M. N. CHINNAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the accused/appel lants chal lenging their conviction and sentence passed in SPl.CC No.149/2004 on the f i le of the Court of XXI Addl. City Civi l and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, wherein, accused No.1 was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 of IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accused No.2 was convicted for of fences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420 and 468 of IPC.

(2.) The factual matrix of the prosecution case are as under: Sri. M.N. Chinnaiah-Accused No.1 was working as Wireman (Electrical) at the of fice of the Assistant Engineer, Telecom Electrical Sub-Division-II, Bangalore-32. He had appeared in the Departmental Examination for the post of Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) thrice, but fai led in the examination. During February 2000, on coming to know that there was a notification cal l ing for the departmental candidates for JTO promotion test, with a fraudulent and dishonest intention to cheat the Telecom Department, he entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Sri. S. Chandrashekar, Accused No.2, an unemployed engineering graduate and persuaded him to impersonate him and write the qual ifying examination of the department in his name, for securing admission to the post of JTO. In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy entered between them, accused No.2 agreed to impersonate accused No.1 and col lected the hal l permit from him one week prior to examination and practiced to forge his signature. Accused No.2 appeared for four examinations on behalf of accused No.1 by impersonating him by forging the signatures of accused No.1 on the attendance sheet issued by the invigi lator and wrote the examinations conducted in Room No.III at St. Joseph's Boys High School, Museum Road, Bangalore, on 16th and 17th September, 2000 vide Rol l No.KNT/JTO-15/2000-1393, taking advantage that there was no photo identity card system. After the declaration of the results, accused No.1 came to know that he had failed in Mathematics subject, hence, he remitted a fee of Rs.100/- for re-totaling, as a result he was declared pass and later on attended JTO training course at Regional Telecom Training Centre, Mysore, during which period the fraud committed by him came to l ight and he was sent back in the cadre of Wireman to his previous of f ice. After a prel iminary enquiry, the writings of accused No.1 were obtained and sent along with the answer sheets to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents GEQD., who opined that the said examination answer books were not written by accused No.1. Thereafter, on a complaint lodged by the Deputy General Manager, Vigi lance, to the Superintendent of Pol ice, CBI/ACB, investigation was taken up and on completion of the same, charge-sheet was f i led against accused Nos.1 and 2. Charges were framed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 of IPC, against accused No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 468 of IPC and against accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1989. To establ ish the gui lt of the accused, the prosecution got examined PWs1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P66. The defence got marked Ex.D1 but did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The trial Court by its Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2010 passed in Spl.C.C. No.149/2004 convicted and sentenced the accused for the charged of fences. For the of fence punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 of IPC, Accused No.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a f ine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of f ine, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. For the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988, accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a f ine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of f ine, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. For the offence under Section 419 of IPC, accused No.2 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and for the of fence under Section 468 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a f ine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of f ine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(3.) Assai ling the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the trial Court, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused/appel lants has contended as under: The approach of the trial court and the conclusion arrived at is contrary to law, facts of the case and weight of evidence. The trial Court has fai led to scrutinize and appreciate the evidence on record by adopting the standards adopted by the judicial forums. The conviction passed on the evidence of interested witnesses without considering the effect of cross-examination is bad in law. The f inding of the trial Court that accused No.2 impersonated accused No.1 and wrote the departmental examination is contrary to the evidence on record. The prosecution has fai led to lead any cogent or unimpeachable evidence with regard to alleged impersonation by accused No.2.