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

2020 Supreme(Kar) 39

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri.P. N. Hegde, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, Spl.P.P.

The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction.

Headnote:

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:

    Accused No.1 – T. Narayanappa 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 – K.L. Agarwal who was the Proprietor of M/s. Nu-Horizon Data Technologies, Bengaluru and Accused No.3 – K. Mohan Dass 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 Da

                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