| Headnote |
Penal Code, 1860:ss. 409, 420, 467, 477-A r/w 120-B - Forgery and misappropriation of bank loans - Bank Manager and Field Officer in conspiracy with each other sanctioned and disbursed loans in names of fictitious persons - Trial Court holding both guilty and sentencing them - Acquittal by High Court - HELD: Prosecution has brought ample material on record which led to only one conclusion that accused committed the offences - Exoneration of one of the accused in departmental inquiry initiated only against him having concluded before police investigation stated in the case, would be of no avail as Inquiry Officer did not have benefit of the evidence that was made available in the criminal proceedings - Besides, the inquiry report was not brought on record and factum of exoneration in departmental proceedings was taken as a defence, it was for the accused to bring on record the relevant material, which was not done - High Court also erred in purporting to hold that specimen finger print and handwritings could not have been taken from accused - ss. 5 and 6 of Identification of Prisoners Act, clearly provides for such a contingency - High Court completely misdirected itself in passing a judgment of acquittal - Judgment of High Court set aside - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1944 - ss. 5(1) and 5(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Appeal against acquittal-Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 - ss. 5 and 6.Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:s. 5(1) r/w s.5(2), proviso - Bank Manager and Field Officer forging loans in names of fictitious persons - Both held guilty by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - HELD: Bank Manager completing all formalities required to be complied with for grant of loan including obtaining appraisal report from Field Officer, sanction and disbursement of loan on date of filing of loan application itself - Entire prosecution relating to forgery and misappropriation having been attributed to the Manager, and he having used the appraisal reports prepared by Field Officer, a case is made out to invoke the proviso appended to sub - s. (2) of s.5 in the case of Field Officer - Therefore, while upholding conviction and sentence awarded by trial court as against the Manager, sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three months is imposed on Field Officer-Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 409, 420, 467 and 477-A r/w 120-B IPC.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:Appeal against acquittal - Jurisdiction of appellate Court - HELD: an appellate court, while entertaining an appeal against acquittal, would be entitled to consider the evidence brought on record and arrive at its own conclusion - Interference with a judgment of acquittal may not be made when two views are possible to be taken but when only one view is possible to be taken, appellate court would not hesitate to interfere with judgment of acquittal - In the instant case no two views are possible to be taken - Accused were rightly held guilty of the offences charged - High Court misdirected itself in passing judgment of acquittal - Judgment of High Court set aside-Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 409, 420, 467, 477-A r/w s.120-B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - ss. 5(1), (2).Respondent A-1 and respondent A-2, who were Manager and Field Officer respectively of the appellant Bank, were prosecuted under ss. 409, 420, 467 and 477-A read with s.120-B IPC and s.5 read with s.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The allegations against them were that during the period 7.12.1984 to 14.8.1986, they conspired with each other in matter of sanctioning and disbursing 6 Crop Loans of Rs.5000/- each in the names of fictitious persons by forging signatures and thumb impressions of proposed borrowers in documents resulting in misappropriation of the proceeds of Rs.30,000/-. The trial court held both the accused guilty of the offences charged and sentenced both of them to rigorous imprisonment for six moths. It rejected the plea of respondent A-2 that in view of the departmental proceedings against him resulting in his exoneration he was entitled to be acquitted. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the accused observing, inter alia, that the procedure adopted for obtaining finger prints being contrary to fundamental rights of the accused, the same was not admissible, in evidence; that neither the Bank received any complaint from loanees nor did the prosecution bring any corroborative material on record.In the instant appeals filed by the Bank, it was contended for respondent A-2 that he merely prepared the appraisal report.and he was not involved in any forgery; that he joined the service only in 1984 and was transferred on or about 14.8.1986, and subsequent renewals of loans having been prepared in 1987, he was entitled to acquittal. |
