1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.581 OF 1991 Shriram Ghashiram Soni, ] Age : 51 years, ] R/o : 721. Shalina Bhavan, ] Appellant Naik Road, Mahal, Nagpur ] ( Ori. accused) (At present in Yerwada Central ] Prison, Pune) ] Vs. The State of Maharashtra ] Respondent ] Mrs. Anita A. Agarwal, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. P.P. Bhosale, APP for State-respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 30th August, 2010 JUDGMENT : 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges his conviction under Sections 467, 468, 465, 471 and 420 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case, the manner in which the crime was investigated and the trial therein conducted reveal a shocking state of affairs. On 4th April 1988, a person by name J.B. Jadhav presented 23 bogus treasury cheques purportedly issued to the Executive “ Engineer, D.R.W. Irrigation Division No.7, Pune for payment to State ” Bank of India, Main Branch, Pune. All the cheques were dated 30th 2 March 1988. The cheques indicated that there was a stamp on the reverse side of each cheque endorsing that the Executive Engineer had authorised J.B. Jadhav , described as cashier to receive the “ ” amount under the cheques on his behalf. After the cheques went through the routine procedure of the bank, payment thereunder totalling to an amount of Rs.16,54,130/- was given to J.B. Jadhav. He has since been absconding and not surfaced till date. On 4th April 1988, all 23 cheques were sent to the Treasury office along with the list. On 19th April 1988, Treasury office informed the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Pune that there is no such office as Executive “ Engineer, D.R.W. Irrigation Division No.7 at Pune and that no ” cheques as claimed were issued by the Treasury office, Pune. The Bank was also informed that the numbers of all the 23 cheques did not tally with the treasury cheque numbers. Then on 21st April 1988, the Bank filed complaint to the Police, which was registered vide C.R. No.135 of 1988. After initial investigation by the local Police, the investigation came to be transfered to C.I.D. (Crime) on 28th June 1988. The Investigating Officer (PW-15), investigated into the crime and arrested the appellant on 11th April 1989, as the person who had signed the cheques and put an the endorsement on the reverse side of the cheque. The investigation conducted by PW-15 consisted of 3 recording the statements of eight bank employees being PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-11 and three persons from the Treasury office i.e. PW-5, PW-10, PW-12, a person from the Printing Press at Yerwada and lastly State Examiner of Documents for his opinion on the handwriting and signatures on the cheques. The evidence of PW-4, the person from Yerwada Printing Press, established that the cheques presented to the bank were not genuine treasury cheques and the same were bogus. However, apparently no investigation into the printing of the cheques was done by C.I.D. (Crime). 3. After the appellant was arrested in the crime, the specimens of his handwriting and signatures were obtained by C.I.D. and sent along with cheques in dispute to PW-14, State Examiner of Documents, who opined that specimen signatures of the appellant and his specimen handwriting tallied with the signatures and handwriting on the cheques. On the basis of the evidence of the handwriting expert alone, the appellant came to be convicted by the impugned judgment and order and sentenced to various imprisonments as provided in the order. 4. Mrs. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is not even an iota of evidence to connect the appellant to the 4 offence in the case. She submits that the evidence of PW-1 to PW-12 merely establishes that bogus treasury cheques drawn in favour of a person whose office is nonexistent, had been presented to the State Bank of India and the payments released by the bank to a person by name J.B. Jadhav totalling to Rs.16,54,130/-. The evidence of these witnesses does not establish any link between the appellant and the offence committed. With the help of learned counsel for the appellant, I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and perused the depositions of the witnesses. The prosecution has examined two Investigating Officers, PW-14, Mohammed Chand Mulani and PW-15, Ashok Laxmanrao Gaikwad. Perusal of the evidence of PW-14 shows that there was hardly any effective investigation done by him. He had merely recorded statements of bank employees, seized the cheques under panchanama and recorded statements of Treasury Officer. Thereafter the investigation has been transferred to C.I.D. (Crime). The transfer of the investigation to C.I.D. (Crime) also did not result into any effective investigation. PW-15, the Investigating Officer, who completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet, deposed that he had recorded statements of binder of cheques at Yerwada, Treasury Clerk and arrested the applicant on 11th April 1989. This witness does not even state as to 5 why he arrested the appellant in the crime in this case. The cross- examination of this witness shows that he had obtained specimen signatures of the appellant and his handwriting for the purpose of comparing the same with the disputed signatures and the handwriting. Surprisingly he had taken as many as 156 specimen signatures as of J.B. Jadhav and 132 specimen signatures as of the Executive Engineer from the appellant. The time taken for this exercise was from 12.30 noon to 2.50 pm. Mrs. Agarwal, submits that the appellant was made to copy the signatures repeatedly until the copy resembled the signatures on the cheques in dispute and thereafter the signatures came to be forwarded as specimen signatures along with the disputed signatures to the State Examiner of Documents for his opinion. This is indeed a strange and shocking way of creating the evidence to suit the prosecution. There is not even a whisper in the evidence of Investigating Officer that as to how he reached to the appellant during the course of investigation. It is not known as to who had named the appellant as the It is not known as to who had named the appellant as the perpetrator of crime in this case. The record shows that the perpetrator of crime in this case. The record shows that the appellant had been tortured at the hands of Police. He had also appellant had been tortured at the hands of Police. He had also complained of the torture after being released on bail. In the entire complained of the torture after being released on bail. In the entire evidence, there is nothing whatsoever to connect the appellant to the evidence, there is nothing whatsoever to connect the appellant to the 6 crime in the case. The learned trial Judge has completely erred in crime in the case. The learned trial Judge has completely erred in overlooking this aspect of the matter and convicting the appellant overlooking this aspect of the matter and convicting the appellant only on the basis of the evidence of the handwriting expert. In the only on the basis of the evidence of the handwriting expert. In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant cannot stand on any circumstances, the conviction of the appellant cannot stand on any count whatsoever. The appeal, therefore is allowed. The impugned count whatsoever. The appeal, therefore is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 26 judgment and order dated 26thth September 1991 passed by the learned September 1991 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune is set aside. The appellant, Shriram Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune is set aside. The appellant, Shriram Ghashiram Soni, r/o 721, Shalini Bhavan, Naik Road, Mahal, Nagpur Ghashiram Soni, r/o 721, Shalini Bhavan, Naik Road, Mahal, Nagpur (At present in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune) is acquitted of the (At present in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune) is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 465, 471, 420 read with 34 offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 465, 471, 420 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. His bail bond stands cancelled. Indian Penal Code. His bail bond stands cancelled. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J) (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)