IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3103 OF 2008 Mr.Jitendra Pitamber Suralkar .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharahstra .. Respondent Mr.V.N.Tayade for the Applicant. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 15th September 2008. : 15th September 2008. : 15th September 2008. P.C.: . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. The applicant is charged for the offences punishable under section 467, 468, 471, 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused No.1 is one Pradeep Sakpal and the accused No.2 is the father of said Pradeep Sakpal. The applicant is a brother-in-law of the said Pradeep Sakpal. The allegation of the prosecution is that accused No.2 Vishnu Sakpal was the owner of a flat in Co-operative society. The allegation is that his son Pradeep Sakpal (accused No.1) impersonated himself as one Pradeep Vishnu Mulye and applied to Indian Overseas Bank for grant of loan to purchase the said flat. It is alleged that the accused fabricated the documents and obtained loan from the said bank in the sum of Rs.13,40,000/-. The loan amount was disbursed by bank in favour of the 2nd accused. The allegation in short is that though the accused No.1 is the son of accused No.2, he represented : 2 : before the bank that his name was Pradeep Mulye and he that was desirous of purchasing the flat from the accused No.2. The allegation against the petitioner is that knowing fully well that the real name of the accused No.1 was Pradeep Sakpal and not Pradeep Mulye, the applicant executed various documents and guaranteed repayment of loan advanced in the name of Pradeep Mulye. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that in good faith the applicant agreed to guarantee the loan repayable by his brother-in-law and at the time of signing document as a guarantor, he was not expected to take inspection of all the documents executed by his brother-in-law and therefore the applicant was never aware of the fact that his brother-in-law impersonated himself as one Pradeep Mulye. He submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant received any consideration from the co-accused. He submitted that liability of the applicant will be at highest a civil liability for making repayment of loan in the event the borrower commits a default. 3. The application made by the applicant for discharge has been rejected by the trial Court and the said order has been confirmed in revision. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the : 3 : applicant is that the application was rejected by passing a cryptic and non speaking order and the Sessions Court has also not considered the crux of the matter that the applicant was only a guarantor. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the chargesheet. The accused No.1 is the brother in law of the applicant. While obtaining loan, the brother in law of the applicant impersonated himself as Pradeep Mulye. Admittedly, the applicant has signed a Deed of Guarantee by which he guaranteed repayment of loan by his brother-in-law. The allegation of the prosecution is that the applicant was fully aware of the real name of the accused No.1 as the said accused is his brother-in-law. The question to be considered at the stage of hearing of the application of discharge was that whether there was sufficient material to proceed against the applicant. After having perused the documents forming part of the chargesheet, I find that courts below have not committed any error. Application is rejected. It is however made clear that observations made in this order are for limited purpose of discharge and all contentions of the applicant at the time of trial are expressly kept open. (A.S.Oka,J)