JOGINDER PAL DHIMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are directed against the conviction of Joginder Pal Dhiman, the accused-appellant recorded by the Special Judge on charge under Ss. 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 13(1)(d) read with S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In criminal case No. 1-S/7 of 1995, he was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under S. 420, IPC and p ay fine of Rupees 2000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall suffer imprisonment for two months. For offence under S. 467, IPC he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2000.00. In default thereof he shall undergo imprisonment for two months. For offence under S. 471, IPC he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 2,000.00. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo further imprisonment for two months. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under S. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and pay fine of Rs. 5,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for six months. In case No. 3-S/7 of 1995 the appellant was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months under S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000.00. For offence under S. 420, IPC he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000.00 and for offence under S. 467, IPC. he was in undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rupees 5000/-. He was also held guilty under S. 471, IPC and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rupees 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were, however, directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the Criminal Appeal No. 372/97 are as follows The appellant at the relevant time was employed as Assistant Manager (Cash) and was functioning as officiating Branch Manager of United Commercial Bank, Sadhupul Branch in District Solan during the year 1990-92. It was the prosecution case that the appellant abused his official authority as a Public Servant and thereby caused wrongful loss of Rs. 84,000.00 approximately to the Bank by way of changing the value of three Fixed Deposit Receipts No. 755660/240/91/92 dated 9-12-1991 for Rupees 2,000/- in his name (hereinafter referred to as First F.D.R.); F.D.R. No. 755663/244/91/92 dated 17-12-1991 for Rs. 2,000.00 in favour of his minor son Master Ankush Kumar as his guardian (hereinafter referred to as second F.D.R.); and FDR No. 755673/255/91/92 dated 30-12-1991 for Rs. 2,000.00 in favour of his second son Master Abinav Dhiman as his guardian (hereinafter referred to as Third F.D.R.). The appellant knowingly, deliberately with mala fide intention changed face value of above said three F.D.Rs. to Rs. 20,000/-. Rs. 30,000.00 and Rs. 40,000.00 respectively, which he himself prepared and appended his signature thereon as Manager of the Bank. He while preparing the F.D.Rs. forged signature of second signatory on first two F.D.Rs. It was further case of the prosecution that the appellant raised a loan of Rs. 15,000.00 and Rs. 25,000.00 from U.C.O. Bank Dharamshala on 3-1-1992 on First Two F.D.Rs. and loan of Rs. 30,000.00 from UCO. Bank, Birta Branch District Kangra on 6-3-1992 against third F.D.R. All vouchers and other documents pertaining to those F.D.Rs. and loan raised thereon were written and signed by the appellant which were proved in his handwriting and signatures by the Govt. Examiner Questioned Documents, who also opined that the signatures of second signatory on first two F.D.Rs. were forged by the appellant. On these allegations, the investigation was conducted by the C.B.I. against the appellant. The necessary documents were seized by the Investigating Officer and after completion of the investigation and after obtaining the necessary sanction the charge sheet was laid against the appellant.

(3.) The learned Special Judge framed charges against the appellant for offences under Ss. 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.