The High Court allowed criminal revision petitions challenging convictions for misappropriation of bank funds. Finding insufficient evidence regarding the specific roles of the accused, the court quashed convictions and acquitted them.
Judgment of conviction, order in admissibility of appeal, and consequent sentence set aside; accused acquitted.
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. 346 of 2014 C/W CRL.RP No. 301 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.346 OF 2014 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.301 OF 2014
IN CRL.R.P. NO.346/2014:
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI A.H. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., H.C.G.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.9.2012 PASSED IN C.C. NO.8055/2002 BY THE IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE, AND CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.4.2014 PASSED IN CRL.A. NO.627/2012 BY THE P.O., FTC-XIV, BANGALORE.
IN CRL.R.P. NO.301/2014:
BETWEEN:
RESIDING AT THE PREMISES BEARING NO.57/1, 5TH CROSS, SRIRAMPURA, BANGALORE-560 021.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., H.C.G.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITITON IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 5.4.2014 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.-XIV, BANGALORE, IN CRL.A. NO.655/2012 AND CONSEQUENTLY, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.9.2012 PASSED BY THE IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE, IN C.C. NO.8055/2002.
THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Criminal Revision Petition No.346 of 2014 is filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 and Criminal Revision Petition No.301 of 2014 is filed by accused No.1 challenging the judgment dated 26-9-2012 passed in Criminal Case No.8055 of 2002 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (henceforth be referred as 'trial Court') convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 409 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC')
and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have also challenged the judgment dated 5-4-2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.627 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No.655 of 2012 on the file of Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-XIV (henceforth be referred as 'Appellate Court') by which, the Appellate Court has upheld the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court.
was the Manager, accused No.2 was the Cashier, and accused No.3 was the Assistant Accountant at Sudha Co-operative Bank, Mathikere, Bengaluru. It is alleged that on 17-5-2000, the closing balance of cash in the currency chest was Rs.30,97,022.20p. The cash summary register
was certified by accused Nos.1 and 2. Later on 18-5-2000, when the cash chest was opened, the bank authorities found that there was shortage of Rs.3,00,000/-. Accused Nos.1 to
3, who are the joint custodians and in possession of the keys
of the strong room and currency chest, undertook the responsibility to restore the cash. However, due to default
of the accused to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, a complaint was lodged on 24-12-2001. A case in Crime No.742 of 2001 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 read with Section 34 of IPC. Investigating Officer, after recording the statement of the official witnesses, who were employees of the Bank, and a Chartered Accountant, filed charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34 of IPC.
as P.W.3, Attender of the Bank as P.W.4, one of the employees of the bank as P.W.5, Office Assistant of the
Bank as P.W.6, and Chartered Accountant as P.W.8, who certified that there was shortage of Rs.3,00,000/- in the currency chest and marked Exs.P.1 to P.16(A). Out of the exhibits marked, Ex.P.7 was the copy of Attendance Register of all the accused, Ex.P.8 was the cash summary register dated 17-5-2000, Ex.P.9 was the cash summary register dated 18-5-2000 and Ex.P.10 was the letter submitted by
the accused undertaking to return a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Ex.Ps.11 and P.12 were the key register of strong room and currency chest, Ex.P.13 was the complaint lodged by P.W.1. Ex.P.14 was the spot mahazar drawn by Investigating Officer. Ex.P.16(A) was the audit report of the Chartered Accountant (P.W.8). Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, who denied the incriminating evidence against them. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court initially acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34 of IPC in terms of its judgment dated 2-7-2008. However, the
Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.849 of 2008 reversed the judgment of acquittal and directed the trial Court to reconduct the trial and dispose of the case in accordance with law. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the prosecution had proved that the accused were the persons responsible for operating the strong room and currency chest and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.
Nos.2 and 3, and Sri Krishna Kumar K.K., learned High
Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
was completely unaware as to who were the persons who had misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Likewise, P.Ws.2 and 3 turned hostile and deposed that they recorded their statements based on instructions given by P.W.1. P.Ws.4 and 5 were witnesses to spot mahazar (Ex.P.14) who turned hostile. P.W.6 also turned hostile. They submitted that there was no clear evidence about the role of each of the accused, more particularly, when the prosecution invoked Section 34 of IPC. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the charge against each of the accused and in the absence of any clear evidence, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court committed error in convicting the accused. They further submitted that the documentary evidence also did not establish the charge against the accused beyond doubt and therefore, the
judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court was not justified and the evidence on record did not justify such conviction.
other hand, submitted that Ex.P.8 is the summary of the cash register dated 17-5-2000 which shows the closing balance as Rs.30,97,022.20p. The closing balance as on the next date, i.e. 18-5-2000, as per Ex.P.9-summary of the cash register, was Rs.27,75,648.20p. Therefore, there was deficit cash of Rs.3,00,000/- in the currency chest. Therefore, he submitted that there was a short fall of Rs.3,00,000/- in the currency chest and the accused were responsible for operating the strong room and the currency
chest. He further submitted that all the accused have addressed a letter as per Ex.P.10 that they would restore the cash of Rs.3,00,000/-. He, therefore, submitted that the accused have clearly accepted their guilt and therefore, the
trial Court and the Appellate Court were justified in recording a finding of conviction. He also invited the
attention of this Court to Ex.Ps.11 and 12 which were the key register of the strong room and currency chest maintained by the Bank, where entry into the strong room and the currency chest is recorded, which showed that these accused were responsible for operating the strong room.
the missing currency from the cash chest. Accused No.1 was the Manager, while accused Nos.2 and 3 were the Cashier and the Senior Manager at the Bank respectively and therefore, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the role of each of the accused in the missing cash. Except the complaint at Ex.P.13, there is no document to establish the guilt of the accused. Even the documentary evidence does not support the prosecution and does not indicate as to who amongst the accused opened the strong room and operated the currency chest on 18-5-2000. In that view of the matter, the assumption of the trial Court that the accused were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC in view of their job profile, is unjustified. The prosecution was bound to prove the charge against each and every accused by acceptable evidence. In the case on hand, there is no incriminating evidence to prove the guilt of each of the accused and the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court committed an error in convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34 of IPC.
In that view of the matter, these revision petitions deserve to be allowed.
Consequently, these revision petitions are allowed . The judgment of conviction dated 26-9-2012 passed by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Criminal Case No.8055 of 2002 and the consequent sentence are set aside and accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Similarly, the judgment dated 5-4-2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-XIV, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal Nos.627 of 2012 and 655 of 2012 is also set aside.
Sd/-
KVK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution established the role of each accused in the shortage of bank funds.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the accused under Section 409 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
T. Manjunath
M.K. Chandrashekar
State of Karnataka
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
