Criminal Appeal Nos
485 488 of 1979 etc
From the Judgment and Order dated 612
1977 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cr
Revision Cases Nos 294 295296 and 293 of 1977 Kapil Sibal Atul Wig Raj Birbal ATM Sampath and GM Rao for the Appellant
89 AK Goel K Ram Kumar B Parthasarthi for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA J
These appeals have been filed after grant of leave against the acquittal of the respondent from offences under Sections 467 read with Section 109 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code
The prosecution case at the trial was that V Suryakan tam is a resident of official colony VSP and has a Bank account in the Bank of India since 1965
Her Account No is 2006
She has also a cheque book to operate the Bank trans actions and she was also entitled to withdrawal facility for withdrawing money from her accounts
The respondent accused was working as an Accounts Clerk in the Bank of India in the very branch where V Suryakantam PWi had her account
This V Suryakantam PW 1 was acquainted with the respondent accused and he used to assist her in the Bank transactions
It is alleged that whenever she wanted to withdraw money on a cheque her daughter VS Kanthi used to fill up the cheque and she used to sign on the cheque
On 23rd NOvember 1970 the respondent accused misrepresented to PW 1 that her account book is required in the Bank for the purpose of posting up to date entries and on this represen tation obtained her pass book which he never returned
PW 1 demanded the pass book several times
He always represent ed that it was in the Bank and yet not completed
On 912
1970 the respondent got filled up by some person withdrawal form No 2055 on the account of PW 1 on the Bank of India for Rs6000 and represented this with drawal form in the Bank
He received the money ie Rs6000 and mis appropriated the same
On 113
1971 PW 1 went to the Manager of the Bank
The respondent was absent and she told him about the fact of having given her passbook to the respondent long back and that he was not returning the pass book and dodging her
She also requested him to verify her accounts
The Manager asked her to come on the next day
On 12th March 1971 when she went to the bank to her surprise she learnt that some withdrawal of money have been done and very little amount was left over
She immediately gave a complaint that this withdrawal of Rs6000 was not by her as well as two other withdrawals and on the same day the Manager and staff officer went to the house of 90 the accused and questioned him about those transactions
The respondent accused admitted his guilt before the Manager and requested the Manager to excuse him and gave a confessional statement in writing
During investigation hand writing specimen of PW 1 and admitted handwriting of the accused respondent were compared with the handwriting on the withdrawal forms by the expert
The opinion of the expert was that signature on the with drawal form was not by PW 1 and that the signatures on the reverse of the form which is taken in the Bank as an ac knowledgement for the receipt of money was that of the respondent accused
It was therefore opined that the respon dentaccused got forged the signatures of PW 1 on the withdrawal form presented it as genuine at the Bank and withdrew Rs6000 and therefore he was prosecuted for of fences under Sections 467 read with Sec 109 47 1408 and 420 of Indian Penal Code
As there were three items of such withdrawals three prosecutions were launched consequently three appeals and ultimately three appeals are filed here by the Bank of India and there is also an appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by Hon ble the High Court
On trial the respondent accused was convicted for an offence under Sec 420 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs 100
He was also convicted for an offence under Sec
467 read with Sec 109 and sentenced to imprisonment for 9 months and a fine of Rs 100
He was also convicted under Sec
47 1 IPC and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment
The trial court however acquitted him from the effence under Sec 408
The appellate court acquitted the respondent accused from charge under Sec
420 IPC but confirmed his conviction under Sec
467 read with Sec 109 and also under Section 471 the sentence under the two was maintained
The State did not prefer an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent under Sec
408 IPC by the trial Court and his acquittal under Sec
420 IPC by the appellate Court
The respondent accused aggrieved against conviction preferred a revision petition before Hon ble the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon ble the High Court by its judgment dated 21st February 1977 came to the conclusion that the offence under sec
467 read with Sec
109 IPC is not made out
The learned Judge also came to the conclusion that consequently his conviction under Sec 471 also could not be maintained
Consequently the respondent was acquitted from the charges levelled against him and it 91 is against this judgment of Hon ble the High Court that the present appeals have been filed after obtaining leave from this Court
The learned trial Court and the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the signatures on the withdrawal form were not that of PW 1 but it also came to the conclusion that they were also not forged by the respondent accused but both the Courts came to a concurrent finding of fact that these withdrawal forms on which there were forged signatures of PW 1 were presented in the Bank by the respondentac cused and he obtained money on the basis of these withdrawal forms and he put his signatures on the reverse of these withdrawal forms in acknowledgement of the receipt of money
These signatures on the back side of the withdrawal form acknowledging the receipt of money were also admitted by the respondent accused at the trial
Both the Courts below also came to a concurrent finding of Act that the money so obtained from the Bank from the account of PW 1 on the basis of these withdrawal forms was pocketed by the respondentaccused and was not returned or paid to PW 1 although that was the stand taken by the respondent accused and he also attempted to prove it by producing a defence witness for that purpose
On the basis of these findings both the Courts ultimately convicted the respondent accused for an offence under Sec
467 read with Sec 109 and Sec
471 IPC
The learned Judge of the High Court while acquitting the respondent accused came to the conclusion that it was the duty of the prosecution to establish as to who had forged the signatures of PW 1 on the withdrawal form as admitted ly it has not been established that they were forged by the respondent accused and on this basis the learned Judge observed that as there is no evidence as to who forged the signatures PW 1 on the withdrawal form it could not be held that the accused respondent knew that the document was forged nor it could be said that he got the documents forged and on the basis of this conclusion the learned Judge came to the conclusion that none of the two offences ie Sec
467 read with Sec 109 or offence under Section 471 is established
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant the Bank contended that so far as receipt of the money on the basis of the withdrawal form from the Bank is concerned it is admitted by the respondent accused as he admits his signatures on the back of the withdrawal form which are signatures acknowledging the receipt of the money
92 Both the Courts trial Court and the appellate Court negatived the defence that the money so collected from the bank by the respondent was given over to PW 1 and High Court also maintained that finding as it has not been nega tived
He therefore contended that the following facts are established and accepted to be established even by the High Court i that the withdrawal form did not bear the signatures of PW 1 ii that on the basis of the withdrawal form the accused respondent withdrew money from the bank from the account of PW 1 and that iii he signed the acknowledgement of receipt of money and did not return the money to PW 1 but pocketed himself
These facts therefore clearly establish that the re spondent accused used the forged document and on the basis of that document obtained money to which he had no claim and thereby caused wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to PW 1
It is also clear from the evidence that PW1 used to take the assistance of the accusedrespondent whenever she wanted to have any transaction in the Bank and therefore it is expected of him to have known the signatures of PW 1 Apart from it there is nothing to establish as to from where the respondent accused got these withdrawal forms
Under these circumstances it could not be doubted that he used these withdrawal forms knowing them to be forged or at least believed them to be forged and therefore it could not be said that he could not be convicted for an offence under Sec 471
As regards the offence under Section 467 read with Sec 109 the learned High Court acquitted the respondent because it came to the conclusion that there is no evidence to establish as to who forged the signatures of PW 1 on the withdrawal form
It is no doubt true that so far as the evidence about the forgery of the signatures of PW 1 on the withdrawal form is concerned there is no evidence except the fact that the signatures are forged and the further fact that this withdrawal form was in the possession of respond ent accused who presented it in the Bank and obtained money therefrom and pocketed the same
From these facts an infer ence could safely be drawn that it was the respondent ac cused who got signatures of PW 1 forged on this document 93 as it was he who used it to obtain money from the Bank from the account of PW 1 and pocketed the same It is no doubt true that there is no evidence as to who forged the signa tures of the withdrawal form but the circumstances indicated above will lead to the only inference that it was the ac cused respondent who got the signatures of PW 1 forged on the withdrawal form
In this view of the matter therefore the acquittal of the respondent for an offence under Section 467 read with Sec
109 also could not be justified
It is unfortunate that the State did not prefer an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 408 and also under Section 420 even before this Court it is first the Bank which came by way of special leave but later on the State has chosen to prefer an appeal
In the light of the discussions above in our opinion the appeal deserves to be allowed
It is therefore allowed and the acquittal of the respondent for offence under Sec tion 467 read with Section 109 and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside
Instead he is convicted for these two offences
As there were three items three separate prosecutions were launched and ultimately three appeals were before the High Court and in each one of them identical questions were involved
Consequently respondent is convict ed for the above mentioned two offences in each one of the three cases and sentenced to 9 months rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences
But it is further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently
PSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondent Accused who was working as an Accounts Clerk in the appellant Bank in the very branch where PW 1 had her account was alleged to have presented forged cheques on her account and misappropriated the sum with drawn
He has prosecuted for offences under s467 read with sections 109 471 408 and 420 of Indian Penal Code
The trial court and the appellate court found that the signatures on the withdrawal forms were not that of PW 1 and that they were also not forged by the accused
But they recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the withdrawal forms bearing forged signatures of PW 1 were presented in the Bank by the respondent accused and he obtained money and put his signatures on the reverse in acknowledgement of receipt of money that the money so obtained was pocketed by the respondent accused and was not returned or paid to PW 1
He was acquitted by the trial court of the charge under s408 and by the appellate court under s420 and ultimately convicted of the offence under s467 read with section 109 and s471
The State did not prefer appeal against the acquittal under ss408 and 420
On appeal by the accused respondent the High Court took the view that there was no evidence as to who forged the signatures of PW 1 on the withdrawal form and that it could not be said that the accused respondent knew that the document was forged or that he got the document forged
It came to the conclusion that the offence under s467 read with section 109 was not made out and that consequently his conviction under s471 also could not be maintained
In these appeals it was contended on behalf of the appellant Bank that the respondent accused was liable be cause he has admitted that the signatures on the back of the withdrawal form were his signatures 88 acknowledging the receipt of money which he pocketed him self
Allowing the appeals the Court HELD 11 The acquittal of the respondent accused by the High Court for an offence under s467 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code was not justified
12 Though there was no evidence about the forgery of the signatures of PW on the withdrawal forms still the fact remained that the signatures were forged that the withdrawal form was in the possession of respondent accused and it was he who represented it in the Bank and obtained money
PW 1 used to take the assistance of the responden taccused whenever she wanted to have any transaction in the Bank and therefore it was expected of him to have known the signatures of PW 1
Apart from it there was nothing to establish as to from where the respondent accused got these withdrawal forms
These facts lead to the only inference that it was the accused respondent who got the signatures of PW 1 forged on the withdrawal form
It could not be doubted that the accused respondent used the withdrawal forms knowing them to be forged or at least believed them to be forged on the basis of which he obtained money to which he had no claim and thereby caused wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to PW 1
It could not therefore be said that the respondent accused could not be convicted for an offence under s47 1 3
As three separate prosecutions were launched the respondent is convicted of the offences under s467 read with section 109 and s47 1 of the Indian Penal Code in each one of the three cases and sentenced to 9 months rigorous im prisonment for each of the offences
The sentences to run concurrently