R. NEHRU Vs. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- The defacto complainant, one Rathinam had a savings bank account at Canara Bank, R.S.Puram, and his account number was 1480. On 23.09.1998, the first accused, viz., Nehru S/o.Rangan had withdrawn a sum of Rs.45,000/- from the defacto complainant's bank account by cheque No.136025 which belongs to the said account holder. The accused forged the signature of the defacto complainant and had withdrawn the said amount, for which, the accused, 2, 3 and 4 colluded with him for encashment of the said cheque. Hence, the defacto complainant had lodged a complaint against all the accused before the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Coimbatore and the said complaint has been registered in Crime No.4 of 1999, against the first accused for the offence under Sections 467 r/w 471 and 420 of IPC and against the accused 2, 3 and 4, for the offence under Section 467 r/w 109 of IPC.

(2.) THE Inspector of Police had conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Coimbatore and the said case was numbered as C.C.No.258 of 2003. After serving a copy of this charge sheet, all the accused had pleaded not guilty and hence the case has been proceeded with.

(3.) P .W.1 had adduced evidence that he is the Senior Manager attached to the Canara Bank. He deposed that the defacto complainant, Rathinam has a savings bank account in S.B.No.1480, in his bank. He deposed that on 23.09.1998, a sum of Rs.45,000/- had been withdrawn from the defacto complainant's account. In this connection, the defacto complainant had made a complaint in the month of October 1998 stating that he had not signed the cheque and that the first accused had stolen the cheque leaf from his house and forged his signature and as such, the first accused had withdrawn the said amount fraudulently. P.W.1 further stated that he had verified the signature of the said cheque and the specimen signature of the defacto complainant and it did not tally with one another. The said cheque had been presented in the account of Poornima Investment current account bearing No.17/142. On the very same date, Poornima Investment had issued a cheque bearing No.599840 in favour of the first accused for the said amount. The second accused who is operating the account on behalf of Poornima Investment denied that she has no connection with the said transaction. Therefore, the case has been levelled against the accused. Further the signature in the said disputed cheque and the A-2's specimen signature was compared and found tallying.