State Through Spe & Cbi, Ap vs M. Krishna Mohan & Anr

3. Investigations were made into the said allegations. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 22 witnesses.

12. Following facts emerge from the records :

13. Both PW-3 and PW-5, in their depositions before the learned Trial Court stated about the procedure for grant of loan followed in the bank. It appears that the accused No.1 for all intent and purport used to do everything himself which were required offering for the purpose of grant of loan. It has furthermore been brought on record that PW-21 and PW-22 were known to the Manager of the Bank, i.e. Respondent No.1. They were residents of a different district, namely, Vijayawada. They had taken loan from the said bank on deposit of gold ornaments on an earlier occasion. They redeemed the said loan and took their ornaments back. They were known to the respondent No.1 since then.

14. The modus operandi of respondent No.1 appeared to be that he had affixed his own thumb impression instead of the those of the loanees, viz. PW-21 and PW-22 respectively. Upon sanction of the said loan, the accountant concerned paid the amount of loan to accused No.1. Loan was purported to have been sanctioned either on the same day or within a few days from the date of purported applications. The said loans, as noticed hereinbefore, were also renewed for the years 1986 and 1987.

24. Documents pertaining to the loan transactions bear the same date, i.e., process of application, technical recommendation, preparation of appraisal report, sanction and disbursement of loan. All transactions, therefore, took place on the same date which clearly establishes that they were manipulated by Respondent No.1.

(Underlining is ours for emphasis)

34. The High Court also committed a manifest error in purporting to hold that the specimen fingerprints and handwritings could not have been taken from Respondent No.1.

38. It is, however, a trite law that an appellate court, while entertaining an appeal from a judgment of acquittal, would also be entitled to consider the evidences brought on record by both the prosecution and the defence and arrive at its own decision. Interference with a judgment of acquittal may not be made when two views are possible to be taken, but when on appraisal thereof, only one view is possible, the appellate court would not hesitate to interfere with the judgment of acquittal.

In this case, we are firmly of the view that no two views are possible to be taken.

39. Mr. Rao, however, would submit that involvement of respondent No.2 is minimal. He had proposed an appraisal report but there is nothing to show that he had obtained any monetory benefit.

42. For the reasons aforementioned, while upholding the conviction and sentence as awarded by learned Trial Judge as against respondent No.1 (accused No.1), in view of the special reasons recorded hereinbefore, we impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three months on respondent No.2. He shall, however, be liable to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) and in default shall undergo a sentence of three months.

43. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed with the aforementioned directions. The respondents may be taken into custody for serving out the respective remaining sentences.