B.B. NANJAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18 -9 1995 passed by the 4th Addl.CMM at Bangalore, in C.C. No. 8034/1993, whereby the revision petitioner -accused is convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Sections 408, 380, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC and also to set aside the judgment and order of dismissal of the appeal passed by the FTC -III Bangalore city, in Crl. A. 172/1995, on the ground that the courts below have not applied their judicious mind in appreciating the evidence placed on record, consequently come to a wrong conclusion in convicting the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The alleged Vikas Cash Certificate ['VCC' for short] was not in the custody of the petitioner and the contrary the said certificate was in the exclusive custody of the manager of the bank. That the courts below erroneously come to the conclusion in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. There are serious contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but instead of acquitting the petitioner, the Courts below wrongly disbelieved the defence put forth by the petitioner, by holding that the petitioner has nexus for the same. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this case is that, the petitioner was working as clerk in Syndicate Bank, Mysore road branch. Bangalore, during the year 1988. According to prosecution story, petitioner is said to have committed theft of VCC bearing No. 194500/1801, from the custody of manager of the said bank without his knowledge and got opened the SB Account through P.W.2 and made him to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - in VCC stating that it would fetch better interest and then forged the signature of the manager of the said branch in the VCC stolen by him by filling it in his own hand writing and delivered the same to P.W.2 making him to believe that the said VCC is genuine and thereby misappropriated a sum of Rs. 5,000/ -. Therefore complaint came to be filed through PW. 1 -the manger of the said bank for an offence punishable under Section 408, 420, 380, 468, 471 of IPC. After considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 7 and documentary evidence marked at Ex.P.1 to P.43, the courts below convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, hence this appeal.

(3.) IT is contended that the petitioner was working as a clerk in the syndicate bank of P.W.1 but he was not the custodian of the VCC Certificate. The prosecution has not proved possession of the said certificate, therefore the question of petitioner forging the signature of the officer and deliver to P.W.2 Lingeshwar does not arise. The manager whose signature found on the VCC has not been examined. The comparison if any made by the expert without obtaining the specimen signature of the then manager is incorrect and improper. It is further argued that the courts below ought to have acquitted the petitioner on the ground that, no sanction has been obtained to prosecute him. It is argued that, P.W.5 admitted in his evidence that he did not find any shortage of VCC Certificate. It is argued that, evidence of P.W.4 an expert who is said to have compared the admitted and disputed signature, without obtaining the signature of the manger working at the relevant period, is incorrect and illegal. It is argued that petitioner was a union leader therefore, a false case has been filed with sole intention to harass him. Therefore it is submitted that the findings recorded by the courts below suffer from legal infirmity and liable to be set aside.