BANK OF INDIA versus YETURI MAREDI SHANKER RAO & ANR.

BANK OF INDIA versus YETURI MAREDI SHANKER RAO & ANR.

Although there was no direct evidence that the respondent forged the signatures, the circumstantial evidence established that he presented withdrawal forms bearing forged signatures, obtained and pocketed the money, and admitted acknowledging receipt. These facts justify conviction for offences under s.467 read with s.109 and s.471 IPC.

Parties
Appellant: Bank of India; Respondent: Yeturi Maredi Shanker Rao; Appellant: State of Andhra Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 January 1987
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Acquittal by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Outcome
Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; conviction restored
Legal Topics
Forgery, Use of Forged Documents, Bank Fraud, Conviction for IPC Offences
Criminal Law Forgery Use of Forged Documents Bank Fraud Conviction for IPC Offences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank of India

Appellant

Yeturi Maredi Shanker Rao

Respondent

State of Andhra Pradesh

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Acquittal by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent could be convicted under s.467 read with s.109 and s.471 IPC for presenting forged withdrawal forms and misappropriating funds
  2. 2 Whether lack of evidence as to the actual forger absolves respondent from liability

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was no direct evidence that the respondent forged the signatures, the circumstantial evidence established that he presented withdrawal forms bearing forged signatures, obtained and pocketed the money, and admitted acknowledging receipt. These facts justify conviction for offences under s.467 read with s.109 and s.471 IPC.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; conviction restored

Orders

  • Respondent convicted under s.467 read with s.109 and s.471 IPC in each of the three cases.
  • Sentenced to 9 months rigorous imprisonment for each offence, with sentences to run concurrently.