BANK OF INDIA versus YETURI MAREDI SHANKER RAO & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 87 · Decided: 28-01-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BANK OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
-l 
YETURI MAREDI SHANKER RAO & ANR. 
JANUARY 28, 1987 
[G.L. OZA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860; s. 467 read with s.109 and s.471-
-~ 
Accused-Bank Clerk-Getting signatures of account holder forged on 
withdrawal forms-Drawing money by presenting them in Bank-Held 
-t 
liable to be convicted for offences. 
c 
The respondent-Accused, who_ was working as an Accounts Clerk 
in the appellant Bank in the very branch where P. W .1 had her account, 
'-{ 
was alleged to have presented forged cheques on her account and mis-
appropriated the sum withdrawn. He ·has prosecuted for offences 
under s.467 read with ss. !09, 471, 408 and 420 oflndian Penal Code. 
D 
The trial court and the appellate court found that the signatures 
on the withdrawal forms were not that of P.W. land that they were also 
not forged by the accused. But they recorded a concurrent finding of 
fact that the withdrawal forms bearing forged signatures of P. W. 1 were 
_-.( 
presented in the Bank by the respondeet-accused and he obtained 
money and put his signatures on the reverse in acknowledgement of 
E 
receipt of money, that the money so obtained was pocketed by the 
........ 
respondeet-accused and was not returned or paid to P. W. 1. He was 
acquitted by the trial court of the charge under s.408 and by the appel-
late court under s.420, and ultimately convicted of the offence under 
s.467 read with s.109 and s.471. The State did not prefer appeal against 
~r the acquittal under ss.408 and 420. 
F 
l 
On appeal by the accused-respondent, the High Court took the 
view that there was no evidence as to who forged the signatures of 
P. W. l on the withdrawal form and that it could not be said that the 
accused-respondent knew that the document was forged or that he got 
the document forged. It came to the conclusion that the offelice under G 
s.467 read with s. 109 was not made out and that consequenUy his con-
-,~ 
viction under s.471 also could not be maintained. 
I 
In these appeals it was contended on behalf of the appellant Bank 
that the respondent-accused was liable because he has admitted that the 
H 
signatures on the back of the withdrawal form were his signatures 
87 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
acknowledging the receipt of money which he pocketed himself. 
B 
Allowing the appeals, the Court, 
HELD: t. 1 The aCGtUittal of the respondent-accused by the High 
Conrt for an offence und1ir s.467 read with s. 109 of the Indian Penal 
Code was not jnstified. 
!. 2 Though there was no evidence about the forgery of the signa-
tures of P. W. l on the withdrawal forms still the fact remained that the 
signatures were forged, that the withdrawal form was in the possession 
of respondent-accused and. it was he who represented it in the Bank an'd 
C 
obtained money. P. W. ! used to take the assistance of the respondent-
accused whenever she wanted to have any transaction in the Bank and 
therefore it was expected of him to have known the signatures of P. W. 1. 
Apart from it there was nothing to establish as to from where the 
respondent-accused got these withdrawal forms. These facts lead to the 
D only inference that it was the accused-respondent who got the signa-
tures of P.W. ! forged on the withdrawal form. 
2. It could not be doubted that the accused-respondent used the 
withdrawal forms knowi111: them to be forged or at least believed them 
to be forged on the basis of which he obtained money to which he had no 
E claim and thereby caused wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to 
P. W. 1. It could not, thel'efore, be said that the respondent-accused 
could not be convicted for an offence under s.471. 
3. As three separate_prosecutions were launched the respondent 
is convicted of the offences under s.467 read with s. 109 and s.471 of the 
F 
Indian Penal Code in each one of the three cases and sentenced to 9 
months rigormis imprisonment for each of the offences. The sentences 
to run concurrently. 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 485-488 of 1979 etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.1977 of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in Cr. Revision Cases Nos. 294, 295, 296 and 293 
of 1977 
Kapil Sibal, Atul Wig, Raj Birbal, A.T.M. Sampath and G.M. 
H Rao for the Appellant. 
)-• 
y 
BANK OF INDIA v. Y.M.S. RAO [OZA. J.) 
89 
A.K. Goel, K. Ram Kumar, B Parthasarthi for the Respondents. 
The JU'dgment of the Court was delivered by 
OZA, J. These appeals have been filed

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.