.,c J IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR ^HHATTISGARH APPLICANT (INJAILl ^"rr: RESPONDENT CriminarRevision N0. 18^_/2006 Saiyeev Kumar@Saaju Thakur, S/o.AshoK 'Fhafcur, aged about 25 years, R/0. Shltala Chowk, Thakurpara, Kaward^, TahsH-Kawardha, District Kabridham (C.G.) VERSUS • State of Through P.S. Kawardha, .....——"" District - Kabirdham. '»-*.^*^"v ' - f.n<?d on---;'^<^......—--" Chhattisgarh ^ sh"—Y^7"""T'V.....Ad^-» u"'" tt e' R.to &.A.1) CRIMINAL REVISION UNDBR SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE I: ,!li: II 'fMS^: I'W'St iB'il-Sisc.illi ilil" lUiid 1 ^' ."•• i l." \- ::,- : .: !:, , 1 Hia< COURT0FCHHICTTIS6A8HATBILASPUR Cr. Rwisiort No. 187;®0)6 Singte Bench: Hon'ble Shrt 6»^teieisatwfe DwhmuWt. j.^ Sarijeev Kumar ©ScinjuThakur t? ' ' V^f^as Stateof Qihattisgarh Postfor order: 8 ^ °^ < Sd-/ Judge ^" \i'\' ••1*-1":' < n BB !• J^-^ffiS:i Blim HIWG3URTOFCMI-IATTIS6ARHATBILASPUR CP. Rriiision No;l»7/2006 Single Bench: 1-lon'bleSttri DMtp Roosotwb besUinukh, J. Sanjeev &jmar@ SanjuThakur' Versus State of ChhorM-isgdrh Shri Ajit Singh, lettmed counsel fj^' •theapplicemt. ShriAshish Shukla,©ovt.Advocd;tefor theState. ORDER (Passed on 8 ft~of May-2006) i Being oggrieved by the judgment dated 08-03-2006 detivered by Shri ©.LSonwani,Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Kabir Dhdm, KawaFdha in Criminat Appeal Number-05/2006 whereby the conviction of the oppellant under Secl'ions-420,467,468 of the IPC and •rtie sentence of rigorous impt'isonment for lyear and to a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of pcynient of fine to undergo additional r'gorous imprisonment for 15 doys under Seetion-420 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to a fineof Rs.2,000/-, in default of paym6nt of fine to unde^o additionttl' rigorous imprisonment for 1 month under S^ction-467 of IPC ond rigorous imprisonmentfor lyearand fineofRs.1,000/-, in defQultofpflyment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for t5 days under Section-468 of the IPC cniiarded by Shri 1-tarish j&imar Awasthi, Judicial AAflgistrate FiSstClass, Kawfflrdha (Kflbir&hain) in Criroinal Case'Number-230/2005 vide judgment datech 29-1i2-2005 was affirmect, the oppellont has preferred ihis Criminnl ftevision; Atl the sentences were brderedto run concurrently. f-rlf 'r" •S!:i hU ii'] lil -'i'" 2. In this Criminal Revision, it is not disputed that the tipplicant •^ ^ ; ^ , ^ T' ' is the son of co^<^vsed A^ok ^marTle^ur vAfo was oequitted by the leamed trial Judge of the aforesaid charges. Leamed counsel for -the applicont fairly conceded that all the Questioned signa'hjres Q-l to Q-29 on withdrawal forfts bear thesjgnorhjreoftheappltcaht Sanjeev Kumar who withdrew •the amounts inentioned m the withdrawal forms from the Zila S^hakari Kendriya Bonk Atoryadit, itK Rajnandgaonbetween29-02-20(X)%27-08-200L 3. Br'iefty stated the factual mcrtrix is that Shri R.P.SIwrma.Sub Enginner., Public Works ISepartrnerrt^ KflU^dha h^ a deposit of fts. 1 Lakh in the Swings Account Number-1253, tedger folio Number-367/4 in the aforesaid bank. He entrusted the pass book to Ashok Kumar Thakur for buying Nntional Swings Certificate. Ashok Kumar Thdkur did not retyrn the pass book to him ond incoUusion wi-th the applicant got the signatures of Shri ft.P.Sharma -forged pn withdrawat forins and withdrew a sum of fts.90,000/- from the afor-esaid account. In February-2001 when Shri R.P.Sharma needed money for marr-Kige of his daughter, he learnt on inakin9 enquiries that onty Rs.268A was lying in baldmce in hisaccount. FJJt. wcs lod9ed on 27-08-2001 videEx.P-19. Wlhdrawal forms Articte-1 to Article-29Wereseized by the police from bank. Speciflien writings of Shri R.P.Sharma, Ashok Kumar Thiikur and theapplicant were taken and sent for comparison to expert of Questioned &ocuments, Police Heodquarter, Raipyr wrfio vt^ ceport Ex.P-64 authontBtively opined that the signatures on withdrawal forms Q-3 to Q-6, Q-9 -to Q-39 ond Q-42 to Q-62 were not signed by Shri R.P.Sh'u'nw sin<je they did not match with hisspecimen sigrKrtures S-ltp 5-2fe 1-lqwever, it Wts nof possiible,//to express ony defmtte opinion '•^ ".••'. '••' ••': •'..: '^. . :• •' . ' . . . .'' • '..;- •]." '.^ :..;': regarding -the au-thorskip of tlie aforeSaict Questior«dJ5oeuinen*Siow^ ;H'^a •ffi:!l vswn w the basis of the available data. It was also opined that tfae Wittidrdwal form for R^35,000/-dated 29-02-2000 bearing signo^res of Shri R.P.Sharma <^1 to <^2, witl'tdni^l form dorted 13-04-2000 for Rs.3^100/- bearing signoitunes of Shri R.P.Shdrma as Q-7, withdr'awal fornideEtesel 22-04-2000 for RsA.OCK)/- bearing signatures of ^Shri ;R.P^hanma ^as Q-8, withdnnwal form ^dfffed 09-Q6-2000 for Rs.tQ^OO/- befiFmg signochjres of Shri R.P.Shotf-ma as Q-40 & Q-41 and wv^idM^ fwm dc^ed 27-Q&-20SM. fm Ks^O,000/-bearingagnaturesofShriR.P;Sh<irmai3sQ-63l-bQ-65 were signed by Slwi.R.P.Sharma since ^e signerturss matched with hisspecimensignatures. Itwasalsoopined that0-66to Q-tl4bejng the signatures on the back of the withdrawal forms were sigried by 1+ie applieant herein since they watched wtth his specimen si9natures A-ltoA-50. 4. The prpsecution exanmed as Inany as 14 witnesses. Relying^ upon 1+ie evidence led by the pFoSeai*ion, the leamed'trKtl Judge convicted and senterit^ thet^hce^^ffforesadh^ ground thatthe appticcmt regularly wi'thdrew mor»yfrom"riTe bankon the basis of withdrawal forms signed by Shri R.P.SI'iarma omd for thatFec®>nthe bohk afficials had trusted thcrt- fhe tronsactions of withdrcnmal by the appticant were genuine. The report of the Additional State Examiner of Questioned Docunants clearly revealedthatthewithdro^forins(^3to(3i-6,Q-9to Q-39 and 0-42to Q-62 were hot signe^ by Shri R.P.Sharma. It was djso established 1<iat tfife i^pNe^^ money from •Vhe bcnkon the basis of^wjlhclrowi^^n^du^^ a bearer of fte witl^Fa^t! foFm.Ebtoie?<plana^ given by the cppliisdmt as^l^w lii^ cai^ wrthdrowat forms ond -fe- luAiom 1'he ntoheyfc wds ^gt^^^^^g^^ •f .1 1 M ' -!!' : ;!..? i.fi^ ;''^f; 1 ! 1 a, rs 'i 1:!] i^- i.j j: Co-accused Ashok Kumar Thakur wasacquitted by the trial Court for want of any evidence fo ''ishoW-that he ever went to bank for withdrawal of the ampunts. The learned^ Sessions Judge agreeing with the findings recorded by'the learned trial Judge affirmedthe conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the applicont has at the ver/ outset submitted that he woyld not dispid^te that through withdrawal forms ^M Article-1 to Art'icle-29, the appticoint had withdrawn the amounts rnentioned therein as bearer from the bonk. It was contended that since the withdrawat torrns were gjven by his father Ashok Kumar Thakur to the applicant, he siinply went to -the bdnk and withdrew the umountand delivered the nioney to his father, Theapplicanthad •thus no fflen^/ieflthat the withdrawal forms were for9ed. Itwassalso ar9ued that there was no evidence to show that -riie applicont had forged the signatures of Shri R.P.Siarma on the withdrawal fQrms. The report of the Additional State Examiner for Questiohed Documents atso did notprove this fact.On these premises, it was wysd that conviction of the opplicant under Sections-420, 467 & 468 of -the IPC was wholly illegal andliable to be setaside. Relidnce was pkiced csr\ Ram NaroycM Poi^i Vs. C.B.I. reported in (200% 3 Supreme Court Cases 641 and Ksvidiem^nok Wwhritsiiwh Thakw Vs. State of ft/Aw^ reported in A.I.R.-1979 -Suprem®Court'- 1011. On the other hflmd, Shri Ashish Shukla, leamed 6oyt. Advocateargued insupport'of'tti^iinpugnedjudgment. ^ 6, Having consiclei'ed the rival submissions and the case fctw cited by learned counsel for 1'he parties, 'I haye perused the record carefully. Section-420 dedts with cheating cnd dishonestly inducing ]. ^ . ; ,;' .' , i, •,= delivery of property. The 'ofifence of dieating is mada of -two :t».:. . ' - ,.^;:; ,;, ., .. f ,i^K^sMl ingredients: deception of ony;person and froudulentty 6r dishoi'iieis$l'jK| IIB.l ai! •li!i l'i ia:ii Y (.: inducing that person to deliver omy property to any person or to I,,. ,. , ^ ^; consent that any person shall retairf any ppoperty. To put it differently, the irigredients of the offence are that •the person .'. -V : ; .' ' : •- : : ' - . deceivetiyiteliyers to someone a valuable security or property, that theperson so deceived wasTnduced to do so, that such ^rson acted on such inducement in consequence of his having been deceived by the accused ond that the accus^d acted fraudulently or dishonestly Mf . _. - . • , when so inducing the perspn. Ti( consti-tute 1+ie offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the decqition shoutd be by express words, but it may be by conduct or implied in the na-ture of the tronsact'ion itself. Section-467 retates to forgery of such documents as valuable securities and of o-ther documents mentioned. Section-468 deals withforgeryfor'thepurposeofdieating.Thieoffenceiscompleteas soon as -there was forgery wH+i a pfln'ticular intent. 7. The report of the Additional State Examiner for Questioned Documents Ex.P-64and •the testimpny of Shri R.P.SharmaPW-12 cnd Shri P.C.Trivedi PW-13 lewe no room for any doubt Ihat the withdrawtilformsQ-Sto 0-6,0-9 toQ-39, Q-42 to Q-62 were not signed by ShriRP.Sharma.It is not -the case of the opplictmt •that Shri R.P.Sharma had given the withdrmwal forms to him for encashment. Siniilarly, the abovementioned documentary nnd oral evidence leave no room for any doubt that the applicant Sanjeev Kumcr had withdrawn the amounts from bank on different dates after signing the withdrawal fo^ns vide Q-l, Q-2, Q-7, Q-8, Q-40, Q-41 & Q-63, G^-65. The applicont has also admitted this focct. It is thus proved beyond any ^iadow bf .doubt thot the applicont had wi-rtidrnwn the amounts frOnftheciccbunt of Shri R.P.ShflfnUiPW-1.2 in the Zila Sahakari KBndn^t,.Bank Afeayidit, Rajnahd9aon, crf't'ep signing the withdrawdl *¥Qrms on the back yide the alfcmgisaid; :W E.ili!{ ^TsS'^'^ IIIIM N11 IIEil: W w^ IBB^' ^(S'.i;- fllt BBI: lil'i! III- HI!iB: gBKE!!- H rS tl! i R lil;l !; •I "I JIJ &-- f v ^ ;''il. J' ." signatures. It was for 'the appliccntt ;1w show how I'le coroe jnto possession of ^e wi#Kirowal fornte. ^here is dlso no^ng on record to show that 1+ie appljcant had deliyered the inoney to ^iri R.P.ShanWLltisdsonot^ttaecdse^llwt^icont.T^ Shri Vijay Kumar 'ChflndRtmwnshi PW-9 also ^proves the •factum of withdpawal of the money from the Aank account of 5hn -R.P.SI'iarma *ti: ' ;1"' ' :, ;:;. ' :: .\ ':'::;::': PW-12 by-the appli<sQnt 5cn^ev Kumar by producmg withdrauial forms 8. The questiori' thufrarises: fo^riconsictepcrMon is whether the applicant had forged tha signatures of^ Sl'iri R.P.ShcB'mg on the withdronwal forms op not an<t if yes, wheEt- offences were prov&d against the appli.can*. tt is true 'tlwl^llie A(Nitional Sla ©«a^^ Shri P.C.Trivedl PW"t3 l^ not b^n abk Iweaqiress any opmion regcu^mg the ai^orship ofsg^ PW-12 on WithdrowoA fornts @-& t ^-6, Q-9 to Q-3?, and Q-42 t<» Q-62. Howeyer, sh'ice thfe^ e^ foct of withtirawalof theamountsfram thebenltaccountofSlwrR.P.Sh^ma by signinythe'iw^tlrowal-forffis'^ thebae^^^^^ •the oppticanl- to ^oi»how h®came i posassion of^A forms. So fw asth&aequMleAco-aecu^dAshokKumaffTt'^^ concemed, I haye pepused his s^cinien signatui'es Ex.P-58 to ?'-&3i There is not even an iottt^of^ doub^ ll^W^itted'co-^^used As^^ Kumar Thakur oould not| te^e; •forged the signffitures Tof Shri fcP^oaTiro sinceihe was;paroplegi&asisreyea testimony of Shrr RP.Shten^ Tht^ once Ihe fach^ of sgnii^i withdrawtl fnrms cs beSiwpMndmttitfcauNit'of the aniountajfr'om'-t'h®; account of Shri 1^P.Shai'(i^^ the B^licorot" Sar^ a^itted and o^^a pr^»^f(^it ^ Kumar -h> show how ke cam®in pos^sion of -rias wj|||^@g :::^":'::%-i8SB '^•'.^^il^^. S^Si^B B.;: Bl IMSl' e^ and 1^ whom he deliyer^ ^e money after withdri»»mgitfroin the bonk "through withdnnwl*forms os a 1^^ no macterial whcrt^oever is placed on record by theapplicarrt'.ttp^ snfely be drtiwn that it was theapplicant who forged thesignatui^es of Shri RP.Sharmaon'the ttithdntwdl forms and then withdrew the amount from Zila Sahotori Kendriya Bohk Ateryadit, ftajnandgaon by signing as a bearer. I hraye alfo minutely perused the specimen ^ ::..'' .'.'•'' . . ' " .'':'" • '.'"'-; ^' -,;- ... Signaturesof theapplicont Sanjeiev Kumarwho signedas R.P. Shannia vide Ex.P-52, P-53 and P-54. There js absolutely no doubt that it was the opplicant who forged the signatures of Shri R.P.Sharma and withdrew themoney from the Jsank. Theapplicant thus cheated by froudulently or djshonestly inducing -the bank outhorities to deliver the aniounts mentioned^in the withdrawal forms to the applicant while the appljcont knew that the signatures of Shri R.P.Sharma on the withdrawal forms were forged.sigiMctwes-. It is also established that the opplicant forged the withdrawal forms which were valuable securities and also committed the offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating. Thus, the offences under Section-420, 467, 468oftiieIPCareestablishedbeyonddoubtfl^insttheapplicant. 9. 1-loving thus consider®dthe material ayaitableon record.there isno itlegatityor manifesterror in the impugned Judgment. So 1w as the sentence awarded to the applicant by the leamed trial Judge is concerned, being atready lenient jt does not call for ony interference. Thus, no interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In -the result, 1+ie revision bemg devoid of meri't' is dismissed. 'm