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
Also Read: Landmark Judgment: Setting Precedent for Contractual Compliance
Decision
- The appeals filed by Original Name 1 and Original Name 2 are dismissed.
- The judgment is upheld in relation to the specific part (RPC).
Case Title: RAM GOPAL Vs. C.B.I. DEHRADUN
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001085-001085 / 2019