RAMASWAMI, - (1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) THIS appeal is brought by special leave from the judg-ment of the Andhra Pradesh High court, dated 23/03/1967 in CriminalAppeal Nos. 297, 298, 299 and 300 of 1965 preferred by Respondents 1 to4 whereby the High court allowed the said appeals, set aside the judgmentof the Sessions court and convicted the respondents.897 In the Co-operative central Bank, Srikakulam, accused No. 1Satya Rao, and accused No. 2 Prasada Rao were working as clerks whileaccused No. 4 Mohan Rao was a peon. The Co-operative central Bankhas four branches one of which is at Sompeta. The branch office has amanager, a clerk, a shroff and one peon and a night-watcher. Till Septem-ber 30, 1964 Sri V. S. Venkateswarlu was the Branch Manager of the Bankat Sompeta. He went on leave with effect from 1/10/1964. In his placeaccused No. 1 was posted to act as Branch Manager, Sompeta. AccusedNo. 1 took charge as Branch Manager with effect from 1/10/1964 fromVenkateswarlu. The case of the prosecution is that while accused No. 1was at the headquarters he came to know that the accused No. 4 was in thehabit of practising signatures of the secretary of the Bank. A conspiracy forcheating the bank was entered into between all the accused. In pursuanceof the conspiracy accused No. 2 had typewritten credit advice card and alsoa letter of authority both staling to the effect that they should be treatedas Demand Draft advice and Demand Draft respectively. To both thesedocuments accused No. 4 forged the signature of the secretary. On Octo-ber 8, 1964 accused No. 4 took the credit advice card to the despatch clerkand said that the Manager wanted that the advice card should be despatchedimmediately and got it despatched the same day to the branch office. Thecredit advice card was received on 10/10/1964 by accused No. 1 himselfwho handed the credit advice to the clerk and asked him to keep the samewith him in spite af the fact that the clerk protested that such advice cardsshould be kept with the Manager himself. On 13/10/1964 accusedNo. 1 pretended that he was having motions and was unable to sit up in theoffice and asked the clerk to carry on the business of the branch for him.But accused No. 1 was all the time sitting by the side of the clerk giving himguidance. On 14/10/1964 accused No. 1 was still pretending that hewas unwell and asked the clerk to carry on the transactions on his behalf.At 12.30 p.m. on 14/10/1964 accused No. 2 went to the SompetaBranch office. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 went out for about 15 minutes andcame back at about 1.45 p.m. Accused No. 3 went to the Bank andpresented to accused No. 1 the letter of authority typewritten on the letter-head with a copy to the central Bank purporting to authorise payment ofRa. 15,000.00 to V. Chandradasu of Mandaaa treating the letter as DemandDraft. The letter purported to bear the signature of the secretary and alsospecimen signatures of the payee Chandradasu. Accused No. 1 gave theletter to the clerk for necessary action. When the clerk protested that noamount will be paid on the letter of authority in the absence of DemandDraft accused No. 1 said that the amount should be paid in any case as thebank's prestige was at stake. The clerk in obedience to the advice of accusedNo. I took out the credit advice card and tallied the signature of the Secre-tary and after satisfying himself that the signatures were correct, preparedthe debit slip and after taking endorsement of accused No. 3 made the pay-ment order. The clerk passed on the documents to the shroff who againprotes.ted that the payment could not be made unless the payee was identifiedby a person known to the Bank. Again accused No. 1 interfered and toldthe shroff that to demand identifying witnesses would amount to harassmentof customers and the prestige of the Bank would be lowered. When the shrofffound accused No. 3 was talking familiarly with accused No. 1 he took it thataccused No. 1 must be known to accused No. 3. But as there was nosufficient money in the counter accused No. 1 and the shroff went to the chestand drew Rs. 15,000.00. When the money was paid to accused No. 3 hetook it and went away without even counting the amount. On 27/10/1964 the secretary verified the accounts of the Bank and of the head office898and found that there was no credit of Rs. 15,000.00 in favour of Chandradasu.Suspecting foul play the secretary and the Auditor proceeded to Sompetaand made enquiries. After return to Headquarters the secretary made acomplaint to Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikakulam. On the same day theSub-Inspector arrested accused No. 1 and upon his statement recovered asum of Rs. 7,000.00 (Rs. 3,000.00 in 100.00 rupee currency notes and the rest in 10rupee currency notes). Then accused No. 1 took the police party to thehouse of accused No. 3 who after interrogation produced a sum of Rs. 3,000.00(300 ten rupee currency notes). Accused No. 1 took the police party to thehouse of accused No. 2 who after his arrest produced Rs. 1,930.00 - 193 tenrupee notes). Besides, he produced a transistor radio with a licence and onegold necklace staling that he purchased the transistor radio from D. V.Ramanaiah for Rs. 498.50 and had redeemed the gold necklace from A.Gopala Rao of Vijayanagaram by paying Rs. 200.00. He further statedthat he paid Rs. 250.00 to Patnala Satyanarayana, dealer in watches atSrikakulam to get him a "Fortis" wrist watch. Accused No. 1 took thepolice party to the house of accused No. 4 in Relli Street at Srikakulam.Accused No. 4 produced Rs. 1,686.00 (168 ten rupee currency notes andsix one rupee currency notes). He also produced one gold necklace, a goldchain, a wrist watch and other articles. Accused No. 3 was identified bythe clerk and the shroff of Sompeta in test identification parade held by theJudicial Second Class Magistrate on 11/11/1964 in Srikakulam Sub-Jail. The Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, convicted all the fouraccused of the charge under Section 120-B, Indian penal code, and sentenced them toundergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. Accused No. 2 and 4were also convicted under Section 467,Indian penal code, and each of them wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Accused Nos. 1,2 and 3 were convicted under S. 467 and 471, Indian penal code, and each wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Accused Nos. 1to 4 were further convicted under Section 429, I. P. G., and each of them wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. Accused No. 3alone was convicted under Section 419, Indian penal code, and was sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for two years. Accused No. 1 was found guilty underSection 203) Indian penal code All the accused presented appeals to the Andhra PradeshHigh court which allowed the appeals and acquitted them of all thecharged.
(3.) ON behalf of the appellant it was contended by Mr. Ram Reddythat in reversing the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge the HighCourt has failed to take into account all the important circumstances pointingto the guilt of each of the respondents and as a result the findings of the HighCourt suffered from grave infirmities and there has been a failure of justicein this case. On a consideration of the entire evidence the Additional SessionsJudge found that the following circumstances are established : JUDGEMENT_896_3_1969Html1.htm ;