2019 INSC 0588
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1085 OF 2019
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 9004 of 2017)
RAM GOPAL    ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 
DEHRADUN    ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).1086 OF 2019
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 1981 of 2018)
PANKAJ KUMAR JAIN    ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 
DEHRADUN      ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The   appellants   assail   their   conviction   under     Sections
120­B,   420,   467,   468,   471,   477­A,   201,   I.P.C.   read   with
Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act.  
1

3. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered an F.I.R. on
12.04.1994   based   on   the   statement   of   the   Assistant   General
Manager,   State   Bank   of   India,   Ghaziabad   with   regard   to   the
opening of a fictitious Bank account on 13.07.1992 in the name
of   one   Raj   Kumar.     Soon   thereafter   by   separate   forged   credit
entries between the period 23.07.1992 to 31.10.1992, deposit of
Rs.3,22,056.00   was   made   in   the   account.   Subsequently   on
different   dates   a   sum   of   Rs.3,22,000.00   was   withdrawn   by
seventeen   cheques   leaving   a   balance   of   Rs.322.85.   Originally
two   clerks   of   the   Bank,   Dinesh   Kumar   Sharma   and   Smt.
Vandana   Kundra   were   named   as   accused   along   with   other
unknown   persons.   The   names   of   the   appellants   transpired
during   investigation   leading   to   the   submission   of   charge   sheet
against   them   only,   and   after   conclusion   of   the   trial   they   were
convicted. 
4. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   contended   that   they
have   been   made   scapegoats   while   the   original   named   accused
have   been   wrongly   exonerated   during   investigation.   The
sanction   for   their   prosecution   was   not   in   accordance   with   law.
There   is   no   evidence   that   the   appellants   were   instrumental   in
2

any manner with regard to opening of the fictitious account.  No
evidence has been led in support of criminal conspiracy.  It was
not   possible   for   the   appellants   to   destroy   evidence   with   regard
to   account   opening   form,   specimen   signature   of   the   account
holder or make forged credit or debit entries in the ledger.   The
report of the handwriting expert with regard to the writing  and
signature on the cheques was a mere expression of an opinion.
DW­1   the   handwriting   expert   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   had
doubted   the   very   same   handwriting   and   signatures   of   the
appellants.   They   are   therefore   entitled   to   the   benefit   of   doubt.
No   action   has   been   taken   against   the   concerned   Bank
employees   responsible   for   opening   of   the   fictitious   account,
much   less   has   the   prosecution   even   attempted   to   investigate
and   identify   such   persons.   The   withdrawals   from   the   fictitious
account   through   bearer   cheques   were   not   received   by   the
appellants as acknowledged by PW­3.
5. Learned   counsel   for   the   Central   Bureau   of   Investigation
submitted that there has been thorough evaluation of evidence,
including   that   of   handwriting   experts,   and   the   charge   against
the appellants stands proved.  
3

6. We   have   considered   the   submissions   on   behalf   of   the
parties   and   gone   through   the   materials   on   record.     It   is   an
undisputed   fact   that   a   fictitious   account   was   opened   without
proper   verification   in   accordance   with   the  banking   procedures.
That unfortunately does not appear to have been the subject of
investigation   and   which   could   have   revealed   more   facts   with
regard to the nature and manner of the embezzlement that has
taken   place,   including   the   persons   involved   in   the   same.     The
trial court has rightly observed that in accordance with banking
procedures,   the   opening   of   the   account,   the   deposits   in   the
same   and   withdrawals   could   not   have   been   the   handiwork   of
the appellants alone. But merely because the investigation may
not have been of the standard and nature that it ought to have
been cannot enure to the benefit of the appellants in view of the
nature of materials and evidence available against them.
7. The   validity   of   the   sanction   against   the   appellants   for
prosecution,   who   were   undisputedly   employed   as   messenger
and   assistant   clerk   respectively   in   the   same   branch,   has   been
proved by PW­1 and PW­2. The Sub. Inspector, Central Bureau
4

of   Investigation   PW­23,   proved   that   the   appellants   had   given
their specimen writing and signatures during investigation. The
Principal   Scientific   Officer,   C.F.S.L.,   PW­18   deposed   that   the
account   opening   form   of   the   fictitious   account   was   in   the
handwriting of appellant Pankaj Kumar Jain impersonating the
fictitious   account   holder   Raj   Kumar.     The   receipt   of   cheque
book   and   pass   book   from   the   Bank   records,   on   behalf   of   the
fictitious   account   holder,   were   in   the   handwriting   of   the
appellant   Pankaj   Kumar   Jain.   The   writing   on   two   of   the
withdrawal   cheques   drawn   as   “self”   on   the   fictitious   account
purporting   to   be   signed   by   the   said   Raj   Kumar   were   in   the
handwriting   of   appellant   Ram   Gopal.   The   signature   on   all   the
17   forged   cheques   for   withdrawal   by   “self”   were   in   the
handwriting of appellant Pankaj Kumar Jain impersonating the
fictitous account holder.  These in our opinion were sufficient to
establish   conspiracy.     The   hand   writing   expert   DW­1   relied
upon by the appellants gave his report based on photocopies of
the   writing   and   signatures   of   the   appellants   and   not   on   the
basis   of   their   specimen   signatures.     During   the   course   of
hearing we asked the counsel for the appellants if they had filed
5

any objection to the report of the handwriting expert relied upon
by the prosecution.  It was fairly stated that they did not do so.
8. The   fraud   was   committed   in   a   systematic   manner   by
persons   well   acquainted   with   banking   procedures.   The
appellants   were   also   the   employees   of   the   Bank.     There   is   no
defence evidence that they had no access to records of the Bank
at any  stage to  commit the  offence attributed to  them.   On the
contrary,   the   evidence   of   their   involvement   is   clinching.   They
also   had   access   to   the   vouchers   and   ledgers   as   part   of   their
normal duties.   Even the specimen signature card was made to
disappear replaced by a torn paper.
9. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the conviction
of the appellants.  The appeals are dismissed. 
. ……………………….J.
 (Ashok Bhushan)     
………………………..J.
   (Navin Sinha)          
New Delhi,
July 22, 2019.
6