Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 174 (KAR)

K. T. Uthappa v. State of Karnataka

2012-03-01

V.JAGANNATHAN

body2012
Judgment :- These two appeals arise out of one and the same judgment of the Spl.Judge Court for CBI Cases in Spl.C.C.No.2/2006. 2. Crl.A.No.933/2010 is filed by A2 and A3 and Crl.A.No.835/2010 is filed by A1. 3. The appellants challenge their conviction and sentence passed in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w Sections 467, 468, 409, 477-A and 420 of IPC. So far as A1 and A2 are concerned, they are further convicted the sentenced in respect of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. The entire case of the prosecution to put it in one sentence is that, in respect of the proposals received from various owners directly, the said proposals were shown to be having been received through the agent (A3) and A1 – the Assistant Administrative Officer and A2 – the Development Officer, thus conspired with A3-the agent and fabricated the documents to enable the agent to receive huge commission amounting in all Rs.6,26,975/-. 5. The aforesaid gist of the prosecution case on being expanded gives the following picture: A1 – S.C. Chandrashekar was working as the Asst. Administrative officer and A2-K.T. Uttappa was the Development Officer of the United India Insurance Company Ltd., Mysore, during the period from 2001 to 2005. They entered into criminal conspiracy with A-3 C.T. Subramani, insurance agent and three of them altered the code numbers in the insurance proposals though the proposals were received directly from the vehicle owners. By showing the proposals having been received through the agent, loss of Rs.6,26,975/-was caused to the Insurance Company. The code number was altered or modified from 60/99999 which is the code for direct business to the agent code viz., 178/780 and 178/830. The change effected from direct business to agent code 178/830. The change effected from direct business to agent code 178/780 was in respect of the following policy documents: Sl. Policy No. Name of Insured Date Commission No. (Sri/Smt.) of Modification amount(in Rs.) 1. 400303 C.P. Chandru 7.7.04 54.8 2. 400338 G.V.P. Rao 16.7.04 82.2 3. 405314 Jayachandra Reddy 20.7.04 29 4. 405152 S.R. Vijaya 19.7.04 22.9 5. 406776 B.T. Vasanth 13.8.04 22.9 6. 407135 K.P. Viswanath 20.8.04 62.9 7. 407868 Y.B. Suhas 28.9.04 72 8. 408141 H. Vijetha 28.9.04 72 9. 400303 C.P. Chandru 7.7.04 54.8 2. 400338 G.V.P. Rao 16.7.04 82.2 3. 405314 Jayachandra Reddy 20.7.04 29 4. 405152 S.R. Vijaya 19.7.04 22.9 5. 406776 B.T. Vasanth 13.8.04 22.9 6. 407135 K.P. Viswanath 20.8.04 62.9 7. 407868 Y.B. Suhas 28.9.04 72 8. 408141 H. Vijetha 28.9.04 72 9. 408119 R. Kumar 28.9.04 62.9 10 408132 G. Sashidhara 28.9.04 54.5 11 408893 S. Srinivasan 28.9.04 30.4 12 409353 V. Chandra Shekar 30.9.04 67.9 13. 409787 B.M. Chandra Mouli 15.10.04 43.6 14. 409810 K. Ravindra Hathwar 15.10.04 48.3 15 410258 Sudhakar.B.S. 28.10.04 69.3 16 409729 N.B. Mahesh Kumar 28.10.04 77.6 17 410149 Mallikarjuna Swamy 28.10.04 48.7 Total 921.9 6. In respect of the modification from direct business to agent code 178/830, the policy details are the following: Sl. Policy No. Name of Insured Date Commission No. (Sri/Smt.) of Modification amount(in Rs.) 1 404911 C.B. Umesh 14.7.04 41.1 2 404919 M.N. Prabhakar 14.7.04 25.5 3 406145 S.N. Gopinath 4.8.04 23.9 4 406315 D. Mani 6.8.04 54.5 5 406470 K.N. Ravi Shankara 10.8.04 48.2 6 406479 Shivanna Chari 10.8.04 34.6 7 406559 Mahesh Kumar T.S. 11.8.04 72.2 8 406567 H.V. Vijayalakshmi 11.8.04 30.1 9 406574 Veena Patil 11.8.04 23.9 10 406656 B.R. Prabhu 12.8.04 53.7 11 406744 Raju 13.8.04 79.7 Total 487.4 7. Further, A-1 using his own I.D ‘SC’ modified code from 60/99999 to the agency code of A-3 178/780 in respect of the following policies: Sl. Policy No. Name of Insured Date Commission No. (Sri/Smt.) of Modification amount(in Rs.) 1 300661 Govindaswamy 11.9.03 9 2 300662 N. Basappa 11.9.03 9 3 300663 Mahadesha 11.9.03 9 4 300664 R. Siddarama 11.9.03 9 5 300665 Veerabhadra 11.9.03 9 6 311156 P. Vishwanath Rao 23.12.03 -* 7 313055 Kamalamma 29.1.04 -* 8 403662 T. Eswarappa 22.6.04 47.8 9 403750 Ronald.M. Mohan 24.6.04 75.7 10 405426 Vikaram. M.N. 22.7.04 40.4 11 405841 N. Ramakrishna 30.7.04 43.1 12 405904 M. Shivakumar 30.7.04 67.9 13 405942 B.M.N. Murthy 30.7.04 52.7 14 405818 Jayarama 30.7.04 -* 15 407939 N. Nandan 7.9.04 61.2 16 407809 Manjunath. R. Bhat 7.9.04 40.7 17 400725 K.G. Raghuveer 27.10.04 925.05 18 400767 S. Madhusudhan 8.11.04 581.55 Total 1,981.1 8. Likewise, A-1 also modified the agency code from direct to agency code 178/830 in respect of the following policies: Sl. R. Bhat 7.9.04 40.7 17 400725 K.G. Raghuveer 27.10.04 925.05 18 400767 S. Madhusudhan 8.11.04 581.55 Total 1,981.1 8. Likewise, A-1 also modified the agency code from direct to agency code 178/830 in respect of the following policies: Sl. Policy No. Name of Insured Date Commission No. (Sri/Smt.) of Modification amount(in Rs.) 1 311581 R.S. Rajendra 2.1.04 -* 2 313799 Aswathnarayana 12.2.04 -* 3 401504 Mohit Malkani 6.5.04 -* 4 405488 Nanjundaiah H.N. 23.7.04 -* 5 405514 Niranjan Aradhya 23.7.04 78 6 406878 K.R. Ranganathan 16.8.04 30.5 7 406875 H.S. Keshavamurthy 16.8.04 25.9 Total 134.4 9. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that the aforesaid modification effected by A-1 with the assistance of A-2 and A-3 led to A-2 preparing the cheques and permitted the withdrawals of the commission in respect of the following cheques: S.No Cheque No. Date of Cheque Amount (in Rs.) 1 627505 06.08.01 6357=00 2 627716 05.09.01 6357=00 3 627949 10.10.01 5623-00 4 624864 08.11.01 5664=00 5 629177 05.12.01 3397=00 6 61173 11.01.02 2829=00 7 629806 07.02.02 5099=00 8 630638 05.03.02 8947=00 9 271161 05.04.02 5205=00 10 672028 19.07.02 6000=00 11 672041 22.07.02 25340=00 12 672516 09.08.02 14190=00 13 663041 30.09.02 17180=00 14 663383 31.01.02 1297=00 15 595544 02.12.02 5581=00 16 664407 31.12.02 7607=00 17 664666 31.01.03 6762=00 18 665185 28.02.03 16104=00 19 665921 31.03.03 15043=00 20 666530 30.04.03 17253=00 21 666600 03.05.03 13893=00 22 666999 30.06.03 14616=00 23 667914 31.07.03 22757=00 24 666080 10.09.03 8682=00 25 668780 30.09.03 14166=00 26 740173 31.10.03 18186=00 27 741567 01.12.03 19755=00 28 741597 09.12.03 11136=00 29 542196 01.01.04 18399=00 30 188069 30.01.04 20068=00 31 1188151 01.03.04 24184=00 32 595880 01.04.04 19690=00 33 595950 11.05.04 12113=00 34 44553 02.06.04 16144=00 35 245453 01.07.04 12470=00 36 245380 03.08.04 18183=00 37 245383 01.09.04 22131=00 38 245191 24.10.04 11323=00 39 244578 02.11.04 25192=00 40 245067 01.12.04 20277=00 41 362228 04.01.05 19020=00 42 729615 01.02.05 18979=00 43 801452 01.03.05 19023=00 44 801533 08.04.05 19064=00 45 801684 26.05.05 8091=00 46 801786 07.06.05 7103=00 47 801831 30.06.05 10296=00 Total 626975=00 10. It is on the aforesaid allegations which came in the form of source information to the S.P., CBI, Biju George Joseph (PW-24), that the FIR was registered as per Ex.P155. It is on the aforesaid allegations which came in the form of source information to the S.P., CBI, Biju George Joseph (PW-24), that the FIR was registered as per Ex.P155. The investigation followed leading to collecting voluminous documents viz., the cheques, pay-in challans, accounts statements and proposals in respect of some of the vehicle owners and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted. 11. Following the accused pleading not guilty to the charge, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 24 and 170 documents were marked. The accused led evidence in their defence after recording their statements. The learned trial judge after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted the appellants as mentioned in the beginning of the judgment. 12. The sentence imposed upon the appellants by the court below was as under: 1) The accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 8 months for the offence punishable U/s. 120of IPC. 12. The sentence imposed upon the appellants by the court below was as under: 1) The accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 8 months for the offence punishable U/s. 120of IPC. 2) The accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for 8 months for the offence punishable U/s 467 IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each and in default of fine, they shall under go simple imprisonment for 6 months; 3) The accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for 8 months for the offence punishable U/s 468 IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each and in default of fine, they shall under go simple imprisonment for 6 months; 4) For the offence punishable U/s 477A IPC, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months and shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each and in default of payment of fine, they shall under go SI for 6 months; 5) The accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for six months for the offence punishable U/s 420 IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each and in default of fine, they shall under go simple imprisonment for 6 months; 6) For the offence punishable U/s 409 IPC, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months and shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each and in default of payment of fine, they shall under go SI for 6 months; 7) For the offence punishable U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, the accused Nos.1 & 2 shall undergo SI for 1 year and shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. It is further ordered that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 3 are stand cancelled.” 13. Assailing the judgment of the court below, learned counsel Sri. S.K. Venkata Reddy for A-2 and A-3 and Sri Kiran S. Javali for A-1 submitted their arguments and Sri. C.H. Jadhav for the CBI supported the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court below. I have perused the records of this case. 14. Assailing the judgment of the court below, learned counsel Sri. S.K. Venkata Reddy for A-2 and A-3 and Sri Kiran S. Javali for A-1 submitted their arguments and Sri. C.H. Jadhav for the CBI supported the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court below. I have perused the records of this case. 14. Learned counsel for A-2 and A-3 at the outset submitted that, this is a case where important links are missing in the prosecution case and in the light of the evidence on record, the trial court could not have convicted the appellants. Referring to the witnesses’ evidence, submission made is as under: 15. It is pointed out from the evidence of PW-7 Manjula, an Assistant, working in the United India Insurance Company Limited, Mysore, that there is a separate register to enter the proposals either received from the agent or directly and it is only after going through the said register, one could say whether the proposals were received directly or through the agent. Submission made by the learned counsel referring to this evidence is that, the prosecution has failed to place on record the register referred to by this witness. Therefore, in the absence of producing the important document, the court ought to have drawn adverse inference against the prosecution as the basic document itself is not produced. 16. Secondly, he submitted that the case of the prosecution is that, in respect of 53 policies, there are change of codes from direct business to agent, but the prosecution has not examined all the 42 policy holders, only few of them have been examined. The witnesses examined were PWs.17 to 21. Rest of the witnesses who ought to have been examined in respect of the policies referred to in the charge sheet, were not examined and therefore, the evidence placed on record by the prosecution itself is incomplete to establish its case against the accused. Referring to the evidence of PW-7, it is argued that, the said witness has stated that, in the inspection conducted annually, no differences were noticed from August 2001 to July 2005. 17. Another defect in the prosecution case is that, the prosecution is not able to establish the connection between cheques produced and the corresponding policy numbers. Though PWs.17 to 21 were examined by the prosecution, their evidence does not establish the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 17. Another defect in the prosecution case is that, the prosecution is not able to establish the connection between cheques produced and the corresponding policy numbers. Though PWs.17 to 21 were examined by the prosecution, their evidence does not establish the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the policies produced by the prosecution, the Development Officer/agent code is mentioned and so also the names of the accused 2 and 3 and a look at the said policies will not go to show that the accused had forged the said policies. In other words, the prosecution ought to have placed the original policies indicating the direct code and along with that, the forged document should have been placed. No such evidence is forthcoming from the prosecution and as such, even if the entire evidence is accepted, it will not lead to the conclusion that the accused had forged the proposals. 18. Referring to the evidence of PW-14 Rajendra Naidu, it is argued by the learned counsel for A-2 and A-3 that, though there is super user password regarding the modifications of the proposals and the witness has also referred to the Branch Manager having the power to allow any other person to use such super user password for modification, the prosecution has not placed any evidence to show as to who had modified the code numbers and who had access for using the password. In the absence of there being positive evidence to show that A-1 had access to the super user password and that he alone had modified the code number from the direct business to ‘through the agent’, the accused could not have been convicted by the court below. 19. In this connection learned counsel also referred to the evidence of PW-23 S.V.S. Naidu, the police inspector of CBI, who has admitted in the course of his cross examination that during the period from August 2001 to March 2005, one C. Shivamadappa was the Manager and his statement has not been recorded. It is also pointed out from the evidence of this witness that, even the extract of the daily cash register was not obtained nor the extract of the statement of daily transaction of the branch. It is also pointed out from the evidence of this witness that, even the extract of the daily cash register was not obtained nor the extract of the statement of daily transaction of the branch. The witness has also stated that the technical officer of the Regional Office was issued with the super user code and the said witness has been referred to as PW-14 by PW-23. 20. It is therefore argued by Sri S.K. Venkata Reddy that, when there is no evidence to show as to who was having access to the super user password and every year audit also revealed that there are no irregularities and there being absence of material to show that the accused had changed the code number from direct to that of agent, in the absence of such missing links in the prosecution case, the court below could not have convicted the appellants. To support the above submission, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for A-2 and A-3 on the decisions reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 976 , AIR 1961 A.P. 495 and 1999 (6) Kar.L.J. 605 . 21. Learned counsel Sri Kiran S. Javali for A-1 also contended that, there is no evidence to show that A-1 had used the super user code, but on the other hand, the policies produced reveal that they were all through the agents. Though there are several policy holders mentioned in the charge sheet, all the policies were not produced and marked in evidence and excepting few of the vehicle owners, the prosecution has not led the evidence of the other policy holders to show that even in respect of the majority of the policy holders, the said policy holders had sent their proposals directly and not through the agent. 22. Referring to the evidence of PW 23 S.V.S. Naidu, it is submitted that the said witness has stated that he did not record the procedure with regard to use of super user code. It is argued that, though the prosecution had examined 24 witnesses, only PW-17 and PW-22 speak about the proposals in respect of their vehicles and the evidence of the other witness cannot come to the rescue of the prosecution to prove the charge leveled against the accused persons. Referring to the evidence of PW-7 Manjula, it is submitted that the said witness has stated that the cheques are issued under joint signatures. Referring to the evidence of PW-7 Manjula, it is submitted that the said witness has stated that the cheques are issued under joint signatures. If that is the position, why the other person who signed the cheque along with A-1 was not prosecuted is the question that naturally arises and the prosecution has not come out with any explanation in this regard. The Accountant therefore becomes an important witness to throw light on this aspect and the prosecution has not examined any Accountant in this connection. 23. It was also pointed out from the evidence of PW-8 Parimala that the cheques regarding payment of commission was used to be issued under the joint signatures and A-1 was one of the joint signatories. Learned counsel also referred to other defects in the prosecution case which were also pointed out by the learned counsel for A-2 and A3. 24. As far as the sanction order is concerned, learned counsel for A-1 referring to the evidence of PW-1, argued that the witness has stated that there is no separate rules for United India Insurance Company and the CDA rules though were followed, the said rules have not been placed before the Parliament and no Gazette Notification was issued. It is therefore contended, in the absence of CDA rules having been notified as required, the said rules could not have bee made applicable to the United India Insurance Co. and for this reason, the sanction order therefore will have to be held as bad in law. 25. Ex.D1, which is the Memorandum of Articles of Association of the Insurance Company was also referred to, to contend that it was the Board which has the power to sanction and therefore PW-1 could not have issued the sanction order. The trial court did not appreciate the contentions put forward with regard to the sanction order in proper perspective and also did not take into consideration the law bearing on the point as has been held by the Apex Court in the case reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 259 . Therefore, it is argued by the learned counsel that, apart from the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, even the sanction order is not valid in law and the court below under these circumstances, ought to have acquitted the accused instead of convicting him. 26. Therefore, it is argued by the learned counsel that, apart from the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, even the sanction order is not valid in law and the court below under these circumstances, ought to have acquitted the accused instead of convicting him. 26. Learned counsel Sri C.H. Jadhav for the CBI supported the judgment of the court below and argued that the material witnesses for the prosecution are PWs-7 and 14. PW-7 in the course of her evidence has stated that, she used to feed the applications under the directions of A-1 and it was A-1 who handed over to her Exs.P141 to 146 and therefore, in view of the witness stating that it was under the direction of A-1 that she had entered the code number as direct business, the prosecution has therefore proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Although the prosecution examined only few of the policy holders, it is not necessary to examine all the policy holders, but it is sufficient to show that A-1 had conspired with A-2 and A-3 and modified the code number from direct business to agent code. As such, no infirmity can be found in the prosecution case for not placing all the policies or for that matter, not examining all the policy holders. Since the commission has been paid to A-3, the prosecution has established its case and as such, the judgment of conviction passed by the court below does not warrant any interference at the hands of this court. 27. In the light of the aforesaid contentions put forward and decisions cited, whether the prosecution can be said to have proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt so as to justify the conviction of the appellants. 28. The entire case of the prosecution as already stated in the beginning is that, A-1 with the help of A-2 and A-3 had changed the code number from that of the direct business to that of the agent code. The code applicable in respect of direct business is 60/99999 and in respect of the agent code the numbers will be 178/780 and 178/830. 29. In the policies which have been produced and marked in evidence, the code number of the agent is mentioned at the top and also the names of the Development Officer and the agent is mentioned in the last page of the policy. 29. In the policies which have been produced and marked in evidence, the code number of the agent is mentioned at the top and also the names of the Development Officer and the agent is mentioned in the last page of the policy. By merely looking at the policies which have been marked in evidence, it will not be possible to say that the code numbers have been tampered or modified. The best evidence the prosecution could have placed to support the evidence of PWs 17 to 21 is the register as spoken to by PW-7. Since there is a separate register maintained indicating the proposals received directly or from the agent, the absence of producing the said basic document is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. 30. The decision cited by the learned counsel for A-2 and A-3 viz., AIR 1981 S.C. 976 , deals with the case where the account books were not produced and therefore the Apex Court went on to observe that, presumption that evidence in account books would have gone against defendant can be drawn. The aforesaid decision applies to the case on hand and want of production of the register spoken to by PW-7 therefore will have to be construed as a case for drawing adverse inference against the prosecution. 31. Another decision relied by the learned counsel is the one reported in AIR 1961 A.P. 495 and in the said case, as the Will on which reliance was placed to claim right was not produced, the court held that a mere reference to a Will in the settlement deed is not sufficient proof of the Will itself. 32. PW-7 Manjula in her evidence though has stated that, she used to feed the insurance policies in the computer on the direction of A-1 and refers to the proposal forms Exs.P141 to 145, the prosecution has not examined the respective policy holders to show that the said policy holders had sent their proposals directly and not through the agent. This witness is treated hostile by the prosecution also cannot be lost sight of. This witness is treated hostile by the prosecution also cannot be lost sight of. At the same time, in view of the witness confirming that there is a separate register indicating the proposals received either from the agent or directly, in the absence of the document being produced, from the oral say of PW-7, conclusion cannot be arrived that the accused No.1 had forged the proposals and changed the code number from direct to that of agent. 33. Coming to the evidence of PW-14, even the evidence of this witness does not help the prosecution to show that it was A-1 who had access to the super user password and that it was he who had modified the code number from direct to that of agent. pW-14 has also deposed in her cross examination that she has given evidence with regard to general system of geneses and admits that, for the said system, log was to be created and the log would show as to who used it and when it was used and it will also show the modification, if any. Except the oral statement of this witness, the prosecution has not placed any material to support the oral testimony of PW-14. 34. It has come in the evidence of PW-23 S.V.S. Naidu that, one Shivamadappa was the Manager during August 2001 to March 2005 and neither the said person has been examined nor his statement has been recorded by the investigating officer. Absence of the said person being examined is also a serious defect in the prosecution case. The further statement of this witness in the cross examination is that the contents of the policy are entered into the computer on the date on which it was issued. In that connection, he has not obtained the copy of the log sheet of the particular day nor the account statement in connection with the modification. The investigation also has not been properly conducted is the inference that becomes inescapable particularly in the light of what has been elicited in the cross examination of PW-23 and also the witness not being able to give the necessary information sought for during the cross examination. 35. The other aspect of the case is that, it has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the cheques in question are signed jointly. 35. The other aspect of the case is that, it has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the cheques in question are signed jointly. A-1 is one of the persons who has signed the cheques but who the other person, is not made known to the court by the prosecution. If the cheques in question are signed by two persons, one person alone cannot be held to be responsible for causing loss to the Insurance Company and why the other person who signed the cheques is not examined in the court also remains a mystery. 36. If the proposals are changed for the agent code and if the prosecution case is that the agent code numbers used were 178/780 and 178/830, it obviously would mean that the person whose code number is 178/830 also had benefited from the commission. As per the charge, in respect of 11 policy holders, the code numbers were changed from direct code to that of agent code 178/830. The prosecution has examined the agent having code 178/830 as PW-11 Balakrishna Shastri. The said witness has stated that, he was getting the commission in respect of the transaction of the particular month, in the next month itself. If in respect of the policies referred to pertaining to code 178/830, there is modification of the code number or forgery being committed, the prosecution ought to have placed evidence to show as to who changed the code number into 178/830 and why no irregularities were noticed during the inspection. 37. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, a mere look at the policies produced before the court does not give the impression that the code numbers have been modified or the original direct code has been tampered with. Since the evidence is not forthcoming to show as to who had actually changed the code number from that of direct to agent code, the prosecution therefore cannot be said to have proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 38. The record also reveals that, in respect of one policy holder viz., S.R. Vijaya who was examined as PW-19, the prosecution has produced the insurance proposal Ex.P151. Even the said document Ex.P151 shows the code of the agent and the names of the Development Officer and the agent are also mentioned in the policy. 38. The record also reveals that, in respect of one policy holder viz., S.R. Vijaya who was examined as PW-19, the prosecution has produced the insurance proposal Ex.P151. Even the said document Ex.P151 shows the code of the agent and the names of the Development Officer and the agent are also mentioned in the policy. Even though another proposal is also enclosed to Ex.P151 which mentions that it is direct business, the said document has not been marked in evidence and that apart, the amount involved in respect of the said proposal is Rs.22.9. The prosecution therefore has not placed the entire material to support its case that the commission amount mentioned viz., Rs.6,26,975/-was paid and compared to the total figure put forward by the prosecution, the amount of commission in respect of S.r. Vijaya being Rs.22.9, the said amount is a trifle when compared to the total amount referred to by the prosecution. 39. As regards the proposals Exs.141 to 145 are concerned, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for A-1, the concerned persons were not examined and therefore it cannot be said that the proposals relate to the direct business in the absence of the respective policy holders coming and deposing before the court in that they had taken out the policy directly. 40. On a close examination of the evidence on record, it is not possible to hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt as there are several missing links in the prosecution case and important documents have not been produced. In the absence of evidence forthcoming to show that A-1 alone had access to the super user code and it was he who had used the agent code instead of direct business and in the absence of the documents produced by the prosecution indicating modification or tampering of the code number by A-1, the question of the prosecution proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt, does not arise. 41. Now coming to the sanction part of the case, PW-1 has deposed in his evidence that, he issued the sanction order as per Ex.P1. The witness has submitted that, he was not specifically authorized by the Board to issue the sanction. The Memorandum of Articles of Association placed on record by the accused as per Ex.D1 indicates that the Board’s authorization is a must. The witness has submitted that, he was not specifically authorized by the Board to issue the sanction. The Memorandum of Articles of Association placed on record by the accused as per Ex.D1 indicates that the Board’s authorization is a must. The second defect in the prosecution case with regard to the sanction order is that, the witness PW-1 has stated in his evidence that there is no separate rules for the United India Insurance Company Limited and the rules which were applied were the General Insurance Conduct Discipline Appeal Rules 1975 (CDA Rules). It is also in his evidence that the CDA Rules were not placed before the Parliament. No Gazzette Notification was issued. Whether in such circumstances, the CDA Rules could have been invoked is the point for consideration. In this connection the decision referred by the learned counsel Sri Kiran S. Javali is required to be taken note of. 42. In the case of Rajendra Agricultural University vs. Ashok Kumar Prasad ( AIR 2010 S.C. 259 ) dealing with Bihar Agricultural Universities Act, 1987 and Section 36 of the said Act laying down steps for making or amending a Statute, the Apex Court has observed at para.9 that, if the Act lays down the manner in which a statute under the Act should be made, it shall have to be made in that manner and no other. The court went on to hold that the requirement that the statute should be published in the official Gazette, is an integral part of the process of ‘statute making’ under section 36 of the Act and it is mandatory and not directory. It was further held that, until publication in the official Gazette, the statute will be considered as still being in the process of being made, even if it had received the assent of the Chancellor. Consequently, the court went on to observe that, a ‘statute in the making’ or a ‘statute in process’ is incomplete and is neither valid nor effective as a statute. 43. The aforesaid principles, if applied to the case on hand, would render the sanction order also invalid in view of the evidence of PW-1 that the CDA rules were not gazetted. The learned trial judge did not consider the aforesaid aspects while dealing with the contentions put forward by the accused in respect of the validity of the sanction order. 1. The learned trial judge did not consider the aforesaid aspects while dealing with the contentions put forward by the accused in respect of the validity of the sanction order. 1. Both the appeals are allowed. 2. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in respect of the appellants stand set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the offences with which they stood charged. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 3. The fine amounts, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the appellants. 4. It goes without saying that the consequence of the acquittal order has to enure to the benefit of the appellants.