Bangalore District Court
The State Rep. By vs G. Ramachandra 36 Yrs on 17 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE CITY
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JULY 2015
PRESENT :SRI VENKATARAMAN BHAT
B.Sc.,LL.B.(Spl),
VI ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Case No. : CC.No.25400-2005
Date of offence : 29-3-2004
Complainant : The State rep. by
PSI of Halasuruagate PS
Accused : G. Ramachandra 36 Yrs
S/o T. Gangarangaiah
R/at No.37, 7th Cross,
Vasantha Vallabhanagar,
Vasanthapura post,
Bangalore.
Offence : U/s.420, 468 /w 511 of IPC
Plea : Accused pleaded
not guilty
Final order : Accused is acquitted
Date of Order : 17-7-2015.
** ** **
2 CC.No.25400/2005
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS
The Police Inspector of Halasruguate
Police Station submitted charge sheet against
the accused for the offences punishable U/s.420,
468 r/w 511 of IPC.
2. CW.2 is the account holder of
Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank, Hanumantha
nagar, Bangalore. A cheque was presented
through CW.2 for collection of a sum of
Rs.27300-00 before Hanumanthanagar Co-operative
Bank, Bangalore. Since the alleged cheque is
the cheque of Karnataka State Huzur Treasury,
Bangalore, the said bank sent it to Reserve Bank
of India, Bangalore, for clearance. This cheque
was drawn in the name of Vinayak Printers,
bearing No.292151 dated 15-3-2004/28-3-2004 for
Rs.273000-00. When this cheque was verified by
the Manager of Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore
Branch, a doubt had arisen. On enquiry made with
Karnataka State Huzur Treasury it disclosed that
3 CC.No.25400/2005
no such cheque was issued by the said office.
Under these circumstances a complaint was lodged
before Halasurugate police station. During the
course of investigation it was disclosed that
accused created and forged the said cheque
resembling the cheque of Karnataka State Huzur
Treasury by signing it in order to cheat the
Government. After the investigation,
Investigation Officer placed charge sheet
against this accused. On the basis of first
information statement lodged by CW.1, FIR has
been registered at Cr.No.84/2004 of Halasurugate
Police station.
3. During the course of investigation
accused had obtained anticipatory bail and
appeared before this court. He was enlarged on
regular bail.
4. After submission of charge sheet
cognizance of the offences have been taken.
4 CC.No.25400/2005
Copy of the charge sheet was furnished as
contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. Charge was
framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
5. CWs.1 to 10 witnesses have been cited in
the charge sheet. During the course of the trial
PWs.1 to 8 were examined and EX.P--1 to Ex.P-16
got marked.
6. After closing the prosecution side
evidence, statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C was
recorded. Accused did not adduce any defence
evidence.
7. Heard arguments of Sr.APP and learned
counsel for the accused.
8. CW.1 was examined as PW.2. According to
PW.2 she was working as Manager in Pubic
Accounts Department of Reserve Bank of India,
Bangalore from 2003 to 2006. PW.2 has deposed to
the effect that a cheque in the name of Vinayak
5 CC.No.25400/2005
Printers bearing No.292151 drawn by Karnataka
State Huzur Treasury for Rs.27,300-00 was
presented for clearance from Hanumanthanagar
Co-operative Bank on 29-3-2004. According to
PW.2 a doubt arose regarding the genuineness of
the said cheque. An immediate enquiry was made
with Karnataka State Huzur Treasury office. It
was informed that no such cheque was issued by
the said office. Under these circumstances PW.2
had lodged a complaint before Halasuruagate
police station. First information statement is
marked as Ex.P-3. The Manager of Hanumanthnagar
Co-operative Bank was examined as PW.4. PW.4 has
deposed to the effect that Sri Vinayak Printers
had a current account at No.221. The original
cheque is marked as Ex.P-5. According to PW.4
CW.2 has presented this cheque for the
collection of the amount. PW.4 has further
deposed that since the said cheque was issued by
Karnataka State Huzur Treasury, it was sent for
6 CC.No.25400/2005
clearance through Apex Bank to Reserve Bank of
India. According to PW.4 this accused was
running the said Vinayaka Printers. PW.4 has
identified the cheque-Ex.P-5. Father of this
accused was examined as PW.5. PW.5 has deposed
to the effect that accused was running the said
Vinayak Printers. PW.5 has admitted that the
said Vinayak Printers has an account in
Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank. According to
PW.5, one Ramdas issued the said cheuqe in
favour of Vinayak Printers and same was
presented by him before Hanumanthanagar Co-
operative bank. Assistant Manager of the Reserve
Bank of India, Bangalore Branch was examined as
PW.8. According to PW.8, when Ex.P-5 cheque was
presented for clearance through Hanumanthanagar
Co-operative bank a doubt arose regarding the
said cheque. An enquiry was made with the office
of Karnataka State Huzur Treasury and disclosed
that the alleged cheque was not at all issued by
7 CC.No.25400/2005
the said office. According to PW.8 it is a
forged cheque. Investigation Officer was
examined as PW.7. PW.7 has deposed investigation
work and sending the standard writings and
disputed cheque for the opinion of handwriting
expert. Handwriting expert was examined as PW.3.
PW.3 is none other than Assistant Director
Forensic Lab, Bangalore. PW.3 has deposed
regarding examination of the standard writings
and writing on the disputed cheque sent by
Investigation Officer. As per the opinion of
PW.3 the writings on the alleged cheaue-Ex.P-5
is in the handwriting of the standard writings
of the accused. In other words the writings
on the alleged cheque as well as writings on the
standard writings are in the handwriting of
the same person. Now I would like to appreciate
the evidence placed before this court. It is
the allegation of the prosecution that this
accessed created Ex.P-5 cheque resembling
8 CC.No.25400/2005
Karnataka State Huzur Treasury cheque by putting
his signature as the officer of Treasury. It is
further alleged that the writings on the cheque
is in the handwriting of this accused. It can be
noticed that the prosecution mainly relied on
the opinion formed by Handwriting expert. FSL
report is marked as Ex.P-12. It discloses that
Red enclosed writings and signature on the
alleged State Huzur Treasury cheque bearing
No.292151 dt:28-3-2004, CDB number 431 for
Rs.27,300-00 issued in favour of Vinayak
Printers got marked as Q1A and Q1B by the
Investigation Officer and handwriting expert.
Writings and signatures of the said accused on
12 sheets (Red enclosed)have been taken by
Investigation Officer and it was marked as R-13
to R-24 by the Investigation Officer as well as
handwriting expert. Of course the writings and
signatures of one T.Gangarangiah and S.N.
Ramadas have been taken and sent for the opinion
9 CC.No.25400/2005
of handwriting expert. The opinion of
handwriting expert reads as under:
1. The person who wrote Red enclosed standard
writing and signatures stamped and marked as
R 13 to R 24, S3 and S4 also wrote the Red
enclosed questioned writings similarly
stamped and marked Q1A.
2. It has not been possible to fix up the
authorship of the questioned signature
marked as Q1B, since it is illegible and
not affording sufficient data.
9. The questioned writings on Ex.P-5 is in
the handwriting of the accused. It is further
opined that since the signature on Ex.P-5 is
illegible and not affording sufficient data it
is not possible to fix up the authorship of Q1B.
PW.3 was subjected into cross-examination.
During the course of cross-examnon PW.3 has
admitted as under:
AiÀiÁgÀÆ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÀÆ E£ÉÄÁߧâgÀ PÉÊ §gÀºÀªÀ£ÀÄß C£ÀÄPÀgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ
JAzÀgÉ ¤d .
10 CC.No.25400/2005
On the appreciation of the evidence of PW.3 it
can be stated that the person who wrote writings
on Ex.P-5 is the same person who wrote standard
writings which are marked as R-13 to R-24, S3
and S4. As far as questioned signature on Ex.P-5
which is marked Q1B is concerned, handwriting
expert did not fix up authorship of the
signature on any person since it is illegible
and not affording sufficient data. Now the
question for consideration is what is the
importance of the signature on the alleged
forged document. Forgery means "making a false
document". There are 3 forms of creating a
false document as under:
1. Making, signing, sealing or executing a document
with the intention of causing it to be believed that
such document was made by authority of a person
by whom the maker knows that it was not made.
2. Dishonest or fraudulent cancellation or alteration of
a document without lawful authority.
11 CC.No.25400/2005
3. Act of causing another person to execute or alter
document with the knowledge that the maker
thereof does not know the content of document or
the nature of the alteration.
10. "Making" also covers making documents
through mechanical means. In the case on hand it
is the specific allegation of the prosecution
that accused is the maker of the alleged
cheque of Karnataka state Huzur Treasury. It is
further alleged that the accused forged the
signature of treasury officer and wrote the
writings on the cheque. In other words the case
covers under head "making, signing, sealing a
document". It is more relevant to extract the
portion of commentary in PSA Pilla's Criminal
Law 11th Edition by K.I. Vibute at page 838. It
is stated as under:
"What constitutes a false document or part of the
document is not the writing of any number of words,
which in themselves are innocent, but the affixing of
the seal or signature of some persona to the document,
12 CC.No.25400/2005
or part of the document, knowing that the seal or
signature is that of the actual person and that the
person signing it does not have the authority to affix
it. To put it simply, the falsity consists in the
document or part of it, being signed or sealed with the
same or seal of a person who did not in fact singed or
seal it".
The alleged cheque is marked as Ex.P-5. It
discloses that it bears the signature of
Treasury Officer S.H. Treasury. It is the
allegation of the prosecution that accused
forged the signature of Treasury officer on the
cheque. As far as signature is concerned
opinion of handwriting expert is not clear. In
other words handwriting expert opined that it
is not possible to fix up authorship of this
signature since it is illegible and not
affording sufficient data. It implies that the
signature on Ex.P-5 is not in the handwriting of
the accused. Of course as far as other writings
on the questioned cheque are concerned, PW.3
13 CC.No.25400/2005
has opined that it is in the handwriting of the
accused. Unless prosecution is able to prove
that the signature on Ex.P-5 cheque is in the
handwriting of the accused, it does not come
within the perview of anyone mode of forgery as
stated under Sec.464 of IPC. Mere writing in the
handwriting of the accused other than the
signature is not sufficient to held that the
cheque is forged.
11. It is pertinent to note that
Investigation Officer did not collect the
specimen cheque from S.H. Treasury for the
opinion of handwriting expert to know the
pattern of the cheque. It discloses that
Investigation Officer had written a letter about
the cheque issued by S.H. Treasury from Joint
Director, S.H. Treasury office. The Joint
Director of S.H. office informed the
Investigation Officer to the effect that the
pattern of the alleged cheque is different from
14 CC.No.25400/2005
the cheque issued by S.H. Treasury. According to
him the printing on the alleged cheque differs
from the printing of the cheque issued by S.H.
Treasury. Under these circumstances
Investigation Officer ought to have examined the
officer of S.H. Treasury. No person of S.H.
Treasury is cited as witness in the charge
sheet. When the handwriting expert is not clear
regarding the signature on the alleged cheque,
merely the writings on the alleged cheque are
in the handwriting of the accused, it cannot be
held that it is a forged cheque. If it is proved
that signature on the alleged cheque is also
in the handwriting of the accused, then the
mater would have been different. No
investigation was conducted where the alleged
cheque was printed out. There is no legal
evidence to establish that the accused is the
maker of the cheque and he put signature of the
authority. Necessary ingredients of "making
15 CC.No.25400/2005
false document" are not established. Under these
circumstances it cannot be held that accused
forged the alleged cheque with an intention to
cheat the Government. When forgery is not
proved, question of cheating does not arise. In
my view prosecution failed to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Benefit of
doubt goes in favour of the accused.
12. In the result, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
Accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable U/s.468, 420 r/w 511 of IPC.
Accused is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 17th day of July 2015).
(VENKATARAMAN BHAT) VI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore city.
16 CC.No.25400/2005Annexure
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 Kalli Kottappa PW.2 Smt. Aruna PW.3 Lakshmi Narayana PW.4 Prakash PW.5 Gangarangaiah PW.6 Narayana PW.7 Ismail Shariff PW.8 Smt. Bhagyalatha Koushik.
2.Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P-1 Report
EX.P-1(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P-2 Report
Ex.P-3 Complaint
Ex.P-4 Letter
Ex.P-5 Cheque
Ex.P-6 to 11 Standard handwriting, signatures EX.P-12 Opinion of handwriting expert EX.P-13 Reasons for report EX.P-14 Specimen seal EX.P-15 FIR EX.P-16 Mahazar.
3. Material objects:
Nil.
VI ADDL.C.M.M.BANGALORE CITY.17 CC.No.25400/2005
(Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER Accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable U/s.468, 420 r/w 511 of IPC.
Accused is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.18 CC.No.25400/2005 19 CC.No.25400/2005
(Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER (Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.