from 07.05.2005 to 06.02.2008 vide Account No.720. Ex.P109ChequebearingNo.0007761forRs.12,182,000
dated:25.03.2002
Ex.P110Cheque bearing No.011235 for Rs.13,000/- dated:24.10.2003. Ex.P111Cheque bearing No.0009273 for Rs.6,500/- dated:08.01.2005 Ex.P112Cheque bearing No.0009276 for Rs.7,000/- dated:01.07.2005 Ex.P113Cheque bearing No.053874 for Rs.44,708.09 dated:17.05.2006 Ex.P114Cheque relating to Krishna Kumar for Rs.9,000/-
dated:02.04.2002.
Ex.P115Report submitted by PW17. Ex.P116Copy of letter addressed by Balaji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Tirupati to M/s S.P Systems Secunderabad dated:07.07.1999 Ex.P117Annual Maintainance Contract with S.P.System, Secunderabad by Balaji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Tirupati
C.C.No.444-2017 61 dt:21.02.2025.
dated:17.06.2002 (6 pages).
Ex.P118Annual Maintainance Contract with S.P.System, Secunderabad by Balaji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Tirupati
dated:24.06.2003 (6 pages).
Ex.P119Annual Maintainance Contract with S.P.System, Secunderabad by Balaji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Tirupati
dated:28.06.2004 (6 pages).
Ex.P120Copy of letter dated:28.01.2007 issued by S.P. Systems to Chairman, Balaji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Tirupati. Ex.P121Statement disclosing the amounts repaid by the accused to a tune of Rs.1,02,08,476/- under 34 Transactions from 27.02.2007 to 28.01.2008 including Pay-in Slips, Debit Advices. Ex.P122Report addressed by S.P.Systems, Secunderabad to Chairman, Balaji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Tirupati dated:28.01.2007 (2 pages) Ex.P123Declaration of A1 dated:24.04.2007 given to Recovery Committee, Balaji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Tirupati. Ex.P124Declaration Form given A4 to Recovery Committee, Balaji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Tirupati dated:24.04.2007. Ex.P125No objection certificate issued by RBI to Chief Executive Officer, Visakapatnam Cooperative Bank Ltd., Visakapatnam
dated:07.06.2011.
Ex.P126Fifty Six Pay in Slips relating to Savings Bank Account No.396 of A5 and A6. Ex.P127Fixed Deposit Receipts 8 in number relating to A5. Ex.P128Clearing House Vouchers relating to SB No.396 of A5 (4 in number) Ex.P129Credit Vouchers Numbering in 131 relating to A5 and A6. Ex.P130Tampered Voucher relating to SB No.396 dated:12.04.2005 for Rs.65,145/-. Ex.P131Fraudulent Clearing Transactions for the year 2001-2002 for different account numbers Ex.P132Complaint given by PW1 to the Police. Ex.P133Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Devayani Ex.P134Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P135161 (3) of Cr.P.C statement of PW12. Ex.P136Signature in the mediator’s report dated:22.03.2008 at about
C.C.No.444-2017 62 dt:21.02.2025.
7.00 am., Ex.P137Opinion/Report given by PW20. Ex.P138First Information Report Ex.P139Police Proceedings Dated:11.01.2008 at 11.00 am., Ex.P140Arrest mahazarnama dated:19.03.2008 at 6.00 pm., Ex.P141Arrest mahazarnama dated:22.03.2008 at 7.00 am., Ex.P142Confession mahazarnama dated:27.03.2008 at 1.00 pm., Ex.P143Seizure mahazarnama dated:28.03.2008 at 11.00 am., Ex.P144Police proceedings dated:31.03.2008 at 10.30 am., Ex.P145Police proceedings dated:06.02.2013 at 11.00 am., Ex.P146Police proceedings dated:20.06.2013 at 11.00 am., Ex.P147Memo dated:06.12.2013. Ex.P148Letter of Advice sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. Ex.P149Police proceedings dated:03.05.2015 at 1.00 pm., Ex.P150Police proceedings dated:04.05.2015 at 1.00 pm., Ex.P151Police proceedings dated:06.05.2015 at 6.00 pm.,
For Defence:
Ex.D1First Information Report in Cr.No.387/2007, dated: 01.12.2007
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected in my laptop and pronounced by me in open court, on this 21 st day of FEBRUARY, 2025.
Sd/- Y.Saritha
V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. // true copy //
V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.
C.C.No.444-2017 63 dt:21.02.2025.
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS :: TIRUPATI
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
C.C.No.444 of 2017
Date of offencePrior to 10.01.2008
Date of filing10.01.2008
Date of taken file12.12.2017
Date of apprehension (appearance)27.06.2018
Date of commencement of trail18.02.2019
Date of close of trail17.02.2025
Date of Judgment21.02.2025
ComplainantState represented by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Tirupati.
Name and address of A1 to A6 1 D.Nagamani, age 32 years, W/o D.S.Nagaraja Babu, Accountant, Balaji urban Cooperative Bank Limited, D.No.240, Gandhi Road, Tirupati, R/o D.No.81, Kola Street, Tirupati. 2 D.Srinivasa Nagaraja Babu, age 33 years, S/o D.Rajendra Babu, Cashier in Balaji urban Cooperative Bank Limited, D.No.240, Gandhi Road, Tirupati, R/o D.No.10-15-54, K.K.Layout, Tirupati. 3 C.S.Dayakar Gupta, age 30 years, S/o C.R.Satyanarayana Setty, Computer Operator in Balaji urban Cooperative Bank Limited, D.No.240, Gandhi Road, Tirupati, R/o D.No.267, Marimanu Street, Tirupati. 4 N.Madhava Kumar, age 34 years, S/o N.Subramanyam, Attender, Balaji urban Cooperative Bank Limited, D.No.240, Gandhi Road, Tirupati, R/o D.No.2-181-1, M.R.Palli, Tirupati. 5 P.Srinivasulu, age 29 years, S/o late P.Bhaskar, Proprioetor, Pattabhi Sweet Stall, D.No.224, Bazaar Street, Tirupati, R/o D.No.19-9-42B, Knnedy Nagar, Tirupati. 6 P.Revathi, age 24 years, W/o M.Padmanabham, TTD, D-Type Quarters, Behind Varashaswamy Temple, K.T.Road, Tirupati.
C.C.No.444-2017 64 dt:21.02.2025.
Nature of offenceCriminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating, criminal conspiracy, making a false document or seal etc., falsification of accounts.
Section of Lawu/Secs.409, 420, 120-B, 464, 477-A of of Indian Penal Code.
Finding
Sentence or order:IN THE RESULT, I find A3, A4, A5 and A6 not guilty of the offences punishable u/Secs.409, 420, 120-
B, 465, 477A of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) of Code of Criminal
Procedure. The bail bonds of A3 to A6 and their respective sureties shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as required u/Sec.436-A of Code of
Criminal Procedure.
As regards A2, he is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Secs.420, 465, 477-A of Indian
Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences.
Whereas, A2 is found guilty for the offences punishable u/Secs.409, 120-B of Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, he is convicted u/Sec.248 (2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure Code.
With regard to A1, she is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, she is acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) of Code of
Criminal Procedure for the said offence. Whereas, she is found guilty for the offences punishable u/Secs.409, 465, 477A, 120-B of Indian Penal Code. According, she is convicted u/Sec.248 (2) of Code of Criminal
C.C.No.444-2017 65 dt:21.02.2025.
Procedure Code for the said offences.
When questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against A1 and A2, A1 pleaded that she is having only son and there is no one to look after him and prayed to take a lenient view while imposing the sentence.
A2 pleaded that he is having old aged parents and prayed to take a lenient view while imposing the sentence.
However, keeping in view the nature of offence committed by A1 and A2 and its’ gravity, this court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to invoke benevolent provisions of Section 360 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, considering the family circumstances of A1 and A2, lenient view has been taken while imposing the sentence against A1 and A2.
IN THE RESULT, A1 is sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) for the offence punishable u/Sec.409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months.
A1 is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year for the offence punishable u/Sec.465 of Indian Penal Code.
C.C.No.444-2017 66 dt:21.02.2025.
A1 is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year for the offence punishable u/Sec.477A of Indian Penal Code.
Further, A1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year for the offence punishable u/Sec.120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
All the sentences shall run concurrently against
A1.
The remand period undergone by A-1 from 29-03- 2008 to 03-04-2008 shall be given set off U/s.428 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
With regard to A2, he is sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) for the offence punishable u/Sec.409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
Three (3) months.
Further, A2 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year for the offence punishable u/Sec.120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently against
A2.
The remand period undergone by A-2 from 29- 03-2008 to 02-04-2008 shall be given set off
C.C.No.444-2017 67 dt:21.02.2025.
U/Sec.428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
A1 and A2 are appraised of their right to prefer an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by this court. A1 and A2 are further appraised of their right to get free Legal Aid in preferring the appeal through District Legal Services Authority, Chittoor.
Toral fine amount is Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Thousands Only) paid by A1 and A2 each of
Rs.10,000/-.
The Period of sentence imposed against A1 has been suspended till 24.03.2025 as per the orders of this court Vide Crl.M.P.No.471/2025 dated:21.02.2025.
The Period of sentence imposed against A2 has been suspended till 24.03.2025 as per the orders of this court Vide Crl.M.P.No.472/2025 dated:21.02.2025.
V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.