The State Of A.P., vs Kale Venkata Ramana
2021 Latest Caselaw 4837 AP

                                1




         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

               Criminal Appeal No. 1537 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

1) The present Appeal is filed by the State against the

Judgment of acquittal, dated 19.07.2006, in Criminal Appeal

No.90 of 2005 [filed by A1] and Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2005

[filed by A2], on the file of the III Additional District Sessions

Judge, Kakinada.

2) Originally, A1 to A3 were tried for the offences punishable

under Sections 409, 468 and 477A of Indian Penal Code ['I.P.C.']

by the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada in

C.C. No. 15 of 2009. Vide its Judgment, dated 21.04.2005, the

Trial Court while acquitting A2 convicted A1 and A3 for the

offences punishable under Sections 409, 468 and 477A I.P.C.

and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three

years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under each count in default

to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Challenging

the said conviction, A1 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 90 of

2005; while A3 filed Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2005, on the file

of the III Additional District Sessions Judge, Kakinada, wherein,

the Appellate Court acquitted A1 and A3 on all the counts.

Challenging the said acquittal, the present appeal is filed by the

State.

3)      The facts are as under:


 i)     A1 and A2 are the Firemen in the Fire Station No. 1,

Kakinada; while A3 is Junior Assistant, in the Office of the

Divisional Fire Officer, Kakinada. As per the Orders of the

Divisional Fire Officer, A1 and A2 have been assisting A3

in writing dispatch register, preparing GPF bills,

presentation of bills and encashment of bill amounts etc.

PW3 to PW6 were working as Forest Officer and Fireman at

Divisional Fire Officer, Kakinada, having GPF accounts.

ii) It is the case of the prosecution that, A1 to A3 fabricated

GPF part final withdrawal application of PW3 to PW6,

prepared office note on the respective applications, forged

sanction orders, made entries in Treasury bill books,

presented the bills before the Treasury and encashed an

amount of Rs.82,000/-. The said transaction was on

24.11.1995. On coming to know about the said

transaction, PW3 to PW6 brought the same to the notice of

higher authorities, which lead to registering of a case in

Crime No. 55 of 1997 under Ex.P47. After registering the

crime, a charge-sheet came to be filed.

iii) The Appellate Court, mainly, acquitted the A1 and A3 on

the ground that there is no material on record to show that

they were working under A2 during the relevant period of

time. In other words, the court held that no positive

evidence has been adduced to show that A1 and A3 were

working under A2 at the relevant point of time.

4) As seen from the record, the prosecution mainly relied on

the evidence of PW24 [hand writing expert] and Ex.P44 to

Ex.P46 in support of its plea that these two accused are

responsible for the alleged withdrawal of Rs.82,000/-. It is to be

noted here that the evidence of hand writing expert and Ex.P44

to Ex.P46 were rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that

the specimen signatures of the accused were obtained by the

investigating officer elsewhere and not before the Presiding

Officer of the Court, as required under law prevailing then.

5) Coming to the merits of the case, PW1 - the then

Divisional Fire Officer, in his cross-examination admitted that,

no Fireman was working in the Office of Divisional Fire Officer

and that they were working in Fire Stations. In the absence of

any Office Order or any deputation to A1 to work in the Office of

Divisional Fire Officer, Kakinada, it cannot be said that A1

worked in the Office of Divisional Fire Officer, Kakinada, during

the relevant time as Treasury Messenger.

6) PW15 - the Senior Accountant in District Treasury,

Kakinada, admitted in his cross-examination that, Ex.P39 to

Ex.P42 [GPF bills] are genuine bills and are duly signed by the

then Drawing Officer of the Office of District Fire Officer. It is

also to be noted here that, specimen signatures of the Drawing

Officer matched with the specimen signature of the Drawing

Officer [Assistant Divisional Fire Officer].

7) PW16, who was working as Senior Assistant in District

Treasury, who verified the bills and issued tokens categorically

admitted in his cross-examination that the bills under Ex.P39 to

Ex.P42 are having the signatures of Drawing Officer and the

tokens came to be issued only after verifying the signatures of

the Drawing Officer.

8) So is the evidence of PW17, who worked as Deputy Head

Cashier in State Bank of India.

9) Similarly, PW20, who worked as Senior Assistant in State

Bank of India, Kakinada, during the relevant time deposed that,

bank officials after comparing the specimen signatures of the

Drawing Officer available in the bank with the signatures on the

pay bills only, made the payments. Therefore, the evidence of the

witnesses referred to above categorically establish that the

disputed GPF bills are genuine and that the same were cleared

after due verification by the concerned.

10) At this stage, it is also to be noted that PW2 - the then

Assistant Divisional Fire Officer - cum - Drawing Officer, during

cross-examination admitted that, it was not the duty of A3 to go

to the bank and encash the bills and that A3 is not the person

who encashed the amount pertaining to the GPF bills and that

the four forged A.P.T.C., forms do not contain the signatures of

A3. On the other hand, PW7 in his evidence deposed that, all the

bills that were prepared by A3 will be forwarded by PW2 for

verification and only after due verification, the same would be

cleared by PW2. His evidence also discloses that A3 is not

authorized to encash the bill.

11) It is no doubt true that, prosecution examined 26

witnesses and marked 48 exhibits. But, however, it is the quality

and not the quantity which matters while appreciating the

evidence. Having regard to the admissions in the evidence of the

witnesses, referred to above, I am of the view that, the evidence

adduced by the prosecution does not establish beyond

reasonable doubt that the accused prepared fabricated sanction

orders, office notes, and after forging the documents encashed

the sum of Rs.82,000/-. Hence, the findings arrived at by the

Appellate Court in acquitting A1 and A3 warrants no

interference.

12) Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

13) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 25.11.2021 S.M...

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

Criminal Appeal No. 1537 of 2009

Date: 25.11.2021

S.M.