SIBA PRASAD SATPATHY Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 15-9-1998 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Appeal No. 2/10 of 1997/96 affirming the judgment and order dated 31-1-1996 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in S.P.E. No. 26 of 1988 convicting the petitioner under Sections 420 and 468 read with Section 471, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 420, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months from the offence under Section 468 read with Section 471, IPC, the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) SANS unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and one Krushna Chandra Pattnaik were working as Field Officer and Branch Manager respectively of the State Bank of India, Nuapada Branch during the period from January, 1987 to April, 1987. The petitioner recommended for a loan of Rs. 8,000/- in favour of a fictitious loanee, namely, Lochan Rout on 29-1-1987 and K. C. Pattnaik, the Branch Manager, sanctioned the said loan amount. Not only the loanee, but also the guarantor, namely, Ghanashyam Rout was a fictitious person. The petitioner had filled up the loan application in his own hand and also put the signature of the loanee and the guarantor in his own hand. During the absence of the Branch Manager, Loan Account No. 287 was opened and the money was disbursed in favour of the said fictitious loanee. Thereafter, no repayment was made towards the loan. Ultimately, the matter was investigated by the C.B.I. Bhubaneswar, and charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 420 and 468 read with Section 471, IPC.

(3.) ON perusal of the evidence on record it is found that the entire prosecution case rests upon the testimony of RWs. 6 and 11 and Ext. 24. P.W. 6 was the Cash Officer of the Bank at the relevant time. He deposed that the accused put his signature and received the loan amount in his presence. P.W. 11 who is the guarantor, in his evidence deposed that he put his signature on the backside of the cheque, Ext. 24 as asked by P.W. 6-Sashadev Thakur and the accused. In his evidence he has further clarified that he put his signature under Exts. 24/2 and 24/3 before the Cash Officer. Though Kishore Chandra Sahu was present, P.W. 6 told him to simply write his name, for which he wrote his name as per Ext. 24/3. From the above evidence, it is crystal clear that it is the Cash Officer, P.W. 6, who obtained the signature from the guarantor on the loan document. In such circumstances, it cannot be imagined for a moment that the accused who was an Officer of the same bank, put forged signature and received the loan amount. Since P.W. 6 had obtained the signature of the guarantor on the loan document, it does to prove that the loanee was not a fictitious person. P.W. 6 being a responsible officer of the bank could not have obtained the signature of the guarantor on forged documents. Since the criminal case has been initiated, the witness has tried to put all blame on the accused lest he would be implicated. His attempt to conceal his part of the performance is tell tale. The man may lie but the circumstances do not. P.W. 6 being the accomplice his accusation against the accused cannot be held to be sufficient to find the accused guilty. From the above it is absolutely clear the Cash Officer (P.W. 6) has obtained the signature from the guarantor under Ext. 24 and there is no other evidence to show that the accused put his signature and endorsement. Therefore, he cannot be found guilty for the said offence. It is alleged that the petitioner put the signature of Lochan Rout and grabbed the loan amount. It is also alleged that Lochan Rout was not in existence. The Court below has clearly found that the accused put his signature. The said signature is under Ext. 24 that was seized and sent to the Handwriting Expert and the Handwriting Expert opined that the signature put on the back side of the cheque (Ext. 24) as the writing of the accused. This contradicts the sworn testimony of P.W. 7. The entire conviction is based on uncorroborated testimony of the Handwriting Expert about whose authenticity, this Court has already recorded its opinion.