Karnataka High Court
Shri P Ranganath vs State By Inspector Of Police on 10 February, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
CRL.A No. 507 of 2011
C/W CRL.A No. 600 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 507 OF 2011 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 600 OF 2011 (C)
IN CRL.A NO. 507/2011
BETWEEN:
SRI. YALAMURI NAGENDRA PRASAD
SON OF Y. ASHWATH NARAYANA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
M.S. TEMPLE STREET,
MADHUGIRI - 572 132
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
Digitally (BY SRI. H. MUJTABA, ADVOCATE)
signed by
SWAPNA V
AND:
Location:
high court STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
of karnataka
C.B.I, A.C.B.,
BANGALORE
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374 (2) CR.P.C FOR THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DT.19.04.2011 PASSED BY THE
XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.CC.NO.225/2009-CONVICTING
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
120(B), 420, 468, 471 OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
CRL.A No. 507 of 2011
C/W CRL.A No. 600 of 2011
IN CRL.A NO. 600/2011
BETWEEN:
SHRI. P. RANGANATH
S/O. SHRI PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
KUNIGAL STREET,
NEAR BUS STOP,
GULUR, TUMKUR TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 118
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.S. MOHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CBI, ACB,
BANGALORE
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374 (2) CR.P.C FOR THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DT.19.04.2011 PASSED BY THE
XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.CC.NO.225/2009-CONVICTING
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
120(B), 420, 468, 471 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
CRL.A No. 507 of 2011
C/W CRL.A No. 600 of 2011
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. H.Mujtaba and Sri M.S.Mohan, learned
counsels for the appellants and Sri P.Prasanna Kumar,
learned counsel for the respondent / CBI.
2. These two appeals are filed by accused No.3 and
accused No.1 respectively, challenging the order of
conviction passed in Spl.C.C.No.225/2009 dated
19.04.2011 by the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, (CCH-34),
Bangalore, whereby the appellants have been convicted
and sentenced as under:
"i) The accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted and sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence
punishable U/s 120-B of IPC.
ii) the accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted and sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence
punishable U/s 420 IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
each and in default of fine, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for 6 months.
iii) The accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted and sentenced
to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the
offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and shall pay
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of fine, they shall
undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
iv) The accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted and sentenced
to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the
offence punishable under Section 471 IPC and shall pay
fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of fine, they shall
undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
v) The accused No.1 is convicted and sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence
punishable under Section 409 of IPC and shall pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- each and in default of fine, shall undergo
simple imprisonment for 6 months.
vi) The accused No.1 is convicted and sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act
and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of
fine, shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
It is further ordered that the substantive sentences shall
run concurrently.
The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 3 are stand
cancelled."
3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary
for disposal of the appeal are as under:
3.1 Appellants including other accused persons were
charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
120-B, 420, 468, 471, 419, 409 of Indian Penal Code (for
short, 'IPC') and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'P.C.Act').
3.2 The material facts as per the charge sheet,
would reveal that all the accused persons have conspired
together in the illegal acts like forging the documents,
make use of forged documents as genuine with an
intention to cheat the Life Insurance Corporation of India
(for short, 'the LIC') in fraudulently encashing nine
cheques which were actually issued in favour of the policy
holders as against surrender value. For the sake of
convenience, 18 policies under which the fraud has taken
place is tabulated hereunder:
Sl. Policy No. Surren Cheque Beneficiary A/c & Name of the Name of the
No & date of der No. / Name of the Bank / A/c holder introducer
application value Date Financial Institution
(in
Rs..)
1 612121700 11,575 20514 SB A/c No. M/s LIC of Shankarappa ---
9.10.06 India, Madugiri Branch
2 361018675 11,571 081465 SB A/c No.1531, M/s GC A2 H.
24.7.06 Pragathi Credit Co- Lakshminarayan Hanumanthara
Operative Ltd., a ya
Madugiri
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
3 361161865 5,582 81496 SB A/c No.2770, M/s Shri. G.C. Shri
17.8.06 Madhu Credit Co- Lakshminarayan P.Ranganath,
Operative Society, a S/o Shri LIC, Madhugiri.
Madugiri Branch, Dist., Chandregowda,
Tumkur. R/o V.V. Halli
Madhugiri
colony,
4 361038366 1,231 20509 SB A/c No. M/s Madhu Shri. G. Shri P.
6.10.06 Credit Co-Operative Lakshminarayan Ranganath,
5 361071814 1,050 Society, Madugiri a PLD Bank LIC, Madhugiri.
Branch, Dist, Tumkur. Madhugiri.
6 361079562 1,296
7 361037507 1,599 20081 SB A/c No.2960, M/s Shri. G. C. Shri H.
11.9.06 Madhu Credit Co-Op. Lakshminarayan Hanumanthara
8 361161946 2,262 Society, Madugiri, Dist, a S/o Shri ya, LIC, Retd.,
Branch Tumkur. Lakshminarayan Madhugiri
9 610978821 2,567 a, R/o
Gudibande
10 610978947 4,763 Taluk,
Gouribidanur
11 361071681 9,161 81485 SB A/c No.1531, M/s Shri. Shri.
7.8.06 Pragathi Credit Co-
12 361162005 5,491 Operative Society,
Madugiri Branch, Dist,
13 360587535 6,732 Tumkur
14 361037508 4,375 81491
14.8.06
15 361111847 4,284
16 361162523 4,711
17 614151728 46,910 81431 SB A/c No.1497, M/s Shri. Madanappa A.2 Sri. H.
29.6.06. Pragathi Credit Co-Op. S/o Shri Hanumanthara
Society Ltd., Madugiri Veeramarappa, ya
Branch, Dist, Tumkur R/o
Mallanayakanah
alli, Taluk
Madugiri.
18 612443860 10,098 81462 SB A/c No.1516, M/s Smt. A.2 Sri. H.
24.7.06 Pragathi Credit Co-Op. Sarojamma, R/o Hanumanthara
Society Ltd., Madugiri Mallanayakanah ya
Branch, Dist, Tumkur alli, Taluk
Madhugiri
3.3. Pursuant to the criminal conspiracy entered into
by all the accused persons, the policy holders who were
the actual beneficiaries under the above referred policies,
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
did not get the proceeds of the policies, but those policies
were surrendered by forging the documents and whereby
all the accused persons said to have shared the proceeds
of the surrender value of the policies.
4. Necessary documentary evidences were secured
by the investigating agency after registering the case and
after consulting the real policy holders and confirming that
they did not receive any benefits of the surrendered
policies, CBI filed the charge sheet against the accused
persons.
5. After securing presence of the accused persons,
learned Trial Judge framed the charges against the
accused persons after due compliance of Section 207 of
Cr.PC.
6. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and
therefore, trial was held.
7. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused
persons, prosecution chosen to examine as many as 26
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
witnesses, comprising of complainant, policy holders,
investigating agency and sanctioning authority as P.W.1 to
26.
8. Prosecution placed on reliance 155 documentary
evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to
P.155, comprising of original policies which were
surrendered and supporting documents thereof and office
notes have been put up for processing the surrendering of
the policies and preparing of the cheques for the surrender
value of the policies.
9. On behalf of accused, copy of letter and account
opening form in Pragathi Pattina Sahakara Sangha were
exhibited and marked as Exs.D1 and D2.
10. On conclusion of recording of evidence on behalf
of prosecution, learned Trial Judge recorded the
statements of accused as is contemplated under Section
313 of Cr.PC. wherein accused persons have denied all the
incriminatory circumstances, but did not chose to place
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
any written submission on their behalf in order to place
their version as is contemplated under Section 313(4)
Cr.PC, nor any defense evidence is placed.
11. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the parties
in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the
appellants and another accused Sri.H.Hanumantharaya,
who died during the pendency of the appeal and sentenced
as referred to supra.
12. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.3 and
accused No.1 are before this Court, in these appeals.
13. Sri H.Mujtaba and Sri M.S.Mohan, learned
counsels for the appellants, reiterating the grounds urged
in the appeal memorandum vehemently contend that the
material evidence placed on record is hardly sufficient
enough to establish the alleged forgery as well as the mis-
appropriation of the proceeds of the surrendered LIC
policies, which has been ignored by the learned Trial Judge
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
while passing the impugned judgment resulting in
miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeals.
14. They would further submit that the oral evidence
placed on record by the prosecution in the form of 126
witnesses, did not conclusively establish the dishonest and
fraudulent act that has been attributable to the appellants
herein which has been not properly appreciated by the
learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment and mere
re-stating the deposition of witnesses for the prosecution
would not take seat of proof. Therefore, conviction of the
appellants for the aforesaid offences has resulted in
miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeals.
15. Alternatively, learned counsels for the appellants
submit that since accused No.3 is only a beneficiary, he
has not been convicted, and he is a first-time offender and
the distance of time accused No.3 spent in prison is
considered, it would harsh on him and therefore, in the
event this Court upholding the order of conviction, may set
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
aside the period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine
amount reasonably.
16. Insofar as accused No.1 is concerned,
Sri.M.S.Mohan, also pleaded leniency to the accused by
setting aside the conviction under the provision of Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act and
accused No.1 is prepared to forego the benefits derivable
from LIC if the jail sentence is set aside by enhancing the
amount reasonably.
17. In this regard, he has filed an affidavit, the
contents of which are extracted hereunder:
"Herein, I, P.Ranganath, aged about 67 years, S/o. Late
Puttaiah, Ex-HGA of LIC of India, Madhugiri Branch, Tumakuru
District, residing at Kunigal Street, near Bus stop, Gulur,
Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru District 572118, today camping at
Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state
on oath as follows:
i) I submit that, the respondent Police of CBI, ACB Bengaluru
had registered a Criminal case against me and two others
before the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru (CCH-34).
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
ii) I submit that, I was convicted and sentence was awarded
in Special C.C.No.225/2009 on the file of the learned XXXII
Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru
(CCH-34) on 19.04.2011 by invoking under Section 120-B read
with Sections 468, 471, 419, 409 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The
Hon'ble Court was pleased to held that, I am guilty of the above
offences and awarded punishment to me.
iii) Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded, I
preferred Criminal Appeal against the conviction and sentence
awarded to me in the Criminal Court on 19.04.2011. Hence,
this Criminal Appeal was filed on 14.06.2011.
iv) I submit that, now, I have decided to assure before this
Appellate Hon'ble High Court that, I will not claim anything from
my employer under any circumstances, I also humbly pray that,
I have no objection if, this Hon'ble Court imposes a reasonable
penalty amount to discharge me from the above owing to my
advanced age.
Wherefore, I humbly pray that, this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to accept my prayer and grant an order of discharge by
accepting the penalty amount imposed by this Hon'ble Court on
mercy grounds, in the interest of justice."
18. Per contra, Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned
counsel for respondent/CBI supports the impugned
judgment.
19. He would further contend that, admittedly,
none of the policy holders have received the proceeds of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
the surrendered policies and moreover, they had not given
any instruction for surrendering the policies and their
signatures have been forged and fraudulently the policies
were placed before the LIC for processing the value of the
surrendered policies and the cheques that were drawn in
favour of the policy holders have been encashed by
forging the signatures of the policy holders resulting in
commission of offences alleged against all the accused
persons including appellants herein. Thus, sought for
dismissal of the appeals.
20. Insofar as alternate submission on behalf of the
appellants is concerned, Sri P.Prasanna Kumar would
contend that, perpetrators of the crime like the appellants
would get encouraged if any leniency is shown. Therefore,
appeals have to be dismissed in toto.
21. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously. On such
perusal of the material on record, following points would
arise for consideration:
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
1. Whether the material evidence placed on record
by the prosecution would be sufficient enough to
maintain the conviction of the appellants for the
offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471,
419, 409 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988?
2. Whether the appellants would make out a case
that the impugned judgment is suffering from
legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for
interference?
3. Whether the sentence is excessive and needs a
modification?
4. What order?
REG. POINTS No.1 AND 2:
22. In the case on hand, accused No.1 being the
employee of the LIC is not in dispute and thus, he is a
public servant. When the fraud come to light, there is an
internal enquiry and later on action was also initiated
against accused No.1. Further, while issuing the sanction
order, the officials of LIC have taken into consideration all
the relevant material factors including surrender of the 18
policies as referred to supra wherein, the signatures of the
policy holders were forged and surrender has taken place.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
23. Further, the original policy holders were
contacted by investigation agency during investigation and
their statements were recorded by the Investigating
Officer. None of them were aware of the policies in their
names being surrendered to LIC and the proceeds thereof
has been paid to the some other persons in the names of
policy holders. None of the policy holders received any
proceeds of the surrendered policies as well.
24. These aspects of the matter is borne out on
record not only in the form of oral testimony, but also on
the collection of the necessary documents by the
Investigating Officer, including the forged surrender notice
on the policies.
25. Material on record prima facie would indicate
that the signatures of the policy holders were forged while
surrendering the same to LIC. Accused No.1 is the person
who was required to verify the same and thereafter allow
the surrendering and processing the proceeds thereof.
Since there was criminal conspiracy among the appellants,
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
accused No.1, without verification has surrendered all the
18 policies and proceeds thereof have been paid to the
some other persons other than the policy holders. On
further verification from the material on record, it is
crystal clear that other accused persons derived the
proceeds of the surrendered policies through co-operative
bank.
26. Therefore, it is crystal clear that policy holders
were kept in dark and their policies have been surrendered
and proceeds thereof have been shared by other accused
persons.
27. To prove the existence of the criminal conspiracy,
the prosecution would seldom get the direct evidence. In
such circumstances, the courts are not precluded to find
out the material evidence on record and thereafter all may
infer in reduction of existence of the criminal conspiracy as
is held in the case of Mohd. Khalid vs. State of West
Bengal reported in (2002) 7 SCC 334, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the principles of governing
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
the appreciation of existence of criminal conspiracy by
following the judgment of Constitutional Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kehar Singh vs. State
(Delhi Admn.) reported in (1988) 3 SCC 609.
28. Applying the legal principles enunciated in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case, it is crystal
clear that accused No.1, who is required to exercise due
clearance of the policies and surrender of the policies,
without verification, has surrendered all the policies and
proceeds thereof have been paid to some other persons
other than policy holders.
29. Since the policies were not surrendered by the
actual policy holders; instead surrender of the policies
have taken place by forging which has been ignored by
accused No.1, Trial Court was justified in inferring
existence of criminal conspiracy among all the accused
persons. Therefore, finding recorded by the learned Trial
Judge that accused persons are responsible for the offence
is justified.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
30. However, with regard to offence under Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act insofar as
accused No.1 is concerned, in the absence of any material
on record to establish that there was actually misuse
committed by the officials for some consideration or
pecuniary benefits of accused No.1, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the offence under Section 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of P.C.Act, needs a re-look.
31. While re-appreciating the material evidence on
record, this court does find sufficient force in the argument
put forth on behalf of Sri M.S.Mohan appearing on behalf
of accused No.1 that the material on record would not
want the conviction to be maintained for the offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
of P.C.Act.
32. Further, if two views are permissible in a given
case, the view which favours the accused persons is to be
given effect to. Under such circumstances, this court
being the Court of appeal, on re-appreciation of material
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
on record both on facts and law, is of the considered
opinion that accused No.1 is entitled for order of acquittal
for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of P.C.Act.
33. The apprehension expressed by the CBI in this
regard that, if the acquittal takes place for the offence
under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C.Act,
then there would be no disqualification which would entitle
accused No.1 to claim the future benefits including back
wages is of considerable force.
34. To quell such an apprehension of the
prosecution, Sri M.S.Mohan, learned counsel has filed an
affidavit of accused No.1 as referred to supra.
35. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion
that points No.1 and 2 are to be answered partly in the
affirmative.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
REG.POINT No.3:
36. In view of the finding of this Court on points
No.1 and 2 as above, the Sentence needs a modification
as compulsion for the Court to order for minimum
punishment for the offence punishable under Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C.Act has been now
taken off in view of the acquittal of accused No.1 for the
aforesaid offence under the provision of P.C.Act.
37. Since the appellants are the first-time offenders
and accused No.1 having lost his job and now is eking out
his livelihood by doing some other labour work, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the imprisonment period
needs to be set aside as it would act harsh on the
appellants by enhancing the fine amount to a sum of
Rs.75,000/- payable by each of the appellants. The same
would meet the ends of justice in the attendant facts and
circumstances of the case. Accordingly, point No.3 is also
answered partly in the affirmative.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
REG. POINT No.4:
38. In view of the findings of this Court on points
No.1 to 3 as above, following:
ORDER
i. Criminal Appeals are allowed in part.
ii. While maintaining the conviction on both the
appellants for the offence punishable under
Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 419 and 409
of IPC, accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.600/2011 is
acquitted for the offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
iii. Consequently, the sentence is modified as
under:
Appellants are directed to pay enhanced fine
amount of Rs.75,000/- each for the aforesaid
offences and on payment of such amount,
sentence of imprisonment, as ordered by the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5862
learned Trial Judge in the impugned
judgment, stands set aside.
Enhanced fine amount is ordered to be paid
on or before 10.03.2025 failing which,
imprisonment ordered by the learned Special
Judge stands restored automatically.
Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records
with copy of this order forthwith by issuing modification
conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
MKM
