They purported to have applied for loan which was sanctioned on the same day.
She paid the cash of Rs.1000/ each under two debit vouchers in the loan documents Exs.
The learned Trial Judge on analyzing the evidences brought on records opined As per the addresses given in the loan applications companyered by Exs.
The First Information Report was lodged on 31.12.1991 under Sections 409, 420 467 and 477 A read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 read with Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
The said loans, as numbericed hereinbefore, were also renewed for the years 1986 and 1987.
They were residents of a different district, namely, Vijayawada.
P.1, P.2, P.4 and P.5 were sanctioned by A.1 and the appraisal report was signed by A.1.
As per the evidence of P.W.1, A.2 recommended the loans in the loan documents Exs.
But the evidence of P.Ws.
PW 21 and PW 22 respectively.
PW 4, the village Sarpanch, in his deposition also stated that PW 21 and PW 22 in whose favour the abovesaid loans were sanctioned were number the resident of village Seetanagaram.
The said companytention of accused No.2 was rejected by the learned Trial Judge opining that the report of the enquiry officer who enquired into the charges had number been brought on record.
Allegations against them were that they companyspired with each other in the matter of sanctioning and disbursing loans of Rs.5,000/ each under Crop Loan A c. No.85/23, 86/221, 87/10, 85/95, 86/224 and 87/12 as companytained in Exhibits P 1 to P 6 in the names of fictitious persons by forging signatures and thumb impressions of the proposed borrowers in the documents resulting in misappropriation of the proceeds of Rs.30,000/ .
P.3 loan documents passed for payment by A.1 and she paid the amount.
W.5, M. Mallikarjunarao who worked as Clerk cum Cashier, when A.1 and A.2 worked, has stated that the crop loans companyered by Exs.
She received the debit voucher for Rs.1,000/ and put her initial on the relevant entry marked as Ex.
They had taken loan from the said bank on deposit of gold ornaments on an earlier occasion.
P.3 and P.6 to A.1.
Investigations were made into the said allegations.
PW 17, is a finger print expert who proved that thump impressions appearing on the loan account were that of accused No.1.
XXX XXX XXX So the entire evidence referred above show that the persons whose photos affixed to the loan applications and the names of the persons mentioned in the loan applications were never resided in Seethanagaram Village and the evidence of P.Ws.
In Ex.
P.W.3, U. Jayapradaha Kumari, who worked as Cashier for about 3 years along with A.1 and A.2 has stated that the debit voucher for Rs.1,000/ dated 5.5.87 in Ex.
PW 21, K.V.V. Satyanarayana and PW 22, Kolluri Seetha are husband and wife.
It was the prosecution case that they were residents of Ramamindaram Street, Satyanarayana Puram, Vijayawada, whereas they were shown to be residents of Penumaka in the District of Guntur.
He was allegedly transferred to another branch on 15.8.1986.
The finger print expert, in his evidence, proved that specimen fingerprints marked as S 1 to S 4 in Exhibit P 38 tallied with the disputed fingerprints marked as Q 166, Q 169, Q 170, Q 171 and Q 172 with the specimen right middle finger impressions marked as S 4 11 on the F.P. slip marked as S 4.
Evidently, the formalities required to be companyplied with for grant of loan, appraisal report recommendation, sanction and disbursement of loan were companypleted on the very same day on which application for grant of loan was filed.
Respondent No.2 herein joined his services on 7.12.1984 as a Field Officer on probation.
P.27 is the relevant entry.
PW 3, U. Jayaprada Kumari, was the accountant of the bank who had paid the amount of loan in cash to respondent No.1.
PW 5, M. Mallikarjuna Rao, was another accountant who said that the amount of loan was paid in cash to Respondent No.1.
PW 7, B.M.S. Peter, was the post man who also proved that loan was sanctioned in the name of fictitious persons.
The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 22 witnesses.
They were known to the respondent No.1 since then.
P26 and A.1 put his initial against the entry in respect of crop loans A c. No.87/10.
Before the learned Trial Judge, a companytention was raised that the departmental proceeding has been initiated against respondent No.2 herein resulted in exoneration and, thus, he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal.
P.6 loan documents both appraisal report and the sanctioning authority signed by A.1 and the debit voucher for Rs.1000/ passed by A.1 and the amount was paid by her.
She entered the payment in respect of crop loan 87/10 in the rough chitta.
Both PW 3 and PW 5, in their depositions before the learned Trial Court stated about the procedure for grant of loan followed in the bank.
The loan granted to both of them was renewed for two subsequent years.
21 and 22 the husband and wife, who originally took the gold loans from Panumaka Branch of Chaitanya Grameena Bank is companyroborated by the evidence referred abovewitnesses that they never resided in Seethanagaram Village.
The offences in question allegedly took place during the period 7.12.1984 to 14.8.1986.
PW 4, Meka Kotireddy, was the village Sarpanch who proved that the loans were granted in the name of fictitious persons and that Exhibits marked as P 1, P 2 and P 5 were number the residents of village Seethanagaram.
Respondents herein were Manager and Field Officer of Chaitanya Grameena Bank, Penumaka Branch, Guntur District.
B. Sinha, J. Correctness of a judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh is in question in this appeal whereby and whereunder an appeal from a judgment of companyviction dated 13.12.1996 by Special Judge, FO CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam in C.C. No.11 of 1994 has been allowed.
P.1 and P.2 and A.1 sanctioned.
It has furthermore been brought on record that PW 21 and PW 22 were known to the Manager of the Bank, i.e. Respondent No.1.
P.1 to P.6 the loanees are the residents of Seethanagaram village.
21 and 22 show that they are residing at Vijayawada and they have numberlands.
He paid the amount to A.1 in respect of said loans.
P.28 is the relevant entry in the payment scroll and companytains her initials and A.1.
