Penal Code, 1860:
ss.120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A and 201 r/w ss. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Conviction under – Of bank employees – For opening fictitious account, depositing certain amount therein and withdrawal therefrom by seventeen cheques – Propriety of – Held: It is proved that fraud was committed in a systematic manner by persons well acquainted with banking procedures – No defence evidence that the appellants (bank employees) had no access to records of the Bank – Evidence of their involvement is clinching – Conviction upheld.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. It is an undisputed fact that a fictitious account was opened without proper verification in accordance with the banking procedures.But that does not appear to have been the subject of investigation and which could have revealed more facts with regard to the nature and manner of the embezzlement that has taken place, including the persons involved in the same. The trial court has rightly observed that in accordance with banking procedures, the opening of the account, the deposits in the same and withdrawals could not have been the handiwork of the appellants alone. But merely because the investigation may not have been of the standard and nature that it ought to have been, cannot enure to the benefit of the appellants in view of the nature of materials and evidence available against them. [Para 6] [665-G-H; 666-A-B]
2. The validity of the sanction against the appellants for prosecution, who were undisputedly employed as messenger and assistant clerk respectively in the same branch, has been proved by PW-1 and PW-2. The evidence is sufficient to establish conspiracy. [Para 7] [666-C, E]
3. The fraud was committed in a systematic manner by persons well acquainted with banking procedures. The appellants were also the employees of the Bank. There is no defence evidence that they had no access to records of the Bank at any stage to commit the offence attributed to them. On the contrary, the evidence of their involvement is clinching. They also had access to the vouchers and ledgers as part of their normal duties. Even the specimen signature card was made to disappear replaced by a torn paper. Therefore there is no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. [Paras 8 and 9] [666-G-H; 667-A]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.