IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
R. Sreenivasa Rao – Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P. – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No.111 Of 2007
Decided On : 01-02-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A - Offence of Criminal breach of trust - Forgery - Charged- Accused is working as Senior Assistant in the Office of Chief Planning Officer, Kurnool - He was entrusted with the job of preparing salary bills, drawing salaries and processing of GPF loan applications/forms of other employees in the office - Accused by virtue of his employment holds all public documents i.e., records pertaining to salaries, GPF applications, and Service Registers of other employees - He took advantage of possession of records pertaining to salaries and GPF applications and fabricated some documents by forging the signatures - Whether the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2005, dated 17.01.2007, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the appellate Court? - Held, There is no dispute that accused utilized said amounts for himself - So, evidence on record would attract offence of criminal breach of trust - Further, it is a case where accused has forged signatures in GPF applications of PWs.2 to 4 and fabricated and further forged the signatures of PW.1 - He did so with an intention to withdraw GPF amounts wrongfully - So, it attracts the definition of forgery under Section 463 IPC punishable under Section 465 IPC - Further, allegations would attract aggravated form of offence under Section 468 IPC. Further, the accused used forged documents as genuine documents and further made falsification of accounts - So, allegations further attract offences under Sections 471 and 477-A IPC - Evidence adduced by the prosecution would prove the charges against accused for which he was convicted - Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This is a Criminal Revision Case, filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.P.C”), by the petitioner herein, who was the accused in Calendar Case No.357 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool (for short, “the learned Magistrate”) and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2005 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool (for short, “the learned Additional Sessions Judge”), challenging the judgment, dated 17.01.2007, in the said Criminal Appeal, where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against him in C.C. No.357 of 2001, dated 17.11.2005, for the offences under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”).
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The petitioner herein faced trial in C.C. No.357 of 2001 before the Court below for the charges under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A IPC for which he was found guilty, convicted and sentenced before the Court below. Aggrieved thereby, he filed Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2005 challenging the judgment of the trial Court, which came to be dismissed on merits. Challenging the same, the unsuccessful appellant therein approached this Court by way of this Criminal Revision Case.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the averments in the charge sheet before the Court below, is as follows:
The accused is working as Senior Assistant in the Office of Chief Planning Officer, Kurnool. He was entrusted with the job of preparing the salary bills, drawing salaries and processing of GPF loan applications/forms of other employees in the office. Accused by virtue of his employment holds all the public documents i.e., records pertaining to the salaries, GPF applications, and Service Registers of other employees. He took advantage of the possession of records pertaining to the salaries and GPF applications and fabricated some documents by forging the signatures of LWs.1 to 7 and LW.10 i.e., B. Gopal, Akula Sunkanna, M.V.Subba Reddy, N.V. Ramana, N. Diwan Saheb, S.R.Ratna Ruth, B. Yugandhar Reddy and T. Sunki Reddy and withdrawn the GPF amounts in the form of loans. The procedure to be adopted in sanction of GPF is as follows:
(a) The applicant has to apply for sanction of G.P.F. advance in Form “1” and for Part Final Withdrawal in Form “O” to the Drawing Officer by enclosing GPF Slip.
(b) After the receipt of applications the drawing officer will put his initial and forward it to the accused for the preparation of file and issuing necessary orders. The St. Asst. (accused) has to follow the GPF Rules and put up a note before the drawing officer (LW.1).
(c) On the sanction orders made by LW.1 (Drawing Officer) the accused (St. Asst.) has to prepare a bill in Advance Register for the purpose of office copy. The Drawing Officer will pass sanction orders on it. Again the St. Asst. has to prepare a fair copy in Bill Form (Form-40-A) and the accused has to enclose the relevant papers as Application Form. GPF slip etc., and APTC Form 101 authorizing the messenger of office to process the papers in DTO and to bring the cash. The accused has to send the bill to the DTO duly entering the particulars of Bill in Treasury Bill Register. The bill should be assigned Sl.No. of Treasury Bill Register.
(d) The DTO will receive the Fair Bill and T&R from the messenger sent by the Drawing Officer and DTO will incorporate the particulars in his bill in Inward Register with running Sl. Number and issue token to the messenger.
(e) The DTO after the verification of papers sent by the drawing officer will pass a bill and send the same to the bank by filling the particulars of bill in bill Outward Register and
The prosecution must prove entrustment and dishonest intent in offenses under sections 409 and 468 IPC, failure of which leads to acquittal.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of forgery and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt due to irregularities in evidence collection.
The court ruled that the trial court properly dismissed the discharge application, finding sufficient evidence to frame charges against the accused for financial fraud.
Insufficient evidence against certain accused led to their acquittal, while confirming conviction for others with reduced sentences.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on extra-judicial confessions without corroborative evidence is insufficient for conviction.
Once entrustment is established, if the accused fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, it can be presumed that he committed the offense of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation.
Conviction for forgery and misappropriation requires clear proof of entrustment and intent to defraud, which was lacking, leading to acquittal.
The failure to specify distinct offences in charges led to duplicity, causing a miscarriage of justice, and resulting in the quashing of the appellant's convictions.
The appellant's convictions were quashed due to the misjoinder of charges and prosecution's failure to prove the existence of forged documents, central to the charged offences.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.