Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Telangana) 437

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G. SRI DEVI, J.
P. Venkata Laxmi Narsimha Rao - Petitioner
Versus
State, Thr. PS., Rajendranagar, Rep. by Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Crl. R.C. Nos. 674 and 697 of 2014
Decided On : 12-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Bokaro Sapna Reddy.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for concrete evidence to establish conspiracy and the accused's involvement in fraudulent activities, as well as the importance of following proper procedures in financial transactions.

Headnote:
Bank Fraud - Criminal Conspiracy - Sections 120B, 409, 420, 468, 471 and 34 of I.P.C. - The court discussed the acts and sections referenced in the judgment, highlighting the legal provisions and their interpretations that influenced the decision.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a bank fraud where the accused conspired to cheat the State Bank of Hyderabad by opening accounts and misappropriating a large sum of money. The prosecution alleged that the accused committed various offenses under the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:

The trial court convicted A-2 and A-3 for the offense punishable under Section 120B of I.P.C. but acquitted them for the offense under Section 406 of I.P.C. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence. However, the Criminal Revision Cases allowed the appeal and acquitted A-2 and A-3 of the offense under Section 120B of I.P.C.
Issues: The key issues included the involvement of the accused in the bank fraud, the sufficiency of evidence, and the interpretation of the penal provisions under the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that there was a lack of concrete evidence to establish the conspiracy and the accused's involvement in the fraudulent activities. It also noted serious lapses in the bank's procedures and the delay in lodging the complaint.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Cases allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on A-2 and A-3 for the offense punishable under Section 120B of I.P.C. They were acquitted, and any fine paid was to be refunded to them.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both the Criminal Revision Cases are being disposed of by this common judgment since they are directed against the common judgment, dated 25.03.2014, passed in Crl.A.No.98 of 2009 and Crl.A.No.104 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XI-Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District.

2. The revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.674 of 2014 is A-2 and the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.697 of 2014 is A-3. For the sake of convenience, they will be hereafter referred to as A-2 and A-3 respectively.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the State Bank of Hyderabad has opened its Branch in the campus of National Institute for Rural Development (NIRD), Rajendranagar, for NIRD transactions through its account No.843. On 16.10.2002, A-1 (Raghavendra) has opened an S.B. Account No.959 and R.D Account No.838 in S.B.H., NIRD Extension Counter, Rajendranagar, without his photograph with the active connivance of A-2 and A-3, who were working as Junior Assistant and Attender respectively in the said branch (revision petitioners herein). A-4 has allowed opening the account of A-1 without observing any bank rules and norms. A-1 was introduced as Civil Contractor of NIRD by A-3. An amount Rs.13,92,000/- was credited to the savings bank account of A-1 through four cheques bearing Nos.765675, dated 16.10.2002; 765674, dated 24.10.2002; 765678 dated 13.11.2002 and 765677 dated 24.12.2002 from NIRD Account No.843 and that A-1 has withdrawn an amount of Rs.13,87,000/- from his S.B. Account No.959 through nine cheques vide Nos.757621 dated 16.10.2002; 757623 dated 25.10.2002; 757624 dated 26.10.2002; 757652 dated 26.10.2002; 757626 dated 26.10.2002; 757629 dated 13.11.2002; 757630 dated 15.11.2002; 757632 dated 26.10.2002 and 757633 dated 04.01.2003. A-4 has passed two cheques and A-7 has passed another two cheques that were credited from Account Nos. 843 to 959 of A-1 for an amount of Rs.13,92,000/- without any verification. Subsequently, A-1 has withdrawn an amount of Rs.13,87,000/- from his S.B. Account No.959, where A-4 has passed six cheques, A-7 has passed three cheques, and A-8 has passed one cheque of A-1. From this amount, Rs.4,02,000/- has been withdrawn by A-3 on behalf of A-1 on 26.12.2002. The NIRD employee and the bank officials i.e., A-3 to A-8 were colluded with A-1 and conspired to cheat the SBH, NIRD Extension Counter by forging the signatures and misappropriated the huge amount of Rs.13,92,000/-, thereby the SBH, NIRD Extension has reimbursed an amount of Rs.13,92,000/- to NIRD on 30.04.2003 due to their negligent acts. Hence, A-1 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of I.P.C.; A-2 to A-8 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-8 for the aforesaid offences, which was taken cognizance as C.C.No.2437 of 2005 against A-2, A-3, A-5 to A-8 and the case against A-1 and A-4 was split up vide C.C.No.492 of 2006 as they were absconding.

4. On appearance of A-2, A-3, A-5 to A-8, separate charges under Sections 120B and 406 of I.P.C. were framed, read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P56. No witness was examined on behalf of the accused, however, Ex.D1 was marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A-2, A-3 and A-5 to A-8 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

6. The trial Court, on appraisal of entire evidence both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution has proved its case against A-2 and A-3 for the offence punishable under Section 120B of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a