Case Note & Summary
This criminal appeal was filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2010 passed by the XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore in Spl.C.C. No.149/2004, convicting and sentencing the two appellants for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The first appellant, M.N. Chinniah, was employed as a Wireman (Electrical) in the Telecom Department and had failed in three previous attempts at the Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) promotion examination. In February 2000, upon learning of a fresh notification for the JTO test, he conspired with the second appellant, S. Chandrashekar, an unemployed engineering graduate, to have Chandrashekar impersonate him and write the examination. Chandrashekar collected the hall ticket, practiced forging Chinniah's signature, and appeared for four papers on 16th and 17th September 2000 at St. Joseph's Boys High School, Bangalore, taking advantage of the absence of a photo identity card system. After the results were declared, Chinniah initially failed in Mathematics but obtained a pass after re-totaling, then attended JTO training at the Regional Telecom Training Centre, Mysore. During the training, the fraud was discovered, and he was sent back to his post as Wireman. A preliminary inquiry was conducted, and the answer sheets were sent along with specimen writings of Chinniah to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, who opined that the answer books were not written by him. On a complaint by the Deputy General Manager, Vigilance, the CBI investigated and filed a charge-sheet. At the trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and marked sixty-six exhibits, while the defence marked one exhibit but did not lead oral evidence. The trial court convicted accused No.1 for offences under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and accused No.2 for offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, and 468 IPC, imposing various terms of imprisonment and fines. On appeal, the appellants, through senior counsel, argued that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence, that there was no cogent proof of impersonation, that the confessional statement Ex.P25 was not voluntary, that the specimen handwritings were not collected as per law, and that the delay in lodging the complaint and the non-examination of key witnesses vitiated the trial. The respondent CBI supported the conviction, contending that the evidence of the conspiracy, the confessional statement before PW6, and the handwriting expert's opinion were sufficient, and that no illegality had been committed. The High Court, after reserving judgment on 29.09.2020, delivered its decision on 15.12.2020, but the provided text of the judgment is incomplete and does not contain the court's final analysis or operative directions.
Issue of Consideration
1) Whether the prosecution has established the charges leveled against the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt? 2) Whether the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the trial Court calls for any interference? 3) What Order?
Law Points
- sanction for prosecution under PC Act
- proof of criminal conspiracy
- admissibility of handwriting expert opinion
- evidentiary value of confessional statement
- effect of delay in lodging complaint
- non-examination of material witnesses
- burden of proof in criminal cases
- appreciation of evidence in appeal against conviction
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (12) 43
Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2010
Sandesh J Chouta, Senior Advocate for V.G. Bhanuprakash (appellants); P. Prasanna Kumar, Special P.P. (respondent)
M.N. Chinniah and S. Chandrashekar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for impersonation and cheating in a departmental promotion examination and for corruption by a public servant.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to set aside the judgment and order of the trial court dated 30.06.2010 convicting and sentencing them for the charged offences.
Filing Reason
The appellants contended that the trial court had erroneously convicted them based on insufficient and improperly appreciated evidence, that the confessional statement was involuntary, and that the investigation and trial were vitiated by legal infirmities.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore) convicted the appellants in Spl.C.C. No.149/2004 on 30.06.2010 for offences under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act (accused No.1) and Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468 IPC (accused No.2).
Issues
Whether the prosecution has established the charges leveled against the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the trial Court calls for any interference?
What Order?
Submissions/Arguments
The trial court failed to scrutinize and appreciate the evidence properly, and the conviction was based on the evidence of interested witnesses without considering the cross-examination.
There was no cogent or unimpeachable evidence regarding the alleged impersonation by accused No.2; no comparison was made between the specimen handwriting of accused No.2 and the handwriting of accused No.1.
Ex.P25, the alleged confessional statement of accused No.1, was forcibly obtained and should not have been relied upon; the specimen writing of accused No.1 was not taken in accordance with law and is inadmissible.
There was an inordinate delay of four years in registering the complaint, indicating that the allegations were made at the behest of persons inimically disposed against the accused; the preliminary enquiry report was not produced, and key witnesses like Gururajan were not examined.
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the trial court's findings are contrary to law and the weight of evidence.
The respondent-CBI argued that accused No.1, a public servant, conspired with accused No.2 and cheated the department; accused No.2 impersonated accused No.1 and wrote the examinations taking advantage of the absence of a photo identity system.
Accused No.1 gave a voluntary confessional statement (Ex.P25) before PW6, the DGM (Vigilance), which was sent along with specimen handwriting to the GEQD; the handwriting expert (PW10) opined that the answer books were not written by accused No.1.
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused No.1 did not allege that his statement Ex.P25 was forcibly taken; no prejudice or failure of justice had occasioned, and the conviction should be upheld.
Judgment Excerpts
Accused No.1 was working as Wireman (Electrical) at the office of the Assistant Engineer, Telecom Electrical Sub-Division-II, Bangalore-32. He had appeared in the Departmental Examination for the post of Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) thrice, but failed in the examination. During February 2000, on coming to know that there was a notification calling for the departmental candidates for JTO promotion test, with a fraudulent and dishonest intention to cheat the Telecom Department, he entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Sri. S. Chandrashekar, Accused No.2, an unemployed engineering graduate and persuaded him to impersonate him and write the qualifying examination of the department in his name, for securing admission to the post of JTO.
PW6, working as DGM, Vigilance, Karnataka Telecom Circle before whom accused No.1 gave confessional statement as per Ex.P25, having prima facie satisfied, has taken due care to send the specimen handwriting of accused No.1 to Government Agency.
Procedural History
On a complaint by the Deputy General Manager, Vigilance, to the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, investigation was taken up and charge-sheet was filed. The trial was conducted in Spl.C.C. No.149/2004 before the XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, which convicted and sentenced the appellants on 30.06.2010. The appeal was filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. and heard on 29.09.2020. Judgment was delivered on 15.12.2020 through video conference at the Dharwad Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 120-B, 419, 420, 468
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 13(1)(d), 13(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2)
- Central Civil Services Control, Conduct and Appeal Rules, 1964:
