Back
1985 Supreme(Kar) 268
Karnataka High Court
Venkateshwaralu - Appellant
Versus
Government of Karnataka - Respondent
Decided On : 07-12-85
CRI.R.P. : 677 of 1982
B.R.IMANJUNDAIAH, D.V.SATYANARAYAN
The importance of proving charges beyond all reasonable doubt and the need for thorough investigation to uncover the truth in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Cheating - Accused - Sec. 420 I P C - Sec. 397 r/w. 401 Cr. P. C. - Sec. 420 I. P. C.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was prosecuted for cheating and breach of trust. He was acquitted of breach of trust but held guilty of cheating. The accused preferred a revision challenging the findings of the courts below.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below were set aside, and the accused was acquitted of the charge.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused was guilty of the offence with which he was charged.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving charges beyond all reasonable doubt and highlighted the lack of evidence to support the prosecution's case. It also criticized the investigation and the focus on saving others involved in the alleged fraudulent activity.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below were set aside, and the accused was acquitted of the charge. Any fine paid by the accused was to be refunded, and any ball bonds obtained from him were cancelled.
( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr. P. C. is by the accused in C. C. 79/ 76 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Bangalore City He was prosecuted therein for offences of cheating and breach of trust. The learned magistrate acquitted him of the charge of breach of trust or misappropriation, but held him guilty of cheating, an offence punishable under Sec. 420 I P. C. That finding has been confirmed by the prl. Civil, Civil and Sessions-Judge, Bangalore, in Cr A. 49/81 on his file, by his judgment dated 4-9-1982. Challenging these concurrent findings of the courts below the accused has preferred this revision.
( 2 ) THIS case has an interesting background and therefore the event that led to the investigation into this episode, the direction that that investigation took, the manner how the case was prosecuted and tried may be noted : the H. M. T. Bangalore had received an account-payee demand draft of the value of Rs 10,170-74, dated 9-8-1975, and drawn in favour of the H. M. T. Ltd. , watch Factory (Account No. 2 Bangalore city)"by the State Bank of India, Sector-7, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. This in turn was sent by the H. M. T. , to the united Commercial Bank, K. G. Road, bangalore, for collection and crediting the said sum to their account in that bank. For reasons not revealed or yet known, the amount covered by this account payee draft which ought to have been credited only to the account of the h. M. T. . . in the United Commercial Bank, came to be credited to another account in that very Bank. It was so credited to the account of one Gurumurthy, who has been examined by the prosecution as their 14th witness (P. W 14 ). The H. M. T. in the usual course used to receive monthly statements of their accounts from the United Commercial Bank (UCO bank ). When they received their monthly statement some time after they had sent the aforesaid draft for collection, they came to know that the sum of Rs. 10,170-74 covered by the aforesaid draft had not been credited to their account. Therefore, in the month of November, 1975 they wrote to the Bank enquiring about this matter The then Manager of the UCO bank whose duty it was to satisfactorily explain his customer about this lapse approached the local police with his own version of the episode pointing his finger towards this petitioner. The then sub- inspector of Police, Chickpet, Bangalore city simply proceeding in the direction pointed out by the Bank Manager filed his final report in the matter for offences under Sections 468 and 420 I. P C. , against the petitioner (accused) who, in those days, was only a Peon in that Bank
( 3 ) THE charge against the accused is that having dishonestly induced Gurumurthy (P W. l4) to deliver to him (the accused) two signed (by Gurumurthy) blank withdrawal slips, which were capable of being converted into valuable securities, had used the same to withdraw the said sum of Rs 10,170-74 from his (Gurumurthy's) account and thereby had cheated him (Gurumurthy), and, in the process, had also cheated the United commercial Bank and therefore was liable for an offence of cheating punishable under Sec. 420 I. P. C.
( 4 ) NOW, both the courts below have held that this charge against the accused has been proved to the hilt and have sentenced him to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and, in default, to suffer further R. I. for 3 months.
( 5 ) THE only question that arises for consideration in this revision is : is the accused guilty of the offence with which he has been charged ?
( 6 ) THERE was no complaint by gurumurthy (P. W. 14) that he had at all been cheated by the accused. The evidence of Gurumurthy is that he and the accused being neighbours knew each other since some years ; that the accused was in his confidence: and that he used to utilise the services of the accused to deposit and to withdraw monies from this Bank from his (Gurumurthy's) account.
( 7 ) THE complaint that had in turn
