IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. Somashekar, J.
T. Narayanappa S/o Late Shri Thimmaiah – Appellant
Versus
State by Inspector of Police, CBI – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 552, 565, 570 OF 2010
Decided On : 14-01-2020
The Court acquitted the accused of the offenses under Sections 120(b) r/w 420, 468, 471, 477(A) IPC r/w 511 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not cogent, corroborative, and acceptable to establish the guilt of the accused. The Court also found that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to show that the accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy with an intent to defraud the bank and were attempting to commit criminal misconduct.
Fact of the Case:
Accused No.1 was working as the Branch Manager in the State Bank of Mysore, Bazaar Branch, Arasikere from February 2004 to July 2004. During the said period, it is stated that Accused No.1 being a public servant, entered into a criminal conspiracy with Accused No.2 who was the Proprietor of M/s. Nu-Horizon Data Technologies, Bengaluru and Accused No.3 who was the Proprietor of M.S.M. Private Ltd and committed illegal acts of cheating, forging valuable security using forged document. In that, it is alleged that Accused No.1, abusing his position as a public servant, created false entries of credit and debit in respect of the current account of Accused No.2 bearing No.01050007420. As on 12.05.2004, Accused No.1 had first shown credit of a sum of Rs.525,32,11,000/- in the said account though any such amount was not deposited into the said account through cash or cheque and further had shown debit of the very same amount on the same day. Further, as on 20.05.2004, Accused No.1 had shown credit of a sum of Rs.568,13,29,000/- in the very same account though any such amount was not deposited into the said account through cash or cheque and further had shown debit of the very same amount on the same day. Further, it is stated that he did not prepare any corresponding vouchers for the said two huge credit entries. Subsequently, he had also issued two Certificates of Balance dated 21.05.2004 and 03.06.2004 respectively to the Account holder Shri K.L. Agarwal – Accused No.2 stating that a balance of Rs.564,13,33,975/- was available in the account of M/s. Nu Horizon Data Technologies.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not cogent, corroborative, and acceptable to establish the guilt of the accused. The Court also found that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to show that the accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy with an intent to defraud the bank and were attempting to commit criminal misconduct.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was cogent, corroborative, and acceptable to establish the guilt of the accused? 3. Whether the prosecution produced any evidence to show that the accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy with an intent to defraud the bank and were attempting to commit criminal misconduct?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not cogent, corroborative, and acceptable to establish the guilt of the accused. The Court also found that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to show that the accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy with an intent to defraud the bank and were attempting to commit criminal misconduct.
Final Decision: The Court acquitted the accused of the offenses under Sections 120(b) r/w 420, 468, 471, 477(A) IPC r/w 511 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
JUDGMENT :
As all the three appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Crl.A.No.552/2010 has been preferred by accused No.1 – T. Narayanappa; Crl.A.No.565/2010 has been preferred by Accused No.3 – K. Mohan Dass and Crl.A.No.570/2010 has been preferred by Accused No.2 – K.L. Agarwal. All these three appeals have been filed by the respective accused challenging the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.75/2006 dated 27.04.2010 and praying to set aside the same. By the said judgment of the Trial Court, Accused Nos.1 to 3 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 420, 468, 471, 477(A) IPC read with Section 511 IPC. Besides, Accused No.1 was convicted for offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well. As regards sentence, Accused Nos.1 to 3 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for eight months for the offence under Section 120B read with 511 IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months; to undergo simple imprisonment for eight months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under Section 468 read with 511 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months; to undergo simple imprisonment for eight months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under Section 471 read with 511 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months; to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under Section 477 read with 511 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Further, Accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
3. Factual matrix of the appeals as per the case put forth by the prosecution is as follows:
State Represented By Inspector of Police, Chennai Vs. N.S. Gnaneswaran
Vinayak Narayan Deosthali Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
C.K. Jaffer Sharief Vs. State (Through CBI) (2013) 1 SCC 205
Habeen Mohammed Vs. State of Hyderabad
Manoranjan Das Vs. State of Jharkhand
Mir Nagvi Askari Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Mohammed Iqbal Ahmed vs. State of AP
Nand Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar
Neera Yadav Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
R. Saj Bharathi Vs. J. Jayalalitha and Others
R. Venkatkrishnan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Dilbagh Rai and Others
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.