Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Revision No.691 of 1997
Date of Decision: 5 - 3 - 2009
Indian Overseas Bank .....Petitioner
v.
S. Radhakrishanan .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.Varun Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
S. Radhakrishnan, Gandhi Kumar and S. Sahi Nath @ A. Yusuf
@ C.P.Nagrajan were tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Gurgaon in a case arising out of FIR No.74 dated 16.2.1982 registered at
Police Station City Gurgaon under Sections 420,468,467,109,
The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced S.
Radhakrishnan and S.Sahi Nath @ A.Yusuf @ C.P.Nagrajan for various
Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997 [2]
offences. However, accused Gandhi Kumar was acquitted. S.
Radhakrishnan and S.Sahi Nath @ A.Yusuf @ C.P.Nagrajan had filed an
appeal. Same was heard and decided by Additional Sessions Judge,
Gurgaon. The Appellate Court accepted the appeal preferred by S.
Radhakrishnan. However, appeal of S. Sahi Nath was dismissed.
The present revision petition has been filed by the complainant-
Bank against acquittal of S. Radhakrishnan.
Against the acquittal of S. Radhakrishnan, no State appeal has
been filed.
Co-accused S. Sahi Nath who was convicted, had filed
Criminal Revision No.88 of 1997 wherein his revision petition was
dismissed but the sentence awarded was reduced. Order of reduction of
sentence passed by the Co-ordinate Bench read as under:-
“Heard.
No ground to interfere in the concurrent finding recrded
by the Courts below.
Alternative submission which was raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that this Court may treat the
petitioner with leniency in the matter of sentence which
according to him is on the highly excessive side. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused in
this case is suffering agony of the trial since 1982. The
alternative submission of the learned counsel requires
consideration on the part of this court. Keeping in view the
totality of the circumstances of the case, the substantive
sentence awarded to the petitioner is hereby reduced from 5
Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997 [3]
years to 2½ years. With the above modification in sentence,
the revision stands dismissed. All concerned be informed.”
In the present case, the FIR was registered on the basis of
written complaint instituted by K.C.Yadav, Manager of Indian Overseas
Bank. A perusal of the complaint show that one S.Sahi Nath came to Indian
Overseas Bank Branch at Old Railway Road, Gurgaon on 17.11.1987. He
remitted a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- and got two FDRs worth Rs.1,20,000/- each
prepared. S.Sahi Nath projected himself to be one who has come from
South India to commence business of real estate at Gurgaon. Against two
aforesaid FDRs, loan of Rs.1,80,000/- was obtained. The accused made the
bank officials believe that large remittances from Banglore as well as
Madras will be received as he is agent of real estate company of repute. A
credit advice dated 4.12.1981 for Rs.2,75,000/- was received from one of
the branch of the Bank at Madras. The amount was adjusted and balance
amount of Rs.93,887.90 was credited to the saving bank account. The
amount of Rs.93,800/- was withdrawn and by depositing Rs.6200/-, another
FDR of Rs.One lac was got prepared. Against the FDRs of Rs.3,40,000/-,
again loan to the extent of Rs.2,35,000/- was raised by S. Sahi Nath. On
22.12.1981, the Bank again received a credit advice from Jaya Nagar
Branch at Banglore. Lateron the amount was adjusted. Balance amount
was put in the Saving bank account. This modus operandi was practiced
and amount was credited in the account of S. Sahi Nath on 13.1.1982. He
withdrew a sum of Rs.31 lacs and on 3.2.1982 an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-
was also withdrawn. When the Bank sought the confirmation of the credit
advice, correspondence was exchanged and later it dawned upon the bank
officials that no amount was ever remitted by the Banks from Madras or
Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997 [4]
Banglore. Thus, the accused were put to trial.
As stated earlier, the revision petition filed by S. Sahi Nath
was dismissed. His conviction was maintained by this Court while
exercising revisional powers and sentence was reduced. The Appellate
Court below has meticulously adjudged the evidence and had acquitted
S.Radha Krishnan. Para 8 of the Appellate Court judgment, whereby
acquittal of S.Radhakrishnan was recorded read as under:-
“8. The case against Radha Krishanan
In order to connect the accused Radha Krishanan with
the present crime, the trial court has relied upon the testimony
of the bank official PW2 to PW9 and also the statement
recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. of one Mohinder Kumar.
The recovery of Rs.1,60,000/- from the house of Gandhi
Bhatnagar has not been relied upon by the trial court for
connecting the present accused Radha Krishanan with the
offence. The trial court came to the right conclusion that the
said recovery in no way could connect the accused with the
present offence. The version of recovery had not been proved
by creditable evidence and even otherwise, the money
recovered was shown to belong to Barari Branch of the Indian
Overseas Bank. The other conclusion of the trial court by
which it held Radha Krishanan guilty on the basis of the
remaining evidence is not acceptable. The testimonies of PW2
to PW9 is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution
beyond all reasonable doubts against accused Radha Krishanan.
All these witnesses have only stated that on 3.2.82, Radha
Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997 [5]
Krishanan had come to the bank and after him Sahi Nath had
also reached the bank on that day, Sahi Nath had withdrew
Rs.1,75,000/- and it was the last transaction. There-after, the
accused did not turn up to operate the said account. PW3 has
further stated that he had seen both of them sitting together
before C.K.Kohli Accountant. PW4 states that he had heard
both of them discussing something in some other language
which he thought was Tamil. Similarly, PW6 and PW7 also
state that they had seen both of them talking to each other.
PW9 SL Sagar, Assistant Manager IOB has stated that in the
month of January and February 1982, he was additional officer
of IOB Barari District Mathura. Radha Krishanan was then the
branch manager. The credit schedules Es.P12 and Ex.P36
relate to Mathura Main Branch of IOB. He further states that
their branch at Barari was also collecting stationery from the
Mathura main branch of IOB. In cross-examination, this
witness submits that the credit schedules do not remain in the
custody of any particular person and remain lying in the open.
The statement of Mohinder Kumar was recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. By Shri R.P.Bajaj, the then Addl.CJM,
Gurgaon. Shri Bajaj has appeared as PW13 and deposed that
on 21.4.82, he had recorded the said statement of Mohinder
Kumar. The prosecution has pressed forward the said statement
in an attempt to show that the relevant credit schedule bearing
serial nos.705401 to 705700 had been handed over to accused
Radha Krishanan by the main branch at Mathura. However, the
Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997 [6]
said evidence can not be relied upon. Shri Mohinder Kumar
was never examined as a witness. In absence of the same the
said statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can not be used as
evidence in the case. The counsel for defence has rightly relied
upon 1972 Criminal Law Journal 267 Ram Kishan vs. Harmit
Kaur where the Supreme Court laid down that a statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive evidence. It can
be used only to corroborate the statement of witnesses or to
contradict him. It was also rightly argued that even if, it is
accepted that the credit schedule was handed over to Radha
Krishanan accused, still it can not be presumed that he was the
person who had forged the said credit schedules. There is no
evidence on the file to show that Radha Krishanan or as a
matter of fact any other manager is supposed to keep under lock
and key, the said credit schedules. Rather their own witness
PW9 has admitted that the said credit schedules remain lying in
the open and are not kept in the exclusive custody of any
person. The said credit schedules were within easy access of
all the employees of the bank. Merely on the basis of the
presence of Radha Krishanan in Gurgaon Branch on 3.2.82 can
not be considered as a sufficient material, to connect the
accused with the present crime. On the basis of the said
evidence, it can not be said that the case against the accused has
been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. However, strong
may be, the suspicion, it can not take the place of proof. So the
judgment of the trial court holding the accused Radha
Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997 [7]
Krishanan guilty is set aside and the conviction and sentence of
accused Nagrajan is sustained.”
No fault can be found with the reasoning given by the
Appellate Court below. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court has already exercised revisional jurisdiction while
disposing off Criminal Revision No.88 of 1997 and the sentence awarded
upon S. Sahi Nath was reduced. This Court would be hesitant to re-
appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence when the findings of the
lower Appellate Court are not perverse.
This Court had noticed the entire legal position regarding the
powers vested in this Court while deciding criminal revision against
acquittal. This Court had passed a judgment in Mohinder Singh v. Mehar
Singh & others, Criminal Revision No.648 of 1996, decided on 18.2.2008.
In Mohinder Singh’s case (supra), this Court relied upon a judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahendra Partap Singh v. Sarju Singh and
another, AIR 1968 SC 707. In Mahendra Partap Singh’s case (supra)
Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon D.Stephens v. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC
196. Hon’ble Apex Court further in Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR
1973 SC 2145, Bansi Lal and others v. Laxman Singh, (1986)3 SCC 444,
Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others v. Jagannath, 1995 SCC(Cri) 181,
Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh and another, (1998) SCC(Cri) 1574 and
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 2907 has held
that powers of the revisional Court are not to be exercised in case of
acquittal until or unless, the judgment of the trial Court is perverse or is
based on grave legal error. In present case, accused-respondent had been
acquitted by the trial Court after appreciating the evidence. Revisional
Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997 [8]
Court is not to re-appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence. Therefore,
there is no other option but to dismiss the present revision petition.
For the reasons stated above, the present revision petition is
dismissed.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
March 5, 2009. JUDGE
RC
