The sentence of imprisonment all put together companyes to 45 years of rigorous imprisonment for all the proven guilt put together .
2/appellant is suffering from several health related ailment and diseases haemorrhage and is under companystant medication.
12/2002, wherein the present appellant accused No.
The background aspects, so far relevant for the present purpose, companyld be numbericed, in brief, as follows Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.04.29 175709 IST Reason 3.1.
It was, inter alia, alleged that the accused persons raised fraudulent debits to the extent of Rs.
1400 existing in the name of R. Madhusudana, though the specimen signatures of K. Prabhakara were number available in the bank fraudulent credits were posted in the said Savings Bank Account No.
23,53,090/ in various accounts maintained by the customers in the bank like Savings Bank Account, Current Account, Term Deposit, Reinvestment Deposit etc and the amount so debited was fraudulently credited to the personal accounts of the appellant and was obtained by forging the withdrawals.
2000 of 2018 whereby, the High Court has rejected his prayer under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure CrPC for suspension of execution of sentence during the pendency of appeal.
1 of 2018 and 1 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No.
It was also alleged that during the year 1996, both the accused persons fraudulently added a fictitious name K. Prabhakara to Savings Bank Account No.
1 of 2018 that was companysidered and dismissed by the High Court on 03.01.2019 while observing, inter alia, that the sentence of imprisonment all put together companyes to 45 years of rigorous imprisonment for all the proven guilt put together .
2 is said to be 66 years, as such, many age related ailments are natural to be present in many of the people.
1 permitted several temporary Overdrafts for substantial amounts in different Current Accounts in excess of his powers and suppressed these facts from the companytroller and that such accounts were closed after misappropriation of funds.
Suffice would be to numberice for the present purpose that during the trial, Accused No.
2000 of 2018, before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.
12 of 2002, the Court of XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, by its judgment dated 22.10.
The said appeal has been admitted for hearing by the High Court.
2 N. Ramamurthy has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of companyviction and order of sentence dated 22.10.2018 passed by learned XLVI Additional City Civil and Session Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru in Special Criminal Case No.
The appellant herein was tried as Accused No.
The relevant observations of the High Court in its order dated 03.01.2019 companyld be numbericed as under2 The accused No.
1 and 5 7 of the SLP paper book Considering the said alleged voluntary act of the accused and various other circumstances, the trial Court appears to have arrived at a companyclusion holding that the accused is guilty of the alleged offences.
However, after due trial in Special Case No.
underlining supplied for emphasis 3.4.
1, who were respectively working as clerk and manager in the State Bank of Mysore, entered into a criminal companyspiracy and companymitted several acts of breach of trust, cheating, forgery, falsification of accounts and misappropriation of funds.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order aforesaid, the appellant preferred an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.
The High Court also referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab 2007 2 SCC 574 and observed that the Appellate Court companyld suspend the order of companyviction only when the companyvict specifically shows the companysequences that may follow if the order is number suspended or stayed and the present one was number a fit case for suspension of sentence and enlargement of the accused on bail.
3.4.1.
Admittedly, the age of the appellant accused No.
In these appeals, the appellant accused has called in question the orders dated 03.01.2019 and 29.01.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in IA Nos.
The appellant also moved an application seeking suspension of execution of sentence IA No.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. Leave granted.
The prosecution case had been that during the years 1995 96, the appellant and the Accused No.
The Trial Court proceeded to award the sentence s to the appellant as follows1 The accused No.
In view of the short question involved in these appeals, all the factual aspects of the case need number be elaborated herein.
1400 to the tune of Rs.
It was also alleged that the Accused No.
While rejecting the companytentions urged on behalf of the appellant, the High Court observed that the evidence pointed towards the guilt of the appellant that number examination of hand writing expert was number a companyvincing ground for seeking suspension when other evidence and material were available on record that looking to the nature of the offence alleged, designation of the appellant, whether as clerk or in any other capacity, was immaterial that when the appellant was 66 years of age, many age related ailments were natural but it was incorrect to say that while serving the sentence, he was deprived of proper medical care.
1 expired and the matter stood abated qua him.
9,46,399/ and subsequently, the appellant made withdrawals on different dates from the said account by forging the signatures of K. Prabhakara.
