HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1520 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused, Pullagura Jaya Prasad, assailing the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2002 dated 24-08-2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, confirming the conviction imposed by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offences under Sections 471 & 420 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: On 28-12-1998 at 11-00 AM, PW.11 received a report from PW.1 stating that accused created the salary certificate of PW.2 and also forged the signatures of PWs.2 and 6 to show that PW.2 stood as guarantor for a loan and presented the forged documents in Vyshya Bank Housing Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Bank”) for the purpose of drawing a house loan for PWs.5 and 12. Thus, accused cheated the Bank. Based on the complaint, police of Governorpet (Law & Order) Police Station, Vijayawada, registered a case, investigated into and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 464, 471 & 420 IPC. 3. For the charges framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 464, 471 & 420 IPC, he pleaded not guilty. 4. To substantiate its case, prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-18. On behalf of the accused no evidence was adduced. 5. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the incriminating material against him in the evidence of prosecution. 6. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 465, 471 & 420 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him for the same to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under each count and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for each offence and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month under each count directing to run all the sentences concurrently. Challenging the same, accused preferred appeal and the same was allowed in part by the lower appellate Court acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 465 IPC and confirming the conviction for the offences under Sections 471 and 420 IPC while reducing the sentence to six months under each count from one year and confirming the fine of Rs.2,000/- for each offence. Aggrieved of the conviction and sentence, this revision is filed by the accused. 7. PW.1 is the Administrative Officer of the Bank at the relevant time. According to him, he received a letter from the Bank for verification of signatures of two sureties, who stood as sureties for PW.12 for housing loan. On that, they verified the signatures and also the Accounts Officer and addressed a letter to the Bank stating that the signatures are forged. Then, they addressed a letter to the police stating that accused has forged the signatures of one P. Satyanarayana, Junior Stenographer (PW-2), and several others. 8. Evidence of PW.2, Stenographer in VUDA at the relevant time, is that, Vice Chairman, VUDA, called him to his office and asked him as to whether he stood as surety for anyone and he answered that he did not stand as surety for anyone, but accused stood as surety for PW.12. But, as his (PW.2) name is shown as second surety for the loan of PW.12, he suspected the accused and then his office gave a complaint to the police against the accused. Thus, his evidence is that he never stood as surety for PW.12. 9. Evidence of PW.3, Junior Assistant in VUDA at the relevant time, is that he knows PW.2 and accused as accused is working in their office as typist. PW.2 received a notice from the Bank and then he (PW.3) came to know that accused committed forgery of the signatures of PW.2. 10. Evidence of PW.4 is that he worked as Senior Assistant in VUDA, he knows the accused, who is his colleague as typist, and that in several chit transactions, he stood as surety to the accused and as the accused failed to pay the amounts, the same were recovered from his salary. 11. Evidence of PW.5 is that he applied for loan in the Bank and availed it and one Prasad, who is working in VUDA, stood as surety to him and that accused is not that Prasad. This witness was treated hostile. 12. Evidence of PW.6 is that he worked as Administrative Officer in VUDA. He knows accused, who was working as typist in his office. In 1997, officials of the Bank came to him and asked him to identify the signatures on the salary certificates belonging to PW.2 and the accused and he identified the signatures on them as not of himself and also on Ex.P-3, solvency certificate, which he never issued. 13. PWs.7 to 9 are the mediators, who turned hostile. PW.10 is the handwriting expert, whose evidence is not much relevant, as the accused is acquitted for the charge under Section 465 IPC by the lower appellate Court. PW.11 is the investigating officer. 14. PW.12 is the main witness, who has taken loan for whom accused stood as surety and supplied forged salary certificates of himself and PW.2. Her evidence is that she took housing loan from the Bank and she knows accused as he helped her in taking loan from the Bank. In the cross-examination, she stated that she does not know the sureties except accused and he stood as surety to her and provided another surety. Thus, evidence of PW.12 clearly shows that accused stood as surety and provided another surety for her for availing housing loan from the Bank. 15. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that accused is falsely implicated in the case and that there is no material on record to show he has forged the signatures of PWs.2 and 6, created the salary certificate of himself and PW.2 and has presented the forged documents to the Bank, as such, he is entitled to acquittal. 16. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the material on record especially evidence of PW.12 clearly shows that accused has produced the false certificates before the Bank. 17. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this revision ? 18. There is no serious dispute about the signatures of PWs.2 and 6 being forged and salary certificates being produced before the Bank. 19. Evidence of PWs.2, 6 and 12 clearly established that accused forged the signatures of PWs.2 and 6. Accused himself stood as surety for PW.12 for drawing housing loan and produced false surety certificates showing as if PW.2 stood as another surety for the loan of PW.12. Evidence of PW.12 clearly shows the same. It was elicited in her cross-examination that accused stood as surety for the loan and he provided another surety, which clearly shows that by producing forged salary certificates, accused manipulated the loan transaction. Thus, Ex.P-3 salary certificate of PW.2 is produced by the accused showing as if it is issued by PW.6 and as if PW.2 stood as surety. 20. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that there is no link to show that accused was the person that has produced false salary certificate of PW.2. But, evidence of PW.12 is the link and in fact it is pivotal, as according to her evidence, it is the accused that has manipulated the loan transaction. PW.12 is not shown to be having any kind of enmity against the accused to say that she has falsely implicated the accused in this case. 21. There is not even a suggestion as to why PW.12 would falsely implicate the accused in a case of this nature. It is a case where PW.12 was helped by the accused for getting housing loan, as such, in natural course she would be thankful to him and would not implicate him in false case. For these reasons, evidence of PW.12 cannot be disbelieved and her evidence, as already referred, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in view of the undisputed material of Ex.P-3 being forged certificate as the evidence of PWs.2 ad 6 is that it was not issued by the concerned. 22. In the circumstances, I see absolutely no merits in this revision, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. 23. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 24, 2010. PV