Bangalore District Court
Central Police Station vs Unknown on 4 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF AUGUST, 2015
C.C. No.37721/2011
Present: SMT. HEMAVATHI, B.B.M., LL.B.,
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE
COMPLAINANT : Central Police Station
(State by Sr. A.P.P.)
V/s.
ACCUSED :
Shankar C @ Shankar N S/o.
Nagesh @ Chandrappa, Aged about
48 years, R/o. No.55, Sapthagiri
Layout, 2nd Cross, Nagasandra,
Near H.M. Layout, 8th Mile, Tumkur
Road, Bangalore, Permanent R/o.
Sarjapura Village, Lingasuru Taluk,
Raichur District.
(Reptd. by Sri. B.T.G, Advocate)
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT
OF OFFENCE : 20.01.2010
DATE OF ARREST
OF THE ACCUSED : 15.03.2010
OFFENCE ALLEGED : U/s.420 of IPC
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT
OF EVIDENCE : 05.04.2013
DATE OF CLOSING OF
EVIDENCE : 14.05.2015
2 C.C.No.37721/2011
OPINION OF THE JUDGE : Found not guilty
(HEMAVATHI)
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.
-: J U D G M E N T :-
The accused has been charge sheeted by the Sub
Inspector of Police, Central Police Station for the offence
punishable U/s.420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of case of the prosecution is that:
The accused had borrowed a loan of Rs.9,55,000-00 from
State Bank of Travancore, V.V. Puram, Bangalore for purchase
of car and purchased a car from Ravindu Toyota Motors Ltd.,
thereafter he failed to repay the loan amount and he neither
repaid the loan amount nor returned the car thereby cheated
the complainant/bank.
3. After receipt of complaint, the SHO of Central Police
Station set the law in motion and registered the case in crime
No.10/2010 and filed FIR to the court.
4. On 18.02.2010 the Investigating Officer had obtained
body warrant against the accused and accused was produced
under body warrant on 15.03.2010, he was enlarged on bail
and released from J.C. on 07.10.2013. After completion of the
investigation, charge sheet has been submitted. After perusing
the records, cognizance taken and this case has been registered
3 C.C.No.37721/2011
against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC.
Charge sheet copy furnished to him.
5. Charge framed against the accused, and its contents
read over him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
6. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused
examined nine witnesses as PW-1 to PW-9 and got marked
eight documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 and Ex.D-1 with sub
markings.
7. The statement U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused is
recorded. The accused denied the incriminating evidence
appeared against him and did not choose to adduce evidence.
8. Heard both side.
9. The following points arise for my consideration.
1) Whether the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt proves that the accused had borrowed
a loan of Rs.9,55,000-00 from State Bank of
Travancore, V.V. Puram, Bangalore for
purchase of car and purchased a car from
Ravindu Toyota Motors Ltd., thereafter he
failed to repay the loan amount and he
neither repaid the loan amount nor returned
the car thereby cheated the
complainant/bank and thereby the accused
has committed an offence punishable
U/s.420 of IPC?
2) What order or sentence?
10. My findings on the above points as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
4 C.C.No.37721/2011
REASONS
POINT NO.1:
11. PW-1 Yugandhar Reddy deposed that the accused is
the customer of State Bank of Travancore, Bangalore City
Branch, he is working from October 2009 to March 2011 as
Manager of the said bank and in the year 2008 the said bank
advanced car loan to the accused, he was supposed to submit
the Registration Certificate of the said car to their bank with
hypothecation, but he did not submit the registration
certificate, the accused was required to repay the loan in equal
monthly installments. For the security of the loan, the accused
had issued cheques, which were bounced for want of funds. In
the year 2010 they came across news published in Deccan
Herald, Tamil Daily Tanti and Kannada Daily Prajavani where it
is reported that accused had defrauded several banks to the
tune of Rs.5.53 crores. Immediately, he approached the
Chandra Layout Police Station to lodge the compliant, but they
advised him to lodge complaint before Central Police Station for
the point of jurisdiction. Hence, he lodged complaint as per
Ex.P-1. He further deposed that they had released loan of
Rs.9.55 lakhs for purchase of Toyota Innova Car, as on the date
of the complaint he was due of a sum of Rs.10,06,441-00 the
accused had cheated their bank. In the course of cross-
examination he admitted that the reason for filing this
complaint is the paper publication made against him and he
admitted that before sanctioning the loan they will verify all the
documents submitted by the borrower, in the instant case also
after verifying all the documents before advancing the loan,
5 C.C.No.37721/2011
usually in the vehicle loan they directly issue the pay order in
the name of company and in turn the company shall furnish
the vehicle documents to the bank. He deposed that they never
send their bank people with the borrower to track him to
produce the vehicle documents. He further deposed that he
does not know whether any notice is issued to the accused
regarding bouncing of the cheques. He admitted that he had
not issued notice to the accused, he also deposed that he
cannot say certainly whether the bank had taken any legal
action against the accused for bouncing of cheques and he
further deposed that though they tried to contact the accused
in the given address, accused was not found there, when they
enquired with the Ravindu Toyota, they informed that accused
had taken delivery of the vehicle with a promise to come back
and got register the vehicle. He admitted that they have
requested the police to assist in recovering the loan amount
from the accused and nowhere in the complaint, they have
prayed for taking action against the accused as per law. He
admitted that Ex.D-1 is the copy of loan application form
submitted by the accused and as per Ex.D-1 they had taken
personal guarantee of the wife of the accused as a collateral
security.
12. PW-2 Gopinath deposed that from 2008 to 2010 when
he was working as Marketing Manager of State Bank of
Travancore, V.V. Road, Chamarajpet, he knew the accused, in
the month of September 2008 he approached them for car loan,
he was running Garments Factory, at that time he had not
produced any documents. Subsequently, he produced the
6 C.C.No.37721/2011
documents on 17.10.2008, they visited the said factory at
Peenya, the accused produced the Surety Bio-data of his wife
and also produced quotation issued by the dealer for Toyota
Innova Car where the market value of the car is shown as
Rs.11.25 lakhs and after confirming the documents he
recommenced to sanction the loan. Thereafter loan was
sanctioned and accused purchased the car. The accused had
paid only one installment, thereafter he did not pay the loan
amount and the cheques issued by the accused were bounced.
He got registered the car temporarily, he did not get the
permanent registration number and he had cheated the bank
without informing the real facts after borrowing the loan. In the
course of cross-examination he deposed that the bank has
lodged complaint against the accused, he has not produced
original R.C. book and they have released the loan on
25.10.2008. He does not know when the car was registered
after they released the loan and he cannot say why they kept
quite more than two years. He does not know whether cheque
bounce case was registered against the accused. He deposed
that when he verified the documents, he found that documents
were correct. He further deposed that he does not know
whether they have filed suit for recovery of money. He further
deposed that the accused had cheated the bank without got
registering the said vehicle after borrowing the loan from the
bank.
13. PW-3 Ravindranath deposed that from May 2008 to
May 2011 he was working as Chief Manager of Loan Sanction
Division, State Bank of Travancore, V.V. Road, Chamarajpet he
7 C.C.No.37721/2011
had seen the loan application of the accused, after verifying all
the documents produced by him, he had sanctioned the loan
for purchase of car. Later he came to know that accused after
purchase of the car had not repaid the loan amount and
cheated them. In the course of cross-examination he deposed
that the documents submitted by the accused were found
correct. Since the accused had neither repaid the loan nor got
registered the car, they have registered the criminal case.
14. PW-4 Ajay T deposed that he was working as Deputy
Manager of Ravindu Toyota, in the year 2008 one Shankar C
came to their firm for purchase of car, they issued quotation,
price list and proforma of the vehicle. State Bank of Travancore
branch was issued a cheque as per Ex.P-5 to the company. The
accused had purchased the Toyota Innova car from their
company.
15. PW-5 Kalai Vendan deposed that in the year 2009 he
was working as Deputy Manager of State Bank of Travancore,
City Branch, Bangalore accused had borrowed a loan for
purchase of car in the year 2008, thereafter he did not repay.
After purchasing the car, he obtained temporary registration, he
did not get permanent registration. Though they have made
efforts to trace the said vehicle, they could not trace it in the
given address of the accused. In the course of cross-
examination he deposed that this case is filed for non-payment
of the loan amount and for recovery of said amount. He
admitted that if the permanent registration number is not
obtained within 30 days from the date of issuing the temporary
registration number, the said vehicle cannot be run on the
8 C.C.No.37721/2011
road. He further deposed that they have obtained cheque for
security of the said loan and they have presented the said
cheques for encashment. He deposed that they have not filed
cheque bounce case against the accused.
16. PW-6 D. Nagarajaiah deposed that on 20.01.2010
when he was working as PSI of Central Police Station, PW-1
lodged complaint as per Ex.P-1, at about 12-00 noon when he
was SHO, he received it and registered the case in Crime
No.10/2010, filed FIR to the court as per Ex.P-2.
17. PW-7 Teekesha deposed that since 15 years he is
running Auto Consultancy Agency and one Omprakash had
given Innova Car for sale, he purchased the same for Rs.5.50
lakhs and paid advance amount of Rs.1.50 lakhs, later he sold
the same to one Nagaraja. On 22.05.2011 police came to his
agency and asked him to produce the said car stating that it is
stolen. Hence, he brought it from Nagaraja and produced
before the police and it was seized by the police. In the course
of cross-examination he deposed that he cannot say the
registration number of the car sold to him by the Omprakash, it
had registration number and Omprakash had delayed to give
the records of the said car. He issued sale receipt for Rs.1.50
lakhs in respect of the said car. He further deposed that he
had sold the said car to his friend Nagaraja and he had not paid
balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs to the Omprakash.
18. PW-8 Srinivasa Murthy deposed that on 13.12.2013
when he was working as PSI of Central Police Station, he took
the case filed for further investigation from CW-13 and took the
9 C.C.No.37721/2011
accused who was in judicial custody under body warrant to the
police custody from the court, on enquiry the accused had
given voluntary statement stating that he had sold the car to
one Omprakash and when he enquired with Omprakash, he
came to know that he sold it to CW-7, he enquired with CW-7,
he came to know that the said car was near BDA Complex of
Jayanagara. Later he seized it presence of panchas and
conducted mahazar as per Ex.P-8. In the course of cross-
examination he deposed that he came to know that the accused
had cheated several persons in relation to the car within the
jurisdiction of different police stations, hence he arrested the
accused. On 25.02.2011 he seized the car and obtained the
signatures of the panchas. When he seized the car it had
temporary registration number, he came to know that the
accused had not repaid the loan borrowed from the bank for
purchase of said car. He further deposed that when he seized
the car one Teekesha was the owner of the said car.
19. PW-9 Muralidhar B.K. deposed that from June 2011
to September 2012 when he was working Police Inspector of
Central Police Station, in the month of November 2011 he
received the case filed from ASI Narasappa on completion of
investigation he submitted charge sheet against the accused.
20. Herein out of 12 witnesses the prosecution has
examined 8 witnesses. Among them PW-1 is the complainant
admittedly he was not present when the alleged loan
transaction took place, PW-2 was the Manager working when
the loan was sanctioned for purchase of said car to the
accused. PW-3 is the Chief Manager, who sanctioned the loan,
10 C.C.No.37721/2011
PW-5 is the Deputy Manager of the State Bank of Travancore
admittedly who was not present when the alleged transaction
took place. Ex.P-1 is the complaint which reveals that as per
the press report published on 17.01.2010, CW-1 had lodged
complaint to the police, this fact is also admitted by the PW-1 in
his cross-examination. Further Ex.P-1 reveals that since the
accused had not handed over the copies of the documents of
the vehicle to their bank and he has not paid even one
installment towards the said loan and cheques issued by him
towards installments were dishonored and car was not
permanently registered with the registration authority. They
have lodged complaint against the accused alleging that he has
intentionally cheated the bank by not paying the installments.
Admittedly the loan amount sanctioned for purchase of the car
to the accused was directly paid to the Ravindu Toyota Motors
Ltd., where the accused had purchased the car, when it is so
the bank should have informed the company to send the R.C.
book and other documents of the said car to their bank or they
would have moved RTO office to get the R.C. book of the said
vehicle. It is admitted by the PW-1 that when they directly
issued pay order in the name of company, in turn the company
will furnish the vehicle documents to the bank and they never
send their bank people with the borrower to get the documents.
21. Further it is admitted by the PW-1 to PW-3 that they
have obtained surety for repayment of the said loan and also
they have obtained cheques for collateral security. But
admittedly they have not filed any suit for recovery of said loan
amount. PW-7 deposed that he purchased the Innova Car from
11 C.C.No.37721/2011
one Omprakash, he never stated that he purchased the car
from the accused. Even PW-8 admitted that one Omprakash
sold the car to the Teekesha, no document has been produced
by the Investigating Officer to show that the accused had sold
the said car to the Omprakash. As deposed by the PW-1 to PW-
3 the said car was temporarily registered and it was not
permanently registered, but PW-7 says that it had a registration
number, PW-8 stated that it was temporarily registered. The
Investigating Officer has not produced any material to show
that since when accused had not repaid the loan and no
document has been produced to show that the cheques issued
by the accused for collateral security of the car was bounced.
When such being the fact how the Investigating Officer has
come to a conclusion that the accused had cheated the bank
without repaying the loan is not explained by the Investigating
Officer. Even to show that the loan account of the accused due
to non-payment remained as non-performing asset as stated in
Ex.P-1, the complainant has not produced any material along
with the complaint. Therefore, the allegations in the complaint
that the accused had cheated the bank cannot be accepted.
Without collecting the proper evidence, the Investigating Officer
had filed charge sheet, so the investigation made by the
Investigating Officer itself is a defective.
22. On perusal of cumulative effect of the prosecution
evidence, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the
guilt alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Hence, this point is answered in the Negative.
12 C.C.No.37721/2011
POINT NO.2:
23. For the reason stated above, I proceed to pass the
following order;
ORDER
The accused is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC.
The accused is set at liberty and his bail bond and surety bonds stand cancelled. (Dictated to the stenographer, it is typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 4th day of August, 2015) (HEMAVATHI) XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW-1 : Yugandhar Reddy PW-2 : Gopinath PW-3 : Ravindranath PW-4 : Ajay T PW-5 : D. Nagarajaiah PW-6 : Kalai Vandan PW-7 : Teekesha PW-8 : Srinivasa Murthy PW-9 : Muralidhar B.K. Documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Complaint
Ex.P-2 : Account Opening Form
Ex.P-3 : Quotation
Ex.P-4 : Indent Sanction Letter
Ex.P-5 : Cheque
Ex.P-6 : Photograph
Ex.P-7 : FIR
13 C.C.No.37721/2011
Ex.P-8 : Mahazar
Ex.D-1 : Copy of Loan Application
Witnesses examined for the accused:
-NIL-
Documents marked for the accused:
-NIL-
(HEMAVATHI) XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE