SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(AP) 1057

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyd - Appellant
Versus
P.Hanumantha Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 11-17-05

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code – Sections 409, 471, 420, 468, 474 (a) – Acquittal – Evidence – The respondent herein was working as Special Assistant at the relevant point of time in Syndicate Bank of Bolaram Branch whose Branch Manager filed a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Team IV, CCS, DD , Hyderabad which was registered as a Crime for the alleged offences punishable, the allegation of the complaint is that the respondent herein abused his official position and misappropriated various amounts by manipulating and destroying the records on various occasions – This appeal, by the state, is directed against the judgment, on the file of XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, by which, the accused i. e. , the respondent herein was acquitted of the charges punishable – Held, the confession statement was recorded by vigilance Officer, it was not signed by him and no panchas were present at the time of recording the confession statement – On account of the said failure and retraction, the confession statement, which is in the form of an extra-confession statement cannot be accepted at all – Further, the vigilance Officer s report marked was also not signed by the vigilance Office – The expert was examined and he gave his opinion and the reasons for his opinion were assigned, but his opinion was not of any help to the case of the prosecution as he categorically stated that he did not supply some more standards for comparison – In fact, it is for the prosecution to examine the standard writings of the accused to rely on the expert s opinion – No doubt, the opinion of the expert is that some of the writings belong to the accused, but there is no evidence to prove that the signatures belong to the accused – The cumulative effect of all these aspects discussed as above is that the prosecution has not come up with the true version and has not proved the guilt of the accused, the respondent herein – Criminal Appeal Dismissed

( 1 ) THIS appeal, by the state, is directed against the judgment, dated 21-5-1997 in C. C. No. 98 of 1994 on the file of XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, by which, the accused i. e. , the respondent herein was acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 409, 471, 420, 468 and 474 (a) I. P. C.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that the respondent herein was working as Special Assistant at the relevant point of time in Syndicate Bank of Bolaram Branch whose Branch Manager filed a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Team IV, CCS, DD. , Hyderabad which was registered as a Crime No. 83 of 1989 for the alleged offences punishable under sections 409, 467, 471 and 474 (a) I. P. C. the allegation of the complaint is that the respondent herein abused his official position and misappropriated various amounts by manipulating and destroying the records on various occasions. On the basis of the complaint, the criminal law is set into motion, and after conducting a thorough investigation, the police filed charge-sheet, which was numbered as C. C. No. 98 of 1994.

( 3 ) IN order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution pressed into service the evidence of PWs. 1 to 10 and also got exhibited Exs. Pl to P218. The allegations against the respondent herein are as follows: (1) One S. F. Barge opened S. B. Account no. 1715 and he was also authorized to operate current Account No. 173 of M/s. Pereira Poultry Farms and current Account No. 111 of M/s. Pereira Farms. On 7-9-1988, he tendered a cheque for Rs. 15,000/- to the accused who issued counter folio in the name of S. F. Borgee, S. B. Account No. 1715. Both the cheques were given for credit to M/s. Periar poultry Farms. But the accused diverted the amount to current account no. 165 of M/s. Venkateshwara general Merchants and made fictitious entries in the pass book of s. B. Account No. 173. He also made entry on 13-9-1988, showing that the amount was credited and debited to the account of M/s. Pereira Poultry farms. He destroyed the ledger folio of current Account No. 165 and sub-day ledger folio and cheque for rs. 15,000/- and caused undue loss of rs. 15,000/-to the Bank. (2) On 12-1-1989, the accused prepared two credit vouchers for Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- to SB Account no. 301 and Rs. 4,500/- presented two cheques for the said amounts, passed them and received cash payment as per the S. B. Sub-Day Book. The amounts were aggregated to rs. 1,05,355. 10. But, he authenticated the deposit in SB Account credited to rs. 1,30,355. 10 and compensated credit of Rs. 25,000/ -. He also destroyed the s. B. ledger folio and on 9-2-1989, he informed the same to Vigilance manager. (3) On 23-1-1988, Sainikpuri Branch received a cheque for Rs. 13,600/- drawn on Bollaram Branch and the c. A. O. debited the said amount which was issued in Joint Account of S. B. Account No. 23 in the name of P. N. Veerasham, brother of the accused. The balance in S. B. Account No. 23, was sown only Rs. 9. 31. The cheque was to be returned, but he did not respond and the cheque was not traced. (4) On 18-2-1988, a cheque amounting to Rs. 1,44,308. 75 was received from the C. A. O. to Bollaram Branch, but the accused credited Rs. 18,908-75 and did nto account for Rs. 1,25,400/- and on verification, it is found that it belongs to the account of M. S. Chatwal through Hanumanth Rao and his account shows only credit balance of Rs. 75,010/- only. But the accused ought to have returned the cheque, but failed to do so and made a loss ofrs. 1,25,400/ -. (5) On 16-4-1988, the C. A. O. debited rs. 76,942. 60, but the accused prepared various slips for Rs. 61,942. 60 and there was a shortage of rs. 15,000/- relating to M/s. Pooma trading Company belonging to his brother Poornachander Rao. The cheque has to be returned, but the same was not accounted for and was destroyed. (6) On 23-4-1988, Alwal Branch, presented a cheque for Rs. 13,600/- which was debited by C. A. O. , but the accused d






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top