IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A. No. 90 of 1994 Judgment reserved on: 3.9.2008 Date of Decision: September 5 , 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus. Jagan Nath & others .. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellant(s): Mr. R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate for respondent 1. Mr. Sanjiv Sood Advocate vice Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate for respondent 2. __________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Solan, HP dated 1.9.1993 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story in brief is that respondent No.2 R.S.Somra alias Ram Sarup Somera, was the Manager of the Punjab National Bank, Subathu. It is alleged that respondent No.1 Jagan Nath conspired with Manager and respondent No.3 - 2 - Pal Singh and a number of loans were got sanctioned in the name of fictitious persons. In all these loans Jagan Nath Sharma stood guarantee for repayment of the loans. According to the prosecution, respondent No.2 did not get the loanees identified and he conspired with other two accused and sanctioned the loans without identifying the loanees. It is further alleged that the loans were sanctioned on the basis of fictitious and forged documents. It would be pertinent to mention that the entire case of the prosecution hinges around three allegedly fictitious loans granted in favour of Jagat Singh, Mathu Ram and Gopal Singh. As far as loan case of Jagat Singh is concerned, the case of the prosecution was that there was no person by the name of Jagat Singh son of Bachan Singh in village Plastta. The prosecution itself produced one Jagat Singh son of Laxman Singh as PW6. He is a resident of village Plastta. In his statement, this witness stated that there is no other person by the name of Jagat Singh in his village. He further states that he had taken two loans amounting to Rs. 4500/- from the Punjab National Bank. He has categorically stated that the loan which is alleged to have been advanced in the name of a fictitious person was taken by him in the year 1984. In cross- examination, he has admitted his signatures on all the loan - 3 - documents. Therefore, the report of the Examiner of Questioned Documents loses significance. Jagat Singh admits that he applied for the loan and received the loan amount. Therefore, it is clear that the loan was applied for by him and the loan was disbursed to him. The next disputed loan case is of Mathu Ram. In the complaint, it is alleged that the loan is purported to have been taken by Mathu Ram son of Ram Dass of village Badhol and the said person has not actually taken this loan. Mathu Ram was examined as PW3. He admits that he had taken the loan for purchasing goats and sheep. On the loan documents Ex.PW1/E and PW1/F, it is mentioned that the loan has been taken for the purpose of running the business of blacksmith. It is pertinent to note that the complainant Shri P.C.Kaith, who was subsequent Manager of the bank admits that Mathu Ram son of Ram Dass had taken only one loan from the Punjab National Bank. He had re-paid various amounts on four occasions in this loan account which amounts were deposited prior to the filing of the complaint. Mathu Ram has also admitted that he has deposited the said amount in this loan account. The prosecution has failed to prove that there are two loan accounts in the name of Mathu Ram. Mathu Ram admits that he has taken the loan and has also re-paid a large portion thereof. - 4 - The last loan relates to Gopal Singh. This loan has been taken for running a Karyana business. According to the prosecution, it is respondent No.3/ accused Pal Singh who has taken this loan. The explanation of respondent No.3 is that he is known both by the name of Pal Singh as well as Gopal Singh. He admits having taken the loan in question. Even the complainant PW1 admitted that the name of the father of accused Pal Singh as Hira Singh and in the loan document Gopal Singh is also shown as son of Hira Singh resident of Mandesar. The complainant also admits that one loan amount was disbursed in favour of Pal Singh or Gopal Singh. It is obvious that this loan was taken by the accused No.3 Pal Singh but in his alias name as Gopal Singh. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the loans in question were taken in the name of fictitious persons. All the persons have admitted taking loans and two of them have admitted their signatures on the loan documents. Keeping in view the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. September 5, 2008 ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. s. - 5 -