P Raju Vs State by Central Bureau of Investigation

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.4.12 PASSED BY THE XLVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.CASES, BANGALORE IN SPECIAL

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶22

(CORRUPTION)CASE NO.118/2004-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.120(B),420,468,471 AND 477-A OF IPC AND FOR AND FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.13(1)(d) P/U/S.13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.

¶23

IN CRL.A No. 687/2012

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

SRI E L CHETTY S/O E SREENIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS FORMER JOINT MANAGER BANK OF BARODA, SIDDAIAH ROAD BRANCH BANGALORE-72, NOW R/O NO.155, 5^TH A CROSS, SUBBANNAPALYAM EXTENSION BANGALORE-560033.

¶26

…APPELLANT

¶27

(BY SMT. VIJETHA R NAIK.,ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

THE STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ACB, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

¶30

…RESPONDENT

¶31

(BY SRI.P. PRASANNA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶32

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 30.04.2012 PASSED BY THE XLVII ADDL. CC & SJ &

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶35

SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL. C.C.NO.118/2004 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B),420,468,471 AND 477-A OF IPC FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 13(1)(d) PUNISHABLE U/S 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AND HAS TO PAY FINE OF RS.10,000/- (RUPEES TEN THOUSAND), IDSI FOR SIX MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.120(B) OF IPC.

¶36

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶38

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶39

These two appeals are preferred by accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively challenging the order of conviction passed in Special (Corruption) Case No.118/2004 by the judgment dated 30.04.2012 passed by the XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI, Bengaluru.

¶40

The facts in the nutshell for disposal of the appeals are as under:

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶42

Charge sheet materials reveal that accused No.1 - P.Raju

¶43

was working as a public servant in the capacity of a Manager in Bank of Baroda, Siddaiah Road Branch, Bengaluru during the period from June 1998 to October 2002. Accused No.2 - E.L.Chetty worked in the capacity of Manager in the very same branch during the period from February 2018 to March 2001. Accused No.3 - Smt. Yamuna Kalyani is the wife of accused No.1 - P. Raju. Accused No.4 - Smt. M. Gayathri is the sister of Smt. Yamuna Kalyani. Accused No.5 - Sri M. Dinesh Babu is the brother of accused No.3 - Smt. Yamuna Kalyani. Accused No.6 - Sri S.Babu is the family friend of accused No.1 and accused No.7 - Smt. S.Vijayal is the cousin sister of accused No.1 - P.Raju.

¶44

Gist of the prosecution case as per the charge sheet material is that accused Nos.1 and 2 during their respective tenures as Managers of Bank of Baroda, Siddaiah Road Branch entered into criminal conspiracy with each other and accused Nos.3 to 7 in order to defraud Bank of Baroda and derived pecuniary advantage for themselves by corrupt and illegal means by abusing their positions as public servants.

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶46

It is further found from the material on record that

¶47

in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, various savings bank accounts were opened in the name of accused No.1 and in the name of his family members as well at Bank of Baroda, Siddaiah Road Branch, Jayanagar Branch and Frazer Town Branch and deposited various cheques issued by his family members in their respective savings bank accounts and thereafter, proceeds for withdrawal knowing fully well that there was no sufficient balance in the accounts of the family members. When the instruments were returned to Siddaiah Road branch by other branches due to insufficient funds in the savings bank accounts of his family members, accused No.1 - P.Raju by abusing his official position fraudulently and dishonestly had not debited the respective savings bank accounts, instead of debiting the instruments to service branch account.

¶48

Likewise, instruments deposited in the Savings Bank account of the family members of accused No.1, when received in Siddiaah Branch, accused No.1 again by abusing his official position fraudulently and dishonestly did not debit the saving bank accounts of himself and his family members but

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶50

debited the same to the service branch account. For effecting such wrong debits and credits, accused No.1 prepared and passed various fraudulent and forged vouchers along with accused No.2 - E.L.Chetty and made false entries in the Books of Accounts by using the forged vouchers depicting them as genuine documents by operating the necessary computer systems at various levels.

¶51

It is also found in the material on record that E.L.Chetty - accused No.2 also opened the savings bank account No.7032 in the name of his wife and himself at Bank of Baroda, Siddaiah Road Branch and he also fraudulently and dishonestly prepared and passed fictitious vouchers, thereby crediting his SB account and the SB accounts of accused No.1 - Sri P.Raju and his family members with various amounts.

¶52

When the instruments presented by accused No.1 in his name and in the name of his family members were returned by other branches to Saddaiah Road Branch due to insufficient funds, accused No.2 - E.L.Chetty along with accused No.1 had passed various fraudulent vouchers debiting the service branch account instead of debiting the concerned savings bank

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶54

account. Thereby, there was a huge loss caused to the bank which is detailed as under:

¶55

SIDDAIAH ROAD BRANCH:

¶56

Sl. No.	SB A/c. No.	Name of the account holder	Date of opening Account	No. of cheque books issued.
1	7331	Smt. M. Yamuna Kalyani & Shri P. Raju	8.6.1999	30
2	7260	Smt. M. Yamuna Kalyani	31.12.1998	15
3	7282	Shri S. Babu	2.3.1999	17
4	8212	Shri Y. Kalyani	29.12.2000	5
5	7355	Smt. V.Vijayal	1.6.1999	5

¶57

JAYANAGAR ROAD BRANCH

¶58

Sl. No.	SB A/c. No.	Name of the account holder	Date of opening Account	No. of cheque books issued.
1	6632	Smt. M. Gayathri & M. Yamuna Kalyani	20.7.1994	21
2	7105	Shri Dinesh Babu	6.5.1995

¶59

FRAZER TOWN BRANCH

¶60

Sl.	SB A/c.	Name of the	Date of	No. of
No.	No.	account holder	opening	cheque
			Account	books
				issued.
1	10244	Shri S Babu	6.1.2000	5

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶62

It is further alleged that during the period between 1998 and 2002, on 73 occasions, accused No.1 - P.Raju had credited his SB A/c. No.7331 and joint account with his wife in No.7260 of Smt. Yamuna Kalyani and account No.7282 of Sri S.Babu at Siddaiah Road branch and the funds were withdrawn subsequently from these accounts. Total sum of rupees that was credited was to the tune of Rs.33,06,570/- .

¶63

The prosecution papers further reveal that by fraudulent entries made by accused No.1 in the names of other members of the family, the Bank has suffered loss to Rs.5,70,020/- . On 6 occasions cheques were deposited favouring SB account No.10244 of Sri S.Babu at Frazer Town branch and accused No.2 - E.L.Chetty deposited the same to the service branch and the amount that was put to loss to the bank is to Rs.1,01,860/.

¶64

Likewise in respect of the fraud committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of SB account No.7032 to the tune of Rs.1,12,800/- and accused No.1 did not tally the service branch account, due to which the Bank had been put to wrongful loss in a sum of Rs.40,92,900/- to the service branch.

¶65

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶66

The prosecution further alleges that fraudulently accused Nos.1 and 2 have made a wrongful gain in respect of those amounts, thereby all ingredients to attract the offence under Section 420 of IPC and other offences stood established by the prosecution and thus sought for action against the appellants herein and the other accused persons.

¶67

After receipt of charge sheet, presence of appellants and other accused persons were secured by the special Judge and after compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., charges were framed. The appellants and other accused persons pleaded not guilty and therefore trial was held.

¶68

In order to establish the case of the prosecution, as many as 24 witnesses have been examined as PW.1 to PW.24 and voluminous documentary evidence numbering into 371 documents were placed on record which were executed and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.371.

¶69

On conclusion of recording of the evidence, learned special Judge recorded the accused statement wherein the accused persons denied all incriminating materials and did not

¶70

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶71

choose any defense evidence nor any written statement as is contemplated under Section 313 (4) of Cr.P.C.

¶72

Thereafter learned special Judge heard the parties in detail and on consideration of the material on record, acquitted the accused Nos.3 to 7 and convicted the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 120(B), 420, 468, 471 and 477-A of IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) and13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced as under:

¶73

Acting U/s. 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 120(B) IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and A-1 has to pay fine of Rs.30,000/(Rupees Thirty Thousand) and A-2 has to pay fine of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten thousand), IDSI for six months each.

¶74

Further, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 420 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and A-1 has to pay fine of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty thousand) and A-2 has to pay fine of Rs.15,000

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶77

(Rupees Fifteen thousand), IDSI for six months each.

¶78

Further, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 468 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and A-1 has to pay fine of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty thousand) and A-2 has to pay fine of Rs.15,000 (Rupees Fifteen thousand), IDSI for six months each.

¶79

Further, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 471 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and A- 1 has to pay fine of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty thousand) and A-2 has to pay fine of Rs.15,000 (Rupees Fifteen thousand), IDSI for six months each.

¶80

Further, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby convicted for punishable under section 477-A I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and A-1 has to pay fine of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty thousand) and A- 2 has to pay fine of Rs.15,000 (Rupees Fifteen thousand), IDSI for six months each.

¶81

Further, accused No.1 and 2 are hereby convicted for the offence under section 13 (1) (d) punishable U/s.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

¶82

12 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶84

Act, and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and A- 1 & A-2 has to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) each, IDSI for six months each.

¶85

Accused No.1 shall pay total fine of Rs.1,75,000/- and Accused No.2 shall pay total fine of Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶86

All the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶87

The detention period undergone by the accused Nos.1, and 2 if any, during the investigation and trial is given set off U/s.428 of Cr.P.C.

¶88

It is ordered to supply free copy of the judgment to the accused Nos. 1 and 2 forthwith

¶89

Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred separate appeals.

¶90

Smt. Vijetha R. Naik and Sri Mahesh R., learned counsels for the appellants, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that the learned special Judge having acquitted accused Nos.3 to 7 for the aforesaid offences, on the very set of evidence the appellants could not have been convicted for the aforesaid offences resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeals.

¶91

13 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶93

They would further contend that the material

¶94

evidence on record did not warrant recording an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶95

They also submit that no pecuniary loss has been caused to the Bank and the amounts which are mentioned in the charge sheet are imaginary in nature without there being proper Books of Account pledged on record resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeals.

¶96

Alternatively, the appellants have pleaded for taking lenient view by setting aside the conviction under the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and if the conviction is maintained for the remaining offences, by enhancing fine amount, the jail sentence for the aforesaid offences may be set aside.

¶97

In this regard, both the appellants have filed separate affidavits which read as under:

¶98

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶99

AFFIDAVIT IN CRL.A.NO.577/2012

¶100

I RAJU.P, S/o Late A. Periyannan, aged about 72 years, formerly residing at No.10, 7th A Cross, M.V. Nagar, Ramurthy Nagar, Bangalore North, Bangalore - 560016, and presently residing at No.46, 5th A Main, 17th Cross, M.V. Nagar, Ramurthy Nagar, Bangalore 560016, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

¶101

1. That I am the appellant in the above case and well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶102

2. That in the event of this Hon'ble Court, in its discretion and wisdom, deciding to set aside or waving of the sentence imposed upon me, I hereby undertake, affirm, and agree that I shall not, under any circumstances, claim pension or any retirement benefits from the Bank of Baroda. I acknowledge that this undertaking is binding upon me, and I willingly forgo any such claims now and in the future.

¶103

3. That I am making this undertaking voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence, or pressure from any person or entity.

¶104

4. That I understand and acknowledge that this undertaking is binding upon me, and I shall have no claim whatsoever against the Bank of Baroda with respect to pension, or any other retirement benefits.

¶105

15 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶107

5. That I swear to this affidavit in good faith and in compliance with the orders and proceedings of this Hon'ble Court.

¶108

I, RAJU.P, the deponent above named, do hereby verify and declare that the statements made in paragraphs 1 to 5 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief, and information

¶109

AFFIDAVIT IN CRL.A.NO.687/2012

¶110

I, E L Chetty, S/o,. E Sreenivasulu, aged about 72 years, resident of No.155, 5th A Cross, Subbannapalyam Extension, Bengaluru-56033, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

¶111

1. I am the Appellant in the above Criminal Appeal and I am well conversant with the facts of the case. Hence, I am swearing to this affidavit.

¶112

2. I am Accused No.2 in the above case. I have filed the above appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru in Spl. C C No. 118/2004 for offences punishable under Secs. 120B, 420, 468, 471, 477A of IPC and Secs. 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. I have been convicted and sentenced to three undergo imprisonment for a cumulative period of twe years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed

¶113

16 -

¶114

NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶115

on me. I have paid Rs.1,00,000/- fine before the Trial Court.

¶116

3. I submit that as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court I am filing the present affidavit stating that I am willing to give up my service benefits such as pension, etc., in lieu of this Hon'ble Court reducing my conviction and sentence to only fine and removing the sentence of imprisonment for the aforementioned term. I may be permitted to lay claim on my PF funds as the same does not form part of my service benefits. The PF amount is accumulated out of my funds. I also state that I will not seek for reinstatement in my job. Hence, this affidavit.

¶117

4. I do hereby verify and declare that what is stated above are all true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information. This is my name and signature.

¶118

Per contra, Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for CBI, opposes the appeal grounds in toto . He would further contend that admittedly the appellants are accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are the public servants in Bank of Baroda, Siddaiah Road Branch at the relevant point of time. He further pointed out that not only accused Nos.1 and 2 opened their savings bank

¶119

17 -

¶120

NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶121

accounts in Siddaiah road branch but they also got opened the savings bank accounts in the names of their family members.

¶122

It is also contended on behalf of the CBI that the cheques were presented in the accounts of the family members through other branches of Bank of Baroda which when returned as insufficient funds, the emanating branch namely Siddaiah Road branch was required to make good the same but instead of debiting the accounts of the account holders, accused Nos.1 and 2 misused their positions and debited those entries covered under the instruments to the services branch account by manipulating the accounts maintained in Siddaiah road branch including utilization of computer system.

¶123

He further pointed out that how exactly the fraud has been committed by misusing Local Area Network (hereinafter 'LAN') by using veto power of the Manager wherein the ID and Password are known to the Manager alone and manipulated the entries in the computers and wrongly debited the fraud sheets of the instruments to the service branch accounts and as a result, there was a huge amount of financial loss caused to the Bank of Baroda, Siddaiah road branch and

¶124

18 -

¶125

NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶126

corresponding wrongful gain had been made by the appellants herein either in their names or in the names of their family members which has been established by placing necessary oral and documentary material on record and the same has been rightly appreciated by the learned special Judge in the impugned judgment and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶127

Insofar as the alternative submission is concerned, Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar would contend that if such a leniency is shown to the appellants, the same would encourage the similarly placed perpetrators of the crime and misuse of the official position and sought for dismissal of the appeals in toto .

¶128

In reply, a memo is filed clarifying as to what is the amount due by each of the appellants in the above appeals to the bank. Copy of the memo is served on learned counsel for the respondent and has endorsed the same.

¶129

In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following points would arise for consideration:

¶130

(1) Whether the material evidence on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable

¶131

19 -

¶132

NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶133

under Sections 120(B), 420, 468, 471, 477(A) of IPC and Sections 13(1) (b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act?

¶134

(2) Whether appellant Nos.1 and 2 would make out a case of legal infirmity or perversity in recording the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences?

¶135

(3) Whether the sentence needs modification?

¶136

(4) What order?

¶137

REG.POINT Nos.1 AND 2:

¶138

In the case on hand, appellants being the public servants having been discharged the functions of Manager, Bank of Baroda, Siddaiah Road Branch is not in dispute. So also SB Account opened by them and their relatives are established by placing oral and documentary evidence on record.

¶139

Documentary evidence on record would reveal that many transactions that were carried out either in the name of family members through different branches as referred supra are in the name of other account holders when stood unpaid those instruments were referred to Siddaiah Road Branch which

¶140

is the emanating branch where the accounts where opened and instead of debiting the accounts of account holder, appellants

¶141

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶142

misused their powers as Manager and Joint Manager and they wrongly debited the amounts to the service branch account instead of debiting to the individual accounts which were opened in the name of the appellants and their kith and kin.

¶143

The case of the prosecution thus predominantly is based on the documentary evidence rather than the oral testimony of the prosecution witness. It is pertinent to note that appellants did not chose to have their version on record while answering the questions put to them while recording the accused statement and they did not lead any defence evidence.

¶144

In fact the appellants being the Manager and Joint Manager of Bank of Baroda, Siddaiah Road Branch were duty bound to say how the discrepancy has occurred inasmuch as they are the only persons who are required to access the local area network through which the computer system in the branch was being operated so as to pass necessary debit and credit entries.

¶145

Admittedly, they being the Manager and Joint Manager were responsible for any discrepancy in the lan while reconciling the accounts of the branch and individual account

¶146

21 - NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶147

holder. Accused No.2 though was not directly operating the computer system in the physical challans, debit and credit vouchers, he has to sign and he has signed. The loss got accumulated in the service branch account which stood unpaid over a period of time when there was outstanding mounting up in the service branch, irregularities were noted and case came to be filed. After registering the case, investigation agency has visited the branch found out the actual fraud that has taken place, collected necessary documents and filed charge sheet.

¶148

Material documents placed on record meticulously considered by the learned Special Judge and found that the amounts received under the proceeds of the cheque in Jayanagar and Frazer Town branch having been paid and instruments were sent to home branch namely Bank of Baroda, Siddaiah Road Branch, instead of debiting the accounts of the persons who withdrew the money, debit entries were carried out in the service branch account. This could not have been done unless necessary vouchers have been passed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and manipulating the same in the computer system.

¶149

22 - NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶150

These acts of the accused persons admittedly helped them to make a wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the bank. It is found from the memo referred to supra, appellant/Raju is due in a sum of Rs.41,03,900/- and appellant/E.L.Chetty is due in a sum of Rs.24,000/- even now to the bank.

¶151

Therefore, the offence under Section 420 of IPC stands established. To achieve such a illegal object, necessarily the appellants have manipulated the entries in the books of account maintained in Bank of Baroda, Siddaiah Road Branch whereby all ingredients to attract the remaining IPC offences stands established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record besides the offence under Section 120B of IPC.

¶152

Mere fact of recording acquittal to accused Nos.3 to 7 would not ipso facto make out a case for the appellants to walk away with the order of acquittal as it is they who are custodians of the funds of the bank in Bank of Baroda, Siddaiah Road Branch and they were required to exercise care and caution while discharging their functions as Manager and Joint Manager of Bank of Baroda, Siddaiah Road Branch.

¶153

23 -

¶154

NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶155

The minor contradictions elicited in the crossexamination of the prosecution witnesses, would not be sufficient enough to hold that accused Nos.1 and 2 were totally innocent and their acts were not to be treated as illegal but it is irregular. Thus, the material on record would be sufficient enough to attract the offences under Indian Penal Code.

¶156

Now coming to the question of ingredients to attract the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the pecuniary gain said to have been made by the appellants has not been established by the prosecution by placing cogent evidence on record. Said fact gets fortified in view of the fact that the learned Special Judge has acquitted accused Nos.3 to 7 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the prosecution did not chose to challenge the finding recorded by the learned Special Judge whereby, accused Nos.3 to 7 were acquitted.

¶157

When the ingredients under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 gets extinguished for want of material evidence on record same logic should also apply

¶158

24 -

¶159

NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶160

insofar as offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, to that extent, impugned judgment needs an interference by this Court, in this appeal by exercising the appellate powers. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered partly in the affirmative.

¶161

REG.POINT No.3:

¶162

Having regard to the fact that this Court has now recorded a finding that the appellants are not to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, there is no compulsory imprisonment to be granted to the appellants for the remaining offences under Indian Penal Code, more so, having regard to the affidavit and the memo filed by the appellants undertaking to repay the amount that has been due to the bank on account of wrongful loss caused to the bank attributable to their conduct and they are also ready to pay enhanced fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, while seeking the setting aside of the sentence of imprisonment.

¶163

25 - NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶164

It is also to be noted that appellants have already deposited sum of Rs.1,75,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively, the enhancement of fine amount of Rs.50,000/- and setting aside the imprisonment period by directing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till rising of the Court, would meet the ends of justice. Further, the amount due to the bank on deposit if paid as compensation to the Bank of Baroda, ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered

¶165

partly in the affirmative.

¶166

REG.POINT No.4:

¶167

In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following:

¶168

ORDER

¶169

i. Criminal Appeals are allowed in part.

¶170

ii. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 120B, 420, 468, 471 and 477A of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, accused Nos.1 and 2/appellants are acquitted for the offence under

¶171

26 -

¶172

NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶173

Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶174

iii. Appellants are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for the day for the aforesaid IPC offences with a condition that accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.577/2012 to pay sum of Rs.41,03,900/- in installments as per the memo and last installment of Rs.11,03,900/- to be payable on or before 31.05.2025 and accused No.2/appellant in Crl.A.No.687/2012 is directed to pay sum of Rs.24,000/- amount due to the bank on or before 28.02.2025.

¶175

iv. Further, each of the appellants are directed to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- for the aforesaid offences in all on or before 28.02.2025 failing which they shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶176

v. After depositing of Rs.41,03,900/- by accused No.1 Rs.24,000/- by accused No.2 as referred to supra and last installment on 31.05.2025, those amounts

¶177

27 -

¶178

NC: 2025:KHC:4749 CRL.A No. 577 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 687 of 2012

¶179

are directed to be paid as compensation to Bank of Baroda, Siddaiah Road Branch.

¶180

vi. It is made clear that the disqualification including the passport if any, application is filed, on account of conviction been maintained, shall not affect the rights of the appellants insofar as voluntary contributions made by the appellants to be withdrawn if permissible under law.

¶181

vii. It is further made clear that for default made in payment vide clause (iii) of the order as referred to supra, appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years.

¶182

Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith.

¶183

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶184

SA,KAV

P Raju v. State by Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Raju v. State by Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Prakash Rao Mairpady Vs Smt Swathi Hebbar

Narendra Kumar Malik Vs the State by

Kulwant Singh Vs the State by

Kumar D @ Dio Kumar Vs State by Karnataka

D S Shankarappa Vs State by Lokayuktha Police

Shri Nagesha Vs State of Karnataka