IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.486 of 2004 DATE: 21.04.2011 Between: D.L.V.K.C. Prasad …… Appellant And The State of A.P, rep. by Dy., S.P., C.B.I, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.486 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The accused/appellant was working as departmental officer in Andhra Bank, Seethammadhara Branch, Visakhapatnam during the relevant point of time and he was in-charge of deposits and deposit loans. The Special Judge for C.B.I cases, Visakhapatnam by judgment dated 25.02.2004 in C.C. No.15 of 2004 convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 477-A I.P.C and Section 13(1)(c)/13(2) and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him on each count separately to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. 2) It is alleged that on maturity of 4 F.D.Rs/K.T.Ds belonging to customers of the Bank, the accused filled up renewal applications of the said depositors, issued renewed K.T.Ds, filled up loan applications in the names of the customers, signed customers’ signatures in the loan applications and in discharge endorsements on K.T.Ds and obtained a total sum of Rs.1,30,000/- towards 4 loans on the said K.T.Ds and misappropriated the same for himself. Plea of the accused is one of total denial. During trial in the lower Court, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 17 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-63; and Exs.D-1 to D-3 on behalf of the accused. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Court found the accused guilty of all the charges. 3) P.W-1 was the then branch manager of Seethammadhara branch, Visakhapatnam, in which branch this fraud had occurred. P.W-2 was another departmental officer working in the same branch. P.W-3 was Manager in extension counter of Andhra Bank located in Bullayya college, Visakhapatnam. P.Ws 4 and 5 worked as clerks in the deposit and deposit loan section under the accused in the same branch. P.W-6 is the clerk-cum-cashier who worked in that branch and who disbursed the loan amounts through the cash counter. P.Ws 7 to 9 and 12 are the customers of the bank on whose deposit receipts, the accused is stated to have obtained loans by forging their signatures. P.W-10 is brother of P.W-9 who was looking after P.W-9’s affairs after death of their father. The prosecution examined P.W-11 who is a friend of the accused to show that the accused during that time suffered loss by indulging in speculative business in shares. P.Ws 13 and 14 are the mediators in whose presence specimen signatures of the accused were obtained by the investigating officer under the cover of Exs.P-54 and P-55. P.W-16 is the Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents in the Laboratory of Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (G.E.Q.D), Hyderabad who after comparison of the questioned documents and writings and signatures therein with writings and signatures contained in standard documents Exs.P-39 to P-47, P-54 and P-55 gave Ex.P-58 opinion along with Ex.P-59 reasons therefore. After obtaining sanction from P.W-15, and completion of investigation, P.W- 17 filed charge sheet before the lower Court. 4) At the outset, it may be noted that the accused is stated to have addressed Ex.P-40 letter dated 27.09.1997 to P.W-1 as branch manager admitting the facts relating to this case and undertaking to repay total amount of Rs.6,20,000/- including Rs.4,90,000/- relating to other 14 loans obtained on 14 other deposits of other customers. The details of amount of Rs.4,90,000/- relating to 14 other deposit loans are shown in Ex.P-39 letter dated 25.09.1997 written by the accused to P.W-1. Ex.P-40 letter is 2 days after Ex.P-39. P.W-1 proved the accused writing, signing and giving Exs.P-39 and P-40 letters to him. P.W-1 deposed that the accused addressed Ex.P-39 letter dated 25.09.1997 to him confessing the guilt and that he forwarded the same to the Zonal Office and that in Ex.P-40 letter dated 25.07.1997 was addressed by the accused confessing his guilt in the presence of 2 witnesses and that he forwarded the said letter to their Zonal Office. In cross-examination, P.W-1 deposed that on 25.09.1997 he and two others went to house of the accused. He denied the suggestion that Exs.P-39 and P-40 were not written by the accused and were not handed over to him. Except bare denial, there is no other cross-examination of P.W-1 on Exs.P-39 and P-40. P.W-1 says that there was departmental enquiry against the accused and that the accused was suspended from service on 26.09.1997. 5) It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that even though Ex.P-39 and P-40 letters contain 18 deposit loans said to have been fraudulently obtained by the accused by forging applications and signatures of the customers, the prosecution was launched only in respect of 4 such loans and that there is no whisper on the part of the prosecution as to what happened to other cases relating to other 14 deposit- loans. C.B.I did not start investigation on the basis of Ex.P-39 and P-40 letters. They are the letters addressed by the accused to the Branch Manager P.W-1 admitting the guilt. C.B.I started investigation in this case on source information. This case pertains to only 4 cases covered by Ex.P-40 letter under which the accused is stated to have obtained 4 deposit-loans. Simply because no criminal case was launched in respect of 14 other instances covered by Ex.P- 39, the accused cannot claim any immunity for the instances covered by Ex.P-40 letter. 6) It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that without the collusion and connivance of other officers and staff members in the bank, the accused alone could not have committed the alleged fraud in this case. There is no evidence on record to show that any other officer or staff member of the bank was involved in this fraud along with the accused. Even from cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, such collusion or complicity of others in this fraud could not be made out. 7) P.W-6 is the cashier who made the payments of the deposit loan amounts to the accused. P.W-6 deposed that he can identify signature and hand writing of the accused who worked as passing officer in the deposits and deposit- loan section. Ex.P-36 is the debit voucher relating to P.W- 12’s deposit. P.W-6 says that Ex.P-36 is in the hand writing of the accused and that it was passed by the accused. It relates to loan of Rs.25,000/- on the K.T.D standing in the name of D.W-12. P.W-6 says that token No.105 was tendered to him by the accused representing that the party was sitting near his seat, and that after collecting the token he gave cash of Rs.25,000/- to the accused. The said payment was made as against Ex.P-36. Ex.P-28 is the debit voucher relating to deposit loan as against K.T.D of P.W-38. It was for Rs.30,000/-. P.W-6 says that hand writing and signature for passing are that of the accused in Ex.P-28 and that token No.120 was given by the accused to him after informing that the party was at his seat, and that therefore the accused received cash of Rs.30,000/- from him. Ex.P-10 is the debit voucher relating to deposit-loan of Rs.45,000/- against K.T.D standing in the name of P.W-9. P.W-6 says that it was in the hand writing of the officer and that it was passed by the accused and that the accused tendered token No.129 to him and that he gave cash of Rs.45,000/- to the accused in good faith. Similarly P.W-6 identified Ex.P-10 debit voucher for Rs.30,000/- relating to deposit-loan against K.T.D of P.W-7. He says that the writings therein are that of the accused and that the accused passed the said voucher and that token No.102 relates to it. In cross-examination P.W-6 deposed that he paid cash on 4 vouchers to the accused against deposit-loans of 4 K.T.Ds belonging to P.Ws 7, 8, 9 and 12. P.Ws 7 to 9 and 12 denied having renewed their original FDRs/KTDs and applying for renewal of them and applying for loan as against their renewed KTDs and obtaining of deposit-loans. They denied signatures contained in the renewal applications, applications for deposit-loans, debit vouchers. 8) P.W-16 is the Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents in the Laboratory of G.E.Q.D at Hyderabad. He is the expert who made comparison of hand writings and signatures in the disputed documents with those contained in standard documents and specimens of the accused and P.Ws 7 to 9 and 12. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that obtaining of specimen hand writings and signatures of the accused by the investigating officer in the presence of mediators should not have been resorted to without the intervention of the Magistrate or the Special Court. Exs.P-54 and P-55 contained specimen writings and signatures of the accused obtained by the investigating officer in the presence of mediators P.Ws 13 and 14. Even if Exs.P-54 and P-55 are eschewed from evidence, there are standard writings and signatures of the accused contained in Exs.P-39 to P-43. P.W-16 made comparison of hand writings and signatures in the questioned documents viz., Exs.P-31, P-36, P-15, P-19, P-17, P-23, P-28, P-1, P-2, P-10, P-35, P- 18, P-9 and P-27 with standard writings and contained signatures of the accused in P-39 to P-43 as well as P-54 and P-55 and also specimen signatures of P.Ws 7 to 9 and 12 contained in Exs.P-44 to P-47 and reported that the person who wrote the standard writings in Exs.P-39 to P-43 also wrote the questioned writings in the above questioned documents. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the investigating officer P.W-17 did not speak about collection of Exs.P-39 to P-47 from proper official custody. But, P.W-1 who is manager of the bank deposed to the details of Exs.P- 39 to P-47. According to P.W-1, Exs.P-39 and P-40 admission letters were written by the accused addressed to him in his presence. Ex.P-41 is the application of the accused for his leased accommodation. Ex.P-42 is personal loan application of the accused. Ex.P-43 contains three leave applications of the accused. Exs.P-44 to P-47 are the specimen signatures of the customers P.Ws 7 to 9 and 12 in bank. Apart from the expert’s evidence relating to hand writing and signatures in the questioned documents as that of the accused, there is evidence of P.Ws 1 to 6 who identified the hand writing of the accused in all the questioned documents. From the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is evident that the accused forged the signatures of P.Ws 7 to 9 and 12 on renewal applications of the F.D.Rs/K.T.Ds and on loan applications as against the renewed K.T.Ds, on discharge endorsements on the renewed K.T.Ds, on debit vouchers relating to the deposit loans and obtained cash from the cash counter of P.W-6 by presenting the respective tokens to the cashier towards the said deposit-loans. The accused made a one-man show not only as the respective parties but also as the officer who passed the deposit-loans. Considering the entire material on record, the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion in favour of the prosecution and found the accused guilty of all the charges. There are no circumstances to come to a different conclusion by this Court in this appeal, having regard to the material placed by the prosecution in the lower Court. 9) Having regard to the nature of offence, I am of the opinion that the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the lower Court is appropriate and is not liable to be disturbed. 10) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J April 25, 2011 ksh