Santanu Chatterjee vs State Of West Bengal & Anr

In Re: CRAN 2617 of 2019

We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant seeking an order of suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending an appeal against an order of conviction and sentence on different counts found punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been handed down sentences of imprisonment of different terms which have been ordered to run concurrently, of which the longest period is rigorous imprisonment for ten years. There is also an order of payment of fine and compensation to the victim/employer, which is a bank.

Though notice has been issued by us to the victim Bank, there is no appearance on its behalf today.

The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant argued that an analysis of the prosecution case based on the First Information Report and ending up in the Judgment of the Trial Court, would show that there is no legal evidence to inculpate the accused/appellant. It is pointed out that the appellant was on bail through out the trial and he was intercepted and arrested from his residence as he is a person who would not flee from law. It is further pointed out that the appellant has to maintain his wife and daughter. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the evidence on record does not justify the conviction handed down by the court of the first instance.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail pointing out that the learned Trial Judge has adverted to and considered the legal evidence on record that had proved the link of transactions which show on the basis of material on record that the appellant had siphoned the amounts from the accounts of different persons and had transferred such amounts first to his own account and then to the accounts of his wife, Sharmila Chatterjee, and daughter Sanjukta Chatterjee.

We have assimilated the materials, findings of the Court below on the basis of the evidence, and dilated upon and reflected in detail on the Trial Court's Judgment.

The Learned Judge has concluded that it is crystal clear that money was debited from the Term Deposit accounts of Chhaya Poddar, Kalpana Basak, Jyotsna Basu and Sanjay Kumar Kundu and transferred to the accounts of Santanu Chatterjee (accused), his wife Sharmila Chatterjee, and daughter Sanjukta Chatterjee and to other accounts of Santanu Chatterjee. Thereafter the accused opened Term Deposit accounts with such money.

The Court also held that the testimony of the appellant's wife Sharmila Chatterjee as P.W.10 was that she had an account in United Bank of India operated and maintained by her husband Santanu Chatterjee and she never knew about any transaction on any occasion. The Court below thus noticed that even an account of his wife was operated by the appellant himself.

The Court below has dealt with different transactions as are reflected in the account particulars of the different persons as seen in the transaction details maintained by the bank. The Court made particular reference to the evidence through Exhibits 5,6,11,18 and 19 to hold that the accused had accessed the accounts of the customers mentioned above. The Judgment of the Trial Court clearly delineates the entries evidenced by those exhibits. The conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court on the basis of the legal evidence on record cannot be held to be of such quality that the petitioner can, at this stage, demonstrate a strong case for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail.

The persuasive argument on behalf of the appellant as regards the need of the appellant to take care of his wife and daughter as well as the fact that he was arrested from his home and he had abided by the conditions imposed by the Trial Court when he was granted bail pending trial do not impress us at this point of time. We may alert ourselves that in cases of bank related fraud, fabrication of accounts, etc, it is settled fundamental principle that the Court would be loathe to come to the aid of the persons accused of such matters be it in criminal jurisdiction or in labour law jurisdiction. Purity in bank transactions is guaranteed to the customers on this principle.

We are of the view that in this case the scales of justice do not tilt in favour of grant of order of suspension of sentence to the accused at this stage.

We, therefore, dismiss this application.

CRAN 2617 of 2019 is disposed of.