Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1085 OF 2019
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 9004 of 2017)
RAM GOPAL ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
DEHRADUN ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).1086 OF 2019
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 1981 of 2018)
PANKAJ KUMAR JAIN ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
DEHRADUN ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants assail their conviction under Sections
120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 201, I.P.C. read with
Signature Not Verified
Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act.
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.07.22
16:47:08 IST
Reason:
1
3. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered an F.I.R. on
12.04.1994 based on the statement of the Assistant General
Manager, State Bank of India, Ghaziabad with regard to the
opening of a fictitious Bank account on 13.07.1992 in the name
of one Raj Kumar. Soon thereafter by separate forged credit
entries between the period 23.07.1992 to 31.10.1992, deposit of
Rs.3,22,056.00 was made in the account. Subsequently on
different dates a sum of Rs.3,22,000.00 was withdrawn by
seventeen cheques leaving a balance of Rs.322.85. Originally
two clerks of the Bank, Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Smt.
Vandana Kundra were named as accused along with other
unknown persons. The names of the appellants transpired
during investigation leading to the submission of charge sheet
against them only, and after conclusion of the trial they were
convicted.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that they
have been made scapegoats while the original named accused
have been wrongly exonerated during investigation. The
sanction for their prosecution was not in accordance with law.
There is no evidence that the appellants were instrumental in
2
any manner with regard to opening of the fictitious account. No
evidence has been led in support of criminal conspiracy. It was
not possible for the appellants to destroy evidence with regard
to account opening form, specimen signature of the account
holder or make forged credit or debit entries in the ledger. The
report of the handwriting expert with regard to the writing and
signature on the cheques was a mere expression of an opinion.
DW1 the handwriting expert on behalf of the appellants had
doubted the very same handwriting and signatures of the
appellants. They are therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt.
No action has been taken against the concerned Bank
employees responsible for opening of the fictitious account,
much less has the prosecution even attempted to investigate
and identify such persons. The withdrawals from the fictitious
account through bearer cheques were not received by the
appellants as acknowledged by PW3.
5. Learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation
submitted that there has been thorough evaluation of evidence,
including that of handwriting experts, and the charge against
the appellants stands proved.
3
6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the
parties and gone through the materials on record. It is an
undisputed fact that a fictitious account was opened without
proper verification in accordance with the banking procedures.
That unfortunately does not appear to have been the subject of
investigation and which could have revealed more facts with
regard to the nature and manner of the embezzlement that has
taken place, including the persons involved in the same. The
trial court has rightly observed that in accordance with banking
procedures, the opening of the account, the deposits in the
same and withdrawals could not have been the handiwork of
the appellants alone. But merely because the investigation may
not have been of the standard and nature that it ought to have
been cannot enure to the benefit of the appellants in view of the
nature of materials and evidence available against them.
7. The validity of the sanction against the appellants for
prosecution, who were undisputedly employed as messenger
and assistant clerk respectively in the same branch, has been
proved by PW1 and PW2. The Sub. Inspector, Central Bureau
4
of Investigation PW23, proved that the appellants had given
their specimen writing and signatures during investigation. The
Principal Scientific Officer, C.F.S.L., PW18 deposed that the
account opening form of the fictitious account was in the
handwriting of appellant Pankaj Kumar Jain impersonating the
fictitious account holder Raj Kumar. The receipt of cheque
book and pass book from the Bank records, on behalf of the
fictitious account holder, were in the handwriting of the
appellant Pankaj Kumar Jain. The writing on two of the
withdrawal cheques drawn as “self” on the fictitious account
purporting to be signed by the said Raj Kumar were in the
handwriting of appellant Ram Gopal. The signature on all the
17 forged cheques for withdrawal by “self” were in the
handwriting of appellant Pankaj Kumar Jain impersonating the
fictitous account holder. These in our opinion were sufficient to
establish conspiracy. The hand writing expert DW1 relied
upon by the appellants gave his report based on photocopies of
the writing and signatures of the appellants and not on the
basis of their specimen signatures. During the course of
hearing we asked the counsel for the appellants if they had filed
5
any objection to the report of the handwriting expert relied upon
by the prosecution. It was fairly stated that they did not do so.
8. The fraud was committed in a systematic manner by
persons well acquainted with banking procedures. The
appellants were also the employees of the Bank. There is no
defence evidence that they had no access to records of the Bank
at any stage to commit the offence attributed to them. On the
contrary, the evidence of their involvement is clinching. They
also had access to the vouchers and ledgers as part of their
normal duties. Even the specimen signature card was made to
disappear replaced by a torn paper.
9. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the conviction
of the appellants. The appeals are dismissed.
.……………………….J.
(Ashok Bhushan)
………………………..J.
(Navin Sinha)
New Delhi,
July 22, 2019.
6