2007 Supreme(SC) 1331

2007(8) Supreme 205
Supreme Court of india
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
State through SPE & CBI, AP. — Petitioner
versus
M. Krishna Mohan & Anr. — Respondents
Appeal (crl.) 1394-1395 of 2004
Decided on : 12-10-2007

important point
Exoneration in departmental proceedings cannot lead to the conclusion that the person was not guilty of commission of the offences wherefor he was charged.

Headnote:(a)Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 45 – There is no reason to discredit the evidence of a finger print expert of established qualification. (Paras 17 and 18)

       (b)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120-B r/w Section 5 and 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – The respondent No.1 used to affix his own thumb impression instead of the those of the loanees – Upon sanction of the said loan, the accountant concerned used to pay the amount of loan to respondent No.1 – All transactions, having taken place on the same date were clearly manipulated by Respondent No.1 – There cannot, therefore, be any doubt that allegations against the accused were well founded.(Paras 11, 22 and 24)

       (c)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120-B r/w Section 5 and 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Although respondent no. 2 had not been charged with any act of forgery and misappropriation, but he was the one who had prepared the appraisal report after which the loan amount was sanctioned and purportedly paid to the loanees – Hence, he was also guilty of commission of the said offence. (Para 23)

       (d)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120-B r/w Section 5 and 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Exoneration of respondent No.2 in the departmental proceedings cannot lead to the conclusion that he was not guilty of commission of the offences wherefor he was charged. (Para 33)

       (1995) 6 SCC 225 – Relied upon.

       (1996) 9 SCC 1 – Distinguished.

       (e)Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 – Sections 5 and 6 – High Court committed a manifest error in purporting to hold that the specimen fingerprints and handwritings could not have been taken from Respondent No.1. (Para 34)

       AIR 1961 SC 1808 – Relied upon.

       (f)Judicial Review – Presumption of innocence is a human right and when an accused is acquitted by a court, such presumption becomes stronger – A superior court, ordinarily, would not interfere with a finding of acquittal, if two views are possible. (Para 37)

       (2002) 9 SCC 356; (2004) 10 SCC 699; (2006) 9 SCC 731 – Relied upon.

       (g)Judicial Review – It is trite law that an appellate court, while entertaining an appeal from a judgment of acquittal, would also be entitled to consider the evidences brought on record by both the prosecution and the defence and arrive at its own decision – Interference with a judgment of acquittal may not be made when two views are possible to be taken, but when on appraisal thereof, only one view is possible, the appellate court would not hesitate to interfere with the judgment of acquittal – Instantly, no two views being possible to be taken, High Court’s judgment cannot be sustained. (Para 38)

       (h)Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Section 5(2) – Respondent No.1 alone had put on shelves all the procedural requirements – Therefore, a case has been made out to invoke the proviso appended to Section 5(2) in the case of respondent No.2 who worked in the bank for a short period and was still undergoing probation – Forgery and misappropriation was committed by respondent no.1 even thereafter – Sentence modified. (Paras 40 and 41)

       Facts of the case :

       1.Respondents herein were Manager and Field Officer of Chaitanya Grameena Bank, Penumaka Branch, Guntur District who were alleged to have conspired with each other in the matter of sanctioning and disbursing crop loans in the names of fictitious persons by forging signatures and thumb impressions of the proposed borrowers in the documents resulting in misappropriation of the proceeds of Rs. 30,000/-.

       2.The Trial Judge held that the persons whose photos were affixed to the loan applications and the names of the persons mentioned in the loan applications were never resided in Seethanagaram Village. The contention that the departmental proceeding initiated against respondent No.2 herein resulted in exoneration and, thus, he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal was rejected by the Trial Judge convicting the accused persons.

       3.The High Court, however, reversed the said judgment of the Trial Judge holding that the procedure adopted for obtaining fingerprints being contrary to the fundamental rights of the accused, the same was not admissible in evidence. It was observed that the Bank did not receive any complaint from the loanees and the prosecution having not brought any corroborative material on record, the impugned judgment of the Trial Judge cannot be sustained. Furthermore respondent No.2 having been exonerated in the departmental proceeding, a different view could not be taken by the criminal court.

       Findings of the Court:

       Respondents held guilty of charges.

       Result : Appeals allowed to the extent indicated.