“CBI registered an FIR on 12.04.1994 with regard to the opening of a fictitious bank account on 13.07.1992 in the name of one Raj Kumar. Soon thereafter by separate forged credit entries between the period 23.07.1992 to 31.10.1992, deposit of Rs. 3,22,056/- was made in the account. Subsequently on different dates a sum of Rs. 3,22,000/- was withdrawn by seventeen cheques leaving a balance of Rs. 322.85/-.
It is an undisputed fact that a fictitious account was opened without proper verification in accordance with the banking procedures. That unfortunately does not appear to have been the subject of investigation and which could have revealed more facts with regard to the nature and manner of the embezzlement that has taken place, including the persons involved in the same. But merely because the investigation may not have been of the standard and nature that it ought to have been cannot enure to the benefit of Ram Gopal, Pankaj Kumar Jain in view of the nature of materials and evidence available against them.
The Principal Scientific Officer, C.F.S.L. deposed that the account opening form of the fictitious account was in the handwriting of Pankaj Kumar Jain impersonating the fictitious account holder Raj Kumar; the receipt of cheque book and pass book from the bank records, on behalf of the fictitious account holder, were in the handwriting of Pankaj Kumar Jain; the writing on two of the withdrawal cheques drawn as “self” on the fictitious account purporting to be signed by the said Raj Kumar were in the handwriting of Ram Gopal; the signature on all the seventeen forged cheques for withdrawal by ‘self’ were in the handwriting of Pankaj Kumar Jain impersonating the fictitous account holder. These in our opinion were sufficient to establish conspiracy.
The fraud was committed in a systematic manner by persons well acquainted with banking procedures. Ram Gopal, Pankaj Kumar Jain were also the employees of the bank. There is no defence evidence that they had no access to records of the bank at any stage to commit the offence attributed to them. On the contrary, the evidence of their involvement is clinching. They also had access to the vouchers and ledgers as part of their normal duties. Even the specimen signature card was made to disappear replaced by a torn paper.”
– Hon’ble Justice Navin Sinha, Ram Gopal v. CBI, Dehradun, [Criminal Appeal No. 1085 of 2019]; Pankaj Kumar Jain v. CBI, Dehradun, [Criminal Appeal No. 1086 of 2019].