STATE Vs. M KRISHNA MOHAN
LAWS(SC)-2007-10-129
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on
October 12,2007
STATE
Appellant
VERSUS
M KRISHNA MOHAN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. KATHI KALU OGHAD [REFERRED TO]STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
P S RAJYA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. SHER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BUDH SINGH VS. STATE OF UP [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
V RAMA RAO VS. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CBI [LAWS(KAR)-2014-4-346] [REFERRED TO]OM NARAYAN TIWARI VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
GUFRAM BEIG VS. C.B.I. [LAWS(BOM)-2024-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
SAPAN HALDAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-496] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVEER PRASAD S/O SHRI BALDEV PRASAD VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN, [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-10-150] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL KISHORE PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDER GOYAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2018-1-192] [REFERRED TO]
J.RAJESH KUMAR VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(KER)-2021-10-88] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR SINGH VS. C.B.I [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK NANDA AND ORS. VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-11-62] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV HARI VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-177] [REFERRED TO]
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD VS. BHARAT S DAHANUKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2007-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
BALRAM (B.RAM) VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2009-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
BIR BAHADUR SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV RAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2024-4-168] [REFERRED TO]
R K SRIVASTAVA VS. CBI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-8-407] [REFERRED TO]
SUSANTA KUMAR DEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2009-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
MINAKETAN PANI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-5-101] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. SUN TV NETWORK LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-9-168] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH KUMAR CHAKHAIYAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-6-31] [REFERRED TO]
AMAN KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-1-23] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM KISHORE PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-2-104] [REFERRED TO]
HAMID HASAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-74] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. MUKESH KUMAR SINGH & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA BHUSHAN SAHAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-9-87] [REFERRED TO]
C B I VS. V K BHUTIANI [LAWS(SC)-2009-8-35] [REFERRED TO]
KOTRESH. H VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-10-83] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SWAPAN SINGH [LAWS(CAL)-2010-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. RAM CHANDRA [LAWS(ALL)-2008-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
A. KUMAR SHARMA VS. CBI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-92] [REFERRED TO]
AVINASH KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2010-9-184] [REFERRED TO]
SIYARAM KURRE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF N CT OF DELHI VS. AJAY KUMAR TYAGI [LAWS(SC)-2012-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
SARWAN SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2020-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN KARNAKER CHANDRA VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2008-9-390] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. DHIRENDRA PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2014-12-91] [REFERRED TO]
M/S.SUN TV NETWORK LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-6-114] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR ARORA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2014-2-77] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDER SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-164] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. KHOSBER KAJI [LAWS(CAL)-2010-7-76] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. SAROJ KUMAR SINHA [LAWS(ORI)-2009-5-60] [REFERRED TO]
BANMALI KUSHWAH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-147] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Correctness of a judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Andhra Pradesh is in question in this appeal whereby and
whereunder an appeal from a judgment of conviction dated 13.12.1996 by
Special Judge, FO CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam in C.C. No.11 of 1994 has
been allowed.
(2.)Respondents herein were Manager and Field Officer of Chaitanya Grameena Bank, Penumaka Branch, Guntur District. Allegations against them were that they conspired with each other in the matter of sanctioning and disbursing loans of Rs.5,000/- each under Crop Loan A/c. No.85/23, 86/221, 87/10, 85/95, 86/224 and 87/12 as contained in Exhibits P-1 to P-6 in the names of fictitious persons by forging signatures and thumb impressions of the proposed borrowers in the documents resulting in misappropriation of the proceeds of Rs.30,000/-. The offences in question allegedly took place during the period 7.12.1984 to 14.8.1986. Respondent No.2 herein joined his services on 7.12.1984 as a Field Officer on probation. He was allegedly transferred to another branch on 15.8.1986. The First Information Report was lodged on 31.12.1991 under Sections 409, 420 467 and 477-A read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
(3.)Investigations were made into the said allegations. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 22 witnesses.
(2.)Respondents herein were Manager and Field Officer of Chaitanya Grameena Bank, Penumaka Branch, Guntur District. Allegations against them were that they conspired with each other in the matter of sanctioning and disbursing loans of Rs.5,000/- each under Crop Loan A/c. No.85/23, 86/221, 87/10, 85/95, 86/224 and 87/12 as contained in Exhibits P-1 to P-6 in the names of fictitious persons by forging signatures and thumb impressions of the proposed borrowers in the documents resulting in misappropriation of the proceeds of Rs.30,000/-. The offences in question allegedly took place during the period 7.12.1984 to 14.8.1986. Respondent No.2 herein joined his services on 7.12.1984 as a Field Officer on probation. He was allegedly transferred to another branch on 15.8.1986. The First Information Report was lodged on 31.12.1991 under Sections 409, 420 467 and 477-A read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
(3.)Investigations were made into the said allegations. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 22 witnesses.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.