Holding

The High Court’s acquittal under section 467 read with section 109 and section 471 was not justified; the accused is guilty of those offences based on the inference that he caused the forgery and used the forged withdrawal form.

Summary

The respondent, an accounts clerk at Bank of India, obtained a withdrawal form bearing forged signatures of account holder V. Suryakantam, presented it to the bank, withdrew Rs.6,000 and pocketed the money, signing the acknowledgment on the reverse. The trial court convicted him under sections 420, 467 read with 109, and 471 of the IPC, acquitting him of section 408; the appellate court upheld convictions under 467/109 and 471 but acquitted him of 420. The High Court later acquitted him of the offences under 467/109 and 471, holding that the prosecution had not proved who forged the signatures. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that, although direct evidence of who forged the signatures was absent, the circumstances allowed a reasonable inference that the accused caused the forgery and used the forged document, satisfying the elements of sections 467 read with 109 and 471. Consequently, the High Court’s acquittal was set aside, the convictions reinstated, and the respondent was sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment for each offence, to run concurrently.

Issues considered

The prosecution must prove who forged the signature to secure a conviction under section 467 read with section 109 of the IPC.
Whether knowledge or belief that a document is forged is required for conviction under section 471 of the IPC.
Whether an inference drawn from the accused’s possession and use of a forged document is sufficient to establish the offences under sections 467/109 and 471.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 408, s. 420, s. 467, s. 471

Subjects

forgerybank fraudIndian Penal Codesection 467section 471criminal lawinferenceknowledgemisappropriationbank clerk

Judgment

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
liable to be convicted for offences.
-t The respondent-Accused, who_ was working as an Accounts Clerk
c
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
signatures on the back of the withdrawal form were his signatures H

87
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A acknowledging the receipt of money which he pocketed himself.

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
B
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.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 485-488 of 1979 etc.
G From the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.1977 of the Andhra y
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.
BANK OF INDIA v. Y.M.S. RAO [OZA. J.) 89

A.K. Goel, K. Ram Kumar, B Parthasarthi for the Respondents.
A
The JU'dgment of the Court was delivered by

OZA, J. These appeals have been filed after grant of leave
against the acquittal of the respondent from offences under Sections
467 read with Section 109 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. B

The prosecution case at the trial was that V. Suryakantam is a
resident of official colony VSP, and has a Bank account in the Bank of
India since 1965. Her Account No. is 2006. She has-also a cheque-book
to operate the Bank transactions and she was also entitled to with-
drawal facility for withdrawing money from her accounts. The C
respondent-accused was working as an Accounts Clerk in the Bank of
India in the very branch where V. Suryakantam P.W.l had her
account.

This V. Suryakantam, P.W.l was acquainted with the respon-
dent-accused and he used to assist her in the Bank transactions. It is D
alleged that whenever she wanted to withdraw money on a cheque her
daughter V .S. Kanthi used to fill up the cheque and she used to sign on
the cheque. On 23rd November, 1970 the respondent accused misr~
presented to P.W. l that her account book is required in the Bank for
the purpose of posting uptodate entries and on this representation
obtained her pass-book which he never returned. P.W .1 demanded the E
pass-book several times. He always represented that it was in the Bank
and yet not completed.

On 9.12.1970 the respondent got filled up by some person with-
drawal form No. 2055 on the account of P.W.l on the Bank of India
for Rs.6,000 and represented this withdrawal form in the Bank. He F
received the money i.e. Rs.6,000 and mis-appropriated the same. On
11.3.1971 P.W.l went to the Manager of the Bank. The respondent
was absent and she told him about the fact of having given her pass-
book to the respondent Jong back and that he was not returning the
pass-book and dodging her. She also requested him to verify her
accounts. The Manager asked her to come on the next day. G

On 12th March, 1971 when she went to the bank to her surprise
she learnt that some withdrawal bf money have been done and very
little amount was left over. She immediately gave a complaint that this
withdrawal of Rs.6,000 was not by her as well as two other withdrawals
and on the same day the Manager and staff officer went to the house of H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.
'
the accused and questioned him about those transactions. The respon··
A
dent accused admitted his guilt before the Manager and requested the
Manager to excuse him and gave a confessional statement in writing.

During investigation hand-writing specimen of P. W.1 and admit-
ted handwriting of the accused-respondent were compared with the
B handwriting on the withdrawal forms by the expert. The opinion of the
expert was that signature on the withdrawal form was not by P. W.1
and that the signatures on the reverse of the form which is taken in the
Bank as an acknowledgemc:nt for the receipt of money was that of the
respondeat-accused. It was therefore opined that the respondeat-
accused got forged the sig11atures of P .W .1 on the withdrawal form,
C presented it as genuine at the Bank and withdrew Rs.6,000 and there-
fore he was prosecuted for offences under Sections 467 read with Sec.
109, 471, 408 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. As there were three items 'y
of such withdrawals three prosecutions were launched consequently
three appeals and ultimately three appeals are filed here by the Bank
of India and there is also an appeal filed by the State against the
D judgment of acquittal passed by Hon'ble the High Court.

On trial the respondent accused was convicted for an offence
under Sec. 420 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 9 mon\hs
and to pay a fine of Rs.100. He was also convicted for an offence under
Sec. 467 read with Sec. 109 and sentenced to imprisonment for 9
E months and a fine of Rs.100. He was also convicted under Sec. 471 IPC
and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment. The trial court however
acquitted him from the effence under Sec. 408.

The appellate court acquitted the respondent accused from -'-(.
charge under Sec. 420 IPC but confirmed his conviction under Sec. 467
F read with Sec. 109 and also under Section 471, the sentence under the
two was maintained.

The State did not prefer an appeal against the acquittal of the
respondent under Sec. 408 IPC by the trial Court and his acquittal
under Sec. 420 IPC by the appellate Court. The respondent accused
G aggrieved against conviction preferred a revision petition before Hon' -
ble the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon'ble the High Court by 'f
its judgment dated 21st February 1977 came to the conclusion that the
offence under sec. 467 read with Sec. 109 IPC is not made out. The
learned Judge also came to the conclusion that consequently his con-
viction under Sec. 471 also could not be maintained. Consequently the
H respondent was acquitted from the charges levelled against him and it
BANK OF INDIA v. Y.M.S. RAO [OZA, J.] 91

is against this judgment of Hon 'ble the High Court that the present A
appeals have been filed after obtaining leave from this Court.

The learned trial Court and the appellate Court came to the
conclusion that the signatures on the withdrawal form were not that of
P. W.. 1 but it also came to the conclusion that they were also not forged
by the respondent-accused but both the Courts came to a concurrent B
finding of fact that these withdrawal forms on which there were forged
signatures of P.W.1 were presented in the Bank by the respondent-
accused and he obtained money on the basis of these withdrawal forms
and he put his signatures on the reverse of these withdrawal forms in
acknowledgement of the receipt of money. These signatures on the
back side of the withdrawal form acknowledging the receipt of money C
were also admitted•by the respondent-accused at the trial.

Both the Cou~ts below also came to a concurrent finding of Act
that the money so obtained from the Bank from the account of P. W .1
on the basis of these withdrawal forms was pocketed by the respondent-
accused and was not returned or paid to P.W. l although that was the D
stand taken by the respondent-accused and he also attempted to prove
it by producing a defence witness for that purpose. On the basis of
these findings both the Courts ultimately convicted the respondeat-
accused for an offence under Sec. 467 read with Sec. 109 and Sec. 471
IPC.
E
The learned Judge of the High Court while acquitting the res·
pondent-accused came to the conclusion that it was the duty of the
prosecution to establish as to who had forged the signatures of P. W .1
on the withdrawal form as admittedly it has not been established that
they were forged by the respondent-accused and on this basis the
learned judge observed that as there is no evidence as to who forged F
the signatures P. W. 1 on the withdrawal form.it could not be held that
the accused-respondent knew that the document was forged nor it could
be said that he got the documents forged and on the basis of this
conclusion the learned Judge came to the conclusion that none of the
two offences i.e. Sec. 467 read with Sec. 109 or offence under Section
.,., 471 is established. G
\
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant (the Bank) con-
tend~d that so far as receipt of the money on the basis of the with-
drawal form from the Bank is concerned it is admitted by the respon-
dent accused as he admits his signatures on the back of the withdrawal
form which are signatures acknowledging the receipt of the money. H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

, Both the Courts (trial Court and the appellate Court) negatived
A
the defence that the money so collected from the bank by the
respondent was given over to P. W.1 and High Court also maintained
that finding as it has not been negatived. He therefore contended that
the following facts are established and accepted to be established even
by the High Court:-
B
(i) that the withdrawal form did not bear the signatures of
..
P.W.1; t
(ii) that on the basis of the withdrawal form the accused-respon- J._
dent withdrew money from the bank from the account of
P.W. land that
c
(iii) he signed the acknowledgement of receipt of money and
did not return the: money to P. W.1 but pocketed himself.

D These facts therefore clearly establish that the respondent-
accused used the forged document and on the basis of that document
obtained money to which he had no claim and thereby caused wrongful
gain to himself and wrongful loss to P. W .1. It is also clear from the
evidence that P. W .1 used to take the assistance of the accused- )"-
respondent whenever she wanted to have any transaction in the Bank
E and therefore it is expected of him to have known the signatures of
P. W .1 Apart from it there is nothing to establish as to from where the
respondent-accused got these withdrawal forms. Under these circum-
stances it could not be doubted that he used these withdrawal forms
knowing them to be forged or at least believed them to be forged and
therefore it could not be said that he could not be e Jnvicted for an
F offence under Sec. 47 L

As regards the offence under Section 467 read with Sec. 109, the
learned High Court acquitted the respondent because it came to the
conclusion that there is no evidence to establish as to who forged the
signatures of P.W .1 on the withdrawal form. It is no doubt true that so
G far as the evidence about the forgery of the signatures of P.w'.1 on the
withdrawal form is concerned there is no evidence except the fact that v'
the signatures are forged and the further fact that this withdrawal form
was in the possession of respondent-accused who presented it in the
Bank and obtained money therefrom and pocketed the same. From
these facts an inference could safely be drawn that it was the res-
H pondent-accused who got signatures of P. W .1 forged on this document
BANK OF INDIA v. Y.M.S. RAO [OZA, J.I 93

as it was he who used it to obtain money from the Bank from the A
account of P. W .1 and pocketed the same. It is no doubt true that there
is no evidence as to who forged the signatures of the withdrawal form
:.. but the circumstances indicated above will lead to· the only inference
that it was the accused-respondent who got the signatures of P. W. l
forged on the withdrawal form. In this view of the matter therefore the
B
acquittal of the respondent for an offence under Section 467 read with
Sec. 109 also could not be justified.

It is unfortunate that the State did not prefer an appeal against
the acquittal of the respondent under Section 408 and also under Sec-
tion 420, even before this Court it is first the Bank which came by way
of special leave but later on the State has chosen to prefer an appeal. c
In the light of the discussions above, in our opinion, the appeal
deserv.es to be allowed. It is therefore allowed and the acquittal of the
respondent for offence under Section 467 read with Section 109 and
Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. Instead he is con-
D
victed for these two offences. As there were three items, three sepa-
rate prosecutions were launched and ultimately three appeals were
before the High Court and in each one of them identical questions
were involved. Consequently respondent is convicted for the above
mentioned two offences in each one of the three cases and sentenced
to 9 months rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences. But it is

- further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

P.S.S. Appeal allowed.
E