Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MALA, J.
N. Sridhar – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai – Respondent
Crl.A.Nos. 1058 & 1059 of 2006
Decided On : 04-03-2015
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 477A, 467, 467 read with 471 and 420 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13 – Judgment of conviction – Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and sentence made in C.C. on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced in C.C. as offence under Section Sentence 477A, 467, 467 read with 471 and 420 IPC To undergo three months rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default in payment to undergo two weeks rigorous imprisonment each, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default in payment to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment – The accused was convicted and sentenced in C.C. as offence under Section Sentence 477A, 467(2 counts), 467 read with 471 (2 counts) and 420 IPC To undergo three months rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default in payment to undergo two weeks rigorous imprisonment each, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default in payment to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. – Held, It was held that the first appellant was the Chief Manager of Malad Branch of corporation Bank at Mumbai and the second appellant was the Chief Manager of Wadala Branch, Mumbai. – A complaint was lodged with the police by the Deputy Manager of the Bank with the allegations that a huge amount, more than half a crore of rupees, had been defrauded by certain persons and the Bank was put to great loss to the above extent. – An FIR was registered on its basis for certain offences and after completion of the investigation the police laid two charge-sheets before the said Metropolitan Magistrate arraigning four persons as the accused for offences under Sections 120B , 420 , 467 , 468 and 471 IPC . – During enquiry, CBI came to know that there was an evidence to include another person as accused and by invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C., they included Michael Machado and another and the same was challenged by the said Michael Machado and another and their application was allowed. – In the above decision, it was specifically mentioned that on the basis of single F.I.R., two charge-sheets have been filed. In such circumstances, Court is of the view, on single F.I.R., two charge sheets have been filed and the same is not fatal to the case of prosecution. – Court is of the considered opinion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant/accused was guilt for offences under Sections 477A , 467 , 467 read with 471 and 420 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act beyond reasonable doubt. – The benefit of doubt is given in favour of the appellant/accused and he is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. – The Special Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant/accused for the aforesaid offences and hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court is hereby set aside. – Criminal Appeal Allowed
1. The Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2006 made in C.C.Nos.26 and 27 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced in C.C.No.26 of 2004 as follows:
Offence under Section
Sentence
477A, 467, 467 read with 471 and 420 IPC
To undergo three months rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default in payment to undergo two weeks rigorous imprisonment each.
13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default in payment to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.
The sentence are ordered to be run concurrently.
The accused was convicted and sentenced in C.C.No.27 of 2004 as follows:
Offence under Section Sentence
477A, 467(2 counts), 467 read with 471 (2 counts) and 420 IPC To undergo three months rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default in payment to undergo two weeks rigorous imprisonment each.
13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default in payment to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.
The sentence are ordered to be run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
(i) The accused/appellant herein was working as Assistant Manager, Indian Bank, T.Nagar Branch from May 1999 onwards. Each officers in the Bank is given User ID and Password to operate the system. User ID of the accused is NSR116.
(ii) In the bank, every day, the transaction logs have been taken, which contains the details of transactions put into the system on the particular day with details such as transaction number, transaction type, amount, the person who entered the transaction, time etc. are rooted through the computers and the System Administrator is the in-charge of entire system as well as the data of the Branch and he has to enter the User ID and Password. Every 15 days, the password will be changed for all officers and the computer will automatically inform the user to change his password. P.W.7/N.M. Karthikeyan was working as System Manager during relevant time.
(iii) P.W.14/A. Sri Ramachandra Murthy was the Senior Manager posted in the Credit Department from May 1997 to May 2002. His User ID is SRM096. He was also placed in-charge of the Branch during absence of the Chief Manager. During 2001, Indian Bank launched Home loans, personal loans, vehicle loans etc. and P.W.14 asked the accused to pass vouchers by using his password in order to ensure uninterrupted customer service and he informed the accused about the change of his password. The accused used the password of P.W.14 and done the work.
(iv) P.W.2/Valmikinathan, who was working as Manager, Indian Bank, Vigilance Department during July 2001 to October 2004, visited T.Nagar branch and on inspection, he came to know the fraudulent transactions in the Savings Bank and Loan account of the accused and filed Exs.P2 and P3 reports. The BPO No.025480 dated 05.09.2000 for Rs.62,573/- favouring M/S.Southern Auto Centre is Ex.P4. The accused has taken Ex.P4/BPO for the purchase of Hero Honda Splendor from M/S.Southern Auto Centre. For the issue of BPO, some remittance has to come into Bank either by cash or by any authorised means, but no remittance was received from the accused towards the issue of Ex.P4. Invoice dated 18.09.2000 in respect of Hero Honda Splendor for total sum of Rs.46,150/- in favour of the accused is Ex.P35 and the statement of account for the accused issued by the Southern Auto Centre is Ex.P36. After adjusting the sale price, the balance amount of Rs.1
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
