Karnataka High Court
V. D. Raveesha vs State By New Extension Police on 11 October, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.653/2020
BETWEEN:
V.D. RAVEESHA
S/O LATE V.R. DAKSHINA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
H.NO. 9, SONDEKOPPA BYPASS
BHYRAVESWARA NAGARA
NELAMANGALA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: HALESHA .R.G. ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY NEW EXTENSION POLICE
TUMAKURU, REPT BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDERS OF CONVICTION PASSED
BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMAKURU IN CRL.A.NO.29/2018 ON 25.08.2020 CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU IN C.C.NO.1218/2012 DATED
26.04.2018 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 468, 465, 420, 471 OF IPC
AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP.
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 26.09.2023 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The accused in CC No.1218 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity), is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2018 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 465, 420 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC; sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC, with default sentences, which was confirmed vide judgment dated 25.08.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2018 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and 3 Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for brevity).
2. Brief facts of the case are that, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - N Girish, Crime No.34 of 2011 of New Extension Police Station, Tilak Park Circle, Tumakuru, was registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed against the accused Ravish for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 465 and 471 of IPC.
3. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused had availed loan from M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited and purchased the lorry bearing registration No.KA-41-2298 under loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement. He had not repaid the loan amount as agreed. It was found that he had forged (i) a receipt for having repaid the loan amount (ii) no objection certificate and (iii) Form No.35 purported to have been issued by M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, by forging the signatures of the authorized signatories, used those documents as genuine 4 documents, produced the same before the road traffic officials to get the hire purchase endorsement found on the RC cleared, sold the vehicle in favour of third party and thereby committed cheating and criminal breach of trust. It is stated that on 18.02.2011, the lorry in question was seized for his default in repaying the loan amount and found that the accused has committed the above said offences. Therefore, the chargesheet came to be filed against the accused as stated above.
4. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused to appear before the Court. The accused appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against him. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13, got marked Exs.P1 to 32 and identified MO1 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. However, Ex.D1 came to be marked during cross examination of the prosecution witness. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the 5 guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2018. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.
7. Heard Sri Halesha R.G., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.
8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that obtaining of loan, purchasing of lorry on loan- cum-Hypothecation agreement by the accused from M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, are not in dispute. But the accused has repaid the loan amount and got the receipt for having repaid the amount. He also got Form 6 No.35 and NOC issued by the Company. In fact, M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited maintains a booklet containing the loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement and other connected documents along with the receipt, NOC and Form No.35. If at all, the accused had not repaid the loan amount, M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited could have produced the said booklet pertaining to the accused to establish its contention. The same is not produced before the Court.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that after clearing the loan and getting NOC and Form No.35, the accused sold the lorry in favour of PW4. This fact is also not disputed by the accused. But he contends that only after clearing the loan, he could get those documents which are marked as Exs.P8 to 10. Even though, the prosecution contends that these documents are concocted with forged signatures, the prosecution has not placed any materials to show that, with which computer or printer, those documents were concocted and who forged the signatures on the said documents. When there are no such evidence to prove any of 7 the offences, the accused cannot be convicted for the offences in question.
10. Learned counsel submitted that Exs.P11 and 12 are said to be the formats of the receipt and NOC, which M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, issues to its customers. The customer who is entitled to receive Exs.P11 and 12 is not examined before the Trial Court. When the loan pertaining to the said customer is cleared and Exs.P11 and 12 were issued, there were no reason for M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited to retain those documents with it. Therefore, no importance could be attached to the said documents and it was not produced from proper custody. There is nothing on record to connect the accused to any of the offences alleged and therefore, he is entitled for acquittal. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed an error in convicting the accused without any basis. Hence, he prays for allowing the revision petition by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and to acquit the accused, in the interest of justice. 8
11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the revision petition submitted that admittedly, the accused borrowed loan to purchase the lorry under loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement. He has not repaid the loan amount, but concocted Exs.P8 to 10. The disputed documents and signatures were forwarded for verification by the handwriting expert along with the admitted signatures and handwritings. The report as per Ex.P28 is received which supports the contention of the prosecution. PW5 is the Divisional Manger who specifically stated that he never signed and issued Exs.P8 to 10. It was only the accused who is the author of concocted and fabricated documents, which he produced before the RTO and sold the lorry in favour of PW4. Thereby, he has committed the offences as alleged. The prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are right in convicting the accused. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
12. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
9
"Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
13. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that the accused had borrowed a loan and purchased the lorry in question on loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement. Without repaying the loan amount, the accused is said to have concocted the loan certificate as per Ex.P8, receipt for having paid the loan amount as per Ex.P9 and Form No.35 as per Ex.P10, as if the same were issued by PW5 - the authorized officer of M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. Since the accused has concocted these documents, forged the signatures of the authorized officer and used the said documents as genuine documents to clear the RC from hypothecation in favour of M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, he has cheated and committed criminal breach of trust as stated above.
10
14. To prove this contention, the prosecution examined PW1 - Gireesha, the informant who was working as Manger in M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. Witness stated that the accused had purchased the old vehicle bearing registration No.KA-41-2298 by availing loan of Rs.3,00,000/- during 2010. He agreed to repay the loan amount with 30 installments and had repaid only 1 or 2 installments and thereafter, he has become a defaulter. On 18.02.2011, the lorry in question was seized and it was seen that the vehicle was standing in the name of one Smt.Savitramma. Since the accused had not repaid the loan installments, the hypothecation in respect of the vehicle was not cancelled. On verification, it was found that the accused has concocted the documents and forged the signatures. Therefore, he lodged the first information as per Ex.P1. The mahazar drawn for seizing the vehicle is as per Ex.P2. He identified the vehicle as seen in Exs.P3 to 6.
15. Witness stated that the Investigating Officer collected the sample writings and signatures of the Divisional Manager as per Exs.P13 and 14. Similarly, the writings and signatures of the accused were also collected as per Exs.P15 11 and 16 and sent for handwriting expert. Witness stated that Exs.P8 to 10 are the NOC receipt for having paid the amount and Form No.35 which were concocted and forged by the accused. Witness stated that Exs.P11 and 12 are the standard sample receipts and NOC which the Company used to issue to its customers. During cross examination, nothing has been elicited from this witness to disbelieve his version. However, witness categorically denied the suggestion that at the time of sanctioning the loan, the Company will get signatures on Form Nos.29, 30 and 35. Witness stated that only after repayment of the loan amount, Form-35 will be signed and will be given to the customers. Witness stated that Exs.P11 and 12 are the documents which will be prepared in duplicate and one copy will be given to the customers and the other copy will be maintained in M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited.
16. PW2 - Yogeesh Yadav is the mahazar witness to Ex.P2, under which the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-41- 2298 was seized. Witness stated that he is an advocate by profession and working as legal recovery executive. 12
17. PW3 - M C Nagabhusahana is the legal executive working in M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. Witness stated that on 17.10.2009, the accused had availed loan for purchase of lorry, but he has not repaid the loan amount. He had concocted the documents and forged the signatures. Exs.P8 to 10 are those concocted and forged documents. Witness stated that the receipt for having paid the amount and NOC would be issued in the format as per Exs.P11 and 12. This witness re-iterated the say of PW1 that Exs.P11 and 12 will be prepared in duplicate and one copy will be given to the customer and the other will be retained in the office. Witness categorically denied the suggestion that he is seeing the accused for the first time before the Court. He also denied the suggestion that Exs.P8 to 10 are not the concocted or forged documents.
18. Even though, PWs.1 and 3 were cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited from them to disbelieve their version. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that Exs.P11 and 12 were not produced from proper custody and the customer concerned 13 was not summoned and examined by the prosecution, cannot be accepted.
19. PW5 - Nandagopal is the Divisional Manager in M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. Witness stated that he never issued NOC in favour of the accused. Witness also stated that Ex.P10 does not bear his signature and it is a forged document. During cross examination, witness denied the suggestion that Form No.35 as per Ex.P10 was signed by him and forwarded it to the Branch.
20. PW6 - Sudhakar Babu is the Head Constable who received the documents from Nelamangala RTO office and produced the same before the Investigating Officer along with a report. The report is identified as Ex.P8 and the documents seized from the RTO office is per Ex.P10.
21. PW8 - Venkataramaiah is the cashier in M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. Witness stated that he was working along with PW3 and that he had never issued Ex.P9. Ex.P11 was issued from M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. He identified his signature found on Ex.P7. Witness stated that the Investigating Officer 14 obtained his signatures and the writings on white paper. Similarly, the writings of the accused and his signatures were also obtained and the said documents is as per Exs.P8, 14,
15. Witness denied the suggestion that Ex.P9 was issued by him to the accused. He also denied the suggestion that even though the accused has repaid the loan amount, the said amount was misappropriated by the officials and a criminal case was registered against the accused.
22. PW9 - Dinesh Kumar is the Investigating Officer who registered FIR on the basis of first information and seized the lorry bearing registration No.KA-41-2298 under the mahazar - Ex.P2. He recorded the statement of various witnesses. It is stated that he collected Exs.P21 to 24. He also received Exs.P9 and 10 in the presence of CWs.4 and 9. He drawn the panchanama as per Ex.P7. Under Ex.P7, the sample writings and signatures of CWs.2, 3 and the accused were obtained. The same are as per Exs.P13 to 16. Ex.P26 is also the writings of the accused. Witness stated that he had seized Ex.P9 under PF No.64 of 2011. Exs.P11 and 19 were seized under Ex.P7 on the same day. During cross examination, nothing has been elicited from the witness. 15
23. PW10 - Abdul Azeez is the Investigating Officer who took further investigation and deposed about the investigation undertaken and filing of the chargesheet.
24. PW11 - Syed Asgar Imam is the Assistant Director, FSL Bengaluru who issued the FSL report as per Ex.P28. Witness stated that he had received the sample writings and signatures as and also disputed writings and signatures with a request to verify the same and to give his report. He verified the admitted signatures and writings and compared with the disputed ones and issued his report as per Ex.P28. He is of the opinion that the person who wrote the specimen signatures as S1, E1 and E2 did not write the questioned signatures marked as D1 to 4. The signatures marked as D1 to 4 are imitation forgery. Similarly, the person who wrote the specimen signatures as per E5 and E6 also wrote the questioned signatures marked as D5 and D7.
25. The accused borrowing the loan and purchasing of the lorry in question under loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement is not in dispute. The accused producing Exs.P8 to 10 before the RTO officials and getting the hypothecation 16 cancelled in the registration certificate of the lorry is also not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the accused sold the lorry in favour of PW4 after clearing the hypothecation endorsement. The prosecution examined PWs.3 and 5 who have clearly stated that they never issued Exs.P8 to 10 and it does not contain their signatures. It is not in serious dispute that the specimen writings and signatures of PWs.3, 5 and the accused were obtained by the Investigating Officer and the same were forwarded to handwriting expert in Science Forensic Laboratory, Bengaluru, along with the disputed writing and the signatures found on Exs.P8 to 10. The opinion of the expert is as per Ex.P28, which makes it clear that the specimen signatures marked as S1, E1 and E2 did not write the questioned signatures marked as D1 to D4. It is specifically stated in the report that the questioned signatures marked as D1 to 4 are produced by means of imitation forgery. Therefore, forging the documents and the signatures as per Exs.P8 to 10 is proved by the prosecution.
26. Now the question arises as to who is responsible for forging Exs.P8 to 10. The handwriting expert examined as PW11 in his report as per Ex.P28 specifically stated that the 17 person who wrote the specimen signatures in E5 and E6 also wrote the questioned signatures marked as D5 to 7. Apart from the report of handwriting expert, the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 5 and 11 who consistently deposed in support of the case of the prosecution. During their cross examination, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve their version.
27. The defence that is taken by the accused is that, he had in fact repaid the loan amount and accordingly, received Exs.P8 to 10 from M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. The accused has not given details of the amount which he had repaid to M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. He never stated as to what was the amount he repaid, how he repaid and when the same was repaid. If at all, he had repaid the loan amount of more than Rs.2,00,000/-, the accused should be in a position to say from where he got the said amount and how he paid it. In the absence of any such details by the accused, it cannot be said that he has probablised his defence. There is absolutely nothing on record to disbelieve the version of any of the prosecution witnesses. But there are no reasons to believe the version of the accused.
18
28. When the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence available on record, he categorically admitted availing of loan from M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited by hypothecating the same, non payment of loan installments, collection of sample signatures and the writings by the Investigating Officer and sending the same with disputed writings and signature to forensic lab, seizing of his lorry bearing registration No.KA-41-2298, which he had sold in favour of wife of PW4, registration of FIR, seizing of cash paid receipt and other writings under Ex.P7. He further admits that Form No.35 contains his signature, but stated that he signed it while availing the loan.
29. Learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution has not proved as to who forged the writings and signatures on Exs.P8 to 10. Ex.P28 - the report of the handwriting expert is an answer to the said contention. Moreover, admittedly, the accused has produced Exs.P8 to 10 before the RTO office, got the hypothecation endorsement cleared, sold the lorry in question in favour of PW4. Under such circumstances, it is none else than the accused who is 19 the author of disputed documents and signatures. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
30. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Both the Courts on proper appreciation of the materials on record, have arrived at a proper perspective and the same do not call for interference. Hence, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2018 passed in CC No.1218 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, which was confirmed vide judgment dated 25.08.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2018 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, is hereby confirmed.20
Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-