holder would show that he did not withdraw any amount
from the account when an amount of Rs. 4400/ was
balance. The passbook at Exhibit20 produced by him
supports the said fact. The witness has further deposed
that the application made for withdrawal at Exhibit21
is not signed by him.
The evidence of clerk i.e. PW2 Vijaysingh Bais
and PW8 Nandlal Daima would show that the list of
transactions at Exhibit23 and application for
withdrawal of money at Exhibit21 are in the handwriting
of the present appellant. Thus, the forging of the
withdrawal application in the handwriting of the present
As regards the next of the saving bank account,
the evidence of PW1 Vilas would show that he had opened
the said account and at the time of the transaction, an
amount of Rs. 3800/ was in balance. The passbook at
Exhibit15 bears out this fact. The withdrawal slipcumapplication
at Exhibit24 is, however, in the
handwriting of the present appellant as proved by PW2
Vijaysingh Bais, which has been disowned by the account
holder PW1 Vilas. The ledger card in the handwriting
and under the signature of the present appellant would
show that on the fateful day i.e. on 05.10.1986,
withdrawal of an amount of rs. 3800/ is not shown in
the same. The evidence would show that the appellant
has forged the withdrawal application at Exhibit24,
withdrew the amount but did not show the same either in
the ledger card, or in the passbook of the account
holder.
In the circumstances, even in the absence of
handwriting expert's opinion or evidence, the
handwriting of the present appellant over the fateful
document is proved by the witnesses who were well
conversant with the handwriting of the present
appellant.
As regards the time deposit accounts, PW2
Vijaysingh Bais and PW7 Govardhan Morkhade were
definitely conversant with the handwriting of the
present appellant. While the entries in the long
register and the list of the transactions prepared were
definitely proved to be in the handwriting of the
present appellant by these witnesses, the omission of
the credit made by the relevant account holders in the
relevant time deposit accounts has been clearly proved.
During crossexamination of these witnesses, no material
could be brought on record to show that they are not
conversant with the handwriting of the present
appellant.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2001
Namdeo s/o Gyanoba Chunchekar,
VERSUS
The Union of India
[CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.]
[PRONOUNCED ON : 11TH AUGUST, 2015]
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(cri) 4150
1. Aggrieved by the conviction recorded for the
offences punishable under section 409 and 467 of the
Indian Penal Code and under section 13 (1) (c) read with
section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and consequential sentences to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years on each of the
count and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ on each of the count,
awarded by the learned Special Judge, Hingoli in Special
Case No. 7/1999, vide judgement and order dated
23.01.2001, the present appeal is preferred.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is as under :
. That, the appellant was working as sub
postmaster at Akhada Balapur sub post office in District
Parbhani during the relevant period. He used to make
entries regarding the deposits in the passbooks of the
customers at the time of depositing of the amount and
used to carry other postal work.
. During enquiry, it was found that he has
misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,03,427.15 by forging
signatures of the depositors in twenty two saving bank
accounts.
. Further, as regards the five accounts of
recurring deposits, he has misappropriated an amount of
Rs. 66,593.85.
. Lastly, as regards the time deposit accounts
(fixed deposits), though he used to make correct noting
in the passbooks of the account holders, he used to omit
to credit the same in the long register kept with the
postal authorities. Thus, the credits were not
transferred to the postal authorities but were directly
returned to the depositors. By omitting to make entries
in the long register and by making another forged list
without including the misappropriated amount, he used to
make fictitious entries regarding the interest in the
passbooks. Thus, the appellant has misappropriated an
amount of Rs. 6350/ in respect of such accounts.
. It was further alleged that during the enquiry,
the appellant has admitted his guilt and has repaid the
amount of Rs. 48,000/ and in the circumstances, upon
making investigation, Shri Shrihari Vishnu Gadgil,
Police Inspector attached to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (AntiCorruption Branch), Mumbai has filed
the common FIR (certified copy is at Exhibit36 in the
present case), out of which the present crime was
registered.
3. The present case pertains to four accounts.
. Firstly, as regards recurring deposit account
No. 46662, the allegations are that the appellant has
forged the signatures of the account holder and
withdrawn an amount of Rs. 1300/ for himself.
. Secondly, as regards saving bank account No.
1051487, the appellant forged the signature of the
account holder and dishonestly misappropriated an amount
of Rs. 3800/.
. Thirdly and fourthly, he has caused criminal
misappropriation as regards time deposit accounts No.
181709 and 181712 by not making the entries of the
credit in the long register maintained with his post
office or to send the extract of the entries to the
higher authorities and has thus, committed
misappropriation of Rs. 2150/ and Rs. 5500/ credited
in the respective accounts.
4. The submissions from both sides as well as
record and papers would show that though as per the
prosecution, the opinion of the handwriting expert
regarding the disputed documents in the entire scandal
was obtained during investigation, the said opinion or
even a copy of the same is not placed on record in the
present case.
5. Before the learned Special Judge, Hingoli, in
all thirteen witnesses were examined and voluminous
documentary evidence is placed on record.
. PW1 Vilasrao Pede is the saving bank account
holder of account No. 1051487 from which allegedly, the
present appellant has withdrawn an amount of Rs. 3800/
by forging the signature of this account holder. He
deposed that he learnt that amounts were not properly
credited in the accounts register. Therefore, he went to
the post office and postal authorities recorded his
statement. Upon enquiry, it was told by the authorities
that an amount of Rs. 3000/ was withdrawn from his
account. In the circumstances, his statement was
recorded by the authorities. He, therefore, gave
specimen signature to the authorities. Lateron, the
postal authorities paid him back an amount of Rs. 3800/
and made necessary entry in his passbook.
. PW2 Vijaysing Bais, who was working with the
present appellant, was the clerk in the said sub post
office during the relevant period. He was examined to
show that in ordinary course of business, he had
opportunity to be conversant with the handwriting and
signature of the appellant. He, therefore, proved the
signature and the handwriting of the appellant on the
relevant document, including the relevant pass book,
regarding the long register and the relevant extract
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2016 15:25:13 :::Bombay High Court
6 criapl78-2001
sent to the higher authorities by the appellant.
. PW3 Badrinarayan Goyanka had opened the
recurring deposit account bearing No. 46662 in the name
of his minor daughter Anuradha. He has deposed that he
did not withdraw the amount from the said account as
shown in the accounts book, neither has, at any time,
closed the said account. The signatures at the relevant
place in the document were shown to him and he deposed
that he did not put those signatures.
. PW4 Ramrao Bondare had opened time deposit
account No. 181712 in the said sub post office during
the relevant period. He deposed that the entries were
correctly made in his passbook. The allegations,
however, are that the present appellant has not credited
the amount in the long register as well as in the
extract sent to the higher authorities.
. PW5 Kishanrao Muley is the account holder of
time deposit account No. 181709. He has deposed on the
similar line.
. PW6 Kantraj Gangadharam was the Superintendent
of post offices at Nanded Postal Division during the
period from 1988 to 1990, who has issued the sanction to
prosecute the present appellant.
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2016 15:25:13 :::Bombay High Court
7 criapl78-2001
. PW7 Govardhan Morkhade, who was the SubDivisional
Inspector at Post Office, Hingoli, has
carried the departmental investigation regarding the
account of PW5 Kishanrao Muley.
. PW8 Nandlal Daima, is the another SubDivisional
Inspector of Post Offices, who was then
working at the office of SubDivision, Sailu, in the
year 1987. He claimed to be conversant with the
handwriting of the appellant. Further, he had conducted
the enquiry in the matter of alleged misappropriation of
amount and has deposed about the investigation carried
by him, specifically as regards the present case.
. PW9 Samadhan Manwar, during the relevant period
i.e. in the year 1988, was working as Ledger Clerk at
the Head Post Office, Parbhani. He has deposed about
the ledger card of account No. 181709. He has deposed
about the entries made by him in official course, upon
receipt of list of transactions received from various
post offices, including the present sub post office,
which would show that there were no entries as regards
the time deposit account in the present case.
. PW10 Narayan Patre, who was working as Marking
Posting Clerk at the Head Post Office, Parbhani in the
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2016 15:25:13 :::Bombay High Court
8 criapl78-2001
year 1988, has deposed about the preparation of the
ledger cards on the basis of the list of transactions
sent by the various post offices, to prove that in the
relevant list of transactions, the transactions made in
the time deposit account were not sent by the present
appellant to the Head Post office.
. PW11 Gulab Pakvanna, who, in the year 1988, was
working as SubDivisional Inspector, had carried general
enquiry in the complaint of misappropriation said to
have been made by the present appellant. He had
collected the necessary documents from the said subpost
office and recorded the statements of relevant account
holders.
. PW12 Yeshwant Jathar was the Superintendent of
Post Offices, nanded Region in the year 19861987. He
deposed about the receipt of telegram from the higher
authorities to conduct the enquiry into the affairs of
Akhada Balapur sub post office and as to what steps were
taken by him.
. PW13 Shrihari Gadgil who was the then Police
Inspector of Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai, has deposed
about the investigation carried by him and filing of the
FIR, as detailed supra.
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2016 15:25:13 :::Bombay High Court
9 criapl78-2001
6. The learned Special Judge concluded that though
handwriting expert's opinion is not placed or proved,
there is ample evidence from the mouth of the witnesses
who were conversant with the handwriting and signature
of the present appellant. According to him, it was
proved that the signatures were forged by the present
appellant in the relevant account books and deliberately
failed to make entries in the long register and other
relevant statements sent to the higher authorities as
regards the time deposit account. Thus, finding that
the case of misappropriation is proved, the conviction
and sentence, as detailed supra, came to be recorded
against the appellant. Hence, the present appeal.
7. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the
appellant, submits that though the prosecution case is
that handwriting expert has given his opinion, the same
is not placed on record, creating doubt regarding the
genuineness of the prosecution case. He further
submitted that no loss to the account holders was caused
and each of the witnesses deposed only regarding
handwriting or the signature of the present appellant.
He further submitted that in fact, PW2 Vijaysingh Bais
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2016 15:25:13 :::Bombay High Court
10 criapl78-2001
was the clerk in the subpost office whose duty was to
carry all these works and therefore, he submitted that
the appellant be acquitted.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Alok Sharma, learned
Assistant Solicitor General, supported the reasoning of
the learned Special Judge.
9. On the basis of above material on record and
considering the submissions advanced on behalf of both
sides, the following points arise for my determination:
(I) Whether the prosecution has proved that on 7th
June, 1986, the present appellant being the sub Post
Master and entrusted in such capacity with recurring
deposit account No. 46662 of Anuradha Badrinarayan
Goenka, has committed criminal breach of trust by
misappropriating an amount of Rs. 1300/ by forging the
signature and has dishonestly and fraudulently
misappropriated the said amount, being a public
servant ?
(II) Whether the prosecution has proved that on 5th
October, 1986, at Sub Post Office, Akhada Balapur, the
present appellant being sub Post Master and entrusted,
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2016 15:25:13 :::Bombay High Court
11 criapl78-2001
in such capacity, with saving bank account No. 1051487
of Vilas Dasrao Pede, had forged his signature and
committed criminal breach of trust as regards an amount
of Rs. 3800/ and has also committed criminal misconduct
being a public servant by dishonestly and fraudulently
misappropriating the said amount ?
(III) Whether the prosecution has further proved
that on 27th October, 1986, the present appellant being
the sub Post Master at Akhada Balapur, being entrusted,
in such capacity, with the time deposit account No.
181709 of Kishanrao Narayanrao Muley, has committed
criminal breach of trust in respect of an amount of Rs.
2150/ by omitting to make entry regarding the receipt
of the said amount in the account books maintained with
the sub post office and by omitting to send the relevant
entries to the higher authorities ?
(IV) Whether the prosecution has further proved that
on 17th November, 1986, the present appellant being the
Sub Post Master at Akhada Balapur and entrusted, in such
capacity, with time deposit account No. 181712 of Ramrao
Babarao Bondare, has misappropriated an amount of Rs.
5500/ from the said account and thus committed criminal
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2016 15:25:13 :::Bombay High Court
12 criapl78-2001
breach of trust in respect of the said amount, being
public servant and has also committed criminal
misconduct ?
My findings to above points are in the affirmative. The
appeal is, therefore, dismissed for the reasons to
follow :
R E A S O N S
10. The testimony of PW3 Badrinarayan, the account
holder would show that he did not withdraw any amount
from the account when an amount of Rs. 4400/ was
balance. The passbook at Exhibit20 produced by him
supports the said fact. The witness has further deposed
that the application made for withdrawal at Exhibit21
is not signed by him.
. The evidence of clerk i.e. PW2 Vijaysingh Bais
and PW8 Nandlal Daima would show that the list of
transactions at Exhibit23 and application for
withdrawal of money at Exhibit21 are in the handwriting
of the present appellant. Thus, the forging of the
withdrawal application in the handwriting of the present
11. As regards the next of the saving bank account,
the evidence of PW1 Vilas would show that he had opened
the said account and at the time of the transaction, an
amount of Rs. 3800/ was in balance. The passbook at
Exhibit15 bears out this fact. The withdrawal slipcumapplication
at Exhibit24 is, however, in the
handwriting of the present appellant as proved by PW2
Vijaysingh Bais, which has been disowned by the account
holder PW1 Vilas. The ledger card in the handwriting
and under the signature of the present appellant would
show that on the fateful day i.e. on 05.10.1986,
withdrawal of an amount of rs. 3800/ is not shown in
the same. The evidence would show that the appellant
has forged the withdrawal application at Exhibit24,
withdrew the amount but did not show the same either in
the ledger card, or in the passbook of the account
holder.
. In the circumstances, even in the absence of
handwriting expert's opinion or evidence, the
handwriting of the present appellant over the fateful
document is proved by the witnesses who were well
conversant with the handwriting of the present
appellant.
12. As regards the time deposit accounts, PW2
Vijaysingh Bais and PW7 Govardhan Morkhade were
definitely conversant with the handwriting of the
present appellant. While the entries in the long
register and the list of the transactions prepared were
definitely proved to be in the handwriting of the
present appellant by these witnesses, the omission of
the credit made by the relevant account holders in the
relevant time deposit accounts has been clearly proved.
During crossexamination of these witnesses, no material
could be brought on record to show that they are not
conversant with the handwriting of the present
appellant.
13. As regards the sanction, the testimony of the
sanctioning authority that it has applied its mind and
thereafter, the sanction was granted. In that view of
the matter, the appeal fails. Hence, the following
order:
14. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The bail
bonds, if any of the present appellant shall stand
cancelled. The learned Special Judge is directed to
take steps for securing the presence of the appellant
for serving the sentence awarded to him, as per the due
procedure of law.
[M.T. JOSHI]
No comments:
Post a Comment