Partly allowed

G Ansar Pasha v. State by Inspector of Police

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024CRL.A/1058/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence for IPC offences from 18 months to 12 months for the appellant, an Area Manager convicted of corruption and cheating against the National Seeds Corporation, while maintaining the terms of imprisonment for corruption offences.

What did the court decide?

Sentence for IPC offences reduced to 12 months; corruption sentence and fines maintained. Conviction upheld.

G Ansar Pasha Vs State by Inspector of Police — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1058 OF 2011 (C)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

G. ANSAR PASHA S/O GAFFAR SAB, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/AS AREA MANAGER, NATIONAL SEED CORPORATION HASSAN, NOW AS ASSISTANT SEED OFFICER, NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD., HEBBAL, BANGALORE-24, R/AT NO.294, 4^TH PHASE, 5^TH MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI V. A. RAMA SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI, REPRESENTED BY STANDING COUNSEL FOR CBI IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, BANGALORE.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. RAMULA K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, PANEL ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:03.10.2011 PASSED BY THE XXXII ADDL. C.C. AND S.J., AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C. NO.57/04 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B R/W 420, 409, 477A OF IPC AND SEC 13(2) R/W

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶19

13(1)(C) AND (D) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶22

CAV JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

¶24

Heard respective learned counsels for the parties.

¶25

By the present appeal, the appellant i.e.

¶26

original accused no.2 has taken exception of conviction

¶27

and sentence imposed upon him by way of judgment and order dated 3^rd October 2011 rendered by the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge

¶28

for CBI cases, Bengaluru in Spl.CC No.57/2004, thereby, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 420, 409, 477A of IPC and Sections 13(1)(c) & (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short `the PC Act’) and sentencing him along with original accused no.1 who was appellant in Crl.Appeal No.1116/2011 against whom the

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶31

said appeal stood abated as per the Order Sheet recorded on 31.10.2022. The said sentence reads as under:

¶32

1) The accused No.1 & 2 are convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months for the offence punishable U/s 120B of IPC.

¶33

2) The accused No. 1 & 2 are convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for 18 months for the offence punishable U/s 420 IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of fine, they shall under go simple imprisonment for 6 months.

¶34

3) The accused No. 1 & 2 are convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for 18 months for the offence punishable U/s 409 IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of fine, they shall under go simple imprisonment for 6 months.

¶35

4) For the offence punishable U/s 477A, the accused No.1 & 2 are convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for 18 months and shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment fine, they shall undergo SI for 6 months.

¶36

5) For the offence punishable U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of prevention of corruption Act 1988, the accused No.1 & 2 shall undergo SI for 1 year and shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.

¶37

The factual matrix, which gave rise to the

¶38

present appeal, are as follows:

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶40

Based upon the investigation report, a complaint

¶41

was filed against accused nos. 1 and 2 before the respondent-Police alleging offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 409, 420, 477A of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) &(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act on the ground, that the National Seeds Corporation Ltd. is a Government of India undertaking registered under the provisions of Companies Act, having its Head office at Beeja Bhavan, Pusa Complex, New Delhi, 110012. The said Corporation is engaged in the production and

¶42

marketing of high-quality seeds and the supply of the same to the farmers through its appointed dealers/agents. It is stated that the Corporation has its office at Doddamandiganahalli, Mandli Post, Hassan Tq. and District, State of Karnataka and it is headed by an Area Manager assisted by an Assistant Grade-II and a Watchman. In case of necessity, the Area Manager takes

¶43

the assistance of workers on a daily wage basis. It is an admitted fact between both sides that; accused no.2 the appellant, now by name G.Ansar Pasha, was working as

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶46

Area Manager in the said office from July 1995 onwards, so he was also overall in charge of the NSC Hassan. He used to take care of production and processing and revalidation, etc.

¶47

It is stated that one K.V.Rama Reddy who was

¶48

arrayed as Accused No.1 (dead) was Grade I, working in the said office from 1992. He was in charge of the store

¶49

and was responsible for timely movement of seeds, handling of cash, bank remittances, withdrawals, preparation of R & P, Bank statements, stock statements, vouchers, indents, bills, debit memos, etc. It is alleged in

¶50

the report that during the years 1996-97, 2000-2002, the accused persons, inter se, conspired themselves to cheat the Corporation and in furtherance of common intention, misappropriated seeds for several lakhs of rupees. These misdeeds of accused nos.1 and 2 came to light during the surprise inspection of the godown of the area office at Hassan when PW.2 visited the said office. On securing credible information regarding the

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶53

manipulation/irregularities and illegalities in the sale transactions at the said office, the then Regional Manager Mr. M.Shankar of Bengaluru, ordered an inquiry on 20th December 2001 by forming a committee of five members by name S.Murukanappa, the then Area Manager, NSC Davanagere, as Team Head, the members by name Sri G.Subramanayam, Seed Officer, M-RONSC, Bangalore, Mr. Sambi Reddy, Seed Officer (QC), RO NSC Bangalore, Mr.Srinivasa Rao, Administrative Officer, NSC Bangalore, and one Draviam, Administrative Officer, Accounts Section, NSC, Bellary. Accordingly, the said committee visited the Area office, NSC, Hassan, made an investigation, and submitted an investigation report on 5.1.2002. Even the physical stock verification was conducted regarding NSC seeds stored at APMC Godown on 28.12.2001 and found a physical shortage of varieties of seeds worth Rs.24,46,325.49. The team conducted the stock verification proceedings with a sealed validation statement and consolidated statement showing the details of the shortage of several categories of seeds.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶56

It is specifically alleged by the investigating team

¶57

that, these accused nos. 1 and 2 made false entries showing the sale of seeds to the Government Organizations such as Asst.Directors of Agriculture, Hassan, Udupi, Sakaleshpura and Belthangadi, to the tune of Rs.1,09,053/-, Rs.79,385/-, Rs.26,600/and Rs.24,700/-, respectively and thus, committed

¶58

misappropriation of the Corporation funds to the tune of Rs.2,39,738/-. It is alleged that, as per the report, accused nos. 1 and 2 have shown the sale of varieties of seeds to the various enterprises being private persons which were not accounted in the Corporation Account worth Rs.3,52,868.95 being the Sale Proceeds in the name of Mr.B.R.Mohammed Shaffee, M/s.Citizen Enterprises, Beluru-Hassan Dist, M/s.Jeeker & Co.,Shimoga, M/s.Srikrishna Agro Centre, Santepet, B.M.Road, Hassan,

¶59

M/s. PN.Karanth, Kundapura (now Udupi Dist.) Uttam

¶60

Traders, Lakkavalli, Chikkamagalur Dist. Ramakumar

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶63

Agencies, Chikkamagaluru, Omkar Traders, Hassan, TAPC MS, Beluru, Hassan and TAPCMS, Udupi.

¶64

It is specifically stated that, as per the rules of the Corporation, there shall not be any sale of the seeds on a credit basis. But, even then, these accused made the credit sales in contravention of rules and procedures. They have effected the credit sales to the extent of Rs.89,41,994.83/- during the aforesaid period, out of which Rs.50,70,602.88/- was still pending. Thus, it is alleged that these accused persons have misappropriated the corporation funds, approximately about Rs.75,16,928.37/which includes credit sales and shortages during physical verification. It is further alleged that these two accused persons, in order to cover up the misdeeds, resorted to fabricating the invoices in place of authorized invoices having consecutive serial numbers and

¶65

also made use of an unauthorized rubber stamp having the letters `credit bill’ to affix on the fabricated invoices so as to mislead the inspecting and superior officers to make

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶68

them believe that said invoices are issued on a credit basis and the sale proceeds are outstanding. They have also raised certain bogus bills on certain government agencies to cover up the bills effected by them to the private parties and to pocket the costs of the seeds, including the commission authorized by the Government. Thus, it is alleged that these accused persons, being the public servants, entered into a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and possibly with other unknown persons to cheat the Corporation with a dishonest intention in furtherance of their common intention and misappropriated the funds of the corporation. Accordingly, a crime was registered against the accused persons in RC No.12-A/2002 on 19.2.2002 for the aforesaid offences and the criminal law was set in motion after obtaining sanction for the authority to prosecute the accused persons.

¶69

The IO i.e., Dy.SP, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru, by

¶70

availing the search warrants, conducted the search in the residential houses of accused nos. 1 and 2, prepared

¶71

10 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶73

inventory, recorded the statements of witnesses, collected the documents and on getting sanction to prosecute the accused on completion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

¶74

The Special Court on filing the charge sheet, took

¶75

cognizance of the offences, secured the presence of the accused and they were enlarged on bail. The learned trial

¶76

Court on hearing both sides framed a charge against the accused and read over and explained the same to both the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty.

¶77

To establish the guilt of accused nos. 1 and 2, the

¶78

prosecution examined 26 witnesses from PW.1 to 26, got marked Ex.P1 to P167. During the course of crossexamination, Ex.D1 to D18 were marked on behalf of the defence. Thereafter, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC so as to enable them to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution. They denied their complicity in the crime and

¶79

11 -

¶80

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶81

did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.

¶82

The learned trial Court, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, found the accused guilty of committing the aforesaid offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. This is how both the accused preferred independent appeals, which were heard together by consolidating them. During the pendency of the appeals, the accused no.1 who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1116/2011 died as per the report of the police submitted on issuing the bailable warrant against him and accordingly, the appeal against him stood abated. Now the accused no.2 is prosecuting his independent Appeal in Crl.A.1058/2011.

¶83

Sri V.A.Rama Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant, with all vehemence, submits that the appellant is innocent and for the alleged illegal criminal acts of accused no.1, it is accused no.2 who has been

¶84

12 -

¶85

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶86

falsely implicated by making him a scapegoat. The charge itself is not properly framed and evidence of PWs. 2 to 4

¶87

do demonstrate that there is no role being played by accused no.2., who was Area Manager and was always away from the office. To prove this innocence of accused no.2, the counsel for appellant-accused no.2 relies upon evidence of PW.2 at para.207 wherein it is stated that accused no.2 is not aware of the transactions. There is no misappropriation by accused no.2. The very involvement of accused no.2 in the sale of seeds of the corporation is not proved. It was deceased accused no.1 who was in charge at the store. As in the capacity of Area Manager, he was not in charge of any godown. There is no material against accused no.2. The evidence so led by the prosecution suffers from material particulars. The so-called criminal conspiracy as defined under the provisions of 120B is not proved. Further, he submits that in view of admission of PW.2 and the other evidence, as accused no.2 was a just supervisor; he has been falsely implicated by prosecution. Accused No.1 was not diligent in duties.

¶88

13 -

¶89

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶90

The alleged fictitious bills were not prepared and are fabricated by this appellant.

¶91

According to him, the conduct of accused no.1 has to be taken into consideration. The first information report and charge sheet shows different amounts of misappropriation, which is not in accordance with the actual books of account. Evidence is lacking against accused no.2. Relying upon the evidence placed on record, elicited in the cross-examination and also relying upon the grounds urged in the appeal memo, it is submitted by the appellant that the appeal so filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence is to be set aside. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decision:

¶92

i) Kali Ram v/s State of Himachal Pradesh- (1973) 2 SCC 808

¶93

As against this submission, learned Panel Counsel for CBI, Ms.Ramula, appearing on behalf of respondent/state- Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, argued that the investigation report submitted by the Committee do

¶94

14 -

¶95

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶96

demonstrate misappropriation of funds by the accused. The involvement of the present appellant is very clear from the evidence of prosecution so adduced. According to her, the learned trial Court, by considering all the evidence and documents, has rightly concluded that the accused are guilty of the aforesaid offences. She submits that, in view of the factual evidence led by the prosecution, coupled with the just denial of the case of the prosecution by the appellant, he being the responsible Area Manager of the Corporation of Hassan Area covering various Taluks and Districts cannot escape from the liability. The evidence of PW.2, if read meticulously, he being the Assistant manager and being the head of the committee has categorically stated about the role and responsibilities of the area manager and also the role of accused no.1 who is no more. He submits that the other witnesses so examined by the prosecution have corroborated the role of each accused in discharge of their duties as public servants of the Corporation. She further submits that there is no invalidity or illegality in the impugned judgment. In

¶97

15 -

¶98

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶99

support of her submission, she relied upon the following

¶100

judgments.

¶101

i) Narindra Kumar Jain v/s State of M.P.- 1996 SCC (cri) 1025

¶102

ii) Mir Nagvi Askari v/s Central Bureau of Investigation- (2009) 15 SCC 643

¶103

iii) Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v/s Central Bureau of Investigation- (2009) 8 SCC 1

¶104

iv) Vinayak Narayan Deosthali v/s Central Bureau of Investigation(2015) 4 SCC 353

¶105

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶106

arguments of both sides and perused the records. As it is

¶107

the specific case of prosecution of misappropriation of Corporation funds, as well as fabrication of records by the accused persons, before adverting to the other aspects of the case, let me analyze the admitted facts between both sides.

¶108

16 -

¶109

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶110

So far as, the position of accused no.2 as the

¶111

Area Manager of the Corporation for the areas of Hassan, Chikkamagaluru, and South Canara Districts is not in dispute. Even the accused has not denied his role as an Area Manager of the said area of the Corporation. Even there is no denial with regard to the stock of various categories of seeds in the godown maintained by the corporation attached to the Hassan Office. So also there is no denial with regard to the entrustment of stock of seeds of different categories to the Area Manager as well as the

¶112

Godown Store Keeper, i.e., deceased Accused no.1. The case of accused no.2. is of total denial. He makes allegations against accused no.1 who was responsible for all the activities of the sale of varieties of seeds of the Corporation. He being Area Manager, according to his submission, was always on tour and it was accused no.1 who used to take care of affairs of the office, Godown etc., Just to reach the target fixed by the Corporation, he must have fabricated the invoices, prepared the fake credit bills, and misappropriated the funds of the Corporation by

¶113

17 -

¶114

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶115

misutilizing the seeds by selling the same individually and must have pocketed such sale proceeds. According to the submission of the appellant, as per the evidence of PW.2, this accused no.2 is not responsible for any of the activities.

¶116

As both accused nos. 1 and 2 were the public servants, before prosecuting the accused as mandated under the provisions of under the provisions of the PC Act, sanction is necessary to be issued by the competent authority to prosecute the accused. PW.1, being the Sanctioning Authority has come before the trial Court and has categorically spoken about his authority in issuing sanction to prosecute the accused by complying with the strict provisions PC Act. Though PW.1 was thoroughly cross-examined by the defence, questioning the validity of the sanction as defined under the provisions of Section 19 of the PC Act, the Ex.P1 sanction order issued by PW.1 do demonstrate that the disciplinary authority has issued sanction in accordance with the provisions of law. It is a

¶117

18 -

¶118

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶119

settled principle of law that, in a case of present nature, before taking cognizance of the offence against such public servants, the sanction is the sina qua non .

¶120

The learned trial Court relying upon the judgment in R.S. Nayak v. A.R.Anthule reported in 1984 Crl.L.J

¶121

613 has observed that, public servant is not to be exposed to harassment of a frivolous or speculative prosecution, therefore, the purpose of availing the sanction is to guard the public servant against such frivolous litigation and rightly the prosecution agency has obtained the sanction. The object of the provision is that the authority giving sanction should be able to consider for itself the evidence so made available before it and after coming to the conclusion that the sanction is necessary, it can grant the sanction.

¶122

PW.1 has maintained in his evidence that, on going through the entire prosecution papers, he has come to the conclusion that the prosecution agency has made out a prima facie case so as to issue a sanction.

¶123

19 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶124

Accordingly, has issued the sanction. The trial Court, considering the evidence of PW.1 and the IO has come to a definite conclusion that the sanction so issued to prosecute accused nos. 1 and 2 is a valid sanction. There is no ground urged by the present appellant that the sanction is invalid. Therefore, I do not find any factual or legal error in issuing the Ex.P1 sanction and it is a valid sanction. Hence it is held that Ex.P1 is a valid sanction and rightly, the prosecution has launched the case against the accused persons.

¶125

Merely because a sanction is valid and the accused were validly prosecuted, that does not mean that the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused to the hilt.

¶126

To bring home the guilt of the accused, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to place sufficient materials so as to prove the ingredients of offences made out against the accused by adducing acceptable legal evidence. Therefore, to establish the ingredients of the

¶127

20 -

¶128

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶129

offences, it is just and proper to define the concept of conspiracy defined under the provision of IPC as well as misappropriation of funds of the Government and also misuse of the funds of Government with regard to the charges levelled against the accused.

¶130

To prove the offence of conspiracy within the meaning of Section 120-B, it is for the prosecution to prove that:

¶131

i) There was an agreement between the parties for doing an illegal act which is the main object of conspiracy. ii) The act must be illegal. iii) An Act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated as criminal conspiracy.

¶132

That means two or more persons agreed to

¶133

do or caused to be done an act and the act agreed must be an illegal act or an act that is not illegal but done by illegal means by two or more parties to such an agreement in pursuance of the agreement. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. K. Narayana Rao , reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512 has held

¶134

21 -

¶135

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶136

that “the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and in a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available”.

¶137

So far as offence under Section 409 of the IPC is concerned, the prosecution is under obligation to prove a criminal breach of trust by a servant as defined under the provisions of Section 408 of the IPC. That means to bring home a charge under Section 409, it is necessary for the prosecution that the accused is a public servant and, in such capacity, he was entrusted with the property in question or with dominion over it and that he committed a criminal breach of trust in respect of it. The necessary elements constituted in the offence must be strictly proved by the prosecution. The prosecution need not prove the actual mode of this appropriation and the property once entrustment of dominion over is established; then, it would be for the accused to explain as to how the property was dealt with.

¶138

22 -

¶139

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶140

So far as offence under Section 420 of the

¶141

IPC is concerned, it speaks of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It has to be proved by the prosecution that a person cheats; he thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person or to make others destroy the whole or any part of the affair valuable security. That means the deception of any person fraudulently or dishonestly, inducing any person to deliver any property or to consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything that he would not do or omit, are to be proved.

¶142

Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code speaks

¶143

of falsification of accounts. The prosecution is under obligation to prove that the officer or a servant is acting in that capacity willfully and with an intent to defraud, i.e., he destroys, alters, mutilates, or falsifies any book, paper, writing, valuable security, or account that belongs to or is in the possession of his employee or received by him for or on behalf of his employer or makes or abets or makes

¶144

23 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶145

or abets the commission of crime or alteration of any material particular from or in any such books, etc., is said to have committed the offence of falsification of accounts. So also ingredients under Section 13(1)(c) &(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act have to be complied with. Unless the ingredients of the above sections are present, it cannot be stated that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused.

¶146

Keeping the aforesaid ingredients in mind, now we have to ascertain whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Because in the case of present nature, the heavy burden lies on the prosecution under the criminal jurisprudence of our country.

¶147

The most important witness examined by the prosecution is PW.2 by name Murkanappa S/o.Siddanaika who was working as Area Manager, National Seeds Corporation, Davanagere, during 2000-2001. He speaks with regard to the object of establishing the said corporation by the Government of India. He is specific in

¶148

24 -

¶149

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶150

his evidence about the aims and objects of the NSC, which is a Government of India undertaking. As per his evidence, the present appellant-accused no.2 at the relevant time was the Area Manager appointed to the Hassan Office having jurisdiction over Hassan District, Chikkamglauru, the then South Canara, Udupi, Uttara Kannada, etc. He speaks of the duties of the Area Manager of the Corporation and his duty was, seed production through farmers, field inspection, and marketing of seeds, administration and quality checking. In addition to this, he had overall supervision in the office. In the capacity of Area Manager, he had responsibilities for the accounts of the Area Office and had to take care of processing, packing, procurement, and dispatch of seeds. He further states that the accused no.2 being the Area Manager, periodically had to submit cash memo sales statements and adjustment bills statements to the Regional Office. So he must also send growers cash statements, debit memo sales statements, administration statements and quality control statements to the regional

¶151

25 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶152

office. Every month it was the duty of the Area Manager to send the accounts statement as reflected in the cash book and voucher to the Regional office. He was being assisted by LDC or UPC and a watchman. It is not in dispute that this appellant, accused no.2, was an Area Manager and was entrusted with the aforesaid tasks and responsibilities. It is not in dispute that the regional office is the controlling office of the area office. It is also not in dispute that the regional office in Karnataka is situated at Hebbal in Bengaluru City. There is no evidence placed on record by appellant-accused no.2 that factual evidence spoken by PW.2 is not true.

¶153

It has come into the evidence of PW.2 that

¶154

the corporation issues licences to the authorized dealers who were selling the seeds supplied by the Corporation and towards the sale of seeds they get an 8% discount on the sales made by them. The concerned area office is not permitted to sell the seeds of the corporation on a credit basis to the authorized dealers. It is not in dispute that the Government agencies used to get 30 days’ credit

¶155

26 -

¶156

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶157

facility, which is provided by the corporation. It was the area manager who was responsible for providing seeds on a credit basis. If the amount is not deposited by the Government Agencies within 30 days as stipulated, it is the Area Manager who is responsible for recovering the same. If the said amount is not recovered within the stipulated 30 days, it is the duty of the Area Manager to intimate the same to the Regional Office.

¶158

Even PW.2 speaks about the methods

¶159

adopted for the sale of seeds to the authorized dealers on receiving indent from the respective dealers either orally or in writing. As per the indent on collecting cash or DD, it was the area manager to sell the seeds to the dealers. Then, prepare the adjustment bill and issue a cash receipt to the dealer. The said documents are expected to be signed by the area manager. Even the Government agencies also place the indent in the proforma invoice and

¶160

the area manager raises a credit bill and based upon the proforma invoice, the Area Office would raise adjustment bills. On receipt of the amount of the Govt. Agencies, the

¶161

27 -

¶162

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶163

area manager has to write the cash received. The private agencies cannot issue proforma invoices.

¶164

So far as entrustment of the work to both the accused, i.e., deceased accused no.1 as the storekeeper at the relevant time and accused no.2 as Area Manager for the relevant period stated in the complaint, is not in dispute. This evidence spoken to by PW.2 is not denied by the defence throughout the cross-examination. Thus, ingredients of entrustment of duties as defined under the provisions of IPC are duly proved by the prosecution through the evidence of PW.2.

¶165

It is also not in dispute that the regional manager of the corporation, Bengaluru, formed a committee to conduct the investigation with regard to the mismanagement of funds in the Hassan Area Office consisting of the officers mentioned hereinabove. This PW2 was appointed as Team Leader. As per the directions of the Regional Manager, Bengaluru, the Committee was asked to prepare five years accounts statements for the years commencing from 1996-97 up to December 2001.

¶166

28 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶167

Therefore, this committee members visited the Hassan area office and prepared all the statements of accounts as directed on perusing the adjustment bills, debit memo bills, proforma invoices, cash sales statements, credit entries, cash receipts, and stock ledgers, and they verified the stock. On going through all these relevant documents, it was noticed by the committee that whatever the stock was as reflected in the accounts books was not actually found as stated in the stock register. It is a fact stated by him that, when the stock verification was made, deceased accused no.1 was not present. Because of this, they had to seek the permission of the Regional Office to break open the lock so as to take out the key of the godown, which was kept by accused no.1. in a table drawer. In the presence of the present appellant, the said act was done, and an inspection was made. Based upon the list of the articles found in the drawer, a statement was prepared, and proceeding was conducted with regard to the breaking of the lock, which is marked at Ex.P2 consisting

¶168

29 -

¶169

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶170

of five pages. The said proceeding was signed by all the committee members.

¶171

The seeds of the Hassan Area Office were stored in the Area Office godown and also at the APMC godown, which was taken on lease by the Corporation. On inspection of said two godowns, the proceedings were effected as per Ex.P3, and it contains the signatures of committee members. On comparing the stock register and actual stock for the period commencing from 1.1.2002, it showed there was a shortage of stock of seeds worth R.24,00,000/-. It is his evidence that on 31.1.2001, the committee received the written statement of accused No.2, as per Ex.P7, in the form of questions and answers

¶172

put by the committee to him. PW.2 further states that in the debit memo book maintained in the Hassan area office of the period commencing from 3.1.1996 to 31.3.2001, marked as Ex.P9 to P19, it was noticed that there was deficiency in the stock. Adjustment bills were issued at the time of sale of seeds from the buyers. He identifies Ex.P20 and P21, which were marked subject to objection,

¶173

30 -

¶174

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶175

as well as Ex.P24, and likewise Ex.P25 to P53, which were the ledger accounts maintained in the area office with regard to the sale of seeds, both by way of cash as well as on credit basis.

¶176

As per the documents collected, it was

¶177

noticed that there was a sale of Paddy-Jyothi for Rs.1,43,547/- in the name of Manager, KAIC, on 30.09.2000 by raising a bill as per Ex.P18. The cash receipt was not raised for selling the same. Likewise, there was a sale of paddy-Phalguna in the name of KAIC, Mangalore, for Rs.1,17,234/- under Ex.P18 without raising

¶178

any cash receipt. Likewise, he speaks about the sale of seeds worth Rs.1,00,000/- to the same dealer on 30.09.2000, as shown in Ex.P37, so also this accused no.2 has signed the same. So each sale made by the accused is narrated by PW.2 during the course of his evidence and he identifies all these documents in his examination-in-chief and specifically states, on going through these documents, he speaks of fabrication of the

¶179

31 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶180

bills and creation of the bills in the manner alleged by the prosecution.

¶181

This PW.2 has spoken in line with the investigation report submitted by the Committee in the capacity of the head of the Committee. We find a lengthy examination chief as well as lengthy cross-examination directed to this witness running into more than 140 pages. However, the trial Court has patiently recorded the same. Through out the examination-in-chief, he has maintained the fabrication of the invoices, vouchers, cash register and receipts, which never tallied with the actual stock that was inspected by the committee during the course of their inspection. No doubt, it is admitted by this PW.2 that the Area Manager, i.e., appellant no.2 at the relevant time, had the power to supervise the work and also to inspect and has to send the confidential report to the Head Officer regarding the conduct of the staff. Even

¶182

it was the duty of the Area Manager as per the Circular to submit regarding arrears due to the Corporation. When it is within the knowledge of appellant-accused no.2 being

¶183

32 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶184

the area manager to supervise the work of the staff, inspect the records and stock, and also report regarding the conduct of the staff and submit a report about arrears due to the corporation, then it was the bounden duty of this appellant-accused no.2 to be more careful. He was in charge of the said office. No doubt, he was always on tour on behalf of the company; that does not mean that he has to entrust his responsibility to the working staff at the headquarters. No such evidence is coming forth from this accused no.2 that he has really done this supervision work

¶185

and had inspected the godown and taken the stock verification, etc.

¶186

It is the case of the prosecution that there

¶187

is no provision for the corporation to sell the seeds on a credit basis to the private dealers or agencies. But even then accused no. 2 was a party to such credit sales. Under what power there was a credit sale is not explained by this accused no.2. He has put so many signatures on so many documents. It is the evidence of PW.2 that, when

¶188

33 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶189

his Committee made the stock verification, it was found that there was a shortage of breeder seeds, foundation seeds, certification seeds, certification materials, packing materials, and substandards of condemned seeds, which are shown at Ex.P6. Thus, it was noticed by the committee that there was a shortage of seeds worth Rs.24,00,000/-. The Committee has also noticed various lacunaes in the accounts being maintained in the area office. The Committee has verified Ex.P9 to P82, wherein it was noticed by the Committee that there were adjustments of bills commencing from 8.1.1996 to 24.12.2001 as per Ex.P9 to P19 and also issuance of proforma invoices, preparation of cash receipt books, etc., commencing from Ex.P22 to P38. So also they have prepared the certified seed ledger and maintained the inward record from Ex.P39 to P48. So also maintained the material ledgers, seeds ledgers, vegetable seeds ledgers, breeder seed and foundation seed ledgers, substandard and condemned seed ledgers from Ex.P49 to P53. The Committee also noticed the file of invoices as per Ex.P54

¶190

34 -

¶191

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶192

and noticed issuance of the invoices to various agencies in favour of Manager, KAIC, Chikkamagaluru from Ex.P54(a) to 54(l) for various prices. The Committee also noticed the statement of supply of seeds to said KIAC, Chikkamagalur, along with other documents like a proforma invoice issued to Secretary, VSSN, Ajjampura from Ex.P54(m) to Ex.P82 by raising the cash receipts.

¶193

While marking these documents, the defence has not raised even a little finger. The evidence of this PW.2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.17 M.S.Nagaraja Rao, the accountant of KAIC Tumakuru, PW.19 Kempegowda, the district manager of KAIC, Mangaluru, and also PW.22 G.Siddramappa, the secretary of VSSN, Ajjampur. Even PW.23 S.J.Jayaprakash the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Hassan, who have spoken about that fact.

¶194

The learned trial Court while considering the aforesaid marked documents, has categorically discussed the contents of the said documents and has come to a definite conclusion that both the accused are responsible

¶195

35 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶196

for misappropriation of the corporation funds, falsification of accounts, etc.

¶197

On scrupulous reading of all these documents stated hereinabove, they do suggest about the role of both the accused in playing fraud upon the corporation. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses who were the agencies is not properly denied by the defence.

¶198

Even the evidence of PW.25 Roopa daily wager of the Hassan office had prepared the credit bills as per Ex.P21 and allied documents. Even PW.15 Uttamchand, dealer of fertilizer and pesticides, has also spoken before the court with regard to the seeds on a credit basis.

¶199

The receipts also have been raised, containing the signature of PW.14, though the handwriting is of PW.15. PW.15 has not purchased any seeds as per the adjustment bills being prepared by these accused persons. Even PW.14 T.R.Shivanna daily wager of the NSC Hassan office has also identified the documents, such as receipts prepared by him, as of PW.13 Annappaswamy

¶200

36 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶201

and PW.11 Y.N.Jayaram. The other witnesses have also spoken about such acts of the accused persons.

¶202

On reading the evidence of all these witnesses, they do suggest about the role of accused nos.1 and 2 in committing the crime.

¶203

Though PW.2 has been directed with severe and searching cross-examination by accused no.2, nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of this witness so as to disbelieve his evidence given in the examination-inchief. Through out the cross-examination, he has maintained his consistency with regard to the report being submitted by the Committee, noticing the misappropriation of the funds of the corporation, falsification of the accounts, fabrication of the same, and acting beyond the power and responsibility given to these persons. So far as duties and responsibilities given to these accused persons as stated by PW.2 are not denied by accused no.2. The defence of the accused no.2 is of total denial. But, in view of the evidence spoken to by PW.2, it can never be stated that no such crime was

¶204

37 -

¶205

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶206

committed by the accused persons. The ingredients of the offences as stated hereinabove are complied by the evidence of PW.2.

¶207

Coupled with that, the evidence of this PW.2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.3, the Seed Officer,

¶208

NSC Corporation, wherein he states about the status of accused no.2 and his designation as Area Manager of Hassan. As per the directions of the Regional Manager, he visited the Hassan Branch for physical verification of the records. PW.2 was a leader along with members. It is his evidence that, when the team conducted the inspection at the first phase, they verified the documents. They broke open the drawer of accused no. 1 with the permission of the regional manager, opened the godown and conducted the inventory as per Ex.P4. They prepared the statement, which contained his signature. Except denial in the crossexamination, nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of this PW.3.

¶209

Another committee member

¶210

G.Subramanyam- PW.4, who knows accused no.1 was the

¶211

38 -

¶212

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶213

storekeeper, cum-Jr. Assistant Grade 1, and accused no.2 was the Area manager, was also a member of the Committee and he speaks in line with evidence of PW.3. He has also put his signature to the inventory. He too has been cross-examined by the accused, but, except for denial, nothing worth is elicited.

¶214

PW.5 P.Govinda Bhutt, the Asst. Director of

¶215

Agriculture, Puttur, states in his evidence that, in the month of March 2003, the CBI Officers came to his office and made an inquiry regarding the purchase of seeds from NSC Hassan. They have shown voucher no.1378, verified indent register. According to him, no seeds were purchased from his office. A certificate was issued to that effect. He gave his statement before the police under Section 161 of Cr.pc. From the evidence of PW.5, it is very much clear that voucher No.1378 was shown to him regarding the purchase of seeds from NSC Hassan, but in fact he has not purchased any seeds from the Hassan office. Though he has been cross-examined intensively by the accused, nothing worth is elicited.

¶216

39 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶217

PW.6 Ansari Mak was an agricultural officer at

¶218

the relevant time, and to him also, the officers of the CBI approached in the month of March 2003 and showed voucher no. 1381 as per Ex.P14(v). As per his stock register, there was no indent and there was no entry to that effect. That means this voucher no. 1381 was prepared by the accused persons as per the prosecution. He also gave his statement before the police. Nothing worth is elicited from his mouth.

¶219

PW.7 Prabhakar Amanna was the accounts

¶220

officer at TAPCMS, Udupi. According to him, his agency used to purchase seeds from NSC and KSAC. On 15.5.2003, according to him, the CBI Officer met him and showed proforma invoices, which are marked at Ex.P87 to P93. He has produced certain documents for the CBI. According to him, he has not purchased black gram as per his books of accounts from the NSC Hassan for the period commencing from 1991-92 to 2000-2001. Except for the denial, there is no effective cross-examination directed to this witness by the defence.

¶221

40 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶222

PW.8 N.Muniyappa, the watchman of NSC at

¶223

Hassan, has come before the trial Court and speaks with regard to his role of writing a chit dated 20.6.1997 in his own handwriting marked at Ex.P96. According to him, accused no.1 asked him to visit Lakkavalli and he paid Rs.100 to him. As directed by accused no.1, he met Uttamchand and in turn, he paid Rs.72,450/- to him and handed over the same to accused no.1. Except for this, he has not stated anything. That means it was accused no.1 collected the said amount from Uttamchand.

¶224

PW.9 N.K.Murali, the then Director Agriculture Udupi, speaks that, in the year 2003, the CBI officer came to his office and inquired with regard to purchasing Dhancha seeds. On going through the records, he noticed, during 1998-99, no such seeds were purchased by his agency. To that effect, he has given a statement. Through him, a letter is marked at Ex.P97. No effective cross-examination is directed to this witness by both the accused.

¶225

41 -

¶226

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶227

PW.10 B.N.Rangaswamy was Asst. Director of

¶228

Agriculture, Belathangady also states in his evidence that the CBI officer approached him in the year 2003 and inquired about the purchase of seeds. On going through the entire records for the year 1998-99, it was noticed by him that no such seeds were purchased. Accordingly, he has issued a letter as per Ex.P98. He too has been crossexamined but, except the denial nothing is brought on record in the cross-examination.

¶229

PW.11-Y.N.Jayaram the then Asst. Director

¶230

of Agriculture, Sakaleshapura, has come before the Trial Court and speaks with regard to the visit of the Officer of the CBI in the year 2003 and enquired with regard to the supply of seeds to his office. According to him, as per the entire records, during 1996-97 to 2000-01, it was noticed by him about the purchase of the seeds and rising of the DC Bill with vouchers issued by NSC Hassan. He identifies the relevant documents as Ex.P.102 to P.105. According to him, he issued a letter regarding purchases and payments made by NSC Hassan, marked at Ex.P.110. He

¶231

42 -

¶232

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶233

has submitted the list of the documents as per Ex.P.111. He also gave a statement before the CBI Officer. This PW.11 has been cross-examined by the defence. According to him, he cannot say who was working from 1996 to 2000 in his office. He denied the suggestions with regard to the production of documents stated above. He admits that the CBI officer has not seized the original stock register maintained in his office. He admits that the contingence bill was not seized by the CBI officer.

¶234

On reading the evidence of this PW.11, it is very clear that by raising DC Bill and voucher, there was a supply of the seeds called Sunhemp, Dhancha and Paddy seized from NSC Hassan that is the period 1996-97 to 2000-01 at his office. To that effect, he has produced the documents. Thus, one thing is clear from the evidence of this PW.11 that, there was a purchase of the seeds from his office from NSC Hassan. This fact is not disputed by the defence.

¶235

43 -

¶236

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶237

PW12 - R. Dasharatha, the then Sales

¶238

Assistant KAIC, Shimoga Head Quarters, has come before the trial Court and speaks with regard to his visit to the office of the CBI, Bangalore, with documents. He produced 13-DD covering letters documents marked at Ex.P112 and Ex.P113 with 16 invoices marked at Ex.P.114. He also has produced certain documents marked at Ex.P115 and Ex.P.116 and gave a statement before the CBI Officer. He has been cross-examined at length by the defence. According to his evidence, the said

¶239

Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limited has been closed by the Government of Karnataka in the year 2003. The said incident of misappropriation has taken place much prior to the year 2003, as per the evidence brought on record. He admits that heavy loss was suffered by the KAIC. He denied a suggestion that he has not endorsed the documents. He admits that the godown keeper used to make the entries in the registers. He admits that the sale transactions and administration were looked after by the manager. This suggestion is admitted by this PW.12.

¶240

44 -

¶241

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶242

That means most of the transactions and administration were taken care of by the manager, who is none else than this accused No.2. He has not produced the original documents to the CBI officer. Even then CBI officer has not seized original stock registers, according to their evidence.

¶243

On reading the evidence of this PW.12, it shows that, he has produced certain documents to the CBI Officer as stated in his examination-in-chief. According to him, it was the manager who was to take care of administration of all the transactions, that is accused No.2 who was, the then the Area Manager of NSC, Hassan.

¶244

PW.13-B.N.Annappaswamy was the daily

¶245

wage worker at NSC Hassan at the relevant time, i.e., from the year 1984 to 2009. He was well acquainted with both the accused No.1 and 2. He states that, at the relevant time, accused No.1 was working as a storekeeper and accused No.2 was working as an area manager. He

¶246

45 -

¶247

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶248

used to load the lorries and also attend the processing work. According to him, about 5 or 6 years prior to the leading of his evidence, he was called to the CBI Office, Bengaluru and he was shown certain documents. By showing the said documents, his statement was recorded. The movement certificates shown by him were in his handwriting. He identifies the said documents at Ex.P.117. So also Ex.P.118 is the document in his own handwriting, so also the invoice. According to his evidence, he identifies the documents prepared in his office. He has been cross-examined at length by the defence, but he has withstood the test of a cross-examination. He states that along with him there were 7 to 8 daily wage workers working with him. He admits with regard to the two sets of keys of the godown office. One set was with an area manager, and another set was in the office. He admits that daily wage persons used to open the unit and the area manager used to entrust work to himself and other daily wage workers. He admits that he was a senior among the daily wagers and used to put his signatures on

¶249

46 -

¶250

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶251

the documents. The other daily wage workers were used to put their signatures on the similar documents. One thing is clear from the evidence of this witness that, there were two sets of keys and one was with accused No.2 and another was in the office. This fact was not denied by the accused No.2.

¶252

He has been cross-examined by the accused No.2 also. According to him, he was appointed during the period of accused No.1. He denied a suggestion that accused No.2 being the area manager, was not having one set of key bunch with him. There is no further denial of this fact by the accused No.2. Thus, the evidence of this witness is very clear that accused No.2 being the area manager, also used to possess one set of keys of his office with him.

¶253

PW.14-T.R.Shivanna was a daily wage worker of the NSC Hassan and he knows accused No.2 who was also the Area Manager at NSC Hassan. According to him, he used to attend the work as directed by accused

¶254

47 -

¶255

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶256

No.1. He used to sweep the office; he used to carry the office bags, so he also used to work in godowns. He used to collect the money as per the directions of accused No.1. He too was called by the CBI Office, Bengaluru and he has been confronted with certain documents in the office of the CBI. He identifies the said documents as Ex.P.121 the receipt dated 21.12.1998 for Rs.50,000/-, wherein the receipt dated 07.01.2000 for Rs.50,000/which he found in his own handwriting identifies Ex.P122. He also identified the receipt dated 15.01.2001 for

¶257

Rs.20,000/- with his signature marked at Ex.P123 and a receipt dated 29.06.2000 for Rs.20,675/- identified at Ex.P124. Likewise, he also identifies the receipt dated 09.07.1999 with regard to the 90 bags of Jaya NSC, which bears his signature; it is at Ex.P125. Though he has been cross-examined at length by the defence, he has withstood the test of cross-examination. He is consistently about identifying the aforesaid documents spoken in the examination-in-chief. He had studied up to SSLC and according to him; he knows the English language also. But

¶258

48 -

¶259

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶260

he has not passed the English subject. According to him, the Ex.P122 shown was in his own handwriting. No effective cross-examination is directed to this witness, to disbelieve his version spoken in his examination-in-chief.

¶261

PW.15Uttamchand is a businessman

¶262

running his business in fertilizer seeds and pesticides under the name and style of Uttam Traders from the year 1977. He states that he knew accused No.1 Ramareddy. In the year 1997, he came in contact with him. He used to purchase paddy seeds from NSC Hassan. According to him, he used to make the payment to accused No.1 sometimes, and sometimes the accused No.1 used to send persons to get the money from him. According to him, during 2003, the officer of the CBI called him to his office, and he produced 52 documents with regard to the purchase of seeds from NSC Hassan. He identified the receipt to that effect. One thing is clear from the evidence of this PW.15 that, he has purchased seeds as per the receipts Ex.P.122, Ex.P.123, Ex.P.124, Ex.P.128,

¶263

49 -

¶264

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶265

Ex.P.129, Ex.P.131, Ex.P.133, Ex.P.134, Ex.P.136, Ex.P.138, Ex.P.141, and Ex.P.142. These documents bear the signatures of accused No.1 and 2. He also identified the receipt dated 13.06.2000 as per Ex.D.13 for Rs.21,860/- issued by the NSC Hassan. He also identifies adjustment bills marked Ex.P13(g), Ex.P.14(d), Ex.P.17(g), Ex.P.15(c), Ex.P.15(e), Ex.P15(a), Ex.P18(p), Ex.P.18(1), and Ex.P.16(b). From the evidence of this PW.15, it is clear that, there was a purchase of seeds from the office of the NSC by him. According to him, he was unable to sell the other paddy seeds; therefore, he sustained a loss of the extent of Rs.2,19,600/-. For the first time he has spoken so before the trial Court.

¶266

He has been cross-examined by both the

¶267

accused No.1 and 2. He has studied up to SSLC. He states with regard to the loss being sustained by him. But he has not stated about the loss sustained by him before the CBI Office. He used to receive the seeds after the season and

¶268

used to send the seeds back to the office of the NSC

¶269

50 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶270

Hassan. Thus, this PW.15 had a business transaction with the NSC Office. The counsel for the accused No.2 also directed cross-examination to him. He denied all the suggestions directed to him. Nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of this witness by this accused No.2.

¶271

PW.16-N.Prabhakar was the Assistant manager, administration, NSC, Bangalore. According to him, in the year 2003, Officer of the CBI was in his office and collected 12 documents as per Ex.P.143. He identified the said document, as well as the receipt memo at Ex.P.143. Though he has been cross-examined at length, he has withstood the test of cross-examination. From the evidence of this witness, it is clear that the CBI officer collected certain documents from his office. The fact of collecting documents by the Officer of CBI is not denied by any of the accused persons.

¶272

PW.17-M.S.Nagarajrao was the Accounts

¶273

Officer of the KAIC Tumkur in the year 2003. According to his evidence, his firm was dealing with fertilizers, form

¶274

51 -

¶275

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶276

machinery’s, engineering service division, seeds,

¶277

pesticides and other agricultural-related business. He further states that his office had business transactions with NSC Hassan. He has received the letter from the CBI Bengaluru with a request to send the documents. According to him, he has sent the documents, like a certified copy of the cash voucher, stock transfer notes, credit bills, and pro forma invoice, under the covering letter as per Ex.P145. According to him, the CBI officer has recorded his statement. He too has been cross-

¶278

examined by the defence. He is specific with regard to the sending of the documents stated above to the office of the CBI as per the request made by the office of the CBI. Nothing worth is elicited and even the present accused No.2 being the appellant, has not directed any crossexamination to him.

¶279

PW.18-T-Narendra was the Assistant

¶280

Manager at KAIC Chikkamagaluru at the relevant time and one C.R.Ramakrishna was the Manager. According to him,

¶281

52 -

¶282

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶283

he prepared the statement regarding details of supply of seeds from NSC Hassan to KAIC, Chikkamagaluru. He has produced the said statement as per Ex.P.54(m). He also identifies adjustment bills, which are marked Ex.P147 and cover letter Ex.P.148. With regard to the production of the same before the CBI Office, none of the accused denied the same. No cross-examination is directed by the accused No.2/appellant.

¶284

PW.19-Kempegowda was the District

¶285

Manager at KAIC, Mangalore, from 2002 to 2004. According to him, the KAIC Mangalore was having business transactions with the NSC Hassan till the year 2000-01. He has produced adjustment bills as per Ex.P.18(a), Ex.P18(b), and Ex.P18(c). This production of documents is not denied by the accused/appellant. Thus,

¶286

the evidence of this witness is to be accepted to the extent of production of the documents stated in his examination-in-chief.

¶287

53 -

¶288

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶289

PW.20-K.Y.Guruprasad was the Dy.SP, CBI, ACB, Bangalore. He took up the investigation of this case from one Stephen Dorai Raj, who has registered the crime in RC No. 12(A)/2002? He identifies the FIR as per Ex.P.149. Thereafter, on 23.09.2002, as per the orders of the SP, A.P. Singh, he handed over the investigation to Smt. W.Gladies Jayanthi. To the extent of taking charge of the investigation and handing over the same to Smt. W.Gladies Jayanthi, his evidence is believed.

¶290

PW.21-R.K.Agarwal was the Dy.SP CBI,

¶291

ACB, Bangalore in the month of July—2003. He took further investigation of this case and went through the entire materials. He collected the sanction order as per Ex.P1 and on completion of the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused. He denied a suggestion that, without any sufficient grounds, he has filed a charge sheet against the accused persons. No cross-examine directed by the present appellant to this witness. Being a charge sheeting officer, filing of a charge sheet is not

¶292

54 -

¶293

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶294

denied by the defence. Therefore, the evidence of this PW.21 is believed to the extent that, this police officer has filed a charge sheet against the accused after completing the investigation.

¶295

PW.22-G.Siddaramappa was the secretary

¶296

and then manager of VSSN, Ajjampura, Tarikere Tq. According to his evidence, his society was having transactions with the NSC Hassan. They used to purchase the seeds from the NSC Hassan. He used to place the orders in writing or through telephone message to NSC Hassan to purchase the seeds. He speaks with regard to the supply of seeds through lorry to his office. According to him 7 or 8 years ago, the CBI office in Bangalore called

¶297

him and called upon him to produce 26 documents. Accordingly, he has produced the same, which are marked at Ex.P.56 to Ex.P.82. According to him, as per the request of the CBI, he has produced those documents. From the evidence of this witness, it is clear that they were adjustment bills as per Ex.P10(c) to Ex.P10(h),

¶298

55 -

¶299

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶300

Ex.P.11(w) to Ex.P.11(x), Ex.P.12(k) to Ex.P12(j), Ex.P13(q) to Ex.P.14(x), Ex.P.14(y) to Ex.P14(z), Ex.P15(s) to Ex.P.16(r), Ex.P.16(s) to Ex.P16(t), Ex.P.17(v), Ex.P17(w), etc. No effective cross-

¶301

examination is directed to this witness. He admits that he has received the sealed cover under the invoice as per Ex.P.61. One thing is clear from the evidence of this witness: his office has purchased seeds from NSC Hassan and there were adjustment bills.

¶302

PW.23 – S.J.Jayaprakash the then Assistant

¶303

Director of Agriculture at Hassan, has come before the trial Court and speaks that he was called by the CBI Office to produce the documents. Accordingly, he has produced documents in 60 sheets marked at Ex.P.158. According to him, the CBI officer has shown a receipt dated 27.04.1998 for Rs.15,900/- with receipt No.03371. The said receipt is marked at Ex.P.27(h), as are other receipts. Though he has been cross-examined at length by the defence, one thing is clear from the evidence of this witness: as per the

¶304

56 -

¶305

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶306

request of the CBI, he has produced so many documents before the CBI Office. The present appellant has not directed any cross-examination to this witness.

¶307

PW.24-M.Giridhara Rao was the Police

¶308

Inspector, CBI, ACB, Bangalore. He is also one of the investigating officer in this case. After taking up the investigation from Gladys Jayanthi as per the orders of the SP, CBI, ACB, and Bangalore, he recorded the statements of the witnesses at various dates and handed over the investigation to the next incoming officer since he was repatriated. He denied the suggestion in the crossexamination that accused No.1 is in no way concerned with any of the irregularities. This suggestion goes to establish that, there were some irregularities, but this accused No.1 who is no more now, has suggested that this accused No.1 is no way concerned with any of the irregularities in the instant case. That means, he fastens the burden on accused No.2. Though accused No.2 directed cross-examination, as per the documents

¶309

57 -

¶310

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶311

collected according to his evidence, this accused No.2 is also involved in the commission of the crime, as stated in the instant case. No effective believable crossexamination is directed to this witness by the present accused No.2-appellant.

¶312

PW.25-Roopa Dharmappa was a daily wage labourer in NSC Hassan and she too has come before the trial Court and spoken about credit bills and other transactions, Proforma invoices, etc. She has denied the suggestions so directed to her.

¶313

PW.26-T.Raja Balaji was the Dy.SP, CBI,

¶314

ACB Bangalore and he has registered the crime and set by criminal law in motion. Handed over the investigation to Stephen Dorai Raj. No effective cross-examination is directed to this witness by both the accused.

¶315

On scruples reading of the evidence of all

¶316

these witnesses, one thing is clear that, these witnesses so examined by the prosecution have categorically stated with regard to the transactions of the NSC Hassan with

¶317

58 -

¶318

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶319

various agencies stated in the complaint and also the report being prepared by the committee stated supra. The documents like Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.82 clinchingly show about preparation of the receipts, issuance of the receipts, as well as the proforma invoice. Though the accused No.1 and 2 had knowledge about all these aspects, the present accused No.2 (the appellant) has denied his involving in misappropriation of funds of NSC. The evidence placed on record by the prosecution do establish the transactions entered into. Though some of the witnesses, being the agencies have purchased the seeds from the NSC Hassan, speak about the transactions and payment of money to the NSC Hassan, whether the said amount was really credited to the account of the NSC Hassan is not stated in the report of the investigation committee. There is no evidence placed on record by the accused No.1 and 2 that, whatever the amount so collected towards the sale of the seeds to the various agencies as narrated in the evidence of the witnesses is credited to the account of NSC. Under which head of account, the said proceeds are

¶320

59 -

¶321

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶322

being deposited is not stated by these accused No.1 and

¶323

Accused No.1 is no more. He was just a storekeeper.

¶324

It has come in the evidence of daily wage

¶325

workers that, accused No.2, being the Area Manager was in possession of one set of key bunch of the office as well as of godown. If that is so, this accused No.2 also must have knowledge with regard to the stock of seeds being supplied by the NSC to sell the same to the various agencies in the State of Karnataka. But accused No.2 denied possession of the key bunch with him. He being the Area Manager of NSC Hassan, covering various districts as stated in the complaint, having control over all his subordinate staff in the office of NSC, Hassan must have knowledge about the supply of the seeds from the NSC Head Office with all the particulars of various seeds.

¶326

He also must have sold various varieties of seeds to various agencies as stated by the witnesses. He must have adjusted the account. So whatever sale proceeds

¶327

60 -

¶328

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶329

the accused No. 2 has received, it is not properly credited with the account of the NSC.

¶330

The investigation team visited the office of the NSC, visited the godown, went through all the documents produced by the accused No. 1 and 2 and came to the conclusion that, there was a misappropriation of the funds of the NSC. This accused No.2 being the in charge of the production, he is responsible for all the production activities, like organizing the seed production and the program allotted from time to time to achieve the target, as well as the issue of JCM/DM growers reasons and government numbers and the collection of agreement

¶331

books, registration cards, and maintenance of all related records and documents. That means, this accused No.2 being the appellant was responsible for the validation of all the seed stock. So also maintenance of the validation

¶332

register. That means, as a whole, he was in charge of the processing plant and responsible for all the activities. But now he denies all the suggestions directed to him. He was

¶333

61 -

¶334

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶335

responsible for all operations, including receipt of the gross sheet and seeds procurement. He had to prepare the statements for advanced applications; IDPS would be responsible for recovering the dues from the growers, and he also had to arrange the payment to the growers. He has to hand over the DDs for payment of growers by preparing the proper documents after final verification security.

¶336

The witnesses examined in this case specifically state that, this accused No.2 had to work with accused No.1 who was in charge of the stores. He was also responsible for timely prescribing and movement of

¶337

the seed stock, etc. Therefore, looking at the circulars issued by the NSC and the duties and responsibilities entrusted to both the accused, it was both the accused who were responsible for the business of the said NSC Office Hassan. No effective cross-examination is directed to any of the witnesses by the present appellant so as to

¶338

62 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶339

disbelieve their evidence. All the witnesses have

¶340

withstood the test of cross-examination.

¶341

It has come in the evidence of the witnesses

¶342

that the area manager has been empowered to supervise the work and also instruct. So also the area manager was to send the confidential reports to the head office regarding the conduct of the staff. It is admitted that, as per the circular, it was the Manager who was liable to give an explanation to the head office i.e. it is accused No. 2 the Area Manager. If the dealer does not remit the amount of the seeds brought by them on a credit basis, within 30 days it is the Area Manager who is responsible

¶343

to submit the periodical report of the head office. Even these Ex.P8, Ex.P9, the debit memo, adjustment bills, etc., go to establish that, there was misappropriation being done by these accused persons.

¶344

The learned trial Court has culled out the contents of various documents in the course of judgment and incorporated the same in the judgment with regard to

¶345

63 -

¶346

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶347

the quantum of adjustment bills and also misappropriation being done by these accused persons. Though, as stated supra, the witnesses examined were directed with intensive cross-examination, all the witnesses in this case have withstood the test of cross-examination. The learned trial Court in threadbare has discussed the role of accused No.1 and 2. It has properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution. I do not find any factual or legal error in appreciating such evidence led by the prosecution. Though the learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.2 submits that, there is no role played by the accused No.2, but the very evidence put forth by the prosecution, as well as the trend of cross-examination directed to the witnesses, do demonstrate that accused No. 1 in the capacity of storekeeper was responsible for the shortage of the seeds and irregularities. It is argued that, the accused No.2 could not have been convicted, but he being the Area Manager at the relevant time, was responsible for taking care of the affairs of the said NSC Hassan. Thereby, these accused No.1 and 2 being the responsible

¶348

64 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶349

officers of the NSC Hassan or responsible for committing criminal breach of trust, they have also cheated the corporation by preparing the false documents. The evidence placed on record by the prosecution clinchingly establishes with regard to the criminal conspiracy in between both the accused No. 1 and 2 with a fraudulent attitude in the mind and induced with NSC Corporation to sell the seeds to the various persons and received sale proceeds and utilised the same for themselves. That means the ingredients of the offences made out against the accused have been fulfilled by the prosecution. Thus accused Nos. 1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention, committed criminal conspiracy, dishonestly inflated the quantity of the seed formality, prepared the fabricated documents and prepared the false accounts. That means these accused persons are very much responsible in the commission of the crime in the manner alleged by the prosecution.

¶350

65 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶351

The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that none of the ingredients of the offences are fulfilled by the prosecution and there is no proper appreciation of evidence placed on record by the prosecution, and relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kali Ram v. State of H.P., reported in (1973)

¶352

2 SCC 808 .

¶353

On scrupulous reading of the said

¶354

judgment, the facts of the case are quite different from the facts of the said case. So far as the presumption of innocence of the accused is concerned, when accused No.2 was the Area Manager having control of the NSC Office, Hasssan and having the power of supervising the accounts, stock, etc. He had to explain that why he inflated stock, why he did the falsification of the accounts, why the false bills were prepared, why the bills were fabricated, etc. It was within the knowledge of the accused No.2-appellant. That means Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act comes into operation.

¶355

66 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶356

Once a prosecution is able to discharge its

¶357

burden, then the onus lies on the accused to show his innocence. But the general principles regarding innocence are not available to the accused because burden of proof is properly discharged by the prosecution and onus of proof is not properly discharged by the present appellant by conducting the effective cross-examination. This case is purely based on the documents. Men may lie and not the documents. So the said judgment cannot be justifiably made applicable to the present facts of the case.

¶358

When a charge is framed against the

¶359

accused for misappropriation, criminal conspiracy, etc., as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments, the prosecution has to discharge the onus, which lies on the accused to discharge the onus. The documents so produced by the prosecution go against the defence of the present appellant-accused No. 2.

¶360

The learned counsel for the respondent-CBI relied upon the various judgments. On reading of the said

¶361

67 -

¶362

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶363

judgments, it is very clear that the ingredients of the offences made out against the accused with regard to the criminal breach of trust, conspiracy, cheating and the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are duly proved in accordance with law. The said citations are applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. It is settled principle of law as per the Apex Court judgment in Mir Nagvi Askari v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 643 , that, “criminal conspiracy involves meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act which may not be illegal but by illegal means.” The Hon’ble Apex Court says, an offence takes place that the meeting of minds takes place even if nothing further is done. The law says that, it is an offence independent of other offences and is punishable separately. The law says that, criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy. So to prove the said evidence, direct evidence is not available. It depends upon the circumstantial evidence and also by necessary

¶364

68 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶365

implication. Here in this case, accused No.1 was the storekeeper; accused No.2 was the Area Manager of the NSC Hassan, who was responsible for the sale of the seeds supplied by the NSC. They had to reach the target. They must have had criminal conspiracy in between themselves and must have done all these criminal activities to have unlawful gain. Thereby, they have committed the criminal breach of trust as defined under the provisions of Sections 405 and 409 of the IPC. Thus, there was misuse of the funds by the accused No.1 and 2 in violation of the NSC practices of sale of seeds. Accused No.1 and 2 have violated the term of the circulars issued by the NSC, thereby committed criminal breach of trust with their own corporation to have unlawful gain and misappropriated the funds of the NSC.

¶366

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid

¶367

judgment in para 61 states the ingredients of criminal conspiracy, which reads as under:

¶368

69 - NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶369

“61. The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are:

¶370

(i) an agreement between two or more persons;

¶371

(ii) an agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.

¶372

Condition precedent for holding the accused persons to be guilty of a charge of criminal conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil of the fact which must be established by the prosecution viz. meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means.”

¶373

The aforesaid ingredients have been spoken

¶374

to by the witnesses examined by the prosecution.

¶375

Therefore, it can be very well stated that there was a criminal conspiracy and there was a breach committed by these accused persons. When entrustment of the seeds is proved by the prosecution by the NSC to both these accused persons who are in charge of the NSC Office Hassan, once the entrustment is proved by the prosecution, then it is the duty of the present appellant as the Area Manager to give an account for the same. But he has not given an account. Accused No.1 cast burden on

¶376

70 -

¶377

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶378

accused No. 2, and accused No. 2 cast burden on accused No. 1. That means both these accused knew that there are irregularities in the business being done by the NSC Hassan and these accused No.1 and 2 are the beneficiaries of the said sales of seeds by the Corporation. But now they want to shirk their responsibility and cast burden on each other. Therefore, the defence of the present appellant/accused No.2 cannot be accepted as a truthful defence.

¶379

On going through the entire documents, it shows that there was a shortage of seeds in the stores to the extent of Rs.24,46,325.49 paise. There was an inflated quantity of seeds to the extent of total Rs.52,92,376.49 paise. Thus, the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accused No.2 cannot escape from the responsibility of taking care of his own Hassan Office. There are serious lapses on his part in taking care of the office. The learned trial Court has appreciated the

¶380

71 -

¶381

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶382

evidence in a proper manner and rightly come to the conclusion that this accused No.2 is also responsible for committing the crime. I do not find any factual or legal error in arriving at such a conclusion. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal.

¶383

The offence is heinous in nature and public tax payers money is involved. However because of pendency of the criminal case against accused No.2 from 2002, he must have suffered mentally, physically as well as financially. Now he must have attained his

¶384

superannuation. In view of all the factual cases, instead of imposing the sentence of imprisonment for 18 month, if it is reduced to 12 months for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 409, 477A of IPC it would made ends of justice. So far as imposition of fine for the aforesaid offence is concerned, it has to be maintained and remains undisturbed. So far as offence under Section 13(1)(d) and R/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption is concerned, the same has to be maintained. The sentences so

¶385

72 -

¶386

NC: 2024:KHC:38515 CRL.A No. 1058 of 2011

¶387

ordered shall run concurrently. To this extent, the appeal

¶388

succeeds.

¶389

Resultantly, I pass the following:

¶390

ORDER

¶391

i) Appeal is allowed in part .

¶392

ii) The appellant/accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo S.I. for 12 months for the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC, 12 months for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, 12 months for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC, 12 months for the offence punishable under Section 477A of IPC. So far as imposition of fine is concerned it remains unaltered. So for offence under Section 13(1)(d) R/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is concerned, the same remains undisturbed.

¶393