P SEETHARAMAIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appellants were accused in C.C. No. 14 of 1991, which was tried by the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad. Bom the accused were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 120-B I.P.C. read with Sections 420,468 and 471 I.P.C. and under Section 5(1) (d) read with Sec. 5 (2) of Prevention of PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. The second charge against both the accused was that they had a conspiracy at Hyderabad during the period from 16-10-1981 to 11-2-1983 cheated the State Bank of Hyderabad, Himayathnagar Branch, by dishonestly inducing the said Bank to deliver cash amounting to Rs.2,43,402-00 by producing 23 false and forged interest payment vouchers specified in the annexure to the charge sheet. A-l is alleged to have prepared the vouchers and A-2 is alleged to have passed the vouchers abusing their positions as Clerk and Officers respectively committed an offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. The third charge against A-l was punishable under Section 467 I.P.C. The 4th charge against A-l was punishable under Section 468 I.P.C. The 5th charge against A-l was punishable under Sections 467 and 471 I.P.C. The 6th charge against both the accused (A-1 and A-2) was punishable under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. The 7th charge against A-l and A-2 was punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. and the last charge against both the accused was punishable under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, 1947.

(2.) It appears from the record that on hearing the prosecution case and the defence of both the accused, the accused were found guilty of the charges levelled against them and they were convicted for the said charges. A-l was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo S.I. for one month of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420,468 and 471 I.P.C. and under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. He was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo S.I for three months of the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. He was further sentenced .to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo S.I. for one month of the offence punishable under Sections 467 and 471 I.P.C .He was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-in default to undergo S.I. for one month of the offence punishable under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. Thus, the total fine imposed upon the accused No. 1 was to the tune of Rs. 2,500/-.

(3.) If further appears from the record that A-2 was also found guilty and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo S.I. for one month of the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468 and 417 I.P.C. and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. He was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo S.I. for a further three monthsof the offence punishable under Section 420 l.P.C. He was also further sentenced to undergo R,I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo S.I. for one month of the offence punishable under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Thus, A-2 was made to pay a total fine of Rs. 2000/-.