C.A.V. Judgment

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.1999 passed by learned Fifth Additional Sessions Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur in Special Case No. 4/96, convicting and sentencing the appellant in following manner.

default, R.I. for 6 month U/s 477A/120B of IPC R.I. fo d r e f 2 a u y lt e , a R rs .I . a fo n r d 6 f i m ne o n o th f ₹ 2000 in U P w r / it s e h v S e n e t 1 c io 3 ti n o ( 1 n o ) ( f 1 d 2 C )/ 0 o 1 B r 3 r ( u o 2 p f ) t I i P o C n o A f ct re t a h d e R.I. fo d r e f 2 a u y lt e , a R rs .I . a fo n r d 6 f i m ne o n o th f ₹ 2000 in

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that accused B.P. Rautre was posted as Clerk/Special Assistant at the Central Bank of India, Saraipali Branch, in April 1992. Appellant who is a businessman in Saraipali was having a H.S.S. Account in the said bank bearing A/c No. 5204. He entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused/ appellant Deendayal Agrawal to defraud the said bank. In pursuance of the alleged conspiracy, on 21.04.1992, co-accused B.P. Rautre withdrew a sum of ₹ 5,000/- from H.S.S. Account No. 4116 belonging to Surjan Chaudhari and ₹10,000/- from H.S.S. Account No. 2252 belonging to Ranjeet Kumar Sahu on 10.04.1992. Said alleged amount of ₹15,000/- was transferred, through a transfer voucher, to H.S.S. Account No. 5204 standing in the name of accused Deendayal Agrawal. It is alleged that, despite having knowledge of balance of only ₹340/- in his account, accused Deendayal Agrawal signed a withdrawal form for withdrawing for ₹15,000/-. According to the prosecution, by submitting the pre-signed withdrawal form and receiving the amount which had been transferred through illegal means, accused Deendayal Agrawal dishonestly induced the bank to part with ₹15,000/- and thereby committed fraud.

3. Upon receiving information regarding the fraud at the Saraipali Branch, Shri C.K. Pandey conducted a preliminary inquiry on the directions of the Chief Internal Auditor and submitted his report. Thereafter, the matter was handed over to the CBI. On the basis of the information received, the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Jabalpur registered FIR bearing RC No. 54(A)/92 dated 30.11.1992 and entrusted the investigation to Inspector Devendra Singh. During investigation, various documents were seized, witnesses were examined, and specimen handwriting and signatures of concerned persons ie., Tulsiram Sahu, N.K. Meher, Umeshchand Guchhayat, Upendra Kumar Bhoi, Narsingh Sahu etc., including the accused Deendayal Agrawal, were obtained and sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Central Forensic Institutes, Calcutta. After completion of investigation and receipt of the expert report, the investigating agency concluded that the accused persons had committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As accused/ appellant was not a public servant and co-accused B.P. Rautre had already been separated from service, no sanction for prosecution was obtained, and a charge-sheet was filed before the competent court.

4. During trial, co-accused B.P. Rautre remained absconding and was declared so by the court. Charges were framed against accused Deendayal Agrawal for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. Appellant denied the charges, pleaded innocence and falsely implicated and prayed for trial. Prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses on its behalf namely P.C. Lunia, Retd. Senior Manager (P.W.-1), Umeshchand Gucchayat, Probationary Officer in Central Bank of India (P.W.-2), Narsingh Chaudhari (P.W.-3), Nakul Chaudhari (P.W.- 4), Sureshchand Gupta (P.W.5), T.R. Sahu (P.W.6), C.K. Pandey, Inter