Exceeding authority in banking operations without financial loss to the bank does not establish intent to defraud or misconduct under the IPC or Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed by appellant-accused No.1 under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 120B IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 420 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that the accused No.1 was working as Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Chamarajapet Branch, Bangalore during the period from 05.08.2002 to 14.06.2003 and had entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 4 to cheat Canara Bank and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, the accused Nos.2 and 3, the proprietors of M/s. Empap Electronics and M/s. Empee Electronics respectively, both of which are situated in Bangalore had dishonestly and fraudulently opened a joint SB account in Canara Bank. The accused No.1, who was the Chief Manager of the Bank had introduced this joint savings Bank account herself and accused Nos.2 and 3 have dishonestly and fraudulently opened two current accounts in the name of M/s. Empap Electronics and M/s. Empee Electronics respectively.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that Sri Babulal V.Patel, who was not acquainted with accused Nos.2 and 3 was asked to introduce these two accounts, by accused No.1. After opening of the said savings account and current accounts, accused Nos.2 and 3 dishonestly and fraudulently and in connivance with accused Nos.1 and 4, got discounted the Cheques through accused No.1 and the said fraudulent amount was credited to the accounts of accused Nos.2 and 3. As per the powers delegated to accused No.1, the Chief Manager, she could permit discounting of approved Cheques upto Rs.20 lakhs in respect of a party and this limit should include the transactions against the Cheques already sent or to be sent in clearing. It is also the case of the prosecution that in the joint savings Bank account of accused Nos.2 and 3, discounting of local Cheques were permitted from 12.03.2003 onwards i.e., within ten days of the opening of the account in the branch. Thereafter, the Cheques were permitted to be discounted on a regular basis, and the discounting was continued until 26.04.2003. In total 78 Cheques amounting to Rs.562 lakhs were discounted in the above three accounts from 03.03.2003 to 26.04.2003 within a period of 45 days. The same was noticed and deputed P.W.5 to examine the same and P.W.5 has submitted a report in terms of Ex.P389 and on receiving the report Ex.P389, defrauding of the bank amount to the extent of Rs.114.20 in Cheque discounting and Rs.21 lakhs towards housing loan which came to light, complaint was lodged and case was registered in R.C.No.18(A)/2003 by the CBI/ACB, Bangalore and the Investigating Officer obtained search warrant to search the residential premises of the accused Nos.2 and 3. Accordingly, after recording the statement of the witnesses and after collecting the documents, they have filed the charge-sheet.

5. The accused persons were secured and they have not pleaded guilty. Hence, the prosecution examined in all 25 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 25 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P497(a). During the course of cross-examination, the def