In a criminal revision, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the petitioner's challenge against his conviction for cheating, fraud, and forgery. The bench found the trial and appellate courts justified in convicting him based on forensic evidence and recovered documents.
Petitioner was not granted relief; conviction and sentence were upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.RP No. 11 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 11 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
MR. NAGENDRA KUMAR, S/O. LATE M.V. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.677, "KARUNYA", 6TH "C" MAIN, 3RD PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH H.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 010.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR K.K., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.07.2018 PASSED BY 58TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-59) IN CRL.A.NO.305/2015 AND THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2015 IN C.C. NO.17205/2003 PASSED BY THE IX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
CRL.RP No. 11 of 2019
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed challenging the Judgment of conviction dated 03.02.2015 passed by the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court') in C.C. No.17205/2003 convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and the consequent sentence. The petitioner has also challenged the Judgment passed by the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-59), Bengaluru City, (for short, 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.305/2015 by which the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court was upheld.
towards refund of EMD in his favour was wrongly encashed in an account at the post office, Rajajinagar. On verification, he found that the said EMD was encashed in an account held by Smt. B.K. Manoranjithamma. On further enquiry, it was noticed that the person who had opened the account of Smt. B.K. Manoranjithamma had also opened three other accounts in the names of Sri. D.V. Manjunath, Sri. Madhava Ravindra and Smt. Vidya Ravindra. CW.1 instructed the savings bank counter personnel not to entertain any cheques in the above accounts and inform him, in case any of the above account holders turn up at the post office. He stated that a person got two dividend warrants of Rs.385/- in the name of Sri Madhava Ravindra on 20.07.1998. The savings bank counter personnel alerted CW.1 about the person, who vanished before CW.1 could reach the counter. On 31.07.1998 two persons went to the counter to collect pass book and to deposit seven dividend warrants in the account of Smt.Vidya Ravindra, valued at Rs.5,443/-. CW.1 managed to take one of them to his chamber and when questioned, he disclosed his name as C.Raju but did not give any particulars. On the same day a person named Sri Madhu Bhaskar visited the post office at 5.00 p.m. and informed CW.1
that Sri C.Raju was his relative and sought help. On enquiry, he revealed that he was working in the office of Chief Engineer, Southern Railways in receipts section and claimed that Sri M.K.Nagendra Kumar opened all the accounts and the dividend warrants and cheques were brought by him to the post office for crediting into the respective accounts and also that he withdrew the amount. Sri. Madhu Bhaskar disclosed that he had removed the warrants and cheques received by post and handed them over to Sri. M.K. Nagendra Kumar and that all the vouchers, deposit slips, withdrawal slips and cheques were in the handwriting of Sri. M.K.Nagendra Kumar. He claimed that Sri. M.K.Nagendra Kumar got a rubber stamp in the name of M/s.Rajashekar Associates to enable him to obtain the cheque for Rs.9,987/dated 16.01.1998 favouring Rajshekar Associates and credited into the savings bank account of Smt. B.K.Manjoranjithamma. CW.1 alleged that the total amount fraudulently withdrawn by Sri. M.K.Nagendra Kumar was Rs.12,804.50Ps. CW.1 therefore requested the police to take suitable action against the accused and enclosed the relevant documents. The jurisdictional Police, secured the presence of accused No.1 and seized two pass books of Smt. B.K.
CRL.RP No. 11 of 2019
Manoranjithamma and Sri. T.K.S Sreenivasulu Reddy and one cheque book of Smt. B.K. Manoranjithamma from him and drew a mahazar as per Ex.P4. They recorded the statements of CWs.1 and 4 and secured the specimen signatures of Sri. Madhava Ravindra and Smt. Vidya Ravindra and subjected them to forensic examination. They also secured the admitted signatures of accused No.1 and forwarded it to the handwriting expert (CW.8) for forensic examination. The handwriting expert submitted his report that the signatures found in the account opening forms of the accounts of Smt B.K. Manoranjithamma, Sri. Madhava Ravindra and Smt. Vidya Ravindra, pay-in slips and withdrawal slips in respect of the account of Sri. Madhava Ravindra and Smt. Vidya Ravindra matched with the signature of accused No.1 but did not match the signatures of Sri Madhava Ravindra and Smt. Vidya Ravindra.
released them on bail. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges under Sections 419, 465 and 420 of I.P.C and claimed to be tried. The accused No.2 died and therefore, the case against him stood abated.
committed fraud. Her statement before the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was identified by her as Ex.P70. PW.6 was the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory who deposed that the signatures and handwriting in the account opening forms of account Nos.2362909 and 2363011 corresponded with the signatures and handwriting found on seven withdrawal slips in account Nos.2362909 and 2363011. He deposed that the specimen signatures of Sri. M. Ravindra and Smt. Vidya Ravindra were sent to him and the signatures of accused No.1 in 12 account opening forms, 42 withdrawal slips and specimen signature of accused No.1, the signatures of accused No.1 in the pay-in slips disclosed that the signatures found in the account opening forms of the two accounts tallied with the specimen signatures of accused No.1 on the withdrawal slips, pay-in slips as well as his specimen signatures. PW.7 was the investigating officer who filed a charge sheet and he stood with the prosecution.
were seized by CW.9 –Sri Lingaiah, Police Sub-Inspector, was marked as Ex.P3. Ex.P4 was the mahazar under which Exs.P27, 28 and 29 were seized from accused No.1. Exs.P72 to 77 are the specimen signatures of Sri. M. Ravindra, Exs.P78 to 82 are the specimen signatures of Smt. Vidya Ravindra, Exs.P83 to 88
are the specimen handwriting of accused No.1 in English, Exs.P89 to 93 are the specimen handwriting of accused No.1 in Kannada. Exs.P94 to 99 are the account opening forms filled to open the account of Sri. Madhava Ravindra, Exs.P100 to 105 are the account opening forms filled to open the account of Smt.Vidhya Ravindra. Exs.P106 to 147 were the withdrawal forms, allegedly containing the handwriting of accused No.1, in the account of Sri. Madhava Ravindra. Exs.P148 and 149 were the pay-in slips containing the handwriting of accused No.1 deposited into his account No.27964 at State Bank of India (SBI), Kaveri Bhavan branch. Ex.P150 is the opinion of the Scientific officer / handwriting expert. Exs.P151 to 156 are the pay-in slips which were used to deposit several amounts into the account of accused No.1 at SBI, Kaveri Bhavan branch. Ex.P157 is the FIR and Ex.P158 is the letter dated 04.08.2003 addressed by Chief Engineer, Southern Railway, on behalf of
CRL.RP No. 11 of 2019
Chief Administrative Officer, Construction / Bangalore Cantonment to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajajinagar Police Station, where the service particulars of accused No.1 were furnished. Ex.P159 is another letter dated 05.09.2003 addressed by Senior Personnel Officer, office of the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction) to the Sub Inspector of Police, Rajajinagar Police Station, about the dismissal of accused No.1 from service on 27.09.2000.
CRL.RP No. 11 of 2019
signatures of Sri. Madhava Ravindra and Smt. Vidya Ravindra. The Trial Court therefore convicted the accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 465 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for seven months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/for the offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC. It was ordered that all the sentences of simple imprisonment shall run one after another and that the accused No.1 was entitled to set off the period of imprisonment already undergone as under trial prisoner against the sentence of imprisonment. In so far as accused No.3 is concerned, there was no evidence to establish the guilt against him and therefore, the Trial Court acquitted him of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465 and 420 of IPC.
counsel for the parties, framed points for consideration and after fully re-appreciating the evidence on record, held that the evidence of PWs.2 and 6 fully supported the case of the prosecution and it was proved beyond doubt that accused No.1 impersonated, committed forgery with an intention to cheat Sri. Madhava Ravindra and Smt. Vidya Ravindra by opening accounts in the post office at Rajajinagar and withdrawing dividends and depositing dividends and thereafter withdrawing it. The Appellate Court held that the opinion of the expert – PW.6 was not shaken during the course of cross-examination and therefore, it held that the Trial Court had rightly returned a finding of guilt of the accused and had rightly convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465 and 420 of IPC.
post office at Rajajinagar. He further submitted that the prosecution did not endeavour to examine Smt. S.K. Manoranjithamma in whose name a fraudulent account was allegedly opened by accused No.1. He further submitted that the evidence of PW.6 - Forensic expert had to be corroborated by acceptable evidence and the report of PW.6 would not be sufficient to return a finding of guilt of the accused No.1. He further submitted that accused No.3 was acquitted of the offences alleged against him though he was caught red handed at the office of PW.2 - Senior Post Master, Rajajinagar Post Office and therefore, accused No.1 also deserved similar treatment. He further contended that PW.3 did not support the case of the prosecution while PW.4 did not identify accused No.1. He further submitted that the case of the prosecution was solely based upon the confession statements of accused Nos.2 and 3 and the said confession cannot be the basis to prosecute or convict the accused No.1 without there being corroborative evidence. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court in so far as accused No.1 is concerned be set aside.
CRL.RP No. 11 of 2019
prosecution. He further submitted that there is no procedural error committed by the Trial Court or the Appellate Court in trying the offence and therefore, this Court cannot reassess or re-appreciate the evidence in a revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. He therefore prayed that the petition be dismissed.
demand draft was enchased in an account, opened by a person named Smt. B.K.Manoranjithamma. Further enquiry revealed that the person who opened the account of Smt. B.K. Manoranjithamma had also opened three other accounts in the names of Sri. D.V.Manjunath, Sri. Madhava Ravindra and Smt. Vidya Ravindra. It was also found that in the accounts of Sri. Madhava Ravindra and Smt. Vidya Ravindra, several dividend cheques that were generated by Indian Railways was deposited and later withdrawn from time to time. PW.2 came to know through PW.1 that accused No.3 had visited the branch for securing the information about the pass books of the two accounts, namely, the accounts of Sri. Madhava Ravindra and Smt. Vidya Ravindra. It was then they found that accused No.3 had conspired to open accounts by impersonating the beneficiaries in whose names either demand drafts or dividend cheques were generated and thereafter the money was withdrawn from those accounts. Accused No.3 was held by PW.2. The accused No.2 later visited the branch enquiring about accused No.3 and he spilled the beans that it was accused No.1 on whose directions they were acting. Consequently, PW.2 lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional
CRL.RP No. 11 of 2019
police who secured accused No.1 from whose custody two pass books of Smt. B.K. Manoranjithamma, Sri. T.K. Sreenivasulu Reddy and a cheque book of Smt. B.K. Manoranjithamma were seized under a mahazar at Ex.P4. The seizure of these pass books and cheque book was proved by the evidence of PW.3. The specimen handwriting of accused No.1 in English and Kannada were secured and likewise the signatures of Sri. Madhava Ravindra and Smt. Vidya Ravindra were secured by the jurisdictional police who forwarded the same along with account opening forms and withdrawal slips allegedly filled in by accused No.1 and the pay-in slips containing the handwriting of accused No.1 while depositing cheques into his account at S.B.I, Kaveri Bhavan branch were also referred to PW.6 for forensic examination. PW.6 after examining the documents submitted his report that the signatures found on the account opening forms of Sri. Madhava Ravindra and Smt. Vidya Ravindra and withdrawal slips matched with the handwriting and signature forged by accused No.1. The fact that accused No.1 opened the account of Smt. B.K.Manoranjithamma, who was shown to have introduced Sri. Madhava Ravindra to the post office at Rajajinagar and later
CRL.RP No. 11 of 2019
Sri.Madhava Ravindra being shown as having introduced his wife Smt. Vidya Ravindra to open the account at the post office demonstrates that accused No.1 was the mastermind behind the offence. The account opening form was marked as Ex.P41 and PW.4 identified the signature as Ex.P41(a). She also admitted that her statement was recorded before Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which was marked as Ex.P70. PW.5 supported the case of the prosecution in so far as it related to obtaining the admitted signatures of accused No.1 as well as CW.5-Sri.Madhava Ravindra and CW.6-Smt.Vidya Ravindra. He also identified his signatures as Exs.P72(a) to 82(a) and 83(a) to 93(a), 83(b) to 93(b). He also identified the withdrawal forms collected from the office of the Post Office, Rajajinagar and the account opening forms as well as two challans. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C who denied the incriminating evidence against them. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence.
his "mother-in-law" Smt. B.K.Manoranjithamma to the post office who allegedly opened an account and requested for the facility of a cheque book. This Smt. B.K.Manoranjithamma is stated have introduced her "son-in-law" Sri. Madhava Ravindra who introduced his wife Smt. Vidya Ravindra to the post office to open the accounts at the post office.
sand PW.2 established the role of accused No.1 and the report of the forensic expert (PW.6) sealed the fate of accused No.1 in as much as his admitted signatures corresponded with the signatures found on the account opening forms to open the accounts in the names of Sri. Madhava Ravindra and Smt. Vidya Ravindra as well as the pay-in and withdrawal slips into and from the account of Sri. Madhava Ravindra and Smt. Vidya Ravindra, while they did not match with the admitted signature of Sri. Madhava Ravindra and Smt. Vidya Ravindra. The seizure of the pass books (Exs.P27 and 28) and the cheque book (Ex.P29) was not disputed by accused No.1. The totality of evidence more particularly the evidence of PW.4 and PW.2 and the evidence of PW.6 proved the case of the prosecution beyond doubt. The Trial Court was therefore justified in returning a finding of guilt of the accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 465 of IPC and in passing the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The Appellate Court too re-appreciated the evidence on record and rightly upheld the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. There is no error
CRL.RP No. 11 of 2019
apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by
this Court in this revision petition.
Hence, this revision petition lacks merit and the same is
hereby dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SMA-para Nos.1 to 11 PK-from para No.12 till the end
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and up-held by the Appellate Court regarding forgery and cheque fraud.
Whether the prosecution evidence, including forensic handwriting matching and seized documents, was sufficient to establish the petitioner's guilt without corroboration of certain witnesses.
Whether there was any procedural error or error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the criminal appeal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MR. NAGENDRA KUMAR
STATE OF KARNATAKA
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
