IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.303 of 1995 alongwith Cr.Revision Nos.133, 134, 135, 136, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143 of 2000 and Cr.Revision Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of 2001. Judgment reserved on:7.4.2010. Date of decision: 2.6.2010. Cr.A. No.303 of 1995: State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Ramesh Chand Ohri and another … Respondents Cr.Rev. Nos.133, 134, 135, 136, 139 to 143 of 2000: Manjeet Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ….Respondents Cr.Rev. Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2001: Hardev Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ….Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G. for the State. For the respondent: Ms.Ambika Kotwal, Advocate vice Sh.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate for accused Manjeet Singh. Mr.Onkar Jairath, Advocate for petitioner Hardev Singh. ____________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. This Appeal and 13 Criminal Revisions are being decided by one common judgment since common questions of law and facts arise in these cases. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 It would be pertinent to mention that one of the accused Ramesh Chand Ohri has expired during the pendency of these proceedings and therefore, Criminal Appeal No.303 of 1995 stands abated against him and the Revision Petitions filed by Ramesh Chand Ohri have also been disposed of as having abated. Consequently, we proceeded to hear Criminal Appeal No.303 of 1995 only in respect of co-accused Manjeet Singh and the Criminal Revisions filed by Manjeet Singh and Hardev Singh co-accused are being heard and disposed of by this judgment. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Sh.S.P. Singla the then Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Mandi Branch filed a complaint with the SHO, Sadar, Mandi to the effect that a fraud has been committed with the Bank and about Rs.3 lakhs have been embezzled. On the basis of this complaint, the police party immediately reached the bank and raided the house of Sh.R.C. Ohri deceased who was at the relevant time working as Head Clerk in-charge of the Bank. The House of co- accused Manjeet Singh @ Amar Singh was also raided. During the course of investigation it was found that R.C. Ohri was working as Head Clerk, in- charge of the bank. He conspired with co-accused Manjeet Singh and got opened an account in the bank in the name of one Amar Singh. However, this bank account was actually opened by Manjeet Singh who showed himself to be Amar Singh. This bank account was opened by depositing Rs.100/-. The number of this bank account was 12084. Since total amount was withdrawn by different transactions, separate challans were presented. We are however of the considered view that in fact the entire transaction was one. 3 The modus operandi followed by the accused was that accused No.1 mis-used his position of Head Clerk and had retained certain un-used cheques relating to the account of Sh.B.L. Kapoor and Mrs.Pratibha Kapoor The accused got prepared forged advices relating to the money transfers. He also got prepared six rubber stamps showing them to be the stamps of State Bank of India Branches at Delhi and Shimla. These cheques of Sh.B.L. Kapoor and Smt.Pratibha Kapoor were then used to issue cheques in favour of Amar Singh having account No.12084. Some of these cheques were shown to have been issued from New Delhi and some from Shimla. All the cheques and the admitted writing of the accused were sent to the Examiner of Questioned Documents and it was found that on these cheques the writing was of the accused R.C. Ohri and Manjeet Singh @ Amar Singh. R.C. Ohri denied having prepared the T.R. & M.T. advices. He also denied having forged the stamps of the bank. He also disputed that he had given specimen hand-writing with signatures before the Magistrate. He admitted his signatures on all the other documents. However, the SDM, Mandi was examined as a witness in all the cases and he deposed that Ramesh Chand Ohri was produced before him and he had taken his specimen hand-writing. Some of his specimen hand-writing was taken by B.D. Sharma who also examined and proved the same. Accused R.C. Ohri was working as Head Clerk in the Bank. He admitted that the account opening form which was submitted by the accused Manjeet Singh in the name of Amar Singh was verified by him resulting in the opening of the account. R.C. Ohri also admitted that a raid was conducted in his house though he denied that during this raid six stamps and 200 MT forms and blank cheques were recovered by the police. 4 The Courts below have come to a concurrent finding of fact on the basis of the evidence on record that the police has proved that raid was conducted in the house of accused R.C. Ohri which led to the recovery of six forged stamps, MT forms and TR forms. It has also been proved on record that accused Manjeet Singh produced one cheque book which he had used to withdraw the amounts from Account No.12084. Specimen hand-writing of both these witnesses have also been proved on record. In fact, R.C. Ohri after taking permission of the Court appeared as his own witness and did not dispute the fact that his specimen hand-writing was taken. PW-21 Sh.S.P. Singla who was the Manager of the Bank and discovered the fraud deposed that forged stamps and documents were used for preparing forged documents. The cheques purported to be issued from Delhi and Shimla branches in favour of Amar Singh were issued. These cheques were deposited in the account of Amar Singh. The TR and MT advices relating to these cheques were never sent to the Branches of the bank at Delhi or Shimla but R.C. Ohri himself forged the stamps of the Branches of Shimla and Delhi to show that the cheques had been cleared by the Branches at Shimla and Delhi. Though as per the record in the bank it had been shown that the cheques had been sent to collection for Delhi and Shimla and after receipt of payment advice the amount was credited in the account of Amar Singh but when the record was actually verified it was found that no amount had been sent by the branches of the bank at Delhi or Shimla. The six rubber stamps recovered from the house of R.C. Ohri were found to have been used for preparing the forged documents purporting to be from the banks at Delhi and Shimla. It stands proved on record that the cheques out of the cheque book issued to Mr.Kapoor were used and no cheques issued by the Banks 5 at Delhi and Shimla were used. One of the stamps prepared is of M/s.B.K. Constructions who purportedly issued the cheques. One seal shows that it is “New Delhi, Code No.0691”. One seal has the words “SBI, Delhi” written. Similarly some of the seals had the words “Shimla” written. It stands proved on record that both the Shimla and Delhi branches finally informed the Mandi Branch that these cheques were not issued by these Branches and the cheques used were actually those surrendered by Sh.B.K. Kapoor and kept by Sh.R.C. Ohri and misused by him to show as if the cheques were being issued from New Delhi to Shimla for payment to Amar Singh. He, therefore, got Manjeet Singh to open an account in the name of Amar Singh. The procedure is that out station cheques are received and through TR advices along with cheques were sent to the original branches from where the cheques were purported to be issued but in the present case the cheques were not actually sent to Shimla or Delhi branches but cleared by R.C. Ohri without sending them to Delhi or Shimla. It was only when the amount was not received from Delhi and Shimla and further inquiry was made that this fact was discovered. The Courts below on perusal of the evidence have convicted the accused. The learned counsel for the accused have urged that the report of the Examiner of Questioned Documents cannot be relied upon. This report has also been proved on record. The facts, as narrated above, clearly show that R.C. Ohri and Manjeet Singh conspired to defraud the bank. R.C. Ohri mis-utilized his position and retained the cheques surrendered by Sh.B.K. Kapoor. These cheques were then mis-used, forged and issued in favour of Amar Singh a non-existent person and these cheques were purported to be issued from New Delhi and Shimla. The seals bearing the words New Delhi and Shimla were recovered from 6 the house of R.C. Ohri. Thereafter, Manjeet Singh would issue cheques under the signatures of Amar Singh and withdraw the amounts. It has been proved by the Examiner of Questioned Documents that the signatures of Amar Singh are in the hand of Manjeet Singh. Nothing further was required to be proved. These pure finding of fact cannot be interfered with in these Revision Petitions. The Revision Petitions Nos.133 to 136 and 139 to 143 of 2000 filed by Sh.Manjeet Singh @ Amar Singh are accordingly dismissed. As far as Civil Revision Nos.1 to 3 of 2001 are concerned, in these cases Hardev Singh accused has only withdrawn two amounts by using cheques issued by Manjeet Singh under the name of Amar Singh. No evidence has been led to show that he knew that these cheques were forged or fraudulent cheques. His conviction is therefore illegal and Criminal Revisions No.1 to 3 of 2001 are allowed since there is nothing on record to show that Hardev Singh had conspired with other two accused. Cr.Appeal No.303 of 1995: This appeal by the State has been filed and it has been prayed that the sentence be enhanced. The main accused R.C. Ohri has already expired. More than 15 years have elapsed and we find no reason to enhance the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. In fact we are of the view that all the sentences imposed on Manjeet Singh accused should run concurrently since the entire transaction is one transaction and has been separated only for the purpose of convenience. In view of the above discussion, Criminal Revisions No.133 to 136 and 139 to 143 of 2000 & Cr.A. No.303 of 1995 are dismissed and Criminal Revision Nos.1 to 3 of 2001 are allowed in the aforesaid terms. 7 It is however made clear that the sentence in all the cases against the accused Manjeet Singh shall run concurrently. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. June 2, 2010 ( Sanjay Karol ), J. PV