S. CHANDRASHEKAR Vs. STATE BY CBI, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the accused who has been convicted by the Special Court in Special C.C. No. 120 of 1998 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 473 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and consequent sentence imposed upon the appellant. The case of the prosecution in short is that, the appellant while working as Assistant Manager and Branch Manager of Peenya Branch of National Insurance Company Limited during the year 1990, cheated the National Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- by falsely obtaining the personal accident insurance policy No. 60220/9100191 in the name of H. Gangadhar for the period from 21-8-1989 to 20-8-1990 and the details of the proposal form were filled up and signature of the insured was also forged by the appellant and subsequently the appellant submitted a bogus claim intimation letter dated 25-6-1990 by falsely intimating that the insured viz., Gangadhar had suffered an accident while driving the vehicle on 25-6-1990 on Airport Road, Domlur. This letter was prepared by the accused in his handwriting and the signature of the insured was also forged by him and thereafter the appellant-accused submitted the filled up claim with false information and forged the signature of the insured even in the medical certificate and created a fictitious name as Dr. Vivek of Sathya Clinic and finally got the amount of Rs. 6,000/- debited from the account of the National Insurance Company and finally the said amount was credited to S.B.A/c No. 34419 on realisation. The said amount was transferred to the account of the accused bearing No. 2851 at State Bank of India and he utilised the amount for his own purpose. Fake letterhead, rubber stamp of Dr. Vivek, ink pad and other fabricated documents were all seized from the house of the accused.

(2.) The C.B.I. after investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the appellant for the aforementioned offences and following the accused pleading not guilty to the charge, the prosecution examined in all 30 witnesses and produced 52 documents. After recording of the accused statement, D.W. 1 was examined on behalf of the accused.

(3.) The Trial Court, after evidence appreciation, held that the prosecution had brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly he was convicted in respect of each one of the offences with which he was charged.