MUTHUKUMAR Vs. ALOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused Nos.3, 4, 5, 7 Calendar Case No. 7 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai, are the appellants herein. The 4th accused in Calendar Case No. 7 of 2005 has preferred the Crl.A.(MD) No.360 of 2011 and accused Nos.3, 5 & 7 have preferred the Crl.A.(MD) No. 362 of 2011. The appellant/4 th accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 120B r/w 419, 420. 467, 468, 471 I.P.C . and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 419 , 467 , 468 , 471 of I.P.C. and the appellant/3rd accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 120B r/w 419, 420. 467, 468, 471 I.P.C . and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 419 and 471 of I.P.C. and the appellant/5th accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 120B r/w 419, 420. 467, 468, 471 I.P.C . and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 419 of I.P.C. and the appellant/7 th accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 120B r/w 419, 420. 467, 468, 471 I.P.C . and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act . When the appellants were questioned as to the charges, they pleaded not guilty and therefore, there were put on trial. The learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai, after full-fledged trial, found the appellants were guilty.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is as follows : 2(1). During the year 2004, the appellants herein were entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the LIC of India, Tuticorin Branch along with one P.Sivasubramanian (since expired) sub-staff of the Senior and K.Clinton (case against him was separated). In pursuance of the conspiracy of Higher Grade Assistant (A1 & A2) and incharge of accounts and cash, LIC respectively, had fraudulently removed and given cheques vide cheque Nos. 735286, 735287, 712664, 712665, 713731 and 818066 to P.Sivasubramanian, Sub staff and he contacted the appellants/3rd and 4th accused at the barber shop of the appellant/7th accused and informed that he was having 2 blank IOB cheques of LIC of India and asked their assistance in encashing them and he further infomred that he would bring more blank cheques in future. The appellants/3rd and 4th accused agreed to assist him in encashing these cheques. Therefore, the appellant/4th accused approached the appellant/5th accused and K.Clinton and the appellant/5th accused and K.Clinton were agreed to assist in encashing the cheques removed by the High Grade Assistant(A1 & A2). Then the cheques were forged, deposited in the bank and withdraw the amount by the appellants along with the other accused.

(3.) The learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai, after completing the prosecution evidences, the incriminating evidence was put to the appellants under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The appellants had denied the same as false evidence. On the side of appellants, no witness was examined and no document was marked. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the appellants were guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the appellants/Accused Nos.3,4,5 and 7 have preferred the present appeal.