Telangana High Court
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs R. Bhaskaran on 15 July, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1631 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The State filed the appeal aggrieved by the acquittal of
the respondent for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and
408 of IPC vide judgment in CC No.1086 of 2002, dated
05.11.2008 passed by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was
working in Uni Sankyo Limited at Gaganpahad, Hyderabad,
as branch Manager. His responsibilities include getting
product literature and promotional inputs and stationery
printed. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused
misusing his powers, issued three purchase orders with
M/s.Surya Art Printers and M/s.Sandilia Art Printers and
cheated the company to a tune of Rs.3,15,000/- as there was
no material that was received. For the said reason, the
respondent/accused is liable for the offences as mentioned
supra.
3. The prosecution examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6 and
marked Exs.P1 to P55 to prove their case.
4. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are representatives of the company
supported the complaint. P.Ws.3 and 5 are proprietors of
printing press, who took orders from the company. P.W.6 is
the Investigating Officer.
5. P.W.1 deposed that during audit, it was found that the
respondent/accused issued purchase orders, but the material
was not received, however, payments were made. He further
stated that the accused placed orders with M/.Sandilia
Printers on 04.05.1999 for Rs.3,11,850/-,but no material was
supplied. Likewise, order payment of Rs.1,80,345/- was also
made to M/s.Surya Art Printers but no material was received.
6. The trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused for the
following reasons; i) Though the alleged fraud was detected
while he was in service, his resignation was accepted without
any objection; ii) there were no complaints from any quarter,
though the respondent/accused worked in Uni Sancyo for a
period of ten years; iii) P.W.1 admits that the
respondent/accused cannot solely issue any purchase order,
but there are two other persons, who sign such purchase
orders; iv) If there are any irregularities, it cannot be solely
attributed to the respondent/accused herein; v) It is also
admitted that unless marketing and finance departments
verifies the orders and produce receipts along with bill
particulars, only then the company releases the payment.
7. Sri Sudershan, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State submits that the prosecution was able
to prove the guilt of the respondent/accused by examining six
witnesses and also marking of the relevant documents under
Exs.P1 to P55. Since the audit report was clear that the
amounts were paid without receiving any material, the said
audit report has to be relied upon to convict the accused.
8. Having perused the record, the case is of circumstantial
evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad
Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra1 [held as follows:
1984 AIR 1622
"3:3. Before a case against an accused vesting on
circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established
the following conditions must be fulfilled as laid down in
Hanumat's v. State of M.P. [1953] SCR 1091.
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent with the
hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should
not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one
to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave
any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.
3:4. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that a
case can be said to be proved only when there is certain and
explicit evidence and no pure moral conviction."
9. As seen from the evidence, P.W.1 himself admitted that
when purchase orders are made, apart from the accused two
others have to sign. He further admitted that unless the orders
are verified thoroughly pursuant to receiving the goods along
with bill particulars, only then the company uses to make
payments. When such procedure is admittedly adopted by the
company, the question of any entrustment to the accused does
not arise. Further, when the payments are made after
verification of the orders and the goods received, it cannot be
said that the accused had cheated the company to a tune of
Rs.3,15,000/-.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna
Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh2 held that under the Indian
criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental
protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation.
Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and
secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation.
Both these facets attain even greater significance where the
accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment
of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the
accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false
implication. But then, this has to be established on record of
the Court.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, the prosecution has
failed to make out a case to reverse the order of the trial Court
acquitting the respondent/accused.
(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688
12. In the said circumstances, the judgment of the trial
Court is maintained and the Criminal Appeal preferred by the
State is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 15.07.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1631 OF 2010
Date: 15.07.2022.
kvs
