- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22132 CRL.A No. 1035 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1035 OF 2012 (C) BETWEEN: SMT. ANITHA V. JAISWAL W/O SRI. ANGAD KUMAR JAISWAL, NO.205, PRIDE APARTMENTS, BANNERGATTA MAIN ROAD, BELAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 076. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VISHWANATH SHENDGE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY CBI / ACB BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO (I) CALL FOR RECORDS OF SPL.C.C.NO.115/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES AT BANGALORE; (II) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.08.2012 IN SPL.C.C.NO.115/2008 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ALTER THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE SENTENCE AND THE FINDINGS THEREIN AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22132 CRL.A No. 1035 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant being the accused in Spl.C.C.No.115/2008 on the file of learned XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore City, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.8.2012 convicting her for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act') and sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC; simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC; simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC; simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 467 of IPC, simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-; simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 477A IPC and simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22132 CRL.A No. 1035 of 2012 Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (c) and (d) of P.C. Act with default sentences. 2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution before the Trial Court is that, accused being the Administrative Officer in LIC of India, City Branch-I (611), Bangalore, and being a public servant dishonestly manipulated the policies of three policy holders, forged their signatures and concocted fake application forms for loans and got disbursed a total sum of Rs.9,77,289/- and got it credited to her account. Thereby she has committed offences as stated above. 3. After investigation, the Investigation Officer filed the charge sheet. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10, and got marked Exs.P1 to P131. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and has not lead any defence in support of her evidence. The Trial Court proceeded to pass judgment of conviction and order of sentence convicting - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22132 CRL.A No. 1035 of 2012 her as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court. 4. Heard Sri Vishwanath Shendge, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special counsel for respondent CBI/ACB. Perused the materials on record. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and to acquit her for the charges leveled against her?" My answer to the above point is 'partly in affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. It is the contention of the prosecution that the appellant taking advantage of her position as Administrative Officer in LIC of India, got access to the policy details of PWs.1, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22132 CRL.A No. 1035 of 2012 4 and another, changed their policy details, concocted the documents to show that they have applied for loan on their policy, got disbursed a sum of Rs.9,77,298/- and credited the same to her account. Thereby, she has committed the offences as stated above. 7. To prove its contention, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 4 - the policy holders, whose accounts were tampered. In their evidence, they have specifically stated that they had never applied for loan from LIC. 8. PW2 is the AGM and Branch Manager of Corporation Bank, J.C.Road Branch, Bangalore, PW3 is the Senior Manager and PW8 is the Clerk in Corporation Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Bangalore, where the accused was having her account. All the witnesses have specifically stated that the amount disbursed as loan proceeds from LIC was credited to her account. 9. PW5 is the Divisional Manager of LIC of India, Bangalore, who speaks about the procedure for availing loan. PW6 is the Divisional Manager of LIC of India, Bangalore, who - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22132 CRL.A No. 1035 of 2012 speaks about the disciplinary enquiry held against the accused. PW7 is the Administrative Officer (Accounts) of LIC of India who also speaks about the procedure adopted for sanctioning loan etc. 10. PW9 is the Investigating Officer, who investigated into the matter and filed the charge sheet. This witness speaks about the manner in which the offence was committed by the accused. He has specifically stated that the members of the Core Committee were given separate passwords by the office to work on policy master. It is stated that unless one of the member of the Core Committee uses the password, the particulars in the policy master cannot be changed. The fact that the accused was one of the members of the Core Committee is not in dispute, rather it is admitted. 11. It is the contention of the prosecution that the appellant being the member of the Core Committee took advantage of the password which was available with her to change the policy details of the policy holders and concocted the documents to show that the policy holders have applied for loan and availed the amount. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22132 CRL.A No. 1035 of 2012 12. PW10 is the Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hyderabad, who issued the reports as per Exs.P117 and 118, examined the questioned documents with the sample handwriting and signatures of the accused and gave his opinion that the person who wrote the sample and questioned writings/signatures are similar. He has given his opinion that the person who wrote the sample signatures also wrote the questioned signatures. Thereby, the prosecution has placed sufficient materials before the Court to show that it was the accused who was working as Administrative Officer, and also as one of the members of the Core Committee took advantage of the password which was with her to access the master of policies and identified-policy holders including PWs. 1 & 4, who were having similar names as that of the accused, concocted various documents, forged the signatures and sanctioned total loan of Rs.9,77,289/-, got it credited to her bank account. Thereby, the accused has committed offences punishable under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22132 CRL.A No. 1035 of 2012 13. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accused is a lady, now aged about 55 years, and is having children. Even though he has not seriously disputed conviction of the appellant for IPC offences contended that she is entitled for acquittal under the provisions of special enactment i.e., P.C. Act. The discussions held above disclose that the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of IPC. When it is proved that, she being the public servant committed the offence of forgery, fraud, cheating, misappropriation and criminal breach of trust, it amounts to misconduct on the part of the public servant. The moment the public servant commits misconduct, it is punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Since the offence in question was committed during 2008, the minimum sentence that could be imposed is, imprisonment for a period of one year with fine. 14. I have gone through the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The Trial Court was right in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22132 CRL.A No. 1035 of 2012 13(1)(d) of PC Act. Even though the Trial Court refers sentence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of the PC Act, the fact remains that the accused was convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act along with the provisions of IPC. Hence, I am of the opinion, the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is required to be confirmed. However, I deem it proper to alter the quantum of sentence imposed against the accused by reducing it to one year as provided under law. Accordingly, I answer the above points partly in affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The Judgment of conviction dated 9.8.2012 passed in Spl.C.C.No.115/2008 by the XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A of IPC is hereby confirmed. iii. However, the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is modified as under: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22132 CRL.A No. 1035 of 2012 a. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with fine imposed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act. b. All sentences shall run concurrently. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment for information and needful action i.e., to issue conviction warrant, if not already issued. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17