LexB. RAGHUVIR ACHARYA versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
[2013) 7 S.C.R. 132
B. RAGHUVIR ACHARYA
v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
(Criminal Appeal No. 1001 of 2001 etc.)
JULY 1, 2013.
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
PENAL CODE, 1860:
ss. 120-B, 4201409, 411, 477-A /PC and ss.13(1)(d) read
with s. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act - Brokerage
claimed illegally and dishonestly - Units of CANC/GO floated
by CMF, purchased in the names of Andhra Bank, and
0 ABFSL and payment made by broker - Further, false claim
of brokerage on the investment made by Sahara India and
IDBI - Held: So far as the Trustee and General Manager of
CMF is concerned, there is no material of his involvement in
the crime - He is acquitted of all the charges - As regards the
broker, he disguised his investment and dishonestly claimed
E brokerage from CMF - He was not engaged as a broker in
the transactions - Prosecution has proved that the broker is
guilty of making a false representation to CMF to deceive it
to part with the stated amount - Acquittal of co-accused on the
ground of non-corroboration has no application to the accused
F himself - Judgment of Special Court affirmed with
modification.
ss. 4201409, 411and477-A -Accused originally charged
with offences ulss 120-B, 4201409, 411 and 477-A - His
G conviction u/s 409 converted to that uls 420 /PC - His
conviction u/s 411 upheld - However, in view of acquittal of
two other accused, his conviction uls 477-A set aside --
Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in
Securities) Act, 1992- Scam.
H
132
B. RAGHUVIR ACHARYA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 133
INVESTIGATION
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872:
A
s.47 - Evidence as to hand writing - Held: The witness who
claimed to be conversant with the handwriting of accused
because of alleged correspondence, deposed that he had
neither seen the accused writing the endorsement nor he
8
himself was recipient of any correspondence from the accused
- He had no prior knowledge of the handwriting of the accused
or signature of the author - He was, thus, not a competent
witness to depose regarding handwriting of accused.
The appellants in Crl. A. No. 1001 of 2001 (A-1) and
C
Crl. A. No. 1226 of 2001 (A-3) alongwith A-2 were
prosecuted for committing offences punishable u/ss 120·
B, 420/409, 411 and 477-A IPC. A-1 and A-2 being public
servants were also charged with offences u/s 13(1)(d) read
with s.13(2} of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The
D
prosecution case was that in September, 1991, an
investment of Rs.65 crores came to be made by four
subscribers, who applied for purchase of CANCIGO units
floated by Canbank Mutual Fund ('CMF'), a fund created
by Canara Bank. The Andhra Bank and Andhra Bank
E
Financial Services Limited ('ABFSL') were said to have
made an investment of Rs. 33 crores. Two other
transactions were made by the Sahara India and
Industrial Development Bank of India ('IDBI') worth Rs.32
crores. During the said period, A-1 was the Trustee and
General Manager, A-2 was the Fund Manager and A-3 was
F
the approved broker of CMF. A-3 got CANCIGO units of
Rs.11 crores and Rs.22 crores purchased in the name of
Andhra Bank and ABFSL, respectively. Although the
consideration of Rs.33 crores was paid by A-3, the
G
brokers stamp on the applications were affixed in order
to induce CMF to pay brokerage to him, though he was
not so appointed either by Andhra Bank or by ABFSL.
Similarly, though A-3 did not procure business from
Sahara India and IDBI, yet, he claimed and received the
H
134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 7 S.C.R.
A brokerage in conspiracy with A-1 and A-2. The Special
Court held A-1 and A-3 guilty and convicted and
sentenced them of the offences charged. A-2 was
acquitted of all the charges. Aggrieved, A-1 and A-3 filed
the appeals.
8
It was contended for A-1 that the case against him
was based on the statement of PW-5 and on the
presumption that the endorsement on the letter dated
9.3.1992 of A-3 claiming brokerage (Ext. 17(i)), was in his
handwriting. It was submitted that PW-5 was not a
C competent witness u/s 47 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to
provide evidence regarding the handwriting of A-1. For
A-3, it was contended that he was entitled to brokerage.
D
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 PW.5, who claimed to be conversant with
the hand-writing of A-1 because of some purported/
alleged correspondence, neither stated that he had seen
A-1 writing the endorsemExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.