Crl. Revision No. 2299 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 2299 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 27.09.2011 Jang Singh ....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) The accused-petitioner Jang Singh had forged the revenue record and obtained a loan from the bank, therefore, he was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, vide judgment dated 06.04.2010 had convicted the accused as under:- 1. Under Section 467 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 ½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/-. 2. Under Section 471 & : Rigorous imprisonment 120-B IPC for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. 3. Under Section 420 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. Crl. Revision No. 2299 of 2011 (O&M) 2 His appeal was also dismissed on 06.09.2011. The factual matrix of the case is that the Manager, State Bank of India, Jaitu, vide his letter to the SHO Police Station, Jaitu, had disclosed that the accused took a term loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for purchase of a tractor and Rs. 50,000/- as crop loan limit on 09.11.2000 from the complainant bank, on the basis of copy of Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari dated 27.10.2000, issued by Kewal Krishan, Patwari. On the basis of these documents, the accused mortgaged 32 Kanals of land out of 71 Kanals 9 Marlas, but thereafter he again obtained a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 12.02.2001 from the said bank for purchase of tractor driven combine, while mortgaging 28 Kanals of land out of his ownership, on the basis of copy of same Jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari and mutation certificate, issued by Kewal Krishan, Patwari. The Bank, while trusting the accused, parted with the money for purchase of combine. Though, Jang Singh-accused had projected to have purchased the combine from M/s Pal Industries, Bathinda and Sukhdev Singh, proprietor of M/s Pal Industries, Bathinda got received the payment of combine through demand draft No.26443 dated 12.02.2001, but said Sukhdev Singh did not submit the receipt of draft and copy of bill regarding combine supplied to Jang Singh. The complainant further submitted that on taking the charge as Branch Manager, he verified the records. During verification, it came to light that Jang Singh, at the time of taking the tractor loan and the crop loan, had produced the forged copy of Jamabandi along with the other documents as he had already mortgaged the said land with State Bank of India, Agriculture Development Branch Muktsar and had Crl. Revision No. 2299 of 2011 (O&M) 3 also taken a crop loan limit from Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank, Muktsar. It also came to light that Sukhdev Singh as well as Kewal Krishan, Patwari, did not make any entry regarding the previous mortgages, forged the documents, as the same were not according to the original and the documents were used by the petitioner in order to deceive the bank. As such, the accused had committed cheating in connivance with each other. On the aforesaid allegations, case was registered. Both the accused were charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. There is no dispute that petitioner-Jang Singh did not avail the loan amount, as referred to above. From the evidence, led by the prosecution, it is also fully established that he availed loan on two different occasions and submitted copy of Jamabandi at the time of availing first loan, Ex.PW5/V and Ex.PW5/X. At the time of availing second loan of Rs.3,00,000/-, he submitted Jamabandi, Ex.PW5/7, which was not correct, as per the original because there was no entry or note regarding earlier loan taken by Jang Singh and there was no entry of loan availed by him from the Primary Agriculture Development Bank, Muktsar. It is not the case of the accused that at the time of submitting Jamabandi Ex.PW5/7, he had informed the bank about the earlier loan. Thus, Crl. Revision No. 2299 of 2011 (O&M) 4 by making concealment of facts by way of supplying forged copies of the Jamabandi, he thereby induced the bank to part with the loan, otherwise the bank, if apprised of the correct situation, would not have advanced such a heavy loan to him. Thus, the accused, by misrepresenting the fact that there was no such loan against him, obtained the second loan. The contention made by learned counsel for the accused that Ram Nath Gupta (PW-3) and Manohar Pardeep Goyal, Advocate (PW-4) had given their respective legal opinions regarding his title and on the basis of their opinion, the loan was duly sanctioned, has no force, as both the above said witnesses have specifically and categorically stated that they gave their opinion on the basis of the documents, produced before them. The Courts below appear to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. No such illegality, much less perversity, has been shown so as to disturb the said findings. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed in limine. (A.N.JINDAL) 27.09.2011 JUDGE ajp