AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surinder Singh, J.—The respondent was tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, allegedly for sanctioning and granting overdraft facility to S/ Shri D.M. Agrup, Thakur Dass, Champa Chhering and Shri Bir Singh etc. to the tune of Rs. 16,06,950.23 without obtaining sanction from the competent authority, which has been challenged by the State in this appeal.
Heard and gone through the record.
The alleged overdraft facility without proper sanction came to the light during the audit inspection of the State Bank of India, Branch at Kaza, where the respondent was posted as a Manager. It has also come in evidence that the overdraft amount, which was advanced to the aforesaid persons was deposited alongwith interest in the aforesaid bank by each of them and there was no financial loss to the bank. The only allegation against the respondent is that he did not take the approval/ sanction of higher authorities.
The auditor who detected the alleged irregularity was not examined. The specimen handwriting and signatures of the respondent were taken to match it with entry in the ledger, which were allegedly made in the hands of respondent and sent for comparison to the Expert of Question Documents but even the Expert was not examined during the trial of this case to find out its authorship. The originals of the S.T.D. Rs. alleged to have been fraudulently prepared by the respondents were also not proved in evidence, rather these were not found in the bank.
The learned trial Court took into consideration the above facts borne out from the record and rightly acquitted the accused. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the inference of forgery and fraud cannot be drawn. If the respondent has violated any of the rules or executive instructions while granting the overdraft facility to the aforesaid persons, it cannot be said to have been actuated with mens rea and for any irregularity or ignoring any executive instructions the respondent can certainly be proceeded departmentally as observed by the learned trial court, but no criminal liability can be fastened upon him.
For the afore-stated reasons, the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be interfered with, as such appeal is dismissed.
The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of this case.
Send down the records.