M. Mahadevan Vs. State by DSP, Special Police

[Criminal Appeal No. 1345 of 2006]

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. We see from the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the High Court that the appellant herein was the repository of one key to the cash chest and that the same could not have been opened without his connivance.

It is also not disputed that the money had been removed from the chest for the purpose of sending it to the borrowing branch but though no confirmation with regard to the receipt of the amount was received from the borrowing branch, the appellant and his co-accused made no inquiries whatsoever as to why no confirmation had been received from them, although the transaction involved a huge sum of money.

3. In the light of the fact the findings recorded by the courts below are based on oral as well as documentary evidence on record, we decline to interfere in this appeal.

4. Dismissed.

.................J. [Harjit Singh Bedi]

.................J. [Chandramauli Kr. Prasad]

New Delhi

January 13, 2011.

 Back

Pages: 1 2