ADITHELA IMMANUEL RAJU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, both brothers, have preferred this revision assailing the conviction and sentence u/S 120-B read with S.420, IPC and u/s 420 read with S.34, IPC as also the conviction of petitioner No. 1 u/ Ss. 409, 467, 468 and 477-A, IPC and of petitioner No.2 u/Ss. 419, 467 and 467 read with S.471, IPC. Both of them were sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to undergo RI for a further period of six months on each count. The conviction and sentence were challenged in appeal which also proved abortive.

(2.) The allegations against the petitioners as revealed by the prosecution are that the petitioner No. 1 was the Officiating Branch Manager during the period 12-7-1976 to 22-3-1977, except for some days in between when he remained on leave, due to the absence of the Branch Manager (P.W.4) of the State Bank of India, Evening Branch at Buxibazar, Cuttack. The Branch Manager remains in custody of the valuable security forms of the Bank of which blank bank draft from books form part of. Such bank draft books consist of 100 forms each and are kept in an locked almirah in the strong room. The key of the almirah remains with the Branch Manager. The petitioner No.1 brought out one bank draft forms book containing Sl. Nos. 612401 to 612500 on 27-11.1986 as would appear from entry Ext. 13/1 of the stamped and Unstamped Register. Before the bank drafts books was exhausted, another Bank drafts book containing Sl. Nos. 612501 to 612600 was shown in the Stamped and Unstamped Register under Ext. 13/2 as missing, such entry having been made in the hand of the petitioner No. 1. While the bank drafts book was so shown missing, yet 35 bank drafts therefrom were utilised as having been issued in favour of different persons by the Bank for different sums of large amounts drawn on the Branches of the State Bank of India at Ankapalli, Tuni, Guntur, Vijayawada and Vishakhapatnam. Such bank drafts had not been processed in the bank in the usual procedure before the drafts were issued and while there were no corresponding entries in respect of such drafts in any of the registers of the Bank, the same had been issued under the signature of the petitioner No. 1 as the Branch Manager and corresponding advices has also been sent to the respective Branches also under his signature. The drafts had been issued in favour of fictitious persons - B.S. Kumar, Nulu Rama Rao and Kotta Bhaskar Rao. The petitioner No. 2 identifying himself as the person under such assumed names withdraw under the drafts a total sum of Rs. 9,72,000/- although in reality no money in respect of such drafts had been deposited in the Buxibazar Evening Branch. A bank draft for Rs. 9,862.78 (Ext. 57) drawn in favour of Noolu Ram Rao was sent to Vijayawada Branch with bank transfer account from the Buxibazar Branch to such Branch in favour of Noolu Ram Rao and on the basis of that, an account was opened in that Branch. Another bank draft of Rs. 9,877.86 (Ext. 19) drawn in favour of K. Bhaskar Rao was sent to Vishakhapatnam Branch with Bank transfer account from the Buzibazar Branch to such Branch in favour of K. Bhaskar Rao in which the signature of the petitioner No. 2 was identified as K. Bhaskar Rao and on the basis of that, an account was opened in that Branch. The petitioner No. 2 also got deposited a cheque requisition form and obtained a cheque book. The cheque requisition form formed part of the cheque book of the Staff Welfare Fund which normally remained with the petitioner No. 1. On 21-3-1977 Ext. 6, a letter purported to have been issued from the Buxibazar Branch was returned undelivered as the stamp affixed was short by fifty paise and was received by the watchman of the Bank (P.W. 25). He handed over the envelope to P.W. 3, the Head Clerk in the presence of P.W. 2. On opening Ext. 6 was seen to have contained Exts. 1 to 5 the bank draft advices regarding draft Nos. 612553, 612577 and 612557 (all dated 11-3-1977) and lists of originating credits dated 11-3-1977 and 12-3-1977. P.W. 3 verified the postage register (Ext. 11) and draft issue register (Ext. 10) but found no entries relating to the issue of the letters or of the draft advices or originating credits corresponding to the contents of Exts. 1 to 5 and hence contacted the petitioner No. 1 who was then the Branch Manager. Petitioner No. 1 assured him that he would look into the matter and take appropriate action. During the period the bank was being inspected by the Regional Manage, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar, Shri A. C. Rai Choudhury (P.W. 1), but he was not informed by the petitioner No. 1 regarding Ext. 6 and its contents. P.W.1 was informed by P.W. 2 and on query was informed by the petitioner No. 1 that Exts. 4 and 5, the list of originating credits had not been issued from the Branch and that he was ignorant of them. P.W. 1 himself verified the draft issue register and found therein no reference to the drafts. The petitioner No. 1 also informed P.W. 1 of having already reported the loss of bank draft forms to the Regional Office on 15-12-1976 and showed him the office copy of the letter Ext. 7. On return, P.W. 1 learnt that Ext. 7 had not been received in his office. He contacted the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Vishakhapatnam, to which Exts. 1 to 3, the advice drafts had been sent to ascertain whether the drafts had been encashed, and received the talex message in the affirmative. He lodged information with the police (Ext. 8) on which the formal FIR was drawn up and investigation taken up. During investigation, the facts as stated above were revealed and thereafter charge-sheet was submitted.

(3.) It is the common case of the counsel appearing for both sides that so far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the case against him hinges upon the evidence relating to the identification of his signatures and initials in the different Exhibits. It is conceded by Mr. Behura that if such signatures appearing in the various documents exhibited by the prosecution are found to be that of the petitioner No. 1, his conviction cannot be assailed. He however disputes the signatures and the initials. As regards the petitioner No. 2 it is also the common case of the parties that the whole case against him is based upon his identification as having withdrawn the money under the drafts posing himself as different persons mentioned in the drafts and that unless his such identification is established, his conviction would not be sustainable. Since in a revision the conclusion of fact reached by the forums below are usually conclusive and are not to be disturbed and the findings as are now assailed before me are findings of fact not available to be interfered with, yet since the case of the petitioners is of total lack of convincing evidence on either Court, I have heard the learned counsel in detail.