SRIDEVI SHEKAR WIFE OF SOMASHEKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE appellant was the accused before the court below in the following circumstances: The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, a Special Police Establishment, Bangalore, had registered a case against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC' for brevity) initially, and had taken up investigation. The allegation was that, the appellant was employed as a clerk with a Nationalised Bank M/s. Syndicate Bank, Frazer Town Branch, Bangalore and that the Savings Bank Account No.19387 which stood in the name of one Siddamma had become an inoperative account as per the available ledger sheet and the account showed a balance of Rs.2,960.80/- as on 15.12.1990. The ledger sheet containing entries from 30.11.1982 to March 1990 were missing and on 15.12.1990, an amount of Rs.2,960/- was dishonestly debited by means of a self- drawn withdrawal slip and the balance was reduced to Rs.0.80/-. The said account holder was dead long before the said transaction. It was further alleged that the Savings Bank Account No.13714 stood in the name of Sri. B.B. Kuttappa, a resident of Frazer Town, Bangalore. He had expired on 29.02.1984, but the account continued to be an inoperative interest earning account showing a balance of Rs.14,612.06/- as on 30.03.1991. It was alleged that the accused had dishonestly issued a cheque book in the name of the account holder with cheque leaves from 0124261 to 0124270 on 25.03.1991, without obtaining the necessary permission from her Superior Officers of the Bank and fraudulently withdrew various amounts by using the cheque leaves; On 27.03.1991, cheque No.124263 for Rs.5,500/- was presented by the accused fraudulently. She had obtained Token No.41, presented it to the cashier and collected the amount. She had dishonestly scored off the Savings Bank account number and the balance written in the ledger books as of March 1991 and inserted the balance of Rs.9,113.06/- of this account in between S.B. Account No.13894 and 13919. Without writing this dormant SB account, the balance was tallied under her signature; a cheque bearing No.124266 dated 18.2.1991 for Rs.4,000/- was fraudulently presented by the accused and she had collected the proceeds from the cashier; a cheque No.124267 dated 26.04.1991 for a sum of Rs.5,000/- was presented by the accused on that very date and she had collected the amount covered under the cheque. She had made wrong entries of the above transactions in Savings Bank ledgers by altering the S.B. Account Nos.13714 to 13919. It was the further case of the prosecution that in respect of the S.B. Account No.11125 in the name of one Fatimabi, a resident of Narayan Pillai Street, Bangalore, the accused had issued a withdrawal slip No.066824 on 12.03.1991 for a sum of Rs.2,100/- in the name of the account holder, and she had collected the proceeds. It was the further case of the prosecution that in respect of the S.B. Account No.17814 which was in the name of N. Rajalakshmi, a resident of Victoria Layout, Bangalore, on 19.12.1990, the accused had issued withdrawal slip No.856141 in the name of the said account holder and collected an amount of Rs.2,730/- from the cashier. Subsequently, the accused had debited the said transaction in the ledger-sheet. It was on these allegations, that a charge-sheet having been filed and the accused having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution had gone to trial and had examined PW-1 to PW-15 and had marked Exhibits P1 to P103 and on the basis of the said material and the contentions raised, the court below had framed the following points for consideration:

(3.) IN the light of the above rival contentions, without having to reiterate the infirmities that were sought to be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, and the justification that was also presented by the learned counsel for the respondent, insofar as the first contention is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the disclosure of the source of information was desirable, but such non-disclosure, does not enable this court to compel the respondent to disclose the information, nor could the Lower Court compel the complainant to disclose such source of information in the light of Section 125 of the Evidence Act and further, this was an aspect which would have taken on significance, if it was crucial to the case of the prosecution that source information be disclosed. When there is ample material on record on the basis of which the prosecution is able to establish its case, the source of information not having been disclosed, loses its significance. Therefore, to contend that the said circumstance has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, cannot be accepted having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. Insofar as the main case of the prosecution as to the charges having been established beyond all reasonable doubt is concerned, suffice it to point out that insofar as the withdrawal slips having been issued in respect of particular accounts, it is not in serious dispute that it was the accused who was instrumental in issuing the same. The fact that two of the account holders were dead as on the date of the transaction, would itself disclose mischievous intention on the part of the appellant. The second aspect that the same have been presented and have been duly encashed, is also established on the face of it, by reference to the withdrawal slips that have been marked in evidence, the fact that the appellant had received the cash, is spoken to by PWs 7 and 8 and which has not been seriously contested in cross- examination though PW-7 was treated as a hostile witness, for reasons otherwise than the evidence which was left untouched insofar as payment of cash by the said witness to the accused. Therefore, the entire sequence of events from the issuance of the withdrawal slips to the presentation of the same to the cashier, has been established beyond all reasonable doubt, by the prosecution. The mere infirmity insofar as Exhibit P71, which is the list of inoperative accounts not being corroborated with that of the withdrawal slips issued, is not a circumstance which would take away the thrust of the prosecution's case in order to prove the allegations made against the accused appellant. Therefore, in the view of this Court, there is no infirmity which would destabilize the case of the prosecution and accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Insofar as the sentence imposed on the appellant is concerned, though a fervent plea is made on behalf of the accused in view of the appellant being a woman with children and suffering from various illnesses as on date and also having been dismissed from service and the contention that the service register of the appellant does not contain any adverse remarks, are not grounds on which the present appellant can be viewed with any compassion to seek the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, or otherwise. The fact that the appellant has sought to claim that she had a blemishless service with reference to her service record, would not also advance her case because, she has disclosed her true colours in the present case on hand, whereby as a necessary consequence, the crime having been established against her, the punishment imposed is just and reasonable in the view of this Court. There is no warrant for interference insofar as the imposition of punishment is concerned.