Whether Sole Entrustment and Exclusive Benefit by a Bank Employee, Supported by Forged Documents and Telex Messages, Justifies Sustaining Convictions for Criminal Breach of Trust, Cheating, Forgery, and Corruption under IPC and PC Act?

Clear reaffirmation that a bank official can be singularly convicted where evidence shows sole entrustment, exclusive pecuniary benefit, and authorship of forged documents, even if procedural lapses of other officials exist. The court upholds earlier precedent, providing binding guidance on Section 120-B, 406, 420, 468, 471, 477A, 381, 201 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act in cases of financial fraud in banking sector.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Conviction can be based on overwhelming circumstantial and documentary evidence, even if direct proof of signature forgery is absent, where the accused’s authorship and benefit are clear.
• Admissibility of extra-judicial confession to employer/superiors is upheld as corroborative, if not sole, evidence—especially if officials are not shown to be inimical.
• Strict compliance with handwriting expert testimony is not essential if comparison with available admitted and specimen signatures is adequate.
• Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act covers any pecuniary advantage via abuse of position; proof of specific demand/acceptance of bribe is not necessary in such context.
• Lapses by other officials or system weaknesses do not absolve primary perpetrator from criminal responsibility; departmental actions against others do not negate individual criminal intent and benefit.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The court meticulously analysed documentary and oral evidence, establishing that, despite lack of direct proof regarding certain signatures, the handwriting, authorship, and benefit from the false documents and accounts lay solely with the accused.
• It relied upon Supreme Court precedents, notably Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj and Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, to clarify that forgery is not limited to signature but includes creation of false documents where benefit accrues to the maker.
• Citing State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram and Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra, the court held that extra-judicial confession is admissible when made voluntarily and not to hostile or inimical persons, and serves as corroborative evidence with proper judicial caution.
• The court distinguished mere dereliction or negligence by other officials from outright criminal agency, noting that disciplinary failings alone do not establish conspiracy or joint criminal liability where benefit/acting is traced to accused solely.
• Statutory analysis of Section 13(1)(d) PC Act reaffirmed that criminal liability is engaged upon “abuse of position” resulting in pecuniary advantage, not merely upon acceptance of gratification.
• Established that even in the absence of direct documentary proof of theft/destruction, exclusive opportunity, benefit, and circumstantial evidence support conviction.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Accused)

• Multiple bank officials participated in the transactions; a single person could not have managed the fraud alone.
• No direct evidence of forged signatures; handwriting expert did not conclusively prove forgery by accused.
• Confession statements (Ex.P14 & P15) not made voluntarily or impartially; officials had an interest or possible hostility.
• No account holders or customers filed complaints of lost money; bank itself negligent.
• Handwriting expert procedure flawed; specimen signatures and admitted writings not properly collected.
• No money or proceeds recovered from accused; evidence of share purchases produced without compliance with Section 65B Indian Evidence Act.
• Failure to examine other relevant bank officials or telex/cash/accounting staff and alleged missing evidence weakens the prosecution.

Respondent (State/CBI)

• Documentary evidence and eyewitness testimony overwhelmingly establish that the accused was the sole beneficiary and authored the forgeries and fraudulent transactions.
• Confessional statements made freely, prior to complaint, and are admissible and corroborate other evidence.
• Handwriting expert’s analysis follows proper standards, and available admitted/specimen writings suffice for comparison.
• Audit, share broker records, and contemporary investigating reports further corroborate fraud and its proceeds.
• Section 13(1)(d) PC Act not limited to bribe-taking; proved criminal abuse of office for pecuniary benefit.
• Departmental action taken against other officials for negligence/misconduct, but only the accused derived benefit and committed criminal conduct.

Factual Background

Between July 1992 and November 1997, the accused worked as a Clerk-cum-Typist at the State Bank of India, Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch, Chennai, in the Foreign Exchange Department. He opened multiple NRE accounts in the names of customers and relatives (including his brother and wife) without their knowledge, fabricated telex messages, and credited/withdrew funds by forging documents and making false entries. Multiple FIRs were registered on 13.01.1998 and consolidated. The trial involved over 50 witnesses and more than 370 exhibits. The defence denied the charges, while the prosecution connected authorship, benefit, and exclusive agency to the accused.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 120-B IPC (Criminal Conspiracy): Upheld—conspiracy can be established even with “unknown persons” where documentary/circumstantial evidence supports sole agency of the accused.
• Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 381, 201 IPC: Interpreted to require only proof that the accused made or caused to be made false documents, used forged documents as genuine, and derived benefit; signature forgery is not indispensable if authorship/creation is established.
• Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1988: Use of office for any pecuniary advantage or benefit to self/others via abuse of position suffices; proof of reward or bribe demand is only one pathway to conviction, not exclusive.
• Reliance on Section 65B Evidence Act for computer-generated documents; certain exhibits held inadmissible for lack of compliance, but overall finding unaffected.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded; judgment delivered by single judge with reasons expounded sequentially on each legal and factual issue.

Procedural Innovations

• Consolidated hearing of multiple FIRs reporting related transactional fraud into one trial and judgment.
• Systematic tabulation and sequential assessment of charges, evidence, and defence for each individual count.
• Adopted a detailed evaluation matrix matching each charge, evidence, and argument.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed
• No overruling or conflict; strong reaffirmation and application of standards laid down by SC on evidence, confession, and PC Act.

Citations

• 2025:MHC:2130 (Neutral citation)
• State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh (1992) 3 SCC 700
• State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180
• Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC 341
• J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani (2007) 5 SCC 730
• Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (2018) 7 SCC 581
• Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751
• Ram Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2019) 17 SCC 411