N. RAGHAVENDER versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI

N. RAGHAVENDER versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI

The prosecution failed to prove the charges under Sections 409, 420 and 477A IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act beyond reasonable doubt because (i) no pecuniary loss to the Bank or to the customer was established, (ii) material evidence and relevant ledger records...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: N. Raghavender; Respondent: State of Andhra Pradesh; Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Disposed by Supreme Court Judgment (criminal Appeal No.5 of 2010)
Outcome
Convictions under Sections 409, 420 and 477A IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act set aside for lack of proof; appeal disposed; dismissal from service for gross misconduct upheld; bail bonds discharged
Legal Topics
Criminal Breach of Trust, Mens Rea, Falsification of Accounts, Standard of Proof, Concurrent Findings of Fact, Domestic Enquiry Vs Criminal Prosecution, Entrustment
Criminal Law Banking Anti Corruption Law Criminal Breach of Trust Mens Rea Falsification of Accounts Standard of Proof Concurrent Findings of Fact +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N. Raghavender

Appellant

State of Andhra Pradesh

Respondent

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Disposed by Supreme Court Judgment (criminal Appeal No.5 of 2010)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved offences under Sections 409, 420 and 477A IPC and s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) PC Act beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether there was conspiracy between accused persons to cause wrongful loss to the Bank or to benefit accused no.3
  3. 3 Whether three loose cheques were passed despite insufficient funds and entries intentionally omitted to falsify accounts

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove the charges under Sections 409, 420 and 477A IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act beyond reasonable doubt because (i) no pecuniary loss to the Bank or to the customer was established, (ii) material evidence and relevant ledger records were not produced and the best witness (the customer) was not examined, and (iii) the record did not disclose any reliable evidence of a conspiracy or of dishonest misappropriation by the appellant; accordingly convictions could not be sustained though appellant's departmental misconduct justified dismissal from service.

Court Disposition

Convictions under Sections 409, 420 and 477A IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act set aside for lack of proof; appeal disposed; dismissal from service for gross misconduct upheld; bail bonds discharged

Orders

  • Convictions under Sections 409, 420 and 477A IPC and s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) PC Act set aside
  • Appeal disposed of by Supreme Court