Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2012 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 1241 - SC - Indian LawsWithdrawal/encashed amount using forged Signature - Application for Quashing of Charges against Bank manager and other - the Appellant lodged a complaint before the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police New Delhi that he along with his wife had opened five FCNR-FD in their joint names. According to the complainant, accused who is his father-in-law had forged his signatures on the F.D receipts and got the same renewed in the sole name of his wife who, thereafter, encashed the value thereof and unauthorisedly received the payments due. Role of Bank manager - No material has been brought on record to, even prima facie, show the involvement of either of the accused - Appellants with any of the offences alleged. Mere holding of the office of Chief Manager and Senior Manager of the concerned Bank, by itself, will not make the accused - Appellants liable unless the positive role of either of the Appellants in the renewal of the FDs in the sole name of accused Anita Mehra or in the encashment of one of the FDs by the aforesaid accused is disclosed. the provisions of the Regulations/Guidelines, relating to Fixed Deposit, as in force in the Bank to contend that the action of accused - Appellants has been in conformity with the mandate of the Banking Norms even if it is to be assumed that they had any role to play in the matter of renewal of the FDs in the sole name of the accused Anita Mehra and the subsequent encashment . HELD THAT:- Court do not see as to why the action of the accused father in law in making the endorsement in the Investment Renewal of Vyasa Bank, in the light of the surrounding facts and circumstances already noted, cannot, prima facie, amount to making of a document with an intention of causing it to be believed that the same was made by or by the authority of the joint account holder. The said document having contained an endorsement that the FD be altered/renewed in the single name of accused wife and the Bank having so acted, prima facie, the commission of offences u/s 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B IPC, in our considered view, is disclosed against the accused father in law. The order of the High Court quashing the charges framed against father in law u/s 467, 468 and 471 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC in so far as the Investment Renewal and FD with Vyasa Bank, therefore, is clearly unsustainable. We therefore interfere with the aforesaid part of the order of the High Court in so far as the accused father in law is concerned.
|