Madras High Court
R.Karpura Sundara Pandian vs The State Rep By on 4 March, 2025
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 30.07.2024
Pronounced on : 04.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
R.Karpura Sundara Pandian ... Appellant
( In both Appeals)
Vs.
The State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
CBI:ACB, Chennai,
RC MA1 2008A 0014 ... Respondent
( In both Appeals)
COMMON PRAYER: These Criminal Appeals are filed under Section
374 of Cr.P.C. to admit the appeals, call for the records from Trial Court
and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the II Additional
District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai by virtue of judgment in C.C.Nos.
3 & 4 of 2010, dated 28.11.2017, and acquit the appellant/accused by
allowing the appeals.
(in both Appeals)
For Appellant : Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.N.Ananda Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.C.Muthusaravanan,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases
1/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT
These Criminal Appeals have been filed to set aside the conviction
and sentence passed by the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases,
Madurai, in C.C.Nos.3 & 4 of 2010, dated 28.11.2017.
Since these criminal appeals are arising out of the same crime, these
cases are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by way of this
common judgment.
2.Brief facts of the case:
The appellant in C.C.Nos.3 & 4 of 2010, on the file of the II
Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai, has filed these appeals
before this Court, challenging the Judgments dated 28.11.2017 whereby, in
both cases, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced to undergo the
appellant for the following offences:
S. Offences under Section Punishment (Imprisonment and fine)
Nos (in C.C.Nos.3 & 4 of 2010) (in C.C.Nos.3 & 4 of 2010)
1 420 of IPC Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years and
to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months
2 409 of IPC Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 10 years
and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
3 467 of IPC Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 10 years
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months
4 468 r/w 471 of IPC Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years and
to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months
5 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year and
Prevention of Corruption to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to
Act, 1988 undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months
Total Fine Rs.65,000/-
2.1.The accused, namely, R.Karpura Sundara Pandian, who was
working as Assistant Manager of the IDBI Bank Ltd.,Cantonment Branch,
Trichy, is the appellant herein. He faced the trial in C.C.Nos.3 & 4 of 2010,
on the file of the II Additional District Court for CBI cases, Madurai, for
the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471
of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988.
2.2. According to the prosecution, the appellant herein approached
the Chairman, Alpha Foundation for Education and Research (Charitable
Trust), Trichy, namely, Dr.R.Palani, and promised him to get a loan of
Rs.750,000,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Crores only) from the IDBI Bank,
for which he requested him to make fixed deposit and he received a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
Rs.56,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs). Instead of making the fixed
deposit in the IDBI Bank Account, the appellant gave fake pay-in-slips and
fixed deposit receipts and misappropriated the fund of Dr.R.Palani. On
finding out the forgery, Dr.R.Palani, gave a complaint to the IDBI Bank
Management. The Bank Management on enquiry found that forgery had
been committed by the Appellant and directed P.W.5 to lodge a complaint
to CBI and accordingly P.W.5 gave complaint to CBI. On the basis of the
complaint given by P.W.5/Jotty M.Chacko, the CBI registered the case
against the appellant. During the course of the investigation, the
investigating agency found that similar modus operandi was played by the
appellant, against one Dilip Iyangar, i.e. he received a sum of Rs.111.50
lakhs from the said Dilip Iyangar on various occasions and issued 12 fake
fixed deposit receipts and issued 35 numbers of pay in slips without his
signature and to make the said Dilip Iyangar believe that his money had
been deposited in the IDBI Bank, Trichy. Thereafter, CBI conducted
investigation and laid two final reports before the II Additional District
Court for CBI Cases, Madurai, for the offences punishable under Sections
420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The same were taken on file in
C.C.Nos.3 & 4 of 2010 and simultaneous trials were conducted after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
issuing summons to the appellant and furnishing the copies under Section
207 Cr.P.C., and framing necessary charges and questioning the accused.
He denied the charges and stood for trial. Details of examination of witness
along with material documents, material object which had been marked on
the side of prosecution to prove the charges are as follows:
C.C.No.3 of 2010 C.C.No.4 of 2010
The prosecution, to prove the The prosecution, to prove the
charges, examined P.W.-1 to charges, examined P.W.-1 to
P.W.-24 and exhibited Ex-P1 to Ex- P.W.-20 and exhibited Ex-P1 to Ex-
P69 and marked M.O.1 to M.O.4. P68.
2.3. The learned Trial Judge, questioned the appellant under Section
313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating materials available against him
and the appellant denied the same as false and offered a different
explanation. Thereafter, the case was posted for examination of the defence
witnesses. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any
documents. After considering the explanation and evidence, the learned
trial Judge convicted the accused for the above said offences, in both
C.C.No.3 of 2010 and C.C.No.4 of 2010 vide separate judgment. In both
cases, the learned trial Judge acquitted the appellant under Section 13(1)
(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but, convicted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
appellant for the offences under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Challenging the said convictions and
the sentences imposed against the appellant, he has preferred these appeals
before this Court. Since in both appeals, common submissions were made
by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant and
learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI and same modus
operandi of crime had been alleged by the prosecution and most of the
witnesses are common, this Court heard both the appeal and delivered this
common judgment.
3.Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
The learned Senior Counsel, Mr.B.Saravanan, appearing for the
appellant, submitted that the appellant was a Customer Relation Manager,
IDBI bank, and also called as Assistant Manager. According to the
prosecution, based on one FIR, two final reports were filed. Both are
distinct and separate offences, and hence, filing of the final report on the
basis of the allegation made against the appellant by Jotty M.Chacko and
conducting investigation in the cases of Dr.Palani and Dhilip Iyengar is not
legally correct, when they have not given any complaint. Without any
complaint from the said Dhilip Iyengar, the registration of FIR, and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
continuation of the investigation relating to the case of Dhilip Iyengar, and
also filing of final report for the alleged cheating of Dhilip Iyengar is not
legally maintainable. Hence, the investigation relating to the case of Dhilip
Iyengar is not legally correct, because no FIR was lodged by Dhilip
Iyengar which is distinct, specific and separate offence. Hence, the final
report filed on the basis of the said information found during the course of
the investigation relating to the FIR registered on the basis of complaint
made by M.Chacko, and cognizance taken in C.C.No.4 of 2010 is not
legally maintainable, and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
3.1. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that even as per
the prosecution case, there was no loss to the bank. In the said
circumstances, offence under Section 420 of IPC is not legally correct. As
per Section 420 of IPC, the loss has to be caused to the complainant. In
this case, the complainant is the bank. According to the evidence of the
official, P.W.5, there was no loss to the bank. In the said circumstances,
without complaint either from Dr.Palani or Dhilip Iyengar, and on the basis
of the admission made by the bank officials that there was no loss to the
bank. Therefore, the offence under section 420 of IPC is not maintainable,
for which, he relied the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
Vijay Ghai and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others reported in
2022 (7) SCC 124.
3.2. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that a single FIR
for the two district and independent offences is not legally maintainable.
He relied Section 71 of the IPC and also 156 Cr.P.C. Going by the true
meaning of Section 71 of IPC and 156 of Cr.P.C., the investigating agency,
in all fairness, ought to have been conducted separate investigation on
registering separate FIRs. Since the said procedure was not followed
serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant, because both are
independent and distinct offences. In the said circumstances, separate FIRs
are required to be registered and thereupon investigation to be conducted.
In the absence of separate FIRs, serious prejudice has been caused, and
sheer violation of the import of Section 156 Cr.P.C. Therefore, he argued
that the case of Dhilip Iyengar has no leg to stand.
3.3. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that so far as the
offence under Section 467 of IPC is concerned, as stipulated under Section
467 of IPC, no valuable security is involved as admitted by the prosecution
witnesses. The pay-in-slips and the loan sanction are not valuable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
securities. The same was admitted by P.W.14 and hence, without any
valuable security, the offence under Section 467 of IPC is not legally made
out. So far as the FD is concerned, it is valuable security, but the original
was not produced and only Xerox copy was produced in the case of
Dr.Palani and the carbon copy was produced in the case of the
Dhilipayangar. In the said circumstances, without producing the original
FD, the offence under Section 467 of IPC, is not legally made out. Apart
from that, the learned Senior counsel submitted that for each original FD,
if it had been received, a corresponding unique customer ID code is to be
provided. Without that, no offence was made out.
3.4.The learned Senior counsel further submitted that even the
prosecution witnesses were unable to identify who subscribed the signature
in the Xerox copy of the FD. On that day, one Poongodai was authorised to
sign the FD. In the said circumstances, he argued that the offence under
467 is not legally sustainable. The learned Senior counsel further
submitted that without filling the original, the trial of the case is not legally
valid. Apart from that, the FD receipts holder ought to have maintained an
account in the bank, in order to provide the unique customer code. Without
the original FD, there is a suspicion relating to the case of the prosecution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
that the appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 467 of
IPC, more particularly, when the evidence is unavailable with regard to the
identification of the signature of the appellant. On the contrary, one
Poongodai alone was the authorised signatory.
4.The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI
made the following submissions:-
The appellant was the Customer Relation Manager. He has no
authority to receive any amount from any party. In this case, he received
the amount of Rs.56,00,000/- from P.W.19, namely the founder of the
Alpha Foundation. After receiving the amount, he issued the forged fixed
deposit receipts and pay-in-slips. The CBI conducted investigation and
collected the materials to prove the said fact. The learned trial judge
appreciated the said evidence and convicted the appellant and imposed a
sentence upon the appellant in accordance with the law. The finding of the
learned trial judge is supported by material evidence and the scientific
evidence also proved the allegation of forged signature by the appellant in
the forged fixed deposits and pay-in-slips. Hence, there is no ground to
interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial
judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
4.1.The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the
contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant that filing
of two final reports by CBI is not in accordance with law, is not correct.
According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the FIR was registered
on the basis of the allegation made by the founder of the Alpha
Foundation, namely Dr. Palani. During the course of investigation, the
investigating agency, namely CBI has found out that the similar modus
operandi also was played by the appellant and also he cheated one Dhilip
Iyengar by issuing forged fixed deposits and pay-in-slips. Therefore, the
investigation was conducted and two final reports were filed. There was no
bar either under Cr.P.C., or any other provision of the Act that CBI has no
power to file two final reports relating to the two different transactions. In
this case, the said Dhilip Iyengar is concerned, the appellant played a
similar modus operandi and induced him to part with Rs.111.50 lacks like
how he induced Alpha Foundation and cheated an amount of Rs.
56,00,000/-. Hence, the registration of one FIR, which resulted in two final
reports, is in accordance with the law.
4.2.The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the
contention of the learned senior counsel that the Offence under 420 of IPC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
is not made out, cannot be accepted. According to the learned Senior
Counsel, there was no loss to the bank. Hence, the offence under Section
420 of IPC is not made out. The said submission cannot be accepted, since
the appellant received the said amount from P.W.19, namely Dr.Palani,
founder of the Alpha Foundation, on the false promise that he would obtain
the loan of Rs.75 crores, upon making the fixed deposit of
Rs.1.25 crores. In the said circumstances, the intention of the appellant is
clear that he made false promise even at the inception which shows that the
offence under 420 of IPC is made out. Apart from that, he made false
promise in the name of the bank. Hence, the said offence gets further
strengthened.
4.3.The learned Special Public Prosecutor countered the said
submission that there was no bar under Section 156 of Cr.PC. After the
registration of the case relating to one fact, subsequently if it comes to the
knowledge that a similar modus operandi has been played by the same
accused, there is no requirement to register a separate FIR. The
investigation can be continued in the same FIR and separate final Reports
can be filed. So there is no infraction of Section 156 Cr.P.C., or any other
law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
4.4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor arguing that as per the
illustration of the provision of Section 467 of IPC, valuable security is
made out. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the
appellant has no authority to receive the amount for depositing it as the
fixed deposit. In this case, even without any authority, he received the
amount and gave the forged fixed deposit receipts with the signature of the
clerk. In the said circumstance, Section 467 of IPC is clearly made out. The
Xerox copy of the FD is produced. There is no need to produce the
original. It is the admitted case of the appellant that he was forced to make
number of documents under the illegal custody of P.W.19 namely, the
founder of the Albha Foundation, and hence, the case of the appellant that
the Xerox copy alone was produced cannot be accepted. In this case, the
appellant admitted the issuance of the forged documents etc, but, he only
pleaded that it was done under duress. To prove the said contention of
duress, no material was produced. Except the registration of FIR on the
complaint of the father-in-law of the appellant, no other materials were
produced. Mere registration of FIR stating that he was illegally abducted
by P.W.19 and his henchmen is not a ground to believe that the issuance of
the fake fixed deposit receipts and other pay-in-slips by him were obtained
in duress. Considering the overall circumstances, the prosecution clearly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
proved that the appellant had received the amount upon making the false
promise to obtain a loan of Rs.75 crores with condition to deposit Rs.1.2
crores by way of fixed deposit and he received the amount of
Rs.56,00,000/- but did not deposit the said amount in the bank. He
swindled the amount by issuing the forged fixed deposit and pay-in-slips.
Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below is not
liable to be interfered with and hence, he seeks for confirmation of the
conviction and sentence.
5. This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side
and also perused the materials available on records and also the precedents
relied upon by them.
5.1. The question arising for consideration in this appeal is that
whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed against the
appellant in C.C.No.3 of 2010, C.C.No.4 of 2010 can be sustained or not?
6.Discussion on merits:
In order to discuss the case on merits, this court for easy reference
notes down the witnesses examined in both cases, which are as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
Name Rank of particular Rank in C.C.No.4
of 2010
K. Ramasamy P.W.-1 P.W.-1
V. Harinarayanan P.W.-2 P.W.-3
Harikrishnan P.W.-3 P.W.-4
C.H. Krishnadas P.W.-4 P.W.-5
Jotty M. Chacko P.W.-5 P.W.-6
G. Anantharaman P.W.-6 P.W.-7
Muralidharan Nair P.W.-7 P.W.-8
S. Palanivel P.W.-8
Ramachandran P.W.-9
M. Mohammad P.W.-10 P.W.-10
Rizwanul Arif
K. Kumaravel P.W.-11 P.W.-11
A.S. Varughese P.W.-12 P.W.-13
Muralidharan P.W.-13 P.W.-12
Subaramaniam P.W.-14 P.W.-14
Aravindan P.W.-15 P.W.-15
Jayakumar P.W.-16
Somu P.W.-17
N. Ravi P.W.-18 P.W.-16
R. Palani P.W.-19
Ranjit Cecil P.W.-20
J. Venkatesan P.W.-21
R. Ravi P.W.-22 P.W.-18
T. Selvakumar P.W.-23 P.W.-19
R. Chinram P.W.-24 P.W.-20
S.Dhilip Iyangar P.W.-2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
6.1.From the records, it is clear that the appellant was the Customer
Relation Manager of the IDBI bank. From the evidence, it is clear that he
participated in the function organized by P.W.19,namely, Alpha Foundation
for Educational Research Charitable Trust. The evidence of the driver of
the appellant and other evidence through the number of witnesses clearly
shows that he participated in the function organized by P.W.19. In the
function, he assured that he would install ATM machine in the premises of
the Alpha Foundation and also assured to get a loan of Rs.75 Crores upon
the condition of making a fixed deposit of Rs.1.2 Crores. The said
evidence stood corroborated with the remaining evidence. So, the
prosecution clearly proved the first link of the circumstances, namely, he
participated in the function organized by the Alpha Foundation and assured
to get a loan of Rs.75 crores upon the condition of making fixed deposit
for Rs.1.2 Crores. P.W. 19 paid Rs.1.2 Crores to the appellant and the
appellant issued the forged fixed deposit receipts, pay-in-slips and loan
sanctioning letter. After some time P.W.19 came to know that the same was
forged and he demanded the repayment of the amount from the appellant
and the appellant promised to pay the amount and repaid part of the
amount and he failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.54 lakhs. Therefore,
P.W.19 gave a complaint to the Jotty Chocko (P.W.5), Regional Head of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
IDBI Bank, Chennai and he made the complaint before CBI and CBI
registered a case in R.C.No.14(A)/2008/CBI/ACBI/CHENNAI. The CBI
found that the appellant received a sum of Rs.54 lakhs from P.W.19 and
issued the forged pay-in-slips and fake fixed deposit receipts and loan
sanctioning letter. During the course of the investigation, the CBI also
found that similar modus operandi was played by the appellant against one
Dhilip Iyangar namely P.W.2 in the C.C.NO.4 of 2010 and collected Rs.
111.50 Lakhs from him and issued 12 fake fixed deposit receipts and 35
numbers of pay-in-slip with his signature and made him believe that the
said amount given by Dhilip Iyangar had been deposited in the IDBI Bank,
Trichy.
6.2. Therefore, core issue in these appeals is that whether the
prosecution proved the forgery of fixed deposit receipts and pay-in-slips
issued by the appellant in favour of P.W.19 in C.C.No.3 of 2010 and P.W.2
in C.C.No.4 of 2010 and issuance of the forged loan sanctioning order in
favour of P.W.19 in C.C.No. 3 of 2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
7. Proof of fake fixed deposit:
In C.C.No.3 of 2010, two fixed deposits were issued by the appellant
and the particulars of the deposits are as follows:
Date of Customer Deposit A/c No.
Amount of Maturity Maturity
deposit ID deposit in- value in Rs. date
Rs.
07.09.2007 2641022 83106000001208 15,00,000/- 15,07,325/- 08.10.2007
14.09.2007 2641000 83106000001211 35,00,000/- 35,25,363/- 30.10.2007
7.1. The said fake deposit receipts were marked as Ex.P5 series.
P.W..12 was examined on the side of the prosecution to prove the said
forgery of the fixed deposit. The relevant portion of his evidence is as
follows:
“The fixed deposit applications are received at RPU
from the branches. On receipt of the application RPU feeds
the data to the finacle core banking system. First the
system creates a Customer ID. The Customer ID is unique
for every customer and it is not repeated or duplicated. All
the accounts relating to any customer will be created
under this Customer ID. Once the FD account is created in
system RPU issues the deposit receipts duly signed by the
authorised Officer. At that time it was Poongothai. The
deposit receipt printed at RPU is then sent to the
respective branch of the bank for delivery to the customer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
During the enquiry, the CBI official has shown an
application for creation of a fixed deposit at Trichy Branch
by Mr.Karpoora Sundara Pandian who was staff at that
branch during the period. The application relating to
Mr.Karpoora Sundara Pandian (Accused) dt.09.07.2007
for creating a fixed deposit of Rs.10,000/- for the period of
1 year 1 day under existing customer ID. 2152118 was
shown to me and the same is already marked as Ex.P.23.
We have verified the Ex.P.23 application in the finacle
system and the FD Account No.083106000005739 was
created on 09.07.2007 maturing on 10.07.2008 and on
maturity the amount was transferred to the SB Account of
accused Shri.Karpoora Sundara Pandian. The ledger
relating to the creation of the above mentioned fixed
deposit is shown to me now and the same is already
marked as Ex.P.24. Further during CBI enquiry, they
officer has shown 2 FD receipts suppose to be issuedin the
name of Alpha Foundation for Education and Research,
Trichy. The above 2 FD receipts are already marked as
Ex.P.5 on verifying the FD receipts shown to me (Ex.P.5), I
have told the officer that the FD receipts are not issued by
Regional processing unit (RPU). Then the officer asked
how you can say these receipts are not issued by your
office? Then I have told officer due to the following
reasons the FD receipts are not issued by RPU.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
1. The font of the print in the FD receipt is different
from what is being printed on the FD issued by
RPU.
2. RPU is issuing FD receipts on continuous
stationary.
3. The perforation for tearing the receipt was missing
at the bottom and top of the FD receipts.
4. All the FD receipts issued by RPU is manually
signed.
5. The colour of the FD receipts are also different.
The Customer ID shown in Ex.P.5 fixed deposit
receipts are 2641000 and 2641022. According to the bank
system, a customer will have only one customer ID and it
will never change. The customer ID 2641000 is already
issued to Mr.Muniappan at the Thirupur Branch. The said
Customer ID is already getting reflected in the finacle
system in customer Master Maintenance and the same is
shown to me now which is already marked as Ex.P.22. The
next customer ID 2641022 is issued in system to
Mr.Karthikeyan of Thiruppur Branch as per Customer
Master Maintenance in finance system (Ex.P.21). The FD
receipts which is shown to me now (Ex.P.5) are not issued
by RPU.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
7.2. From the above evidence of P.W..12, it is clear that the forged
deposit receipts were issued by the appellant in favour of P.W..19.
7.3. Similarly, in the case of Dhilip Iyangar in C.C.No.4 of 2010,
12 forged fixed deposit receipts were seized and the same were marked as
Ex.P.33 to Ex.P.44 and particulars of the same are as follows:
S.No. Name of the Depositer Customer Amount Ex.P.
ID
1 Dhanalakshmi.D. 2641045 Rs.5,00,000/- Ex.P.33
2 Dhanalakshmi.D. 2646009 Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.P.34
3 Dilip.S. 2641022 Rs.4,00,000/- Ex.P.35
4 Dilip.S. 2642200 Rs.3,00,000/- Ex.P.36
5 Dilip.S. 2642222 Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.P.37
6 PriyaDhilipS.D. 2641022 Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.P.38
7 PriyaDhilipS.D. 2642223 Rs.3,00,000/- Ex.P.39
8 PriyaDhilipS.D. 2646129 Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.P.40
9 Dhanalakshmi.S. 2642232 Rs.3,00,000/- Ex.P.41
10 Dilip.S. 2941002 Rs.5,00,000/- Ex.P.42
11 PriyaDilipS.D. 2941405 Rs.5,00,000/- Ex.P.43
12 Dhanalakshmi.D. 2641001 Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.P.44
7.4. A.S.Varughese examined as P.W..13 (who was examined as P.W.
12 in C.C.No. 3 of 2010) deposed that various above mentioned fixed
deposits were not issued by the Regional Processing Unit, due to the
following reasons:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
“Then I have told officer due to the following
reasons the FD receipts are not issued by RPU:-
1.The font of the print in the FD receipt is different from
what is being printed on the FD issued by RPU.
2.RPU is issuing FD receipts on continuous stationary.
3.The perforation for tearing the receipt was missing at
the bottom and top of the FD receipts.
4. All the FD receipts issued by RPU is manually signed.
5. The colour of the FD receipts are also different.
The Customer ID shown in Ex.P.33 to 44 are already
allotted to various customer of the bank at different
branches. On verifying the finacle core system of the bank
the customer's ID mentioned in EX.P.33 to 44 are
mentioned in the customer Master sheet of the finacle
system and the same has been already marked as Ex.P.49
series. Therefore, the F.D receipts shown to me Ex.P.33 to
44 are not issued by the bank. I was examined by CBI.”
7.5. The customer ID shown in Ex.P33 to Ex.P44 had already been
allocated to various other customers of the Bank and corresponding
documents were marked as Ex.P.49 series and from other difference noted
by P.W.13, it is clear that the prosecution proved the preparation of the fake
fixed deposit receipts by the appellant without remitting the amount in the
bank.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
7.6.The only duty of the appellant is to canvass the customers to
make deposit in the bank and he has no right to receive the amount from
the customers directly.
7.7. In this case, one more mischief committed by the appellant is
that he himself opened the account for creating the fixed deposit under
Ex.P55 by forging the signature of P.W.2 and his family members and
forged the signature of the authorised officer.
7.8. Similarly, he opened account in the name of P.W.19 in C.C.No. 3
of 2010 and for creating the fixed deposit under Ex.P.5 and forged the
signature of the authorised officer and used the ID number of the existing
other customers. From the above discussion it can be seen that the
prosecution clearly proved that the appellant created the fake fixed deposit
receipt and swindled the entire amount, which was collected from P.W.2 in
the C.C.No.4 of 2010 and P.W.19 in C.C.No.3 of 2010.
8. Proof of the forgery of pay-in-slips:-
In C.C.No.4 of 2010, the appellant forged the following pay-in-slips,
which were marked as Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.31:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
Pay-in-Slip challan in Corresponding
C.C.No.4 of 2010 Exhibits
19.06.2007 Ex.P3
05.06.2007 Ex.P4
25.06.2007 Ex.P5
25.07.2007 Ex.P6
25.07.2007 Ex.P7
25.08.2007 Ex.P8
07.01.2008 Ex.P9
25.07.2007 Ex.P10
25.07.2007 Ex.P11
07.01.2008 Ex.P12
07.01.2008 Ex.P13
07.01.2008 Ex.P14
07.01.2008 Ex.P15
07.01.2008 Ex.P16
07.01.2008 Ex.P17
07.01.2008 Ex.P18
07.01.2008 Ex.P19
07.01.2008 Ex.P20
07.01.2008 Ex.P21
07.01.2008 Ex.P22
07.01.2008 Ex.P23
07.01.2008 Ex.P24
07.01.2008 Ex.P25
07.01.2008 Ex.P26
07.01.2008 Ex.P27
07.01.2008 Ex.P28
07.01.2008 Ex.P29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
Pay-in-Slip challan in Corresponding
C.C.No.4 of 2010 Exhibits
07.01.2008 Ex.P30
07.01.2008 Ex.P31
07.01.2008 Ex.P32
8.1. P.W.2 deposed about the issuance of the said pay-in-slips for the
amount of Rs.111.5 Lakhs by the appellant.
8.2. Similarly, in C.C.No. 3 of 2010 the following forged slips were
marked as Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.9 and P.W.19 deposed about the issuance of said
slips by the appellant:-
Pay-in-Slip challan Corresponding
in C.C.No.3 of 2010 Exhibits
22.09.2007 Ex.P6
22.09.2007 Ex.P7
07.09.2007 Ex.P8
14.09.2007 Ex.P9
01.12.2007 Ex.P10
8.3. From the evidence of the officials Harikrishnan, Krishnados,
Muralidharan Nair, Ramachandran, Subramaniam, it is clear that the Ex.P5
to Ex.P9 in C.C.No.3/2010, Ex.P.3 to 32 in C.C.No.4/2010 were not issued
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
by the IDBI Bank. The said pay-in-slip do not bear the seal of the bank and
sign of the teller of the bank. The appellant has put his signature in the said
pay-in-slips without authority. He has no right to handle the pay-in-slips.
He is only the customer relationship officer in the cadre of the Assistant
Manager and only he has to canvas the business of the bank. His signatures
in the pay-in-slips were proved through the handwriting expert. The
handwriting expert was examined as P.W.18 (N.Ravi) and he opined that
the appellant's signature tallied with the disputed signature in the pay-in-
slips. He issued the said pay-in-slips to make believe P.W.2 in the C.C.No.
4 of 2010 and P.W. 19 in C.C.No.3 of 2010 that their amount had been
deposited in the fixed deposit. The appellant has not offered any
explanation for his signatures in the above disputed pay-in-slips issued by
him in favour of P.W..2 and his relative in C.C.No.4 of 2010 and P.W..19
in C.C.No.3 of 2010.
8.4.According to the learned Senior counsel, it is not the case of the
prosecution that the appellant forged the signature of any of the officials of
the bank officers in pay-in-slips. He put his signature in the pay-in-slips
and therefore, the offence of forgery is not made out and his act of putting
signature in pay-in-slips in the place of the cashier can only amount to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
dereliction of the duty. The learned senior counsel also submitted that
pay-in-slips and FD are not valuable security as per Section 467 of IPC.
Even as per the evidence of P.W.14, pay-in-slips are not the valuable
security. Hence, according to the learned senior counsel, no offence is
made out either under 467 or 471 of IPC and even in that case, the remedy
of disciplinary proceeding is available to the bank and not to file criminal
prosecution and hence, the initiation of the criminal proceeding amounts to
abuse of process of law. The learned senior counsel placed reliance of the
paragraph Nos.164 to 166 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Mir Nagvi Askari Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in
2009 15 SCC 643, 2009 8 SCC 751. The learned senior counsel made
much stress on the following portion of paragraph No.164:-
“164.A person is said to make a false document or
record if he satisfies one of the three conditions as
noticed hereinbefore and provided for under the said
section. The first condition being that the document has
been falsified with the intention of causing it to be
believed that such document has been made by a person,
by whom the person falsifying the document knows that it
was not made. Clearly the documents in question in the
present case, even if it be assumed to have been made
dishonestly or fraudulently, had not been made with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
intention of causing it to be believed that they were made
by or under the authority of someone else. The second
criterion of the section deals with a case where a person
without lawful authority alters a document after it has
been made. There has been no allegation of alteration of
the voucher in question after they have been made.
Therefore, in our opinion the second criterion of the said
section is also not applicable to the present case.”
8.5. To consider the said submission of the learned senior counsel, it
is relevant to note the following portion of 464 IPC and illustration 'e' of
Section 464 IPC, to find out the meaning of the words 'dishonestly',
'fraudulently', 'valuable security' defined under IPC:-
Section 464 IPC Illustration 'e' of Section 464 IPC
A person is said to make a false (e) A draws a bill of exchange on himself in the name of B
document or false electronic without B's authority, intending to discount it as a genuine bill
record- with a banker and intending to take up the bill on its maturity.
First.-Who dishonestly or Here, as A draw the ill with intent to deceive the banker by
fraudulently- leading him to suppose that he had the security of B, and
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes thereby to discount the bill, A is guilty of forgery.”
a document or part of a document;
8.6. Section 29 of IPC- 'Document':-
“29. “Document”.—
The word “document” denotes any matter
expressed or described upon any substance by means of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
letters, figures, or marks, or by more than one of those
means, intended to be used, or which may be used, as
evidence of that matter.
Explanation 1.— It is immaterial by what means or
upon what substance the letters, figures or marks are
formed, or whether the evidence is intended for, or may be
used in, a Court of Justice, or not.
Illustrations
A writing expressing the terms of a contract, which may
be used as evidence of the contract, is a document.
A cheque upon a banker is a document.
A power-of-attorney is a document.
A map or plan which is intended to be used or which may
be used as evidence, is a document.
A writing containing directions or instructions is a
document.
Explanation 2.— Whatever is expressed by means of
letters, figures or marks as explained by mercantile or other
usage, shall be deemed to be expressed by such letters,
figures or marks within the meaning of this section,
although the same may not be actually expressed.
Illustration
A writes his name on the back of a bill of exchange payable to
his order. The meaning of the endorsement, as explained by mer-
cantile usage, is that the bill is to be paid to the holder. The
endorsement is a document, and must be construed in the same
manner as if the words “pay to the holder” or words to that effect had
been written over the signature.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
8.7. Section 24 of IPC-'Dishonestly':-
“24. “Dishonestly”.—
Whoever does anything with the intention of
causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to
another person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.
8.8. Section 25 of IPC-'Fraudulently':-
“25. “Fraudulently”.—
A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he
does that thing with intent to defraud but not
otherwise.”
8.9. Section 30 of IPC-Valuable Security:-
“30. “Valuable security”.—
The words “valuable security” denote a document
which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal
right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extin-
guished or released, or where by any person
acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not
a certain legal right.
Illustration
A writes his name on the back of a bill of exchange. As the
effect of this endorsement is transfer the right to the bill to any
person who may become the lawful holder of it, the endorsement is a
“valuable security”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
8.10. As per the banking procedure, pay-in-slips are issued as a
proof of remittance of amount with signature of the authorised officials and
with the seal. The appellant has no authority to receive the amount and to
issue the said pay-in-slips. He had handed over the pay-in-slips to
P.W.2 and P.W.19 in order to believe them that their amount had been
deposited in the bank. But, he had not deposited the said amount in the
bank. He had an intention of causing wrongful loss in making such an
endorsement in pay-in-slips in order to defraud the bank. P.W.2 and
P.W.19 handed over the amount in the custody of the appellant only in his
capacity as employee of the bank. In all fairness, the appellant should have
directed P.W.2 and P.W.19 to approach his branch office and create the ID
and deposit the amount in the counter of Cashier and should have advised
them to get FD receipt from the branch office upon showing the
pay-in-slips. But, the appellant had received the amount and made P.W.2
and P.W.19 to believe as if that he is the officer entitled to receive the
amount and issued the pay-in-slips for a remittance clearly comes under
Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The appellant has no authority to handle
pay-in-slip without depositing the amount into bank and he issued pay in
slips to P.W.2, P.W.19. Therefore, upon conjoint reading of the above said
provision of IPC and Illustrations, the handling of pay-in-slips by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
appellant itself amounts to offence. Therefore, the contention of the
learned senior counsel that unauthorized act of putting signature in pay-in-
slips without authority does not make out the offences under Section either
467, 468 or 471 of IPC deserves to be rejected.
8.11. According to the prosecution, the appellant had issued the
forged deposit receipts. To prove the same, the prosecution clearly
demonstrated the difference of the original deposits receipts and forged
deposits receipts by examining the corresponding witness A.S. Varughese
as P.W..13 (who was examined as P.W.12 in C.C.No. 3 of 2010) and he
deposed that the FD's were not issued by the regional processing unit and
the said FD's were forged on seeing the apparent dissimilarity with the
original FD receipts:-
1.The font of the print in the FD receipt is different
from what is being printed on the FD issued by RPU.
2. RPU is issuing FD receipts on continuous
stationary.
3.The perforation for tearing the receipt was
missing at the bottom and top of the FD receipts.
4.All the FD receipts issued by RPU is manually
signed.
5.The colour of the FD receipts are also different.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
6.The Customer ID shown in said FD receipts are
already allotted to various customer of the bank at
different branches as per the entries in the finacle core
system of the bank.
8.12. This Court also perused the one of the pay-in-slips and FD
receipts which are copied and pasted here for better appreciation of the
above said facts:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
8.13. He deposed that the fixed deposit receipts could be issued only
by the Regional processing unit. He deposed that the various Fds issued in
this case were not issued by the Regional Processing Unit. At the time of
the issuance of the various FDs, one Poongothai was the authorised officer
to issue FD by subscribing her signature and that too only through the
corresponding branch office with specification of the customer ID of the
deposit holders.
8.14. From the above, it is clear that he received the amount and
issued the forged fixed deposit receipts and also the pay-in-slips. As per
the banking norms and as per the evidence of the bank officials, the fixed
deposits would usually be issued by the Regional Office. But, he issued a
forged fixed deposits which were already available in the bank and to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
prove the same, the CBI collected the computer and other materials from
the custody of the appellant to substantiate the said allegation. The CBI
conducted search in his house and also recovered all the incriminating
materials. The same was put to the accused under 313 Cr.P.C., proceedings
and the accused only said that a false case was registered against him and
he was abducted and was in the custody of P.W.19 in C.C.No.6/2018.
During that period, he was forced to prepare these materials. The said
submission is not substantiated on the ground that the issue of abduction
itself has not been proved.
8.15Apart from that, the appellant's signature was found in the fixed
deposits and the pay-in-slips. To prove the same, the handwriting
expert/P.W.16 was examined and he submitted a report under Ex.P67. The
prosecution also proved that he admitted his signature and the learned
judicial Magistrate also was examined relating to taking of the specimen
handwriting as per law and P.W.16 examined the questioned signature
with the specimen signature of the appellant and opined that the appellant
forged the signature. The appellant did not give any explanation for the
said incriminating circumstances during his 313 Cr.P.C., questioning. In
view of that, the forgery of the fixed deposits and also pay-in-slips were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
clearly proved by the prosecution. Therefore, the learned senior counsel's
argument on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in Mir Nagvi Askari Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2009 15 SCC 643, ........ Vs. reported in 2008 SCC 751 is
misconceived one and the same is liable to be rejected.
9.Discussion on the plea of accused that filing of two final
reports on the basis of the single FIR is fatal:
Apart from that, regarding the specific contention of the learned
Senior counsel that registration of one FIR and two final reports is not in
accordance with law, this Court perused Section 71 of IPC and also 156 of
Cr.P.C. Even though a complaint was received relating to Alpha
Foundation, during the course of the investigation, it was found that there
was another illegal transaction using the similar modus operandi relating
to one Dhilip Iyengar. The said transaction also was investigated by CBI
collecting all the incriminating materials. In the said situation, it is legally
permissible to file two final reports with separate evidence, with separate
materials relating to the said two transactions. As rightly pointed out by the
learned Special Public Prosecutor, two final reports were filed with
separate materials. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity as submitted by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
the learned Senior Counsel relating to the filing of two final reports
without registering separate FIRs. It is not necessary to file separate FIR
relating to the Dhilip Iyengar's transaction. As per the code, if
subsequently any other fraud was detected, it is open to CBI to file a
separate final report before the jurisdictional Special Court. Therefore,
filing of two final reports by CBI cannot be found fault with. In the said
circumstances, the learned Senior counsel's submission that the registration
of one FIR and conducting the investigation relating to 2 transactions and
filing two final reports is not legally valid and the same cannot be
accepted.
10.Non-production of original:
The learned Senior Counsel stated that the originals of the forged
documents were not produced. Hence, the case of the prosecution on the
basis of the xerox Copies of the forged documents is not legally valid. The
learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that apart from the xerox
copies, number of original documents were also filed. The prosecution
clearly proved the xerox copies. Apart from the xerox copies, number of
original receipts and Fixed deposits were produced. The other original
fixed deposits also contained the forged signature of the respective
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
officers, namely the clerk, who were supposed to put the signature in the
fixed deposits and the pay in slips. In view of the absence of the signature
of the concerned person and also the forgery of the said fixed deposits, it is
clear that the prosecution proved the same. Apart from that, they have
proved beyond doubt that he has forged fixed deposits. There is mismatch
between forged fixed deposits and original deposits and the same had been
demonstrated by CBI officers, during the course of the trial and the same
was appreciated by the learned trial judge in paragraph Nos.32 to 34 of the
judgment.This Court also perused the said two types of the fixed deposits
and the forged deposits. This Court can see the following differences :-
11.2.1.The unique customer ID, for each
applicant is not present.
11.2.2.The proper bank seal is not available.
11.2.3.There was no corresponding Finacle
System customer ID number available.
11.2.4.The fixed deposit are printed at regional
procession unit and sent to the branches and branches
will handed over the fixed deposit to the customers. But,
here, forged fixed deposits sheet are printed using dot
matrix printer and issued by the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
10.1.In the said circumstances, this Court is unable to appreciate the
argument of defence that non-production of some of the originals is a
ground to reverse the conviction. Apart from that, the remaining original
receipts also were produced before the Court and this Court considered the
same. So far as the remaining original deposits are concerned, the amount
of the misappropriation is also huge. In the said circumstances, the
contention of the learned Senior Counsel cannot be accepted.
11.Discussion on locus standi of Bank:
Another contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the bank
has not suffered any loss and the bank is not competent to lay the
complaint. Similar contention was raised before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of R. Venkatkrishnan v. CBI, reported in (2009) 11 SCC
737 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declined to accept the same in the
following paragraph:
150. In this regard, it must be emphasised that the
submission of the learned counsel that the Banks
have not initiated any proceedings and suffered any
loss and thus the judgment of conviction and
sentence of criminal breach of trust is wholly
unsustainable, cannot be accepted for more than
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
one reason. It is not the law that complaint petition
under all circumstances must be made by the banks
and financial institutions whose money had been the
subject-matter of offence. It is also not the law that
suffering of loss is a sine qua non for recording a
judgment of conviction. It is now trite that criminal
law can be set in motion by anybody. The
prosecution was initiated on the basis of the
information received by the Central Bureau of
Investigation. It would be entitled to do so not only
in regard to its statutory powers contained in the
Delhi Special Police Act but it was also entitled to
take cognizance in terms of the report submitted by
the Janakiraman Committee. The money involved in
the transfer is public money belonging to public
sector banks.
11.1.It is a well-known principle that the complaint can be made by
any person. The Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, earlier
in the case of A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, reported in
(1984) 2 SCC 500 has held as follows:
6. .... In other words, the principle that anyone can set or
put the criminal law in motion remains intact unless contra-
indicated by a statutory provision. This general principle of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
nearly universal application is founded on a policy that an
offence i.e. an act or omission made punishable by any law for
the time being in force [See Section 2(n) CrPC] is not merely
an offence committed in relation to the person who suffers
harm but is also an offence against society. The society for its
orderly and peaceful development is interested in the
punishment of the offender. Therefore, prosecution for serious
offences is undertaken in the name of the State representing the
people which would exclude any element of private vendetta or
vengeance. If such is the public policy underlying penal
statutes, who brings an act or omission made punishable by
law to the notice of the authority competent to deal with it, is
immaterial and irrelevant unless the statute indicates to the
contrary. Punishment of the offender in the interest of the
society being one of the objects behind penal statutes enacted
for larger good of the society, right to initiate proceedings
cannot be whittled down, circumscribed or fettered by putting it
into a strait-jacket formula of locus standi unknown to criminal
jurisprudence, save and except specific statutory exception.
11.2.Apart from that, in this case, bank is the sufferer. The appellant
is the customer relation manager. His duty is only to canvass and solicit for
the deposit from various parties. Whereas, he collected the amount and
without depositing it in the bank, he swindled the amount. In the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
circumstances, bank had lost the deposit amount, which should have come
to the coffers of the bank. In the said circumstances, the contention of the
learned Senior Counsel that the bank is not the sufferer cannot be accepted
and the appellant is liable to be prosecuted for the act of receiving the
amount without crediting in the name of the bank.
12.Discussion on Section 467 of IPC:
Apart from that the learned Senior Counsel submitted that there was
no offence of Section 467 of IPC. This Court considered the relevant
provision of Section 467 of IPC and found that this is clear case of forgery,
where the appellant forged the signature of the teller, namely the clerk,
who is supposed to have appended his signature, upon receipt of the
amount in the counter and issued the pay in slips. Apart from that the fixed
deposit ought to have been issued by the concerned officer from the
regional office. In this case, the appellant has no right to receive any fund
from the party directly. His role is only to solicit the party to deposit
amount in the fixed deposit. As per the prosecution case, he issued the
forged fixed deposit receipts. The said act was clearly spoken by P.W.19
and other witnesses. In the said circumstances, Section 467 of IPC is
clearly made out. Apart from that the legitimate fund of the bank was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
misappropriated by giving false promise that he would arrange for sanction
of the loan of Rs.75 crores. The appellant also issued the forged sanction
letter. In the said circumstances, all the offences against the appellant are
clearly made out.
12.1.This Court finds no merit in all the contentions raised by the
learned Senior Counsel and this Court also analyzed the entire evidence
and found that the appellant is a customer relation manager and he
approached the Director of Alpha Foundation/P.W.19 and made false
promise that he would obtain the sanctioning of loan amount of
Rs.75 crores and received the amount for fixed deposit from the said
person and issued the forged fixed deposit receipt and pay in slips and also
cheated the bank without depositing the amount received from P.W.19 into
the bank and thereby, caused loss to the bank and misappropriated the fund
meant for the bank. In the said circumstances, the learned trial judge, has
correctly held that the appellant committed offence under Section 13(2) r/w
13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the absence of appeal
on the side of CBI against acquittal under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, this Court is not inclined to decide the
said issue. In view of the above discussions, this Court finds no merit in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
the appeal and the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
13.Discussion on the White Collar Crimes:
White-collar criminals violate trust and create distrust which lowers
social morale and results into social dis-organisation to a large extent while
other crimes produce relatively little effect on social institutions.
13.1.Reiss and Brideman define it as violations of law “that involve
the use of a violator's position of significant power, influence or trust... for
the purpose of illegal gain, or to commit an illegal act for purpose of
organizational gain”.
13.2.Edwin Hardin Sutherland the most influential criminologist
of the 20th century and also a sociologist,, for the first time in 1939, defined
white collar crimes as “crimes committed by people who enjoy the high
social status, great repute, and respectability in their occupation”.
13.3.From reading the various articles and precedents, this Court
holds that white collar crimes are defined as non violent crimes committed
by the person enjoying high social status, great repute and Public servants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
with calculated and deliberate design with greedy eyes for personal benefit
at the cost of public, regardless of the consequence of the economic
disaster.
13.4.These crimes do not have eyewitnesses as they are committed
in camera, which means that the offenders commit these crimes while
sitting in a closed room or in their personal space using their computers,
and nobody could know about what they are doing on their computer. This
makes it difficult to track the offenders. All these loopholes becomes an
incentive for the offenders to fearlessly commit such crimes because the
punishment is also for a short term unlike in blue-collar crimes. Offenders
are mostly seen roaming freely which poses danger to the society.
13.5.Therefore, His Excellency former president of India
Dr.Radhakrishnan, in the following words emphasized the requirement of
the strenuous action against the white collar crimes:
“The practitioners of evil, hoarders, the
profiteers, the black marketeers, and speculators are
the worst enemy of our society. They have to be dealt
with sternly. However well placed important and
influential they maybe, if we acquiesce in wrongdoing,
people will lose faith in us.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
13.6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v.
Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364 also reiterated
the said requirement of the strenuous action in the following terms:
5. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation
and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit
regardless of the consequence to the community. A
disregard for the interest of the community can be
manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith
of the community in the system to administer justice in an
even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the
quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive
eye unmindful of the damage done to the national
economy and national interest.
13.7.The said requirement also reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, reported in (2003) 3 SCC
381. ... the need to pierce the facadial smokescreen
to unravel the truth to lift the veil so that the apparent,
which is not real, can be avoided. The proverbial red
herrings are to be ignored, to find out the guilt of the
accused.
382. The cause of the community deserves better
treatment at the hands of the court in the discharge of its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
judicial functions. The community or the State is not a
persona non grata whose cause may be treated with
disdain. The entire community is aggrieved if economic
offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not
brought to book.
383. Unfortunately in the last few years, the country
has seen an alarming rise in white-collar crimes which has
affected the fibre of the country's economic structure.
These cases are nothing but private gain at the cost of the
public, and lead to economic disaster.
13.8.The father of modern political philosophy, Machiavelli,
strongly believed that men by nature are greedy. He said that a man can
sooner and easily forget the death of his father than the loss of his
inheritance. The same is true in the case of commission of white collar
crimes. Why will a man of high social status and importance, who is
financially secure, commit such crimes if not out of greed?
13.9.It is said that crimes have been taking place since the time
human beings started living together. There are various crimes which have
swept away with times and there are some which have found different
dimensions to them with the society becoming modern. The ancient Vedic
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
text says that the concept of white collar crime has existed in society from
the very beginning.
13.10.Yagnavalkya once had proposed that the king, the supreme
authority, should kill the dishonest officer and reward the honest ones. He
further adds that those people who will try to extort a person, their property
would be confiscated and then transported.
13.11.The need and greed of people have driven them to the extent
of exploiting any possible field. The exploitation of the money of the other
person by doing the act of fraud to get gain at the loss of other side usually
form part of the white collar crimes. In the case of fraud, greedy person
gains at the loss of another. Fraud is defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v.Jagannath reported in 1994 (1)
SCC 1:
A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the
design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of
another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss.
It is a cheating intened to get and advantage.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
The deception is not in the express term and both fraudulent and
dishonest intention at the inception is usually made out from entire
circumstances of the case. Therefore, both fraudulent and dishonest
intention at the inception is clearly made out from the entire circumstances
of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bashirbhai
Mohamedbhai vs. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1960 SC 979 has held
that making of false representation is one of the ingredients for an offence
of cheating and also the Hon'ble Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court
in the case of Shivanarayan Kabra vs. The State of Madras reported in
AIR 1967 SC 986 has held as follows:
The appellant knew fully well that he had no
right to do forward business and that he was not a
member of any recognised association and that he
could not lawfully advertise to P.W.2 for investment in
forward contracts. It is not necessary that a false
pretence should be made in express words by the
appellant. It may be inferred from all the
circumstances including the conduct of the appellant
in obtaining the property and in Ex.P34 (a) the
appellant stated something which was not true and
concealed from P.W.2 the fact that he was not a member
of any recognised association and that he was not
entitled to carry on the forward contract business, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
clear that P.W.2 could not have parted with the sum of
Rs.12,000/- but for the inducement contained in Ex.P34
and the representation of the appellant that he could
lawfully carry on forward contract business.
13.12.In the case of Ram narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2003 3 SCC 641:
Section 420 deals with cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The
offence of cheating is made of two ingredients:
deception of any person and fraudulently or
dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any
property to any person or to consent that any
person shall retain any property. To put it
differently, the ingredients of the offence are that the
person deceived delivers to someone a valuable
security or property, that the person so deceived
was induced to do so, that such person acted on
such inducement in consequence of his having been
deceived by the accused and that the accused acted
fraudulently or dishonestly when so inducing the
person. To constitute the offence of cheating, it is
not necessary that the deception should be by
express words, but it may be by conduct or implied
in the nature of the transaction itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
13.13.In the case of Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI, reported in (2009) 15
SCC 643 at page 682
147. An officer of a bank holds a position of
trust. Each one of them, keeping in view the nature
and extent of duties required to be performed, is
expected to do so not only in terms of statutory
directions, but as also the directions issued by
Reserve Bank of India and his own employer.
Documents for the purpose of giving credit in the
account of a customer would indisputably be
required to be prepared on the basis of the cheque
receipts. It cannot be prepared in anticipation of
receipt of a cheque; firstly, because the amount of
the cheque, the name of the drawee and other
particulars would not be known to them; secondly,
the bank is required to maintain a large number of
registers to put in place a sound banking system.
All precautions must be taken to prevent a fraud or
deceit on the part of a customer. Therefore, the fact
that, credit and debit vouchers were prepared and
other registers were filled up, although the cheques
were not in physical possession of the Bank, in our
opinion, clearly establishes the existence of a
criminal conspiracy between the ultimate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
beneficiary, on the one hand, and some of the
officers of the Bank, on the other. A debit or credit
voucher furthermore is not prepared in piecemeal
or in instalments. Bank officers are not supposed to
know the immediate requirement of an account-
holder.
175. Moreover, it must be noted in this
respect that banking norms and established
practices and procedures would contain directions
of law prescribing the mode in which the trust is to
be discharged. The expression “direction of law”
in the context of Sections 405 and 409 would
include not only legislations pure and simple but
also directions, instruments and circulars issued by
an authority entitled therefor. The trust in this
regard would therefore have to be discharged in
terms of such directions. Acting in violation thereof
causing wrongful gain to A-3 and loss to the Bank
would bring the action within Section 409 IPC.
14.Conclusion:
In this case, there is clear false pretence which could be legally
inferred from the conduct of the appellant during the entire course of the
events from approaching P.W.2 (C.C.No.7 of 2018) and P.W.19 (C.C.No.6
of 2018) and making them part with their money and misappropriation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
the cheated amount. In this case the appellant has acted with an intention to
deceive from the inception and received the amount from P.W.2 (in
C.C.No.7/2018) and P.W.19 (in C.C.No.6/2018) with false representation
as if he was competent person to receive the amount and issue “pay-in-slip
and FDs”. But he issued forged pay-in-slips and FDs and made to believe
P.W.2 in (C.C.No.7 of 2018), P.W.19 (in C.C.No.6 of 2018) that their
amount will be duly deposited in the bank but without depositing the
amount in the bank he swindled. Therefore there was both cheating and
illegal conversion of the collected amount on the part of the appellant. In
overall assessment, he failed to protect the interest of the Bank, failed to
perform his duties with utmost devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty,
acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer by doing act of cheating,
forgery, conversion of the amount for his personal benefit. He made the
false representation as if he was the competent person to receive the
amount from the witnesses in both cases by making the false declaration
about his competency and received the amount and misappropriated the
amount without depositing the bank and thereby, he has committed bank
fraud. Hence, there is a clear proof of criminal misconduct on his part to
hold guilty under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption
Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
14.1.The appellant is the customer relation manager. His duty is to
canvass the customer to make them to deposit in the bank. He has no
authority to receive the deposit amount from the customer in any capacity.
He initially collected the amount with intention to cheat P.W.19 in C.C.No.
6 of 2018 and his greed drove him to collect the amount from P.W.2 in
C.C.No.7 of 2018 and to screen his act of fraud, he forged the pay-in-slips
and FDs and loan sanctioning order so as to make the above said witnesses
believe that the amount will be deposited in the bank and siphoned off the
amount of Rs.56,00,000/- + 111.5 lakhs = 157.5 lakhs without depositing
the same. Till date he has not repaid the same. The conduct of the appellant
deserves confirmation of the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial
Court in both C.C.Nos.6 and 7 of 2018 without any reduction.
15.Result:
Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are dismissed. The conviction
and sentence passed by the learned II Additional District Judge for CBI
Cases, Madurai in C.C.Nos.3 and 4 of 2010 dated 28.11.2017, are hereby
confirmed. The bail bond executed by the appellant is hereby cancelled.
The learned trial Judge is hereby directed to takes steps to secure the
appellant to make him undergo his remaining period of imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
Summary of Discussion:
Sl. Summary of Discussions Paragraph
No. Nos.
1 Brief facts of the case 2-2.3
2 Submission of the learned counsel for the 3-3.2
appellant
3 Submission of the learned Special Public 4-4.3
Prosecutor appearing for CBI
4 Discussion on merits 6-6.2
5 Proof of fake fixed deposit 7-7.8
6 Proof of the forgery of pay-in-slips 8-8.15
7 Discussion on the plea of accused with filing 9
of two final reports on the basis of the single
FIR is fatal
8 Non-production of original 10-10.1
9 Discussion on locus standi of bank 11-11.2
10 Discussion on Section 467 of IPC 12-12.1
11 Discussion on the white collar crimes 13-13.13
12 Conclusion 14-14.1
04.03.2025
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
sbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
To
1. The II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases,
Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
CBI:ACB, Chennai.
3. The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4. The Section Officer,
Criminal Section(Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
sbn
Pre-delivery judgment made in
CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018
04.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm )
