Bank Fraud Conspiracy Conviction Upheld: Original Name 1 and Original Name 2 Appeals Dismissed

In a recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the appeals of Original Name 1 and Original Name 2 were dismissed in a bank fraud conspiracy case. The conviction of the accused individuals has been upheld, marking a significant decision in the case.

Facts

The appellants were convicted under various sections based on the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The FIR was registered on 12.04.1994 due to the opening of a fictitious bank account with subsequent fraudulent transactions.
The appellants claim to be made scapegoats and argue lack of evidence for their involvement in the conspiracy.
Arguments include lack of proper prosecution sanction, denial of involvement in opening the fictitious account, and doubts raised by a handwriting expert.
No action has been taken against the bank employees responsible for the fraudulent account opening.
Withdrawals from the fictitious account were not received by the appellants as per witness PW-3 statement.
The prosecution contends that thorough evaluation of evidence, including handwriting expert testimonies, supports the conviction of the appellants.

Also Read: Land Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Ruling on Specific Performance

Analysis

The fraud was committed systematically by individuals familiar with banking procedures, who were also employees of the Bank.
The trial court correctly noted that the account operations and transactions could not have been solely executed by the appellants.
A fictitious account was opened without proper verification as per banking procedures.
Receiving the cheque book and pass book on behalf of the fictitious account holder was in the handwriting of appellant Pankaj Kumar Jain.
The appellants did not challenge the handwriting expert’s report relied upon by the prosecution.
The evidence of the appellants’ involvement is strong, including access to bank records and vouchers as part of their duties.
Multiple forged cheques were in the handwriting of appellant Pankaj Kumar Jain, impersonating the account holder.
The handwriting expert and C.F.S.L. Officer confirmed the appellants’ involvement in the fraud.
The investigation may not have been ideal, but the substantial evidence against the appellants solidifies their guilt in the conspiracy.
Specimen signature card was found to be replaced by a torn paper
No interference with the conviction of the appellants