IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.430 of 2006
With
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 418 of 2006
Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
29.5.2006 passed by Sri Jawahar Prasad Ratnesh, Special Judge, CBI,
South Bihar, Patna in Special Case no. 52 of 1983.
===================================================
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 430 of 2006
1. Shiv Narain Banshal, son of late Gugan Mal Agrawal, resident of
village – Mohania, P.S. – Mohania, District – Rohtas; Proprietor of
M/s Banshal Stores, Mohania
2. Chhetharu Singh, son of Gobardhan Singh, resident of village –
Mohania, Police station – Mohania, District – Rohtas; Proprietor of
M/s Sri Bisunji Bhandar, Mohania.
…. …. Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar
…. …. Respondent/s
with
Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 418 of 2006
===================================================
1. Ramji Prasad Jaiswal @ Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal, son of late
Bindeshwari Prasad Jaiswal,
2. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, son of Ramji Prasad Jaiswal,
3. Bal Mukund Jaiswal alias Prasad Jaiswal, son of Ramji Prasad
Jaiswal, all residents of at P.S. & P.O. – Mohania, District – Kaimur
…. …. Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar through C.B.I.
…. …. Respondent/s
===================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Sarvshri Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Sudhir Singh & Raghwanand,
Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Shri Bipin Bihari Sinha, Advocate
===================================================
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA
———-
Dharnidhar Jha, J. The appellants of the two appeals along with Chetharu
Singh (since dead) were charged by the learned Special Judge, CBI, South Bihar, Patna
for committing offences under sections 440, 420, 468, 471, 120B IPC and section 5(2)
read with sections 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for being tried with
deceased accused Ajay Kumar Srivastava, who was, during the relevant period, Branch
2
Manager of State Bank of India, Agriculture Market Yard Branch, Mohania, who,
besides being charged for the commission of above offences was also charged under
section 5(2) read with sections 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. By
judgment dated 29.5.2006 the appellants and deceased appellant Chethru Singh who was
also a co appellant with appellant Shiv Narain Bansal were found guilty of committing
offence under sections 420, 468,471 and 120B IPC read with section 5(2) read with
5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and, accordingly, they were directed to suffer
RI for three years under sections 420 IPC as also to pay a fine of rupees forty thousand.
They were also directed to suffer RI for three years under section 468 IPC besides paying
a fine of rupees five thousand for their individual conviction for that particular offence.
In addition to the above, each of the appellants was directed to suffer RI for two years
and one year respectively under sections 471 read with 468, 420 and 120B IPC. The
substantive sentence of imprisonment of one year was inclusive of the sentence awarded
to each of the appellants for having committed the offence under sections 5(2) read with
sections 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. The sentences passed upon the appellants were directed
to run concurrently.
2. The appeal of appellant Chetharu Singh, one of the appellants in Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 430 of 2006 abated due to his death as may appear from order dated
6.4.2011 passed in the said appeal, thus, leaving appellant Shiv Narain Bansal as the
solitary appellant.
3. The two appeals, arising out of the same judgment of conviction, have
been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
4. The case relates to a period ranging from September to December, 1982
and further relates to defalcating public money in league with the appellants and the
deceased appellant Ajay Kumar Srivastava by forging and fabricating the consignment
notes and showing their purchase by the State Bank of India, Agriculture Market Yard
Branch, Mohania of which the deceased accused Ajay Kumar Srivastava, during that
particular period, was the Branch Manager. It was stated that by misuse of his official
position A.K. Srivastava, in conspiracy with deceased appellant Chetharu Singh who was
the proprietor of M/s Bishnujee Bhandar and appellant Shiv Narain Banshal, Proprietors
3
of M/s Banshal Stores, Mohania and three appellants of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 418 of 2006,
namely, Ramji Prasad Jaiswal alias Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal and his two sons Bal Mukund
Jaiswal alias Prasad Jaiswal and Ashok Kumar Jaiswal (also being referred to herein as
Jaiswal appellants), fraudulently and dishonestly obtained payment of Rs.71,456 to
Chethru Singh and Rs. 12,57,810 to appellant Shiv Narain Banshal against three and 31
bills respectively which were accompanied by fake transport receipts issued by three
appellants, namely, Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal and his two sons aforenamed purported to be
issued by M/s Rohtas Carriers showing the consignment of grains to different consignees
and thereby causing loss to the State Bank of India to the tune of Rs.13,29,266 besides
the interest which could have accrued thereon.
5. It was stated further that M/s Bishnujee Bhandar had current account in
the said branch of SBI, which was operated by its proprietor Chethru Singh and a similar
account in the same bank was also held by appellant Shiv Narain Banshal. M/s Rohtas
Carriers were shown the transport agency and it was shown that the three appellants
Ramjee Jaiswal and his two sons were running the transport agency. However, during
investigation, it was revealed that deceased accused A.K. Srivastava, the Branch
Manager of the bank, had purchased three bills from appellant Chetharu Singh, the
proprietor of M/s Bishnujee Bhandar which was bearing DD No. 2,79,321 and 336 and
were consolidately valued at Rs.71,456. The three DDs were encashed at State Bank of
India, Chas branch in respect of M/s Mahavir Bhandar of Chas. The above DDs were
supported by consignment notes or transport receipts allegedly issued by M/s Rohtas
Carriers showing dispatch of goods from Mohania to Chas and the amount of Rs.71,456
covered by three DDs were credited in the account of M/s Bishnujee Bhandar. The above
bills were sent to SBI, Chas branch by State Bank of India, AMY branch, Mohania for
collection but, it was reported that the consignee did not turn up and the bills were
returned unpaid to the SBI, Mohania by which the same has been purchased. During
investigation, it was further revealed that there was no firm in the name and style of M/s
Mahavir Bhandar at Chas and there was no branch or office also of M/s Rohtas Carrier
either at Chas or at Mohania. Thus, it was found that the above three DDs of the value of
4
Rs.71456 only were forged and fabricated showing bogus dispatch of goods to non-
existent consignee.
6. In addition to the above, what further transpired was that A.K. Srivastava,
the Branch Manager, SBI, Mohania also purchased 31 similar bills accompanied by
similar transport receipts issued by the same transporters M/s Rohtas Carriers being
presented by Shiv Narayan Bansal, which was valued at Rs.12,57,810 and the amounts
were credited without verifying any thing, specially, the cash credit limit which could be
available to Shiv Narain Banshal and also exceeding the financial power of A.K.
Srivastava in such cases. It was found that out of 31 bills 17 bills were to be drawn on
the State Bank of India, Posta branch, Kolkata, consignee being M/s Murari Lal Co. and
those bills were bearing nos. DD 292, 293, 294, 297, 298, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 311,
315, 319, 320, 332, 337 and 338. The remaining bills out of 31 were to be drawn at SBI,
Burra branch, Kolkata and the consignees being M/s Shyam Sunder and Co., M/s Murari
Lal and Co. and M/s Dwarika Prasad Gauri Shankar, Kolkata. It was revealed that A.K.
Srivastava, Branch Manager had purchased the bills indiscriminately without making any
appraisal thereof and without verifying the nature and extent of business transaction of
the drawers of the bills, which were also accompanied by the consignment notes issued
by the transporter M/s Rohtas Carriers which were also returned back unrealized and
dishonoured.
7. In spite of the above, A.K. Srivastava continued to purchase the bills from
the same parties, i.e., M/s Bansal Stores owned by appellant Shiv Narain Banshal and it
was found that Shiv Narain Bansal had a sanctioned financial limit only of Rs.1,50,000
and likewise, M/s Bishnujee Bhandar had also a sanction limit of Rs.50,000 only on their
current accounts. But, without apprising their business transactions or reviewing the
same, deceased accused A.K. Srivastava continued to purchase the D.D. bills from the
aforesaid two firms in excess of his own discretionary powers which was up to Rupees
two lacs in respect of the nature of the transaction which at the same time exceeded the
financial limits which were put on the current accounts of the appellants Shiv Narain
Bansal and Chetharu Singh. He did not even care that earlier purchased similar bills had
bounced unpaid and had not even been entered into the relevant registers and retained the
5
dishonoured bills in his personal possession and custody so as not to allow any restriction
to be imposed on illegal transaction and thus continued the same.
8. As regards M/s Rohtas Carriers and the case in respect of appellant
Ramjee Jaiswal and his two sons, who are appellants before this Court, it was found that
M/s Rohtas Carriers had no vehicles of their own nor had any branch out of Bihar. They
did not even have any godown or business premises and they had no branch or office in
Mohania and had rather no business in the area. In fact, it was found that the
consignment notes which were the basis for purchasing Hundi or DDs were retained by
the appellant Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal or any of his two sons without any sequence of date
or serial number A.K. Srivastava in conspiracy with the present appellant and deceased
appellant cheated and defalcated the bank and thus, wrongfully caused a loss to it to the
tune of Rs.13,29,266.
9. Two formal reports were registered by the CBI vide R.C. 18 of 1983 and
17A of 1983 and on that basis the investigation concluded by submitting charge sheet
against accused persons which went to trial and that ended in the impugned judgment.
10. The defence, which appears from the trend of cross examination of
witnesses was that Hundis or bills which have been referred to as DDs and which were,
admittedly, purchased by the deceased accused A.K. Srivastava in his capacity as Branch
Manager of concerned branch of S.B.I. were not fake, neither the consigner nor the
consignee were fictitious persons and in fact appellants Ramji Prasad Jaiswal, Ashok
Kumar Jaiswal and Bal Mukund Jaiswal had the authority from the proprietors of M/s
Rohtas Carriers to issue them as their agents who were working in Mohania and there
might be other acceptable reasons for the non payment of those demand drafts.
11. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 27
witnesses. P.Ws 1 and 6, namely, Sheopujan Singh and Kedar Nath Gupta, who were
constable and Deputy Superintendent of Police in the CBI tendered the FIRs (Ext.1 and
1/a) of the two cases RC 18/83 and 17A/83. So far as P.W. 2 A.K. Krishnan was
concerned, he was a clerk in the Vigilance Department of the SBI and he proved the
order sanctioning the prosecution of A.K. Srivastava which was marked as Ext. 2. P.W. 4
Chandra Mohan Sahay and P.W. 5 K.N. Jha were witnesses before whom specimen
6
signatures of the accused persons were obtained by the CBI and those have been marked
Ext. 4 series right from 4/14 to 4/48. P.W. 20 Rajendra Sinha was also a formal witness
who deposed on the writings of the case diaries of the two cases on account of the non
examination of the I.O.
12. So far as the other witnesses are concerned, P.Ws 3 Rameshwar Lal
Sharma was the proprietor of M/s Rohtas Carriers. It appears from his evidence as also
from the evidence of P.W. 25 Ved Kumar, who was the Business Executive of the said
firm M/s Rohtas Carriers, that it was originally a partnership firm, the deed in respect of
which was brought into existence on 2.5.1979, but the partnership was dissolved on
28.11.1979 on account of the appellant Ramji Jaiswal walking out of the joint venture
leaving the firm completely in the hands of P.W. 3 Rameshwar Lal Sharma. It is true that
P.W. 3 had admitted and as may appear from Ext. 1/1 and 1/ 2 which has also been
marked Ext. A on behalf of the defence as may appear from paragraph 12 of P.W. 3 that
he had issued some sort of authorization in favour of Ramji Jaiswal to act as an agent of
his firm, namely, M/s Rohtas Carriers, the head quarters of which was in Patna, as may
appear from the evidence of P.W. 25 Ved kumar, who has given a detailed account
regarding the firm never having any office anywhere either at Mohania or at any of the
places, like, Arrah, Sasaram, Aurangabad or Dehri-on-Sone and who has further stated,
as may appear from paragraph 4 of P.W. 5, that his firm transported the consignment
only to places where it had its branches and that there was no branch in Calcutta, Delhi,
Mumbai and Chas and, as such, there was no transaction with any one at those places. So
far as the evidence of P.W. 3 Rameshwar Lal Sharma, the proprietor of the firm M/s
Rohtas Carriers was concerned, he was tendering evidence on the consignment notes
and was stating as to who had written those notes or signed the notes. Ext. 2 to 2/13 were
in the hands of the appellant Ramji Jaiswal and three out of those 14 consignment notes
or transport receipts, as they have been described to be called by the witnesses who were
the employees of the State bank of India as may be disclosed from the discussion of their
evidence, were bearing the signatures of deceased appellant Chetharu Singh while the
remaining 11 were carrying the signature of appellant Shiv Narain Banshal. Another set
of eleven consignment notes were written by appellant Ashok Kumar Jaiswal and they
7
were marked Ext. 3/14 to 3/24 and each of them was bearing the signature of appellant
Shiv Narain Banshal. Five consignment notes or transport receipts were written by
appellant Bal Mukund Jaiswal which were marked Ext. 3/25 to 3/29 and 4 by appellant
Shiv Narain Banshal which all were bearing the signature of appellant Shiv Narain
Banshal and later four notes were marked Ext. 3/30 to 3/33. These sets of consignment
notes, as may appear from evidence of P.W. 3, were issued in 1983 by appellants Ramji
Prasad Jaiswal, Ashok Kumar Jaiswal and Bal Mukund Jaiswal as proprietors of M/s
Rohtas Carriers. This would appear from paragraph 5 of the evidence of P.W. 3 which
further reveals that M/s Rohtas Carriers was never having any office or existence in
Mohania and that the three appellants, namely, Ramji Prasad Jaiswal, Ashok Kumar
Jaiswal and Bal Mukund Jaiswal were not competent to issue them as they had shown
themselves the proprietors of M/s Rohtas Carriers.
13. It is true that Ext. 1/ 2 or Ext. A, which is the authorization in the writing
of P.W. 3 was issued in favour of the appellant Ramji Prasad Jaiswal but that was for the
limited purpose of acting as an agent of M/s Rohtas Carriers in Mohania. It was never
creating any interest in their favour in M/s Rohtas Carriers and that could have never
allowed or permitted them to step into the shoes of the proprietors of M/s Rohtas
Carriers. I have scanned the evidence of P.W. 3 very carefully as have done that of other
witnesses, only to find out as to whether there was any challenge or case set up by the
Jaiswal set of appellants that they had issued the notes in their capacities of being the
proprietors. I also scanned the evidence with a view to finding out as to whether they
have challenged that they had not issued the notes and that too in the capacity of being
the proprietors of the said carriers. I must note with all emphasis at my command that
there was not even a line of suggestion thrown to any of the witnesses least to talk of
P.W. 3 Rameshwar Lal Sharma that Ramji Prasad Jaiswal or the remaining two Jaiswal
appellants were the proprietors of the firm on the day the notes were issued. Thus, in
spite of accepting the plea of the defence that Ext. A, the authorization, issued by P.W. 3
in favour of Ramji Prasad Jaiswal the consignment notes which were the instrument of
defrauding the public fund through the SBI, Mohania, were out and out fabricated and
forged documents inasmuch as none of the three Jaiswal appellants had the capacity of
8
issuing them as proprietors. This is the reason that in spite of the learned counsel on
behalf of the three appellants pointing out to me, time and again, that that particular
defence on Ext. A, the case of three appellants have to be accepted, I am rejecting their
plea by holding that the consignment notes or the transport receipts, as they are known in
banking or business parlance, were quite fabricated documents as I have just pointed out
that none of the three Jaiswal appellants were the proprietors of M/s Rohtas Carriers and
were not authorized in that capacity to issue them.
14. In addition to the above, what may further be found from the cross-
examination of P.W. 3 Rameshwar Lal Sharma, undisputed proprietor of M/s Rohtas
Carriers that Jaiswal appellants were indeed admitting the fabrication of the transport
receipts or consignment receipts by themselves, as they were admitting the issuance of
the documents. As such, there is no denial anywhere in the plethora of evidence coming
from the Jaiswal accused even faintly suggesting that they had played no role in their
fabrication or the writings as deposed to by P.W. 3 to be theirs, were, in fact, not their.
15. So far as other witnesses are concerned, P.W. 8 Lal Muni Singh again
appears of a formal character, but nonetheless an important witness. He was, undeniably,
an employee and was working in M/s Banshal Stores which was the firm of appellant
Shiv Narain Banshal, which was using the fake and forged consignment notes to send the
consignment of things to different destinations in Chas and Calcutta and was receiving
the price of the bills created on that account. P.W. 8 has stated that he was acquainted
with the writings of Shiv Narain Banshal and 31 Hundis, i.e., Ext. 7 to 7/30 were in his
hand. Likewise, the remaining three bills, i.e., Ext. 3/31 to 3/33 were bearing the writings
of Shiv Narain Banshal but were also bearing the signature of deceased appellant
Chetharu Singh, thus, there is complete evidence as to who were the participants in
forging and fabricating the consignment notes or transport receipts for defrauding the
State Bank of India in league with its Branch Manager A.K. Srivastava.
16. Out of the remaining witnesses P.W. 9 Ram Briksh Prasad and P.W. 21
Vijay Shankar Mishra were tendered by the prosecution for being cross examined by the
defence. The remaining witnesses, most of whom are the employees or officers of the
SBI, have spoken on the procedure as to how the DDs are encashed on the basis of
9
consignment notes, except P.Ws 22 and 23 who are the commission agents and
proprietors of M/s Shyam Sundar & Co., one of the firms in Calcutta, which was,
allegedly consigned some goods. The sum and substance of the evidence of witnesses,
like, P.W. 10 Satya Narain Rai, who was the passing officer in the SBI, Chas, P.W. 11
Om Vilas Kumar, another employee and officer in the SBI, P.W. 12 Vishwanath
Chandra, P.W. 13 Shambhu Suman and P.W. 14 Birendra Kumar who succeeded Branch
Manager A.K. Srivastava after the fraud was detected as also P.W. 15 Shivanand Tiwari
who was the cashier at the relevant time in the same branch of the SBI, Mohania along
with P.W. 16 K.J. Devasia and P.W. 17 A.R. Ansari, yet another manager of the same
bank with a highly placed officer like P.W. 19 R.P. Gupta who was at the relevant time,
one of the Regional Managers posted at Patna is on different aspects of the encashment
of Hundis prepared on the basis of consignment notes or transport receipts. In addition to
that, P.Ws. 10 and 11 and others have also produced different registers showing the entry
or non-entry of the documents which was required to be made in them.
17. The sum and substance of the evidence of these witnesses was that when a
business man required money after having consigned his consignment to any transporter
who is necessarily to be a registered transporter with the SBI, he could approach a branch
of the SBI with consignment notes or transport receipts which are prepared in four
copies, two copies of which are retained by the consigner, one is given to the driver of
the vehicle and one is retained in the office of the transporter. One of the copies is
presented with a bill in the bank in case of want of money and the bank enters it into the
Demand Draft Receipt Register after having purchased it. As soon as the purchase is
made, amount of the consignment note which may be constituted by freight and other
charges which could be levied on account of the consignment of goods has to be credited
into the account of the business man. Each business man has a specified cash credit limit.
In case of appellant Shiv Narain Banshal, witnesses have stated that it was about Rs.1.5
lac. While purchasing the consignment notes, the manager of the branch has to ensure
that sufficient cash credit was available in the current account of the business man and at
the same time his own financial limits in purchasing the Hundis were not exceeded.
Witnesses have said that in case both of appellants Shiv Narain Banshal and Chetharu
10
Singh, not only their cash limits were exceeded but also that their current account were
deplete with money and further that the branch manager, A.K. Srivastava, had exceeded
his limits.
18. The further procedure is that when the transport receipts or consignment
notes are received with the Hundis which are presented for purchase and the same are
purchased, the Hundis are sent to another bank of the place where the consignee could
be living. The branch which purchases the Hundis are called ORIGINATING BRANCH
while the branch which receives it for realization of the amount from the consignee is
called the RESPONDING BRANCH. P.W. 10 Satya Narain Rai was the passing officer
in SBI, Chas where was located one of the consignees, namely, M/s Mahavir Bhandar.
P.W. 10 has stated that on notice being given, no one turned up on behalf of M/s Mahavir
Bhandar, Chas to pay up the value of 31 Hundis which were accompanied by transport
receipts/consignment notes from the counter part branch of SBI, Mohania for realization
of bill amount from the said consignee so that as soon as the payment was made the
transport receipts and Hundis were realized in favour of consignee who could collect the
consignment from the transporters.
19. That there was no M/s Mahavir Bhandar at Chas has been stated too by
P.W. 7 Sheo Lal Mahto, who was one of the postmen posted in Chas post office. He has
stated that there were many areas or bits which were constituted by mohallas or other
localities in which the township was divided for delivery of postal articles and he used to
deliver registered letters in some of them or most of them. He stated that he received a
registered letter addressed to M/s Mahavir Bhandar, Chas and on making best of his
efforts he could not locate any such establishment. During cross examination, it appears
suggested to the witness by putting questions that it was located in Market Yard, Chas
but again there is no specific address given by the defence so as to negating the effect of
the evidence of P.W. 7 that a particular address could be assigned to the said firm,
namely, Mahavir Bhandar. Likewise, his evidence was castigated by cross-examining
P.W. 7 on the date on which he had gone to look for the establishment and when he had
made an endorsement on the envelop that the establishment was not found. This question
was completely meaningless as the records could have been the only substantial proof to
11
castigate the evidence of P.W. 7 by seeking their production from the post office so as to
point out to the court as to on which date the registered envelop was received in Chas
and till which date it was retained and thereafter returned to the sender post office. There
does not appear to me any reason to doubt the evidence of Sheo Lal Mahto (P.W. 7), the
Postman of Chas. Likewise, on similar lines is the evidence of P.W. 22 Bishwanath
Jhunjhunwala, the Commission Agent of Calcutta through whom the three firms, namely,
M/s Murari lal & Co., M/s Shyam Sundar & Co. and M/s Dwarika Prasad Gauri Shankar
were consigned different consignments through consignment notes by appellant Shiv
Narain Banshal and Chetharu Singh. One of the firms M/s Shyam Sundar & Co. had
come before the court through its proprietor P.W. 23 Shyam Sundar Agrawal to say that
there was never ever any intimation nor did he receive any consignment in that behalf
which could indicate that he had been consigned any goods by the two consigner
appellants Shiv Narain Banshal and Chetharu Singh on the basis of the consignment
notes written and prepared by the three Jaiswal appellants. Likewise, P.W. 22
Bishwanath Jhunjhunwala also stated that there was no firm of the names as indicated
above, who had been consigned goods allegedly by the appellants on the basis of the
consignment notes. Thus, it is established satisfactorily that the consignees were
fictitious or non existent firms or in case they were existing, they had no knowledge of
any consignment being received or sent to them.
20. Coming back to the procedure, as soon as the Hundis are received, notices
are sent to the consignee for making payment so that the same be released in his favour
for receiving the goods. The bank employees, like, P.Ws 10, 11 as also other witnesses
who come to depose in this case stated that after having received the Hundis, they were
entered into the Payment Remittance Receipt Register (Ext.8) and then also in Demand
Draft Receipt Register and thereafter sent the notice, but none turned up. The same is the
evidence of P.W. 11 also. Likewise, P.W. 12 has also given the same evidence as to how
on having received the documents in Burra branch in Calcutta, no one had turned up to
honour the Hundis and, as such, they were returned back to the originating bank at
Mohania. The procedure further was that on receiving back unpaid or dishonoured
Hundis, the Branch Manager of the originating branch had to ensure the entry of the
12
same in the Demand Draft register which is the register maintained by the bank also for
issuing the demand draft. The Branch Manager thereafter has to initiate process of
realizing the sum covered by Demand Drafts or Hundis. P.W. 19 R.P. Gupta who was
one of the high ranking officers of the SBI as also P.W. 14 Birendra Kumar, who
succeeded Branch Manager A.K. Srivastava in spite of P.W. 17 who was also a manager
in the same bank have uniformly stated that not only A.K. Srivastava exceeded his own
purchase limits but also allowed the appellant Sheo Narain Banshal and Chetharu to
have Hundis sold to the bank in excess of their financial limits and during most of the
periods their current account was not having any money so that money could be realized.
It appears that the fact was in full knowledge of A.K. Srivastava and he was making
some interpolations in the ledgers of the appellants as may appear from the evidence of
P.W. 17 A.R. Ansari and P.W. 15 Shivanand Tiwari by use of a pencil.
21. Evidence of above witnesses, who worked in Mohania branch, i.e., P.Ws
13, 14, 15, 17 and above all, P.W. 19 R.P. Gupta, a high ranking officer of the SBI
indicates that not only the Branch Manager A.K. Srivastava exceeded his limits and
allowed the limits of two accused Shiv Narain Banshal and Chetharu Singh being
undermined but, after he had received the Hundis from the responding branches of the
SBI, was also not making any entries in their respect in the relevant registers and was on
enquiry, as may appear from the evidence of P.W. 14, was telling him that those were
lying in the safe of the bank. Thus, the evidence indicates as to how callously but
consciously the accused A.K. Srivastava had not only plundered the finance of his own
bank but allowed the same to be plundered by the remaining appellants.
22. On reading of the evidence of the witnesses, I come to the conclusion that
the appellants were appropriately convicted and correctly sentenced. The appeals, in the
result, fail and are hereby dismissed.
(Dharnidhar Jha, J.)
Patna High Court,
The 24th November, 2011,
NAFR/Anil/
