Back
2011 Supreme(AP) 196
2011(2) ALT(Cri) 113
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
P.Nagendra Kumar & Others
Versus
State, Central Bureau of Investigation, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
CRIMINAL APPEAL .Nos.480 of 2006, 486/06, 499/06, 501/06, 513/06, 514/06, 515/06 AND 1425 of 2008
Decided on : 07-03-2011
For the Petitioners:K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:A) PENAL CODE, 1860, Sections 420, 471, 465, . 477-A, 468, 120-B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13 – The conviction of the appellants for conspiring together to purchase the cheques with discounts from the client set aside because on the facts of the case it is improbable for conspiring together for purchase of demand draft which are already purchased by cheques in favour of yourself (bank) as the amounts will be debited to the customers account. (Para 6)
B) NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881, Section 139 - Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420, 471, 465, 477-A, 468, 120-B Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13:- The presumption under Section 139 that the cheque is supported by consideration irrespective of the fact that the person concerned is arraigned as complainant or accused, as far as the he is a holder of cheque. In the criminal prosecution for the offence of conspiring to purchase the cheques which have been issued to the customers of the bank, the presumption do arise and unless they are rebutted by prosecution that it had been unsupported by consideration by producing the ledgers of the concerned firm. According to the prosecution, A.3 of Rakesh industries handed over the blank cheques to Rakesh Industries enabling A.2 to present the same to A.I for the purpose of discounting. In the absence of proof of the cheques Ex.P.3 and P.19 as blank signed cheques of P.Ws.l and 3 respectively, it cannot be said that A.2 filled up those cheques with fancy figures and presented those cheques to A.1 for the purpose of discounting. (Para 10)
C) EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Sections 105 and 106 - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Section 139 Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420, 471, 465, 477-A, 468, 120-B Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13:- Mere denial of conspiracy allegation by the prosecution does not absolve them of the charge where they are in possession of the cheque book with them having opened the bank account and issued cheques in the name of the firm which were purchased by the bank. The conviction of conspiracy upheld dismissing the appeal. (Paras 19 and 20)
These eight appeals arise out of judgment dated 16.03.2006 passed by the Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.28 of 2001.
2. Criminal Appeal No.1425 of 2008 is filed by the State represented by Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I) against acquittal of A.1, A.3, A.5, A.6, A.10 and A.12. Other appeals are filed by the accused, who were convicted by the lower Court, namely A.2, A.4, A.7, A.8, A.9, A.11 and A.13 respectively. The convictions, acquittals and sentences recorded by the lower Court are as follows:
A.1 was acquitted of the charges under Sections 420, 471/465, 477-A, 468, 120-B IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) (ii)/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short P.C.Act).
A.12 was acquitted of the charges under Sections 420, 471/465, 477-A, 120-B IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) (ii)/13 (2) of the P.C.Act.
A.13, though was acquitted of the charge under Section 471/465 Indian Penal Code, was convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) (ii)/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A.13 was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one Year and fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offences under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC; and to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) (ii)/13 (2) of the P.C. Act.
A.2 was acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B IPC. A.2 was convicted for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471/465 IPC. A.2was sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.5,000/-for the offence under Section 420 IPC; simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence under Section 468 IPC; and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under section 471/465 IPC.
A.3 was acquitted of the charges under Sections 120-B, 420, 471/465 IPC.
A.4 was convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471/465 IPC; and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence under Section 120-B IPC, simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 420 IPC, simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 468 IPC, and fine of Rs.2,000/-for the offence under Section 471/465 IPC.
A.5 is acquitted of the charges under Sections 120-B, 420, 471/465 IPC.
A.6 was acquitted of the charges under Sections 120-B, 420, 471/465 IPC.
A.7 was convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC; and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 120-B IPC and simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.3,000/-for the offence under Section 420 IPC.
A.8 was convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC; and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for One year and fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offences under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC.
A.9 was convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC; and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offences under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC.
A.10 was acquitted of the charges under Sections 120-B, 420, 471/465 IPC
A.11, though was acquitted of the offence under Section 471/465 IPC, was convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC; and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offences under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC. A.7, A.8 and A.9 were also acquitted of the charges under Section 471/465 IPC No appeal is filed by the prosecution against acquittal of the charges in respect of the accused, who were convicted and sentenced for other charges.
3. A.1 was working as Manager in State Bank of India, Kothapet branch, Vijayawada. He was holding Middle Management Grade-II cadre. A.12 was working as Deputy Manager in the same bank. A.13 was working as attender in the same bank. Subject matter of the prosecution relates to discounting of third party cheques presented by A.2 and
