MIR NAGVI ASKARI versus C. B. I.

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 124 · Decided: 07-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 13 (ADDL.) s.c:R. 124 
A 
MIR NAGVI ASKARI 
+ 
v. 
C.B.I. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1477 of 2004) 
B 
AUGUST 7, 2009 
[S.8. 51.NHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860/PREVENT/ON OF CORRUPTION 
...,._ 
ACT, 1988: 
c 
Sections 109, 120A, 120B, 410, 411, 463, 464, 467, 471, 
4771113(1), 13(2) - Bank Officers Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 
unlawfully and dishonestly permitting Accused No.3 (Power 
broker in securities transactions) to withdraw substantial 
D amounts - Wrongful loss to Bank - Criminal conspiracy -
Receiving of stolen property -
Crimina__I breach of trust -
Accused .convicted and sentenced by Special Court - On 
appeal, Held: Criminal conspiracy established against 
Accused 1 to 4 - No conclusive evidence as regards 
E involvement of A-5 - A-5 also acquitted of all charges under 
the Prevention of Corruption Act - A-1, A-2 and A-4 being 
public servants guilty of offences under Section 13(1) rlw 
Section 13(2) as also Section 13(1)(d) rlw Section 13(2) of 
Prevention of Corruption Act - Expression direction of law in 
F 
the context of Sections 405 and 409 /PC includes not only 
legislations but also directions instruments and circulars 
issued by an authority entitled ·therefor - Accused could not 
have been convicted with making of false document -
Conviction under Section 471, 477A set aside~ A-3 guilty of 
offence under Section 411 since he had dishonestly received 
G stolen property - A-3 also guilty of offences punishap!e under 
Sections 120B, 411 rlw 120-B /PC - Sentence imposed 
accordingly - Since CBI has not preferred any appeal against 
the quantum of sentence, higher sentence could not be 
H 
124 
1 
.... 
MIR NAGVI ASKARI v. C.B.I. 
125 
imposed on A-3. 
A 
BANKING - BANKER AND CUSTOMER: 
An officer of a bank holds a position of trust - Expected 
to perform his duties also in terms of statutory directions 
8 
issued by Reserve Bank and his own employees. 
Banker to take all precautions to prevent a fraud or deceit 
on the part. of customer. 
These appeals filed against the judgment and order C 
of the Special Court relate to abuse of position by Bank 
Officers (accused 1, 2, 4 and 5) by unlawfully and 
dishonestly permitting accused No.3 to withdraw 
substantial amounts without having actually received any 
bankers' cheques. In all there were 10 transactions. The 
0 
accused were also charged with entering into criminal 
conspiracy. The accused were held guilty by the Special 
Court and were accordingly convicted and sentenced. 
Hence the appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Condition precedent for holding the 
accused persons to be guilty of a charge of criminal 
conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil 
of the fact which must be established by the prosecution, 
viz., meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing 
or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal 
means. The courts, however, while drawing an inference 
from the materials brought on record to arrive at a finding 
E 
F 
as to whether the charges of the criminal conspiracy 
have been proved or not, must always bear in mind that G 
a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difficult, if not 
impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the 
same. The ma·nner and circumstances in which the 
offences have been committed and the accused persons 
H 
126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A took part are relevant. For the said purpose, it is 
necessary to prove that the propounders had expressly 
agreed to it or caused it to be done, and it may also be 
proved by adduction of circumstantial evidence and/ or 
by necessary implication. [Para 17] [166-F-H] 
B 
Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar & 
Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC 443; Kehar Singh 
and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration), 1988 (3) SCC 609; 
...,.._ 
State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 
c and K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kera/a (2005) 12 SCC 
631, relied on. 
Mohmed Amin @ Amin Choteli Rahim Miyan Shaikh 
and Anr. v. C.B.I. through its Director, 2008 (14) SCALE 240 
and R Venkatkrishnan v. Central Bureau of Investigation 
D (Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2004 decided by S.C, on 
7 .8.2009, referred to. 
2.1. With respect to the transactions involved in the 
present case, the ultimate beneficiary was Accused No.3. 
E Amount received from different banks by the Andhra 
Bank were credited to his account as a result whereof the 
cheques issued by him in favour of third parti

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