Karnataka High Court
Sri N Shivanna vs State By on 7 February, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
CRL.A No. 1047 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 1154 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1047 OF 2012
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1154 OF 2012
IN CRL.A No. 1047/2012
BETWEEN:
SRI. N. SHIVANNA
S/O. NANAJUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
THE THEN MANAGER,
CANARA BANK,
CORPORATE CONSUMER FINANCE BRANCH,
INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE,
RESIDING AT #254,
5TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
Digitally (BY SRI. R. SHAILESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
signed by
MALATESH
KC AND:
Location:
HIGH STATE BY
COURT OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION/ACB,
KARNATAKA GANGANAGAR,
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 24/8/2012 PASSED IN SPL. C.C.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
CRL.A No. 1047 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 1154 of 2012
No.195/2009 BY THE XLVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED-1 FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S.120(b) & 420 OF IPC AND SEC.13(1)(d) &
13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.
IN CRL.A NO. 1154/2012
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVANANJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O. BHOJAPPA,
THE THEN OFFICER, ADVANCES DEPT.,
CANARA BANK,
CORPORATE CONSUMER FINANCE BRANCH,
INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE.
R/AT NO.13, FIRST 'D' MAIN,
SHIVANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 010
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SMT. M.GAYATHRI RAMASWAMY, FOR
SRI. V.K. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION ACB,
GANGA NAGAR, BELLARY ROAD,
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
CRL.A No. 1047 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 1154 of 2012
CONVICTION DATED 24/8/2012 IN SPL. (CORRUPTION) CASE
No.195/2009 BY THE XLVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED-2 FOR OFFENCES
P/U/S.120(B) & 420 OF IPC AND SEC.13(1)(d) P/U/S.13(2)
OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, SENTENCING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED-2 TO UNDERGO SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AND TO PAY
FINE OF Rs.50,000/-, IDSI FOR ONE YEAR, FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S.120(B) OF IPC, ETC.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellants herein (accused Nos.1 and 2) have
been convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for brevity "IPC") and under Sections 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "P.C. Act")
in Spl.C.C.No.195/2009 and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the
offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC, two
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
years for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and one
year imprisonment for the offence under Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, apart
from imposing fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offence
under Section 120B of IPC, Rs.50,000/- each for the
offence under Section 420 of IPC and Rs.25,000/- each
for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of P.C. Act (totally Rs.1,25,000/- to each
of accused No.1 and accused No.2) with default
sentence for each of the offences.
2. Facts which are most essential for disposal of
the present appeals as per the charge sheet materials
are as under:
2.1. One Sri.S.S. Kamath, Deputy General
Manager, Canara Bank, Disciplinary Action Cell, Circle
Office, Bangalore, lodged a complaint with the CBI,
contending that there were irregularities and illegalities
committed in the disbursement of 'CAN Budget Loans'
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
at Canara Bank, Corporate Consumer Finance Branch,
Bangalore.
2.2. The complaint averments would reveal that,
accused No.1 - N. Shivanna, working as Branch
Manager, Canara Bank, Corporate Consumer Finance
Branch (CCFB), Infantry Road, Bangalore, conspired
with accused No.2 - N. Shivananjaiah, who was
working as Officer (Advances) in the said Branch and
with other accused persons, during the period from
17.08.2000 to 13.07.2004. One K. Vasudevan
Namboothiri (accused No.3) was working as Assistant,
Grade II Clerk, M/s. Food Corporation of India (FCI),
Buffer Storage Complex, Whitefield, Bangalore and N.
Eshwar (accused No.4), was a labourer in FCI.
Pursuant to said conspiracy, there were 95 loans which
were disbursed under the 'CAN Budget Loan Scheme' in
the names of employees of M/s. FCI, having their office
in Buffer Storage Complex, Whitefield, Bangalore.
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
2.3. Accused No.4 - N. Eshwar and others
submitted 95 loan applications in the name of the
employees of FCI and those applications were forged
and the said applications were supported by inflated
salary slips of the employees of FCI. Accused No.2 -
Shivananjaiah appraised those loan applications. As a
result, there was a sanction of Rs.117.79 lakhs by
accused No.1 - N. Shivanna on six different dates.
Loan proceeds were disbursed to the employees of FCI
by way of Demand Drafts and thereafter, those
Demand Drafts were encashed through M/s.
Nanjundeshwara Credit Co-operative Society,
Yeswanthpur, Bangalore, not by employees of FCI.
2.4. Accused No.5 - B.T. Sathyanarayana, who
was running a Hotel, opposite to M/s FCI, had come
into contact with large number of daily wage
employees/ labourers and K. Vasudevan Namboothiri
(accused No.3) and Eshwar (accused No.4) who was
working as Ancillary Labourer in FCI were responsible
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
for preparing the fake salary certificates of the alleged
employees of the FCI and they joined their hands with
accused Nos.1 and 2, in getting the loan disbursed.
2.5. The details of the loan to the tune of
Rs.117.79 lakhs on different dates during the period
from 24.12.2003 to 12.03.2004 are extracted herein
below:
Total
Sl. Date of No.of Amount
Loan Account No.
No. Sanction Loans (in
lakhs)
13962
14111
14182
14249
14256
14297
Total: 95 117.70
2.6. It is also found from the material on record
that one Jagadeesh S/o. Chikkathimme Gowda and five
other applicants were terminated from the services of
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
FCI, during the period from 31.08.2000 to 21.10.2002.
Further, loans were also sanctioned to said Jagadeesh
and five other applicants during the period from
14.01.2004 to 25.02.2004.
2.7. Likewise, one Munivenkatappa, a resident of
Bavarahalli was absent on medical grounds and he did
not draw wages for the month of November 2003, but
loan application was enclosed with wage slip of
Munivenkatappa for the month of November 2003.
Loan of Rs.1.26 lakhs was also sanctioned against the
name of Munivenkatappa.
2.8. All these misdeeds were inquired into by the
higher officials of the Canara Bank and thereafter, the
complaint came to be lodged with CBI.
2.9. Based on the complaint, the investigating
officer of the CBI investigated the matter in detail and
on consideration of the material collected by the
charge-sheet against the appellants herein and accused
No.3 - Vasudevan Namboothiri, accused No.4 - N.
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
Eshwar, accused and accused No.5 -
B.T.Sathyanarayana, who were running the hotel in
front of the FCI.
2.10. Learned Trial Judge secured the presence
of all the five accused persons after taking cognizance
of the offences alleged against the appellants herein.
2.11. During the pendency of the case, accused
No.3 died and therefore case against accused No.3
stood abated. Insofar as accused No.4 - N. Eshwar is
concerned, he filed an application to stand as an
approver to the case of the prosecution and therefore
he was granted pardon.
3. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 contested the
matter by denying the charges leveled against them.
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,
prosecution proceeded to examine 71 witnesses as PW-
1 to PW-71. Prosecution also placed on record
voluminous documentary evidence, which were
exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P144.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
4. On behalf of the defence, three witnesses by
name H.N.Srinivas, V.R.Gururaj Bhat and Sudhakar
were examined as DW-1 to DW-3. Further, on behalf
of the defence, 10 documents were marked as Exs.D1
to D10.
5. On conclusion of recording of prosecution
evidence, learned Sessions Judge proceeded to record
the accused statement as is contemplated under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein accused 1, 2 and 5
denied all the incriminatory circumstances put to them
which were found in the case of the prosecution and
they have examined the witnesses on their behalf as
aforesaid.
6. Subsequent thereto, learned Trial Judge
heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on
cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record by the prosecution in a
cumulative manner, convicted accused Nos.1, 2 and 5
and sentenced as referred to supra.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
7. So far as accused No.5 is concerned, no
discussion is made in this appeal, as his case is to be
dealt separately in his separate appeal as he was not
prosecuting the appeal diligently.
8. Being aggrieved by the sentence, accused
Nos.1 and 2 who are public servants, namely, Manager
and Officer in Canara Bank, CCFB, Infantry Road,
Bengaluru, have questioned the validity of the
impugned judgment in these two appeals which were
filed separately.
9. Sri. C. H. Jadhav, learned Senior Counsel
and Smt. Gayathri Ramaswamy, learned counsel
representing the appellant in Crl.A.No.1154/2012,
together contended that the learned Trial Judge has
not properly appreciated the material evidence on
record while recording the order of conviction resulting
in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the
appeals.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
10. They would further contend that the role of
accused Nos.1 and 2 was not to find out the
genuineness of the salary certificates that were
produced by the prospective applicants and they
believed that the documents, especially the salary /
wage slips filed along with 95 applications as genuine
as it did bear the necessary seal and signature of the
FCI. Therefore, in the usual course, they have
sanctioned the loan which has been blown out of
proportion by the prosecuting agency resulting in
miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the
appeals.
11. They would also contend that the material
evidence on record would go to show that the case of
the prosecution predominantly stands on the approver
evidence of accused No.4 - N. Eshwar who himself is a
person who actually concocted the salary/wage slips of
the FCI. Therefore, his evidence should not have been
made as the basis for recording an order of conviction
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
insofar as the appellants are concerned and sought for
allowing the appeals.
12. It is their further contention that accused
No.5 being the person who had the hotel in front of the
FCI hatched a conspiracy with accused Nos.3 and 4 and
they represented to the Bank that the applications and
the documents filed along with the applications are
genuine documents which on first look did not create
any doubt in the mind of accused No.2 who has
appraised the loan applications and when once the loan
applications are in order, disbursement of the loan by
accused No.1 was in the usual course and at the most
there can be only an irregularity and not illegality, and
thus sought for allowing the appeal.
13. Alternatively, Sri. C. H. Jadhav and Smt.
Gayathri would contend that the appellants have been
dismissed from the service long back and at this
distance of time, if the appellants are also directed to
undergo imprisonment as ordered by the learned Trial
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
Judge, it would act harsh on them, especially, taking
note of the advanced age of the appellants herein.
14. They would also submit that to quell the
apprehensions expressed on behalf of the prosecution
during the course of arguments that the appellants
may claim the financial benefits if they are acquitted
for the offences under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of
the PC Act, the affidavits of undertaking are filed,
which reads as under:
"I Shivananjaiah s/o Bojappa, aged about 76 years,
the then Officer, Advance Department, Canara Bank,
Corporate Consumer Finance Branch Bank, Bangalore
residing at No 13, 1st D Main Road, Shivanagar,
BANGALORE, do Hereby, Solemnly Affirm and State as
follows:
1. That I am the appellant in the above case. I have
filed this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction and
order in Special Case No. 195/2009 on the file of the
XLVII Additional Session Judge, CBI, Bangalore
convicting me for the offences punishable offence
sections 120 B IPC, 420 IPC and under section 13(1)(d)
punishable under section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act and sentencing me to undergo, SI for a
period of 2 years and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and
IDSI for 1 year; (for the offence p/u S. 120-B IPC), SI
for a period of 2 years and pay fine of Rs.50,000/- IDSI
for 1 year; for the offence p/u S. 420 IPC, SI for a
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
period of 1 year ad to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- IDSI for
one year for the offence punishable under section 13(2)
of the P.C Act in the judgment dated 24th August 2012.
2. I, the appellant humbly submit that as on the
date of inception of the case 1 was working as Manager,
Advances and I attended superannuation on 26th
February 2009. I was Compulsorily Retired on 24th
February 2009.
3. As per the Canara Bank Employees Regulation
1995, my basic pension was Rs.13,000/-. I was paid my
pension deducting 1/3rd of my remaining pension
amount (1/3rd for the year from 2008 to 2024 is to the
tune of sum of Rs.17,65,760 and Nil Paisa is with the
Bank. I humbly state that I am prepared to forego my
future pension. (I have furnished herewith the details of
the pensions I have received.)
4. I am now aged about 76 years suffering from
Acute Right Middle cerebral Artery and posterior cerebral
Artery Territory Infarct, (Paralysis on account of Brain
Hemorrhage) and now I am under treatment for the said
ailment in the Manipal Hospital, Yeshwanthpur,
Bangalore. I am immobalised and under the shelter of
wheelchair. I have been residing along with my wife,
other than my pension I have no other source of income.
I incur a sum of Rs.10,000 to 12000 towards my medical
expenses, per month.
5. As per the calculations, the deducted amount of
pension for the year 2010-2015 is sum of Rs.4,29,093/-
and for the year 2015-2020 Rs.5,61,068 /- and for the
year 2020-2024 Rs.7,75,554/-. (Table of deduction of
pension is herewith annexed for the kind perusal of this
Hon'ble Court."
"I Sri.N.Shivanna, S/o.Sri. Nanjundaiah, Aged
about 72 years, R/o.No.103, 1" Floor,
R.G.P.Apartment, CQAL Layout, Sahakaranagar,
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
Bangalore-92, do Hereby, Solemnly Affirm and State
as follows:
1. I submit that I am the appellant in the above
case. I have filed this appeal against the Judgment
of Conviction and order in Special Case No.
195/2009 on the file of the XLVII Additional Session
Judge, CBI, Bangalore convicting me for the offences
punishable offence sections 120 B IPC, 420 IPC and
under section 13(1)(d) punishable under section
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing
me to undergo. SI for a period of 2 years and pay a
fine of Rs. 50,000/- and IDSI for 1 year; (for the
offence p/u S. 120-B IPC) SI for a period of 2 years
and pay fine of Rs.50,000/- IDSI for 1 year; for the
offence p/u S. 420 IPC SI for a period of 1 year ad to
pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- IDSI for one year for the
offence punishable under section 13(2) of the P.C
Act in the judgment dated 24th August 2012.
2. I submit that as on the date of inception of the
case I was working as Branch Manager and I was
asked to retire compulsorily during December 2012,
even before attaining the age of superannuation
which was due in March 2014.
3. I submit that as per the Canara Bank
Employees Regulation 1995, my basic pension was
paid at 1/3rd and accordingly I have been deducted
Rs.12,146/- per month from my pension during the
period from 01/01/2013 to 31/01/2025 for a period
of 145 months and accordingly I have lost a sum of
Rs.17,61,170/-.
4. I submit that similarly I was suspended for a
period of 28 months and only 50% of my salary was
paid and accordingly a sum of Rs.17,620/- was
deducted for the period from March 2007 to June
2009 amounting to Rs.4,93,760/-.
5 I submit that similarly after the departmental
enquiry I was demoted from Scale 3 to Scale 1 and
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
accordingly for the period July 2009 to December
2012 I lost a sum of Rs.23,852/- (Rs.53,736/- per
month less Officers Pay Scale for August 2009
amounting to Rs.29,884/-) in all a sum of
Rs.9,77,932/-.
6. 1 submit that similarly as I retired
compulsorily before the age of superannuation I lost
service of 15 months and accordingly on a monthly
salary of Rs.49,682/-I lost a sum of Rs.7,45,230/-.
7. I submit that in all I have lost a sum of
Rs.39,77,692/- due to the conviction order passed
by the Court Below as well as due to the orders
passed in the Departmental Enquiry and apart from I
have not been considered for any promotions or
increase in monetary benefits.
8. I am now aged about 73 years suffering from
Hear Issues and as well as Varicose problems and I
need continuous treatment amounting to a sum of
Rs.15,000/- per month.
9. I submit that I underwent Angiogram during
2012 and accordingly stent was put to me and
thereafter I underwent a Byepass Surgery in 2015
which failed in a months time and accordingly I
underwent another Angiogram and thereafter
another stent was implanted immediately thereafter
and ever since then I am on Medication for my heart
issues.
10. I submit that similarly I have varicose issues
and I need to undergo surgery for my Medical
Treatment."
15. Based on the above affidavits, learned
counsel for the appellants submits that this Court may
set aside the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
of the PC Act and for the remaining IPC offences since
there is no minimum period of imprisonment prescribed
under the statute, the sentence of imprisonment may
be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.
16. Per contra, Sri. Prasanna Kumar, learned
counsel representing the CBI supports the impugned
judgment and opposes the appeal grounds in toto.
17. He would further contend that admittedly,
the applications were not properly processed by
accused No.2 while appraising the loan applications.
Five of the persons who were dismissed from the FCI
have also applied for the loan and in their names, fake
salary/wage slip has been enclosed which were not
properly scrutinized by accused No.2.
18. Further, an applicant namely,
Munivenkatappa, a resident of Bavarahalli was absent
on medical grounds and he did not draw wages for the
month of November 2003 in FCI, but despite the same,
his loan application was also processed with a fake
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
salary/wage slip which shows that there was an active
conspiracy for that existed among accused Nos.1 to 5
resulting in huge loss to the bank and corresponding
gain to the accused.
19. Sri. Prasanna Kumar would also contend
that total loss that has occurred to the Bank on account
of servicing 95 loan applications of the employees of
the FCI is to the tune of Rs.117.79 lakhs and therefore,
no mercy can be shown to the appellants by accepting
the alternate submission made on behalf of the
appellants and thus sought for dismissal of the appeals
in toto.
20. Having heard the arguments of learned
counsel for the parties in detail, this Court perused the
material on record meticulously. On such perusal, the
following points arise for consideration in these
appeals:
(i) Whether the material evidence placed on record
would be sufficient enough to maintain the
conviction of the appellants for the offence
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
punishable under Sections 120B, 420 of IPC and
Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act?
(ii) Whether the appellants make out a case of legal
infirmity and perversity in the findings recorded
by the learned Trial Judge in convicting the
appellants for the aforesaid offence and thus calls
for interference?
(iii) Whether the sentence needs modification?
(iv) What Order?
21. REGARDING POINT NOS.1 AND 2: In the
cases on hand, accused No.1 being the Manager of
Canara Bank, CCFB, Infantry Road, Bengaluru and
accused No.2 being the Officer (Advances) of the same
Bank and Branch is not in dispute. Admittedly, the said
Branch was required to lend loan to the persons in the
project called 'CAN Budget Loans' for housing
purposes. The FCI employees were entitled to get the
loans under the said Scheme. It is at that juncture,
the conspiracy has begun according to the prosecution.
22. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in active collusion with
accused Nos. 3 to 5 said to have sanctioned housing
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
loans as against 95 applicants in the names of
employees of FCI to the tune of Rs.117.79 lakhs as
referred to supra. The loan applications were,
admittedly, processed by accused No.2 and appraised
for sanction. Based on the appraisal note made by
accused No.2, accused No.1 sanctioned the loan to the
tune of Rs.116.79 lakhs. On detail enquiry, it is
noticed that the majority of the loan applications were
accompanied by fake salary/wage slips.
23. Accused No.5 had a hotel in front of the FCI.
He, in active collusion with accused Nos.3 and 4, was
responsible for preparing the fake salary/wage slips.
24. The CBI during the course of investigation
noted that Jagadeesh and five other applicants were
terminated from the service of M/s. FCI during the
period beginning from 31.08.2000 to 21.10.2002.
However, in their names also, the applications were
filed and they were appraised based on the fake
salary/wage slips of Jagadeesh and five others.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
25. Yet another incident that has been noticed
by the prosecution during the course of investigation is
the salary slip of Munivenkatappa, resident of
Bavarahalli who was absent in the month of November
2003 on medical grounds. However, his application
also contained the salary slip of November 2003 and
loan was sanctioned to him to the tune of Rs.1.26
lakhs.
26. Likewise, the investigation agency went
through each and every application and verified the
veracity of the salary / wage slips accompanied with
the loan applications and found that they were all fake.
27. 71 witnesses have been examined on behalf
of the prosecution. Majority of the witnesses are the
persons who actually are the employees of the FCI in
whose names loans have been obtained. They have
deposed before the Court that they did not apply any
loan in 'CAN Budget Loans' with CCFB, Infantry Road,
Bengaluru and fake salary slips belonging to them have
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
been enclosed with the loan applications. Thus, the
fraud that has taken place by active conspiracy of
accused Nos.1 to 5 in getting the loan to the tune of
Rs.117.79 lakhs in the project called 'CAN Budget
Loans' of Canara Bank, CCFB, Infantry Road,
Bengaluru, stands established by prosecution by
placing cogent and convincing evidence on record.
28. As against the same, no doubt, 3 witnesses
have been examined on behalf of the accused, namely,
H.N.Srinivas, Gururaj Bhat and Sudhakar. Their
evidence would not efface the criminality in processing
the loan applications by accused No.2, which was not
even verified by the accused No.1 and public fund in
the form of the project 'CAN Budget Housing' to the
extent of Rs.117.79 lakhs has been parted away by
accused Nos.1 and 2.
29. The material on record also shows that the
demand drafts have been issued in the behind of 95
applicants, which were actually encashed through M/s.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
Nanjundeshwara Credit Co-operative Society,
Yeswanthpur, Bengaluru. Admittedly, none of the real
employees of the FCI are the beneficiaries of the those
demand drafts.
30. These aspects of the matter, when viewed
cumulatively, it is crystal clear that in the real names of
the employees of the FCI, it is the accused Nos.3 to 5
who have concocted the salary / wage slips and were
responsible for drawing of the loan in the 'CAN Budget
Loans' to the tune of Rs.117.79 lakhs and
misappropriated the said funds in the names of the real
employees of the FCI.
31. Accused No.3 having died during the
pendency of the case, case against him stood abated.
32. Accused No.4 - Eshwar sought for
permission of the Court to become approver and his
statement and evidence is available on record and he
got the pardon from the Court.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
33. There is sufficient force in the argument put
forth on behalf of the appellants by learned senior
counsel Sri. Jadhav and Smt. Gayathri that the
approver evidence is a weak piece of evidence and
such evidence should not be made as basis for the
purpose of convicting the other accused persons.
34. However, in the case on hand, approver
evidence is considered by the learned Trial Judge as
corroborative evidence only. Other material evidence
on record is sufficient enough to maintain the
conviction of the accused for the offences under
Section 120B and 420 IPC.
35. However, the requisite proof for convicting
accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act is not made available
by the prosecution. More so, in the light of the
principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of NEERAJ DUTTA VS. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
DELHI)1. To maintain an offence under Section
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, there must be a
demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification
which would ultimately result in what is called
'obtainment' and thereafter, offence under Section
13(1)(d) stands established which would be punishable
under Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
36. The material evidence placed on record is
insufficient to establish the said aspect of the matter,
even though the material evidence would go to show
that there is a misuse of the official position by accused
Nos.1 and 2.
37. It is settled principles of law and requires no
emphasis that prosecution has to travel a long distance
between 'may be proved' to the 'actual proof'.
38. Keeping the above principles of law in mind,
when the material evidence on record is re-
appreciated, the prosecution is successful in
(2023) 4 SCC 731
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
establishing the existence of criminal conspiracy which
is punishable under Section 120B of the IPC. View of
this Court is supported by the principles of law
enunciated in MOHD. KHALID VS. STATE OF WEST
BENGAL2.
39. So also the material evidence is sufficient
enough to maintain the conviction of the appellants for
the offence under Section 420 of IPC, inasmuch as
there is a wrongful loss caused to the Bank and in
corresponding gainful gains to the accused persons.
40. But, the material evidence on record is not
sufficient enough to maintain the conviction under
Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act.
41. In view of the foregoing discussion, point
No.1 and 2 are answered partly in the affirmative.
42. REG. POINT NO.3: In view of the finding of
this Court on point Nos. 1 and 2, especially acquitting
(2002) 7 SCC 334
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
the appellants for the offences under Section 13(1)(d)
r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, where minimum punishment
was prescribed, for the remaining offences under
Section 120B and 420 of IPC, since there is no
minimum punishment prescribed under the statute,
taking note of the age of the appellants and that they
have been removed from the service long back and
they are not claiming any financial benefits in view of
the affidavits of undertaking referred to supra, this
Court is of the considered opinion that setting aside the
imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum
of Rs.75,000/- would meet the ends of justice.
43. Out of the fine amount recovered, if a sum
of Rs.3,00,000/- is paid as compensation to the Canara
Bank, CCFB, Infantry Road, Bengaluru, ends of justice
would better serve. Accordingly, point No.3 is
answered partly in the affirmative.
44. REG. POINT NO.4: In view of the findings of
this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following:
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
ORDER
i) The appeals are allowed in part;
ii) While maintaining the conviction
of the appellants for the offence under
Section 120B and 420 of IPC, appellants are
acquitted for the offence under Section
13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act;
iii) Consequently, sentence is
modified and the imprisonment period
ordered by the learned Trial Judge for the
offence under Section 120B and 420 of the
IPC for a period of 2 years each, is hereby
set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a
sum of Rs.75,000/- each (Rs.1,25,000/-
imposed by the Trial Judge is taken into
consideration and since the offence under
Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act is set aside,
Rs.25,000/- is to be reduced. Therefore,
Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.75,000/- =
Rs.1,75,000/- each) to be paid on or before
15.03.2025. Failing to pay the enhanced
fine amount on or before 15.03.2025, the
appellants shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year.
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5590
iv) It is made clear that in view of the
affidavits filed by the appellants, till the date
of removal, whatever the benefits that the
appellants are entitled, can claim from the
Bank, in accordance with law.
Office is directed to return the Trial Court records
with a copy of this judgment, forthwith.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
BMV/RD
