STANLEY RODRIGUES Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,SPE/CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the same in all these appeals. These three appeals arose from the common judgment of conviction of the learned Special Judge (SPE/CBI) -I, Ernakulam in C.C 4/98, C.C 5/98 and C.C 6/98. The appellant was the Field Officer/Assistant Manager of the State Bank of India at the Willington Island Branch, Ernakulam, during 1994. On the basis of reliable information regarding misappropriation of an amount of 81,205/ - by the appellant from the funds of the State Bank of India, the CBI registered a crime against the appellant on 24.4.1997 under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (For short 'the P.C Act') and under Section 420 I.P.C. During investigation, the C.B.I found misappropriation of amounts due to the State Bank of India by way of interest, penal interest etc from the account of some account holders. The amounts were debited from those accounts, but the appellant made some false documents showing credit of the amount to the account of the State Bank of India, and he dishonestly credited these amounts to his account, thus causing wrongful loss to the State Bank of India. After due investigation, the C.B.I. Submitted three final reports in the crime, splitting the instances of misappropriation on different occasions, during 1994.

(2.) The learned trial Judge took cognizance on the three final reports relating to various instances of dishonest misappropriation. On one final report, cognizance was taken as C.C No.4/98, on the second, cognizance was taken as 5/98 and on the third final report, coznizance was taken as C.C 6/98.

(3.) The appellant (accused) appeared before the learned trial Judge and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act and under Section 420 I.P.C. The three cases were tried jointly by the learned trial Judge. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P71 series documents. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances in all the three cases, and projected a defence of total denial. In defence, the accused examined two witnesses, and also proved Exts.D1 to D16 documents. The object of examination of the defence witnesses was to prove the remittance of the misappropriated amount, by the accused during investigation. DW2 is the prominent witness proving such remittance by the accused, thus compensating the State Bank of India, for the loss caused by him. This witness has proved the documents by which remittance was made by the accused.