Punjab-Haryana High Court
Crr-1051-2013 (O&M) vs State Of Punjab on 12 December, 2013
CRR-1051-2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRR-1051-2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.12.2013
Surinder Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
2. CRR-1337-2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.12.2013
Piara Lal ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRR No. 1051 of 2013.
Mr. Prashant Vashisth, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRR No. 1337 of 2013.
Mr. Mikhail Kad, AAG, Punjab.
R.P. NAGRATH, J.
By this common order CRR No. 1051 of 2013 and CRR No. 1337 of 2013 arising out of FIR No. 116 dated 30.07.2010 are being decided.
Jitender Kumar 2013.12.19 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1051-2013 -2-
2. There were three accused, including Surinder Singh petitioner in CRR No. 1051 of 2013, Piara Lal petitioner in CRR No. 1337 of 2013. The third accused Bahadur Singh also faced trial alongwith the petitioners for offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. All the accused were convicted of the charges and awarded appropriate sentences, but Bahadur Singh has not challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence.
3. The prosecution story that emerged during the trial is, that Surinder Singh petitioner in CRR No. 1051 of 2013, was holding account No. 16937 in Allahabad Bank Maqsudan, Jalandhar. The account opening form of Surinder Singh is Ex. PW-1/3. Surinder Singh introduced Bahadur Singh co-accused as Jugraj Singh son of Balwant Singh to the Bank and on his introduction, account number 18955 in the name of Jugraj Singh was opened on 16.10.2006 vide application Ex. PW-1/1. The above documents have been proved in the statement of PW-3 Joginder Singh Sandhu who remained posted as Manager of this branch of the Bank from the years 2004 to 2008.
4. It was found that Bahadur Singh son of Darbara Singh resident of village Hazaran, District Jalandhar impersonated before the Bank as Jugraj Singh for opening account in the Bank. The above account holder to be referred hereinafter as Bahadur Singh, applied to the Bank for obtaining agricultural service loan to the tune of ` 7 lacs in November/December, 2006 and produced a guarantor in the name of Balwant Singh son of Karam Singh which was also a fake name. From the particulars of the persons mentioned in the account opening form Jitender Kumar 2013.12.19 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1051-2013 -3- Ex. PW1/1 and the guarantee deed of Balwant Singh Ex. PW2/E it is clear that the guarantor purported to be the father of loanee has the same residential address as that of the loanee. It was found during investigation that Piara Lal in CRR No. 1337 of 2013 impersonated as Balwant Singh. The loanee furnished documents of title i.e. revenue record of jamabandi in proof of ownership of land in the name of Jugraj Singh and also lease deeds/patanamas Ex. PW-2/C and Ex. PW-2/D of certain other land in order to show that loanee was a sound person capable to repaying the loan amount. On the basis of these documents Mr. R.P. Goel, Advocate of the Bank gave report Ex. PW-1/10 certifying that the loanee has clear, valid and unassailable market title in the property for creating mortgage by deposit of title deed etc. All these documents of title were also found fake. The loanee paid two installments of ` 15,000/- on 13.07.2007 and ` 20,000/- on 30.11.2007 towards loan but failed to repay rest of the amount. When Bank officials visited the house of loanee at the address furnished in the documents, it was found that these persons were not living there. This fraud came to the knowledge of PW-1 Des Raj Sharma Senior Manager of the Bank who joined this branch after the transfer of PW-3.
5. A complaint was made to the police and FIR Ex. PW-1/B was registered. On completion of investigation the challan was presented against the petitioners and Bahadur Singh co-accused.
6. All the three accused were served the charges for offences punishable for offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners and Bahadur Singh for various terms and imposition of fine thereunder. Jitender Kumar 2013.12.19 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1051-2013 -4-
7. Both the petitioners and Bahadur Singh filed appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence and it was held that Bahadur Singh by impersonating himself as Jugraj Singh obtained loan of ` 7 lacs which he never repaid. He was assisted by Surinder Singh and Piara Lal petitioners. It was found that Surinder Singh introduced a fake customer to the Bank for opening the loan account and Piara Lal petitioner impersonated himself as Balwant Singh (guarantor). It was also held that Bahadur Singh accused produced record of fake jamabandies, forged and fabricated lease deeds and mortgage deed to dupe the bank of a huge sum of ` 7 lacs. Learned Appellate Court altered the conviction and sentence qua the petitioners as under:-
U/s 419 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years.
read with
Section 120-
B IPC
U/s 465 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine ` 1500/-, read with in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for Section 120- one month.
B IPC U/s 467 read Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine ` 1500/-, with Section in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 120-B IPC one month.
U/s 468 read Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine ` 1500/-, with Section in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 120-B IPC one month.
U/s 471 read Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine ` 1500/-, with Section in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 120-B IPC one month.
8. The Appellate Court has awarded the sentence of 3 years undergo rigorous imprisonment under Section 465 read with Section 120- B IPC, which deserves to be corrected as the maximum imprisonment provided under Section 465 IPC is imprisonment of either description to two years.
Jitender Kumar2013.12.19 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1051-2013 -5-
9. The petitioners were present before the Appellate Court and taken into custody to undergo appropriate sentences whereas Bahadur Singh was not present and direction was issued to arrest and send him to jail to serve the sentences awarded to him.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State counsel and carefully gone through the record of trial Court.
11. The evidence led by prosecution in support of the charges against the petitioners is quite convincing and cogent. The Courts below have correctly and in the right perspective analyzed the evidence led in support of the charges and there is no scope of interference in those concurrent findings in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
12. PW-3 Joginder Singh Sandhu was the Branch Manager of Bank when the loan was sanctioned. PW-3 testified that Surinder Singh petitioner was already holding an account in the bank and the account opening form bears his photograph. There was no challenge to the above evidence from the petitioner. The witness further stated that Piara Lal petitioner impersonated as Balwant Singh and stood guarantor vide credit information Ex. PW-1/5. This document bears the photograph of Piara Lal.
13. PW-6 Kewal Singh is the resident of village Hazaran. He went to the Bank during investigation of the case and identified the photograph pasted on the loan papers which belongs to Bahadur Singh of his village. PW-6 remained sarpanch of the village. In the cross- examination PW-6 stated that he has never seen any person of the name of Jugraj Singh in his village.
14. PW-7 Kanshi Ram resident of village Jandu similarly Jitender Kumar 2013.12.19 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1051-2013 -6- identified the photograph of Piara Lal on the loan documents (Ex. PW- 1/5) which in fact is the credit information purported to be executed by Balwant Singh. Nothing could be brought in the cross-examination of this witness to challenge the above statement.
15. An attempt was made by the defence to suggest that any other person could paste the photograph of petitioner Piara Lal on the guarantee document. This defence could not be substantiated more particularly as the seal has been put on the photograph and the document in such a way that there was not possibility of pasting photograph of another person at the subsequent stage. The defence was unable to challenge the factum that Surinder Singh petitioner who was holding an account with the Bank had introduced Bahadur Singh as Jugraj Singh and with his introduction that the whole fraud originated. Without his introduction it was not possible to open a fake account.
16. When CRR No. 1337 of 2013 of Piara Lal was listed on 25.04.2013, learned counsel for this petitioner did not press the challenge to convictions on merits and confined his argument only qua quantum of sentence.
17. The only possible contention of petitioner Surinder Singh could be to challenge the allegation that he introduced another person as Jugraj Singh while opening the account. For this purpose, the defence specifically sought time on 22.02.2012 before the trial Court to examine the expert to compare the signatures. An application was also filed before the trial Court on 29.02.2012 to take photographs of the signatures of petitioner Surinder Singh and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor made a statement that he has no such objection. The application was Jitender Kumar 2013.12.19 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1051-2013 -7- allowed and the private expert of petitioner Surinder Singh took photographs and the expert sought adjournment to prepare his report. The case was fixed for examining the handwriting expert in defence, but after a couple of adjournments the defence evidence was closed without examining the expert.
18. PW-2 was posted in this Bank as Senior Manager and the documents of loan were signed by the accused persons in his presence. The witness stated in the cross-examination that he identifies Bahadur Singh accused facing trial to be the loanee who had been coming to the Bank.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the Bank officials were also involved in the conspiracy as it is duty of Field Officer to visit the spot and verify the identity of the proposed loanee and also that of the guarantor and to further verify the documents of title from the revenue record.
20. This of course is a serious lapse for which the Bank authorities should have taken appropriate departmental action against the officials who were negligent in performance of their duties. So far as involvement of the petitioners in this big fraud by introducing a fake person for opening loan account and in producing fake and forged documents with regard to ownership of the property, the offenders deserve to be punished with appropriate sentences.
21. It was contended that both the petitioners have undergone more than 9 to 11 months of imprisonment and it may be treated as sufficient punishment under the circumstances.
22. I am unable to agree with the above contention because it Jitender Kumar 2013.12.19 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1051-2013 -8- was not the plea firstly of Surinder Singh that he had introduced the fake persons in good faith or at the asking of someone else known to him. Rather his plea in defence during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was of simple denial. He pleaded that he never introduced any such person to the Bank. Similarly, Piara Lal also denied that he executed any document for the purpose of loan. The fraud rather originated with the introduction of a fake person by Surinder Singh and just within one or two months therefrom the loan was got sanctioned. It is not even the case that outstanding amount of loan has been repaid so that concession could be extended to a large extent.
23. However, in the circumstances of the case, the sentences awarded to the petitioners who have already undergone imprisonment ranging from 9 to 11 months, the sentence under Section 465 IPC is reduced from 3 years 2 years rigorous imprisonment and for rest of the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC from 3 years to 2½ years but maintaining the sentence awarded under Section 419 IPC and imposition of fine under each head.
24. With the above modification in the sentences, the revisions are dismissed.
25. Before parting with the judgment I would direct the trial court to make serious efforts for arresting Bahadur Singh, who has not filed revision to challenge conviction and to send him to jail to undergo the sentences awarded to him.
December 12, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
jk JUDGE
Jitender Kumar
2013.12.19 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh