1 Cri. Appeal No.490/1991 & Revn: 87/1991 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.490 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ] Applicant ] Vs. 1. Gangadhar Ramchandra Hoshing ] R/o : 1170, New Sadashiv Peth, ] Pune ] ] 2. Ramchandra Laxman Dighe ] R/o : 767, New Sadashiv Peth, ] Pune ] ] 3. Prabhakar Sonajirao Jagtap ] Respondents R/o : Bishop School Road, ] (Ori. accused) Pune ] ] 4. Dinkar Dhondiba Adsul ] R/o : 269, Ganesh Peth, ] Pune ] ] 5. Namdeo Nivrutti Jadhav, ] R/o : 94, Guruwar Peth, Pune ] Mr. Y.M. Nakhawa, APP for applicant­State. None for respondents. WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.87 OF 1991 Pune Zilla Madhyavarti Sahakari ] Bank Ltd., ] Applicants 855, Budhwar Peth, ] (Ori. First informant) Laxmi Road, Pune ­ 411 002 ] vs. 1. Gangadhar Ramchandra Hoshing ] R/o : 1170, New Sadashiv Peth, ] Pune ] 2 Cri. Appeal No.490/1991 & Revn: 87/1991 ] 2. Ramchandra Laxman Dighe ] R/o : 767, New Sadashiv Peth, ] Pune ] ] 3. Prabhakar Sonajirao Jagtap ] Respondents R/o : Bishop School Road, ] (Ori. accused) Pune ] ] 4. Dinkar Dhondiba Adsul ] R/o : 269, Ganesh Peth, ] Pune ] ] 5. Namdeo Nivrutti Jadhav, ] R/o : 94, Guruwar Peth, ] Pune ] ] 6. The State of Maharashtra ] None for applicant. None for respondents no. 1 to 5 Mr. Y.M. Nakhawa, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 25th August, 2010 JUDGMENT : 1. This is a common order on the above appeal against acquittal filed by the State and the revision application filed by the original complainant, Pune Zilla Madhyavarti Sahakari Bank Limited. (hereinafter referred to as The Bank). Despite the matter being called out repeatedly and also adjourned, the counsel for the respondents in the appeal and for the applicants in Criminal Revision Application is absent. Hence, I have heard the learned APP, perused the entire record to dispose of the matters on merit. 3 Cri. Appeal No.490/1991 & Revn: 87/1991 2. All the respondents were working in Z.P. Branch of The Bank in various capacities. Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 were junior agents, respondent no.2, Branch Manager and respondent no.5 was the Clerk­cum­Cashier. It is alleged that the accused persons were responsible for opening of two accounts i.e. Account No.3688 and 3942 in the names of fictitious persons, forged several withdrawal applications, credit cards, internal credit vouchers, account opening forms and were responsible for withdrawal of a sum of Rs.77,500/­ from the two accounts. They were, therefore, charged for having committed offences punishable under sections 120(B), 471, 420 and 408 Indian Penal Code. 3. As per the prosecution case, account No.3688 was opened on 5th April 1982 in the name of one Mr. Suresh Namdeo Salunkhe and by 3rd June 1982, a sum of Rs.29,500/­ was withdrawn from the withdrawn from the same. Account No.3942 was opened on 4 same. Account No.3942 was opened on 4thth November 1982 in the November 1982 in the name of one Ashok Bhausaheb Mane and on 21 name of one Ashok Bhausaheb Mane and on 21stst February 1983, February 1983, withdrawal of sum of Rs.48,000/­ had been made. After the two withdrawal of sum of Rs.48,000/­ had been made. After the two accounts were opened by depositing minimum cash required accounts were opened by depositing minimum cash required therefor, some amounts have been shown credited to the two therefor, some amounts have been shown credited to the two accounts by way of transfer from another branch of the bank at accounts by way of transfer from another branch of the bank at Jejuri. Thereafter the withdrawals have taken place. The defence Jejuri. Thereafter the withdrawals have taken place. The defence 4 Cri. Appeal No.490/1991 & Revn: 87/1991 of the respondents was that they had put their initials on the of the respondents was that they had put their initials on the account opening forms, credit notes, internal credit vouchers and account opening forms, credit notes, internal credit vouchers and withdrawal forms routinely in their course of duty and that they withdrawal forms routinely in their course of duty and that they are not concerned either with the opening of the accounts in are not concerned either with the opening of the accounts in fictitious names or with withdrawal of money. fictitious names or with withdrawal of money. 4.4. In order to bring home the charges against the respondents, the In order to bring home the charges against the respondents, the prosecution has examined in all twelve witnesses. The prosecution has examined in all twelve witnesses. The prosecution, however, had failed to establish that the persons in prosecution, however, had failed to establish that the persons in whose names the two accounts opened were fictitious persons and whose names the two accounts opened were fictitious persons and there were no persons by that name found living. It also could there were no persons by that name found living. It also could not produce papers regarding opening of the accounts, as the not produce papers regarding opening of the accounts, as the same were missing from the bank. On the basis of material same were missing from the bank. On the basis of material produced before him, the learned Sessions Judge, at paragraph 14 produced before him, the learned Sessions Judge, at paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment observed as follows : of the impugned judgment observed as follows : Now, in order to find out the real truth, it was “Now, in order to find out the real truth, it was “ necessary on the part of the prosecution to establish who is necessary on the part of the prosecution to establish who is the author of the opening of the account. It is an admitted the author of the opening of the account. It is an admitted fact that the accused No.1 being Junior Agent it was his duty fact that the accused No.1 being Junior Agent it was his duty to put his signature on the aforesaid documents. It has also to put his signature on the aforesaid documents. It has also come on record that at the relevant time, there was no come on record that at the relevant time, there was no specific rule in the Bank regarding the acceptance of the specific rule in the Bank regarding the acceptance of the accounts that the account holder should remain present in the accounts that the account holder should remain present in the bank at the time of opening of the account. In short, there is bank at the time of opening of the account. In short, there is no evidence brought on record to show that the accused no evidence brought on record to show that the accused persons in conspiracy with each other fill up the account persons in conspiracy with each other fill up the account opening form and opened the account purported to be in the opening form and opened the account purported to be in the name of Suresh Namdev Salunke and Ashok Bhausaheb name of Suresh Namdev Salunke and Ashok Bhausaheb Mane.” Mane.” 5 Cri. Appeal No.490/1991 & Revn: 87/1991 He further held that no inference of criminal mis­appropriation He further held that no inference of criminal mis­appropriation can be drawn against the accused persons from the fact that two bogus can be drawn against the accused persons from the fact that two bogus accounts had been opened with the bank. In his opinion, at the highest, accounts had been opened with the bank. In his opinion, at the highest, the respondents can be said to have been negligent in the course of the respondents can be said to have been negligent in the course of their duties. their duties. 5.5. With the help of the learned APP, I have carefully gone through With the help of the learned APP, I have carefully gone through the entire record of the case and of the opinion that the observations of the entire record of the case and of the opinion that the observations of the learned Sessions Judge are fully supported by the record. In the the learned Sessions Judge are fully supported by the record. In the absence of the necessary documents concerning the two accounts, the absence of the necessary documents concerning the two accounts, the allegations made against the respondents cannot be brought home to the allegations made against the respondents cannot be brought home to the respondents. Hence, the Criminal Appeal No.490 of 1991 and Criminal respondents. Hence, the Criminal Appeal No.490 of 1991 and Criminal Revision Application No.87 of 1991 are dismissed. Revision Application No.87 of 1991 are dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J) (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)