Ram Gopal vs C.B.I. Dehradun

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1085 OF 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 9004 of 2017) RAM GOPAL ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEHRADUN ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).1086 OF 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 1981 of 2018) PANKAJ KUMAR JAIN ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEHRADUN ...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants assail their conviction under Sections

120­B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477­A, 201, I.P.C. read with Signature Not Verified Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act. Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.07.22 16:47:08 IST Reason: 1

3. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered an F.I.R. on

12.04.1994 based on the statement of the Assistant General

Manager, State Bank of India, Ghaziabad with regard to the

opening of a fictitious Bank account on 13.07.1992 in the name

of one Raj Kumar. Soon thereafter by separate forged credit

entries between the period 23.07.1992 to 31.10.1992, deposit of

Rs.3,22,056.00 was made in the account. Subsequently on

different dates a sum of Rs.3,22,000.00 was withdrawn by

seventeen cheques leaving a balance of Rs.322.85. Originally

two clerks of the Bank, Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Smt.

Vandana Kundra were named as accused along with other

unknown persons. The names of the appellants transpired

during investigation leading to the submission of charge sheet

against them only, and after conclusion of the trial they were

convicted.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that they

have been made scapegoats while the original named accused

have been wrongly exonerated during investigation. The

sanction for their prosecution was not in accordance with law.

There is no evidence that the appellants were instrumental in 2 any manner with regard to opening of the fictitious account. No

evidence has been led in support of criminal conspiracy. It was

not possible for the appellants to destroy evidence with regard

to account opening form, specimen signature of the account

holder or make forged credit or debit entries in the ledger. The

report of the handwriting expert with regard to the writing and

signature on the cheques was a mere expression of an opinion.

DW­1 the handwriting expert on behalf of the appellants had

doubted the very same handwriting and signatures of the

appellants. They are therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt.

No action has been taken against the concerned Bank

employees responsible for opening of the fictitious account,

much less has the prosecution even attempted to investigate

and identify such persons. The withdrawals from the fictitious

account through bearer cheques were not received by the

appellants as acknowledged by PW­3.

5. Learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation

submitted that there has been thorough evaluation of evidence,

including that of handwriting experts, and the charge against

the appellants stands proved.

3

6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the

parties and gone through the materials on record. It is an

undisputed fact that a fictitious account was opened without

proper verification in accordance with the banking procedures.

That unfortunately 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.

7. 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 PW­1 and PW­2. The Sub. Inspector, Central Bureau

4 of Investigation PW­23, proved that the appellants had given

their specimen writing and signatures during investigation. The

Principal Scientific Officer, C.F.S.L., PW­18 deposed that the

account opening form of the fictitious account was in the

handwriting of appellant Pankaj Kumar Jain impersonating the

fictitious account holder Raj Kumar. The receipt of cheque

book and pass book from the Bank records, on behalf of the

fictitious account holder, were in the handwriting of the

appellant Pankaj Kumar Jain. The writing on two of the

withdrawal cheques drawn as “self” on the fictitious account

purporting to be signed by the said Raj Kumar were in the

handwriting of appellant Ram Gopal. The signature on all the

17 forged cheques for withdrawal by “self” were in the

handwriting of appellant Pankaj Kumar Jain impersonating the

fictitous account holder. These in our opinion were sufficient to

establish conspiracy. The hand writing expert DW­1 relied

upon by the appellants gave his report based on photocopies of

the writing and signatures of the appellants and not on the

basis of their specimen signatures. During the course of

hearing we asked the counsel for the appellants if they had filed

5 any objection to the report of the handwriting expert relied upon

by the prosecution. It was fairly stated that they did not do so.

8. 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.

9. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the conviction

of the appellants. The appeals are dismissed.

.……………………….J. (Ashok Bhushan)

………………………..J. (Navin Sinha) New Delhi, July 22, 2019.

6