Karnataka High Court
Ambrish S Kapadia S/O Late Sunderlal M ... vs The Delhi Special Police Establishment on 28 September, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
lllllllld E .._
IN THE HIGH coum" 01+' KARNATAKA AT BAN_G.¥l;Lf)_RE
DATED THIS THE 28?" DAY OF seewemsiéa
BEFOREW p _ 4. V V 1'
THE HON'BLE MR.JUs::c-1é'1\T.2£ifJifi\ie;¥; at :2 7
CRIMINAL it
BETWEEN:
Ambrisl:1.S.Kapadia A .
S/o Late Sunderlal.M.Kgpadiaf
Aged about 50 Years 4' -.
Resident of 9, Ashish
Suwarna Nagar * - " . 1 .o
North South Road No.5; JV_.PD'Sche'me. 'V j'
Mumbai-- 400 osis; _ . * ' . '
.. APPELLANT
{By Shaiiharapfia; Advolcate f_oir"Sr1 I\/I.T.Nanaiah 82 Associates,
Advo'c_ates}-- ' ' -
The Delhi Special Police Establishment
Central Bureau of Investigation
Baijgalore. A' . V , .. JRESPONDENT
S ' Siji {7.H,l3'a.dlaav, Advocate)
appeal is filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C against the
fiuldgznent-f'_d.aated 26.03.2003/20.10.2003 passed by the XXI
Additional fdity Civil 82 Sessions Judge & Special Judge for C131
Cases," Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.l8/1987 convicting the appellant«
accusedrNo.2 for an offence punishable under section 120-13 I'/W
he se_ction;s 420, 468 and 471 IPC and sentencing him to undergo S31.
Vfor"~4 Years for an offence punishable under section 120-13 r/w
section 420 IPC and pay a fine of Rs.20,000/--, in default to
'undergo further imprisonment for 3 months; further sentencing
__him to undergo S.I. for four years for an offence punishable under
section 468 IPC and pay a fine of Rs.20,000/m, in default to
__2_
undergo further imprisonment for 3 months; further senteiiciiig
him to undergo S1. for one year for an offence punishabl.e under
section 471 {PC and pay a fine of Rs.2O.000/W, in,d'ef_aul't~ to
undergo further imprisonment for three months.'-«:_.V_il:e
substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
This appeal coming on for.11ea»ring .tl1isVVf(ica:y. vtl1ef_Co.tu't7. l
delivered the following: I V
J U D G
The appellant is arrayed.' as laccusedl".ll\lo»§f£5««vi.n $pecial'
C.C.No.18/1987, on the file___of-.XXl__Additional city Civil &
Sessions Judge 8: Jlidge Cases at Bangalore.
Accused Nos. 1.81 2 wevrevihtified'-fo1f_offences 'nunishable under
sections also for an offence
under sectioVnlV'.?j{.l:j[ds]l,l"giiiriishable under section 5(2) of the
Prevention. 'of Act, 194'? {for short, 'the Act'). The
learned trial' "2.IVV{:IVdg(3: convicted accused No.1 for offences
'epiiiiislhableunder sections 120B read with 471 IPC and also
._ under section 5(1][d}, punishable under
sfectio-:n'.*":v{i2l] of the Act. The learned trial Judge convicted
.. accusecl No.2 for offences punishable under sections 120B,
it 468 & 471 IPC. Therefore. accused No.2 has filed this
s ;
appeal. {V}: p¥,.L\_Mg£¢.¢.. _
IQLLIQLA 3 _
2. Accused N o. 1 had filed ~ 25;p.r§ca1
No.1681/2003. During pendency of
died, therefore appeal filed by '1i'ngvt'3e V
order dated 16.09.2010.
3. I have heard Sri Sha12garapoa;" for
appellant/ accused No;2,fiandt'Sri'. V learned counsel
for respondent/CB1. Vt d 1 V 2 h
4. In brief,"th"_e~ case of prosecution 1:3'! as follows:--
1984 and November
1984;,'.gac.cused'«'No,1v«.tfifa,s:'V..the Manager of Union Bank of
India, V'~~~}:2oad Branch, Bangalore. During
afores_tated perto-d,--««accused 1 8: 2 entered into criminal
' .V.ddconAs'p'iracyu intention of causing wrongful loss to the
'' hank vadr:.vi'1f'j_vtfirongfu1 gain to accused 1. & 2 in furtherance of
suclatcuoriapiracy, accused No.1 purchased following forged
2 AA "bills tendered by accused No.2 with dishonest tntention to
defraud the bank:» [L72 an "tam
Demand Bill
Date of purchase / Deposit
A¥;r1G1.:11t __i1§ _._ 3
DBP 202
25.05.1984
,_ ,:88,81_0~--82 3'
DBP 203
25.05.1984
DB? 204
25.05.1984. _
DBP 212
09.08.1984 3
' .872f5182;52
DB? 213
O9.Oc'1.'1984_«"
88185422
DB? 214
09.08. 1984 'V
74908-86
DBP 215
71,706--96
DB? 228%
.§--8=..0:6;'1i1984V' . V V
71,706--96
D8822? - 4. .3 T:
DBPV234 ._ '
1984 3'
88,810--82
.3'
78596-04
DB? 238
" . VVO.310._%.';~.8'84
71,193--72
-
AA " o8..8"7.1984 72.73344 ' .v1)B1é"2'87,1''' » ' 06.07.1984 71743-62 0 D}3P f'j_ 3 06.07.1984 77,425--92 Accused No.1 knowing full well that purchase bills are forged, allowed accused No.2 to withdraw a sum of _. 5 lflllfl-A Rs.10,08,76l/~» on various dates, thereby committed aforestated offences.
5. Accused pleaded not guiltygifor aforjestated.offences._ T
6. On behalf of prosecution, PW'1._to PWl.V6'll'ix(e,releprarrlialeéif, and documents as per Ex.P. 1ll'to_xEx.P. rnarked.
7. As already * were convicted for aforestated offences. ln_v:vlew:vl_of:accused No.1 and conviction {of l';é.cc:.xsed No.2 °for"-laforestated offences, the following -poiri'i.s.«Vx;s}c11ld..arise for determination:--
ll}pWhelther"f.tl1,e:"prosecution has proved that N'os.'l: 8: 2 entered into criminal _ uconsp'i1'a.c},r«' and in furtherance of such ~r;:ri:'r1__i'r1al conspiracy, accused No.2 forged 14 bills described in paragraph 4 and accused No.1 knowing full well hvtbat said bills were forged purchase bills. allowed accused No.2 to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,08,761/- on various dates during aforestated period, thereby accused No.2, £ were.
committed offences punishable sections 1203. 420, 468 3: 471 IPC'?7._: l (2) Whether the learned trial j_ appreciated evidence on reccrd? ll it (3) Whether the impulgriied judglinent-'V-icalis ior interferer1C¢'r'.., (4) What order?" l
8. At 'relevant time: P'.l\lI:'ll§I'*l,ll{__._§;ampatl1 was working as an A»*':c0L_intantV.. lof India, B.V.K.Iyengar Road has given evidence relating to preeepdurel "for""ldiscounting/purchasing bills. PW1 has identified dernand bills forged by accused No.2 drawn on s.Spectrum Steel Industries. PW1 has deposed; presented 14 demand bills and they were Apurchvasendv' by accused No.1; out of them, 9 bills returned AA unplaid' and 5 bills were realised; accused No.2 was "permitted to withdraw Rs.10,08,7'01/-- on various dates in View of purchase of afc-restated forged bills by the bank. IQ, Ln L --«Q2» z ...,7....
During cross-examination, an unsuccessful.__latie.nipt was made to prove that bank is a coInI_I1er_cial' i_.nstituZtionV; purchasing / discounting of bills o-i'Abil:ls.is_Lal 'usual T. phenomenon and no culpability be because bills were returned "u:I:'?paid..'Ihe made an unsuccessful attempt to'l'elstab4iish,thatlnot only accused No.1 but also several in the process of purchase of. it of genuineness of bills tghefheid'7;;dre.ttdeedjf:dieeot.;nted the bills. PW1 has reiterated 226, 227, 234 to 238 tzvas not able to give exact dates on _vtrhich"said 'wber*e'btlreturned unpaid. PW1 has admitted :tji'3'«:ee_t§ee,t of ttivo-'e.t.11s bearing Nos.214 & 215 for Rs.74,908/- ' .e."de.d -R:s',;ifé'1t.,:'?*oe/-- there was a debit entry dated 03.08.1984 *.fe.«* aledej. Rs.1,5(),615/- as per Ex.P.3 and there is a crleziittentry dated 10.08.1984 for a sum of Rs.3,43,421/- as 2 t. it Eic.P.2. In a way defence has tried to establish that bills nrere not forged. The debit entries were reversed after i accused No.2 remitted the amount. In my opinion, [fix ,3 Lgb M4 = ' _8.__ subsequent remittance of amount in respect of"so_inei'o'f,_the bills by accused No.2 is of no use to the _delf£er3ce:.A_1\}Vhen.llthey prosecution has come out with a definite "case'that accused No.2 had presented forgedpbills. 'Subsequent to made by accused No.2 to lreirerse not absolve him of criminai..liabi_l'itj/l.". 2' I
9. At the relevant' was working as an:(l)Vpt:p';t"icer:A__in ghiiioiiAlEilai1k_._ot'lIndia, I3.V.K.Iyengar Road has given details of procedure of.' bills, discount or purchase of bills lbills for collection. After going thifough crossgexamiiiation of PW2, I find that defence has tqtlried establish that certain debit entries were reversed in *s_ub.se.c;uent payments made by accused No.2. PW2 has d_epos.ed; after bills were purchased and sent to Union AA Banl{g_.of India, canught place, New Selhi; there was no "response; therefore, fate enquiry was made as per Ex.P.44. PW2 has deposed; accused No.1 had exceeded his power in the matter of purchase of bills from accused No.2. For _ 9 _.
extending facility to discount/ purchase of bills, was bound to obtain permission from the Re-gioi1al"'Managér*;.. b PW2 has given details of arnount_, permitted accused No.2 to Withdraw" from lias' i, identified signatures of accusVed_'gI~Eoi2 and also signature of accuseda on the corresponding documents.' it A it During -eicarfrinatilonijv '1'3'-W2. the defence has made attenipitTs;»'to that accused No.2 is a valuable customer,' even"before'~.openir1g a current account, he had deposited substantial Varnount. From the tenor of cross~ exarnination it appears that defence had tried to ' loy<._mere dishonour of bills, no criminal liability can ._ be ;;ttaé11,§d§.i'ja:e bank; could proceed against its customer for recovery ofthe amount paid on purchase / discounting of said .. 131115; L' at At the relevant time. PW3--B.V.N.Murthy was working "alas Regional Manager of Union Bank of India at Bangalore. PW3 has deposed regarding procedure for sanction of loan, g\). c$L..\a,.»'-(é\, _1g_.
raising of limit, procedure for purchase/discountpoi'bills. PW3 has deposed; on 31.07.1984, he had application form; Ex.P.90 was the cevering..1vetter;:--l.:}?WL51has deposed; out of 14 bills purchased ' B.V.K.Iyengar Road Branchafi Bangaloere, frorna of accused No.2, they had'::accordetl._ only to purchase three bills; 'ih'oj.veVedr","_accusVedp.No.1 purchased remaining 11 bills, withoui regional office; subsequently'"stateznreni No.1 to the Regional' {T"1"apnsac1l:ion's)fl to raise upper limits of facilify 'Was 1101;.' "Regional Manager. 'V During. crosswetiarnination by the learned counsel for .a"ccfiséa me' has admitted that before cs1 took up of Rs..I2,00.000/- involved in the case, the v_hadu4j'i'ecovered a sum of Rs.9,00,000/~« from accused No.2'. v.Eli*orn the answer given by ?W.'3, accused No.2 wants to 'econiend since he had made deposits and debit entries were __?reversed and there was no wrongful loss to the bank. The contention of accused No.2 appears to be bank is
8. f\}.
VVVVVVVVV 11 VIIIIIIII commercial institution, therefore, it should be Vycoricerned with borrowing and recoveries, without bothe_1jing..'ab.oi§.t.'the device adopted for borrowing.
1 1. At the relevant time, PW4¥l?'aranizashiv.an"Wash l' as Manager {Credit} in the,Re_gionai._Qfi'1ce India at Bangalore. PW4 has_xh'daeposed.; is not a consignor copy; it is office orily consignor copy has to be produced along ofvnerrfichange and invoice:
E'.X.P.6 does"not:bear1._coderr1u1<nbergiven by Indian Bankers Assc..ciation[l'l'v--"e _ _ bill as per Ex.P.6 was purchased by Union BankV.,oAf'Endia'; B.TV.K.Iyengar Road Branch, Bangalore. ' H'oWéyer," consignrnent was not sent from Bangalore; it is been sent from Bombay to Delhi. PW4 has purchase bills cannot be discounted in the branches at Bangalore unless sanction is obtained from the ty Régional Office. {UR G \§,L_W¢€,,_,9 __. W.
12. At this juncture. it is necessary to st.at6:fthat consignment receipts producedflaiong''..g\>\Iit1*1fi'''h1_l1s"'aivould 7.
indicate that consignments were sentgfrom l3omb.ay to.\1')elhicV, Accused No.2 has no case Jv[l:"i«3,:'f"§T,l'.€ had 'Bombay; Accused No.1 had not obtained iilerrnissionilfrom the Regional Office to discount , to dispatch of consignments _fro_1_n Brjmbaifitollfltelhi. 7 ~
13. The who at the relevant timeiworking, as:§i:l1ief».i\)ianagerVlCredit] in Union Bank of Indiapggéentralj is not of much relevance. PW5 ..no't incriminating material against . . . . .
the-lrelevant time, PW6--~Dharmapal Gupta was Working an Officer in Union Bank of India, Canaught place',.cl'A\i'ew Delhi. PW6 has deposed about bills that were fogroiarded to Union Bank of India, B.V.K.Iyengar Road ' Branch at Bangalore. On verification, it was found that M/ s. Union Bank of India had given 30 days time to the party for ,'\,.~~fi\/\.'\-»-C-jag _ 14 is marked as Ex}-'.4 to Ex.P.32 and lorry receipts etc,--._issued by M/s. Spectrum Steel Industries, Bangalore, inof l\/E/s.Engineering Projects India Limited, PW9 y no order had been placed for supply of st¢e1i1,~;té:n_%._s;_w::1a"2. M/s.Spectrum Steel Industries;
items from SAIL, TISCO theyare l1avir1g--~offices at Calcutta and Bombayr During crosswexarnination, an'vi1r1s'uccessful attempt was made that ofi7i_cers--V.of lv'I]'s';_"EngiV:?1eering Projects India Limlt_ecl._ Calcutta had placed orders with M/s.Spec'trum"'.$tee1,_'li'idustries for supply of steel items, wljiicli. has n'o_hasis as consignments were sent from Bombay 'K.1"8. relevant time, PWlO--Naresh Chandra La1;h'anpa1 was working as Assistant Foreman {Purchase} in 2 V. it 'the Corporate Office of BHEL at New Delhi. On going through payment advice dated 16.06.1984 and lorry receipts, he C has deposed; bills and enclosures as per Ex.P.73 to l3x.P.84 N A, _ M in the name of BHEL at New Delhi are fictitious bills. In these bills the name of consignee is shown as BI~lEi§;-_situate at Kailash Building, K.G.Road, New Delhi; in the Corporate Office of BHEL was Times House in Kasturba Gandhi.A_Ma,rg«at 1 f During cross~examinat,io'n_, it has been Vssiiiggested to PW10 that he had not verified."Lfro'm' otherhrarfches as to whether they had placed M/s.Spectrum Steel Industries', but that BHEL had not placed any of items mentioned in Ex.P.41.
19. AstethervreIe_vlan_t" PW11--M.V.Salimatt was working ataialv Public l5lel.ations Officer in the Office of Director General . Poliee-.at~-- Bangalore. PW11 has identified Ex.P.1-aCCOunt ._ sopenVii1;«;;§~v'.,foii:;r1Svdated 11.04.1984 submitted in the name of Steel Industries. PW11 has deposed; he is is .es__igned.Ex.P.1 as an introducer of account of said firm at the 1 instance of accused No.1: PW11 did not know accused No.2. 'T in whose name account was opened.
.... __ From the evidence of PW11, it is Clear that latictzsed No.1 had helped accused No.2 to open a with Union Bank of india, B.V.K.Iyengar~eR.o:a'd at Bangalore through PW11 as an to accused No. 1 .
20. PW12--K.B.Meno_n wasy..th:ev._proprietor*of transport company under the nlarne.and?-.s:.tyletof:"'€~aVitha Roadlines", situate at 17, =-Asholg"'Cha:.rnbeAr}s.__Il Baroch Street at Bomb.ay;t. _AIl§V'viJ_"1l2*::lAr.1_as2jde.posedv;.....since 1971, his transport comp'any~ "with Indian Bankers Association and code' to his company by the said association Bf!S--329. PW12 has deposed that s.Svba'{ritha'--..R_oad1ines had three branches including Head main branch was situate at 17, Ashok Chambe.r,'rll'llFloor, Baroch Street at Bombay. PW12 has deposed that for transporting consignment through M / s.Savitha Roadlines lorry receipts are prepared in quatriplicate; first copy is yellow copy and it will be given to / R), <3.' 'I x fi"'~"""'€(:.--
W v"""'4 driver for the purpose of showing the same at checkposts and It goes along with the consignment in the lorry;l_i'-s_eicond white colour copy is the consignee copy that is ___t"o_ whom the consignment is sent; third red _{pin1:<.'}:~.colou<rA is consignor copy given to the party who books_c'onsi_gnment; fourth copy 1s green in colour -is office copy aiidgitiis re}tain:zd" , in office; colours of lorry receipt_s mentionfedhiabove are approved by Indian Ba_nl{ers'_VAAsso'ciation, Aftergoing through lorry receipts marked__a_s 21, 25 32;' 29. PW} are not lorry receipts issued by M / s.Savitha ,, consignments covered under aforestated. lorry 'vrece_i'ptsilVwere booked from Bombay to Delhi .,y_M/sA.lSavit.1*ia Roacilines company; all the lorry V re'ceipts'iare"'in white colour and they are printed as office .WCo"p«ies;« receipts issued by M/s.Savitha Roadlines Company 'bear code l\io.BYS-329 given by the Indian Bankers ' ~ Association, printed on lorry receipts; none of the aforestated receipts bear code number of M/s.Savitha Roadlines; at l the relevant time, telephone numbers of M/s. Savitha _ 18 VilIWVV Roadlines were 327823 and 337371; on the other"~--.hand. telephone numbers printed on aforestated alleged to have been issued by M/s.Savitha Roadilihveslllutélrelv' 341967 and 339210, which were:-hct"th.e_ ' of the company of PW12; at M/s.Savitha Roadlines Corripiariyb of 'all Vehicle were printed or} lorry"'re.c:ei;'5ts_ of 'theconlpany; said emblems were not fouarid lorry receipts; trucks and reg;iVst.ratiQr1 riui1jbers'vi~rr_1eritioried in lorry receipts were heveeié any time; none of lorry recei15t.s"tbea1' booking clerks who were working in M/s.ses.titha_Rcac:.1_inee in the year 1984. cross--examination of PW12, the defence had : made.TanvlVut§'s.u'ccessful attempt to establish that some of his Astaff llgiven aforestated lorry receipts. PW12 has AA reiterat'ed the method and procedure for issuance of lorry "receipts. PW12 has specifically stated that Ex.P.(-3, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25 at 29 are not the lorry receipts issued by M/s.Savitha I E Roadlines. f\; Kant! 5-ix \~-»t£,g.
....;v
- 1 9 - o 1
21. At this juncture, it is necessary to state thatudid not know accused 1 a 2; PW12 did not bear'enmitvttttoihgive. 4' false evidence against them; the defence . any motive for PW12 to give faise
22. At the relevant time, vvias working as an Assistant "E'Jiarr1iner of questioned documents in the unit vpiifitderabad. PW13 has givenhevidenceuifreiating toudcornparison of signatures of accused' ._No.2Vt foundv._:o1a_iaforestated forged bills with the admitted*signat1;_rei-;._sofwaccused No.2 and he has given his as pAer'vEx..P.1O5 that the admitted signatures of ' daccgused I\fo:2-.oand signatures found on disputed documents " .are one ajnd'g1'the same and were made by the same person. t.""Th-ough PW13 has been subjected to extensive cross- .o examination, I find no discrepancy has been brought on record. ' Even otherwise, there are no reasons to suspect evidence of M. 20 IALIIIIA P.W.13, in View of the fact that accused No.2 not disputed that he had held current account of India and had submitted the disputed has come out with a definite.' case' ':.t}"'4iflt':'l1€3..: '' arrangements and he hadpemade '(,-ash payments to "reizerse debit entries consequent upoizcidpdishonoiuf of jafofajstated bills and he had discharged €'i'i.1i'i"1"é*~::]:'1.<3}V':'li}§.l'.}'. if some one had presented and discounted of M/s.Spectrum Steel IndustriesV,"_t--he14e forlaccused No.2 to make ana:-hglémeiggg theddbills or pay cash to reduce his liability; whichd accftiecl on presentation of bills. 23l."«.At AAI'-e1e'u'ant time, PW14--Pradeep K9. was for Djlyxnars-----Ciub at Bangaiore, later he was appointed by V -PW14 has deposed about activities of accused No.2. 'j.'W'14V deposed; he knew accused No.1; accused No.1 was acquainted. with accused No.2; PW14 had seen them together at V " 'raj Residency and in the apartment of accused No.2 at Hi- hpoijnt. PW14 has deposed; accused No.2 was running a business T under the name and style of M / s.Spectrum Steel Industries; apart l\_§ .
W21- from above firm, accused No.2 had floated tVfCi'~I']"i'0"I:'€V.:.fi.1;1?]S namely Vishanth Steel and Backes No.2 floated a firm under theizhinaine aand '1 id. Corporation in the name of _PWIZi..Aan.d Virtuallyg shown as its Proprietor; the 'said.com.pan3V/"was notddregistered and in fact it was nofjqgfgistelntl"hutuafter odneningvjan account in the name of said was made with Union Ban}; Branch, Bangalore by 'fitment account. PW14 has iderj.t1"f1'eVd' l'4Jo.2 on the bills marked as 8, is, 18 to 20, 22 to 24, 26 to 28.
3o, (:37.toV-.6A9,_b'7}*""to 73, 75 to 77, 79 to 81, 83 & 84. ;_--..ADu._ring crosaexaniination, it has been suggested to C '\,X,(1'4.:t}'i8:f¥:V11c was detained in police custody. PWI4 has it A admitted; he was detained for a night in CB1 Office. 24,. At this functure, it is relevant to state that PW14 was a _ ;cl'o_.se associate of accused No.2. Therefore, CB1 officials had Suspected involvement of PW14, however that cannot be a [K7 = £3" """"£A" "
_22m ground to discard the evidence of PW14» relatinigtoc' of accused No.2 which included floating PWI4 has identified signatures of tlfae aforestatecl bills.
25. At the relevant was working as the Dep1.ily:,,_Supenitintendent of Plolice",l Bangalore Branch, C.B.I. PWl5 éyidgnce relating to investigation o'f..tl*'_1e case,
26. At"thefrelevahtjltirne. PlW'1'E5V§V4'l'l1or1'1as John was working as Inspec.tor at Bangalore. PWIS has given evidence fcelatingitolAcomoletion of investigation. 'learnedmcounsel for accused No.2 would submit :lt.l_: Officer had not collected all the ledgers land registefs from M / sfilngineering Projects India Limited at AA Nexv -Jflielhi "and BHEL at New Delhi to confirm that "a_foi'estated firms had not placed any orders with accused No.2.
_ 23 -IQLIIA
28. At this juncture, it is relevant to state thatulyihaccused No.2 had sent bills in favour of various..~«~~ti:*i1<ls_i"which according to accused no.2 had placegd'..y:.or.§iersl M/s.Spectrum Steel Industries. lulf ._a«cct1'se§j haq I received purchase orders from variousfirmslv should" have sent the consignments to 't;L':1§"v.gcy1ddresses'ee.0f.= thevllconcerned firms. There was nodifficuity accused' lI\Vf0.2Vv to produce purchase orders placed before the Court. If accused obtlained purchase orders from varirituslttcomfpaniies', h'e.:w0uld'lVhave certainly produced those doctiinents berofiuhei»c5u;§i._.1n the circumstances, accused No.2 cannot ble'~-permitted to fault with the investigating agency. I __fAccused"'i'-l.o_,_2 has not established that he had office or ' _l'm.ar1u.fact:iring unit at Bombay to send consignments from H and present the bills for discounting to [lniofi.pgBank of India, B.V.K.lyengar Road Branch, Bangalore. l " Acpculsled No} had discounted the bills, knowing full well that they were forged documents. The evidence given by PW9 that 'T lorry receipts of M/s.Engineering Projects India Limited at 5 ,~ " Ch" 'kg.-A-'I:
¥""~ 44'"-M Union Bank of India, B.V.K.lyengar Road Branch at Bangalore. Unless, accused No.i had special interest-,«._'l_FW1i had no reasons to introduce accused No.2 account with the bank.
32. PW12 on verification of asserted that lorxy receipts issued Roadlines situate at~..V.Bomb'avA.lV._:':FlW3.2 has"~g»iv§en several reasons to depose v"_»:i'eC--eipts were forged documents.__ V'l\/L./s.Savitha Roadlines was:':Vvreg_1sterc'dV--«.wit.h"i.ndI._an Bankers Association and it is given 'lcodde :JPWl2 has deposed that lorry retceipts of-. _1\/i/;s.Savixtha Roadlines bear distinguished " . not found in the lorry receipts produced it PW12 did not know either accused No.1 or Aa.ccused._l'IsEol.2. PWi2 had no reasons to give false evidence A against them.
As already stated, the evidence given by PW13 is a T corroborative piece of evidence. In fact, accused No.2 had (.
_ _, made attempts to reduce liability to contend bank should be satisfied with the amount repaid by him. without. as to whether the bills produced by him were'L~r genuine bills.
34. Thus, on overall appreciation I.' accused No.2 had presentegd"~.e_nforged.__ bills'-.:d'Auriiig "period between May 1984 and ,.Iuly{"--19'8é in '"co.nniirance with accused No.1, who that said bills and enclosures of bills areflforgeidvdoci.inie.nts7had purchased bills exceeding disti:ou_:"nt.ingVl_«facility granted to accused No.2. The prosecution hasVprVoved--..gtl1at bills drawn by accused No.2 in 'nameaof Ml/s.En,gineering 'Projects India Limited at New '-ljclhlk?"ld'«--?3HEL"'d'at New Delhi are forged bills and iomr A V indicated consignment of goods from Bombay to DVe'll1i:fare forged documents. Even if it is proved that AA accused No.2 had repaid the amount to reduce liability, that V'-,(TE"3b.1"11'lOTZ absolve accused No.2 of criminal liability. The banking practice would not permit availment of discounting facility on presentation of forged bills supported by mama M M fabricated documents. The repayment of amount availed from the bank will not absolve accused No.2 of hisdrcriminal liability. Therefore. contention of accused No;2"toV"~;_.Vthe least, is untenable.
The learned trial Judge ion evidence has convicted accused..V_No.2"for offences'puni;shable' under sections 12oB,__42o, 4i6s'js:._42_»1 1i>c;~1_qo find any reasons to interfere the judgment.
Regairding a. ' ~ .
38' learned counsel appearing for aCC_Used°No~.-9.' 'Woig1ld~...'~*'dVsubmit that accused No.2 had liabilityavnd major part of the loan availed by him ' has "'o4een'«rep.aid, therefore. a lenient view may be taken in d' . the matter sentence.
36." 'f\S could be seen from the impugned judgment, after V' , arguments were heard and judgment of conviction was made i and matter was posted for hearing on sentence, accused f\.»'_ L VWQQ M 28 _ No.2 remained absent, therefore judgment pronounced for a period of six months.
37. The learned counsel for accused ]l\tQ.2 _Wou1:i~...subm'it C that accused No.2 had approachedlthis Courtas g counsel for accused No.2"V'VC't1ii?1'S .1101'; ltirith an opportunity to address._ dismissed criminal petition making Later, accused No.2 took Petition to the Supreme. fact was dismissed on tiialll-...Cou1'tVVV'had passed the impugned judgniéntélof considered opinion, grievance made 'accused l\'o.é against the trial Court that his " . not provided an opportunity to address his a-rgurnents not sustainable and it cannot be an extenuating factor in favour of accused No.2. .. 38. . "it is seen from the judgment of the trial Court that trial it gV'Court has not recorded reasons for passing impugned sentence. However, the trial Court has found fault with on __ __ accused No.2 for deliberately remaining absent on the date fixed for pronouncement of sentence.
39. The learned counsel for accused be that accused No.2 is now aged discharged substantial liab,i'lit_y the and'; suffering from diabetes, a "may be taken in the matter V V
40. Sri C.Ifi;JVadhe_v;V"' appearing for respondenitgi/ijgfiili::?-:wou*ldV"- submit' that accused No.2 had presented: to. misappropriate a sum of Rs.l0,0éV3l,'*7f5 iv/«fl -inA'.th'e.,."~~'lVyear 1984, subsequent payments _accused.._No;2 may reduce his civil liability, however ' git--.cannot'eiEonerate his criminal liability and payment made " 5.2 to reduce his civil liability cannot be termed as an" extenuating factor in favour of accused No.2. V' * Having heard learned counsel for parties and having regard to extenuating and mitigating circumstances, age factor of accused No.2, duration for trial, duration of 6V V PL atlas, __ VIIIIIIII pendency of this appeal, E am of the opinion; requires reduction.
42. In the resuit, I pass the folloxvingfj. it ORDER"
The appeai is accepted'~.yain uirnpugned conviction is confirmed'. '}T'hc"'seAn:tence is niodified. Accused No.2 is sentenced to tindergo.'V1'iriiprisonrrient for a period of two years and pay in default to undergo__ a f period of three months for an offence ..Vpun:snab1e§'-aéfidgr section 1208 ipc r/W 420 19c; irrypivisonrrient aipeiriod of two years and pay a fine of " . in to undergo imprisonment for a period 3 soft for an offence punishabie under section 468 IRC; irnpfisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of A Rs.2Q_,A'50O/--, in default to undergo imprisonment for a period it * .(_)fi'ihI'€e months for an offence punishable under section 471 IPC. The sentence of imprisonment as aforestated shall run concurrently. The period of detention if any undergone L L7 ¥ '"'(Q§_ W. .._ by accused No.2 during triai is given set under section 428 Cr.P.C. Office is direct.edV_"_i0Vv records along with a copy of this "i 'A ' V K ' %3udqe SNN