Tripura High Court
Smt. Maranibala Das (Dey) W/O Sri Amar ... vs The State Of Tripura Represented By Pp on 26 November, 2021
Author: S.G.Chattopadhyay
Bench: S.G.Chattopadhyay
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.Rev.P.No.80 of 2016
1.Smt. Maranibala Das (Dey) W/o Sri Amar Ch. Dey, Of Fulkumari,
Madhyapara, PS- R.K.Pur, Udaipur, Dist-Gomati Tripura
2.Sri Amulya Das S/o Lt. Sashi Bhusan Das, Of East Gukulpur, PS- RK
Pur, Udaipur, Dist- Gomati Tripura
3.Sri Chandan Roy S/o Lt. Birendra Ch. Roy, Of Puranbari, North
Charilam, PS-Bishalgarh, Dist- Sipahijala.
-----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura Represented by PP, High Court of Tripura, Agartala
-----Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.G.Chakraborty, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.Ghosh,Add. PP.
Date of hearing : 17.09.2021
Date of judgment : 26.11.2021
Whether fit for reporting : No.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY
JUDGMENT
[1] This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the common judgment and order dated 16.08.2016 whereby the leaned Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur disposed of criminal Appeal No.7(1) of 2015, Crl. Appl. No 10(1) of 2015 and Crl. Appl. No.14(2) of 2015 setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 468 IPC passed by the Chief 2 Judicial Magistrate, Gomati Judicial District Udaipur in case No.GR 445 of 2010 and affirming their conviction and sentence under Section 471 IPC.
[2] The factual background of the case is as under:
Sri M.L.Das, Sub-divisional Magistrate, Udaipur lodged a written FIR with the Officer in charge of Radha Kishore Pur Police Station on 12.08.2010 alleging, inter alia, that petitioner Maranibala Das (Dey) who was a peon in the office of the informant along with petitioner Sri Amulya Ch. Das, store guard and Sri Chandan Roy, voucher paid driver forged various documents for procuring loan from Tripura State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Shalgara branch. When the said documents including department's recommendation for sanctioning loan were forwarded to the informant along with the loan sanction letters issued in favour of the convict petitioners by the branch manager of said Tripura State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Shalgara branch, the informant on scrutiny of the office records came to ascertain that no such recommendation was made from the department for sanctioning loan to the petitioners. In his FIR, the informant alleged that there might be a racket behind such illegal activities and therefore he urged for police investigation.Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016 3
[3] On the basis of the said FIR R.K.Pur P.S. case No.289 of 2010 under Sections 468 and 471 IPC was registered and investigation of the case was taken up. During investigation, the loan documents were seized by police and sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory along with the specimen signatures of the petitioners for comparison. The material witnesses were also examined and their police statements were recorded and after completion of the investigation, the IO submitted the charge sheet against accused petitioner Smt. Maranibala Das(Dey), Amulya Ch. Das and Chandan Roy for having committed offence punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. Having received the charge sheet, the learned CJM had taken cognizance of offence and framed separate charges against each of the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC which are as under:
"Charge against Sri Chandan Roy:
Firstly, that you on 22.07.2010 at any time and place under R.K.Pur P.S. Gomati District, forged salary certificate intending that the salary certificate shall be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Secondly, that you on the said date and time at Tripura State Cooperative bank, Salgara Branch, under R.K.Pur P.S, Gomati District, fraudulently used the said salary certificate as genuine which you knew to be a forged document and thereby you have committed an Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016 4 offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian penal Code and within my cognizance.
And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges by this Court."
"Charge against Sri Amulya Ch. Das Firstly, that you on 21.07.2010 at any time and place under R.K.Pur P.S. Gomati District, forged salary certificate intending that the salary certificate shall be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Secondly, that you on the said date and time at Tripura State Cooperative bank, Salgara Branch, under R.K.Pur P.S, Gomati District, fraudulently used the said salary certificate as genuine which you knew to be a forged document and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian penal Code and within my cognizance.
And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges by this Court."
"Charge against Smt.Maranibala Das Firstly, that you on 03.07.2010 at any time forged salary certificate intending that the salary certificate shall be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Secondly, that you on the said date and time at Tripura State Co-Operative bank, Salgara Branch, under R.K.Pur P.S, Gomati Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016 5 District, fraudulently used the said salary certificate as genuine which you knew to be a forged document and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian penal Code and within my cognizance.
And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges by this Court."
All the accused petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charges and desired to stand the trial.
[4] In the course of trial, prosecution examined Sri Pradip Chakraborty, a Police Officer as PW-1, Sibu Ch. Dey, another Police Officer as PW-2, Subrata Debbarma, the then SDPO of Udaipur as PW- 3, Ananda Kishore Jamatia, the then Branch Manager of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank, Shalgarh Branch as PW-4, Manik Lal Das, SDM, Sadar who is the first informant as PW-5, Bapi Debbarma, Officer-in-Charge of R.K.Pur Police Station as PW-6, Ramananda Debbarma, one of the investigating officers as PW-7, Smt. Bhanumati Dey, Cashier, Tripura State Cooperative Bank, Shalgara Branch as PW- 8 and Sri Amal Chandra Kalita, an Officer of the State Forensic Science Laboratory as PW-9. Apart from adducing the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as many as 18 documents were introduced on behalf of the prosecution which were exhibited and marked as Exbt.1 - Exbt.18 Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016 6 [5] On the basis of the incriminating materials appearing against the accused petitioner they were separately examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In their reply each accused had made a plain denial of the prosecution charges and claimed that the charges were foisted on them. They declined to adduce any evidence on their defence. [6] On appreciation of evidence, the trial court held each of the 03 accused petitioners guilty of offence punishable under Section 468 and 471 IPC and convicted each of them for such offence. Each of them were sentenced to RI for 2 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for having committed offence punishable under Section 468 IPC. Same sentence was imposed on them for offence punishable under Section 471 IPC and it was ordered by the trial court that both the sentences would run concurrently.
[7] Each of the convict petitioners challenged the said judgment and order of their conviction and sentence by filing separate appeals in the court of the Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District at Udaipur. As discussed, the learned Sessions Judge decided the 03 appeals together by the common judgment dated 16.08.2016 whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 468 IPC was set aside while their conviction and sentence under Section 471 IPC was Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016 7 upheld. The relevant extract of the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is as under:
"10) Ld. Counsel Mr. Pijush Kanti Sarkar appearing for the appellant Chandan Roy admitted that his client was not a regular govt. employee of the establishment of S.D.M., Udaipur, however, he argued that in the loan application form of his client, other two persons namely Priti Ranjan Das and Haradhan Debnath also signed as witnesses but those persons were not arrayed in the criminal proceeding. I donot find much force in that submission, for, the loan application form of the appellant was not forged one, rather his certificate of salary and under taking by D.D.O. was alleged to be forged, in which above said persons were not at all signatories. He also argued that there was no investigation as to who filled up the loan application form and said fake certificate of D.D.O. Here this Court agrees with Mr. Sarkar that there was lacuna in police investigation in this regard, but for that reason, his client cannot claim acquittal, rather for that shortfall in the investigation, other person(s) who was/were collaborator in the crime with the appellants could not be booked. From the document containing standard signatures of appellant Chandan Roy under Ext. 16 series as was taken before Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, it appears that he can sign both in Bengali and in English. Thus, it also cannot be said that without knowing the contents of the forged certificate of D.D.O. in his respect, he signed in the same.
The matter of knowledge or belief of accused regarding use of forged documents can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case and it is not possible that on every occasion direct evidence of knowledge of accused in this regard will be available in the record. In this regard a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in A.S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala, (2004) 11 SCC 576, at page 583 wherein the followings were held by Hon'ble Apex Court : "10. In substance, what it means is that a person must have reason to believe if the circumstances are such that a reasonable man would, by probable reasoning, conclude or infer regarding the nature of the thing concerned. Such circumstances need not necessarily be capable of absolute conviction or inference; but it is sufficient if the circumstances are such as creating a cause to believe by chain of probable reasoning leading to the conclusion or inference about the nature of the thing. These two requirements i.e. "knowledge" and "reason to believe" have to be deduced from various circumstances in the case."
Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016 8
11) As already stated above that the prosecution could not established by cogent evidence that the appellants forged those three certificates of D.D.O., but it is proved that they had produced the same to the Branch Manager of TSCB, Salgarah Branch for obtaining a loan having reason to believe or having knowledge that those certificates were forged. Consequently, the charge under section 468 IPC is not proved in this case, but charge under section 471 IPC is duly proved against the appellants. It is an economic offence done with an intention to take out money from a public establishment like Bank by adopting illegal means and as such Ld. Trial Court was justified in not giving any benefit of Probation of Offenders Act,1958 to the appellants.
ORDER In the result the appeal is partly allowed and judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the three appellants under section 468 IPC is hereby set aside, but the conviction and sentence passed under section 471 IPC against them by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati, Udaipur is hereby affirmed." [8] Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the petitioners preferred the present criminal revision petition before this court. By an order dated 09.09.2016 in IA No.1265 of 2016 arising out of this criminal revision petition, this court granted bail to each of the petitioners and suspended their conviction and sentence. [9] During the pendency of this criminal revision petition, it was submitted before this court that convict petitioner Amulya Ch.Das and Chandan Roy died. Report was called for from the concerned Superintendent of Police. The concerned Superintendent of Police by his letter dated 16.08.2021 confirmed the death of convict petitioner Amulya Ch. Das. His death certificate issued by the competent authority Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016 9 was annexed to the said letter which revealed that the petitioner died on 25.06.2020. Similarly, the Superintendent of Police, Sepahijala District confirmed the death of Chandan Roy. According to the death certificate issued by the competent authority, he died on 07.08.2021. [10] Heard Mr.R.G.Chakraborty, counsel appearing for the convict petitioner. Also heard Mr.S.Ghosh, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State respondent.
[11] It is contended by Mr.Chakraborty, learned counsel that both the principal accused have expired. The present petitioner cannot read or write English except signing her name in English. Counsel further submits that she did not have any intention to cheat any one. She was told that for getting loan from bank she would have to sign on some papers. Accordingly she put her signature without knowing anything about the nature of the documents and without having any knowledge of the fact that the said document was a forged document. Learned counsel submits that Section 471 prescribes punishment for fraudulent or dishonest use of any forged document as genuine knowing or having reason to believe that such document was a forged document. Counsel submits that in the present case, petitioner Smt. Maranibala Das had no idea or she had no reason to believe that the document which was annexed to her loan application was a forged document. Counsel submits Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016 10 that she fell victim of a conspiracy and therefore her conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside.
[12] Mr.S.Ghosh, learned Addl. PP, on the other hand submits that her specimen signatures were tallied with her signatures appearing on the loan application and disputed salary certificate in the forensic science laboratory and it was opined by the forensic examiner that the specimen signatures and the signature on the questioned documents were of the same person. Counsel contends that since the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the establishment where she worked stated that he did not issue any such salary certificate recommending sanction of loan, it stands established that petitioner forged the salary certificate for obtaining loan from the Tripura State Cooperative Bank and she used the forged document as genuine. Counsel therefore, urges the court to uphold the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. [13] In the course of their arguments, learned counsel have referred to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. PW-1, Pradip Chakraborty, PW-2, Sibu Ch.Dey and PW-3 Subrata Debbarma were all police officers. They did not give any significant evidence. PW-4 Ananda Kishore Jamatia was the branch manager of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank Ltd, Shalgara branch at the material time. He stated that petitioner Smt. Maranibala Das along with Amulya Das and Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016 11 Chandan Roy made loan applications to the Bank and along with their loan application they annexed salary certificate, bank clearance certificate, promissory note, letter of acceptance etc. After verification of their documents, a loan of Rs.1 lakh was sanctioned in favour of Smt.Maranibala Das and loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- were sanctioned to the other 02 accused. They introduced themselves as staff of the office of the SDM, Udaipur and their salary certificates were shown to have been issued by the SDM, Udaipur. Therefore, after sanctioning loan, the PW informed the matter to SDM for deduction of EMI from their salary. The SDM asked him to return back the loan applications along with the annexed documents to him for verification. The PW stated that thereafter, he was transferred elsewhere.
In his cross-examination, PW-4 categorically asserted that a retired officer of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank introduced accused Maranibala Das and Chandan Roy to him and on his insistence accounts were opened in the branch in their name. It was also stated by the PW that some retired employee of the bank namely Sudhir Sutradhar and Gopal Chowdhury brought the petitioners to the bank and urged the PW for sanctioning their loan.
[14] PW-5 is Manik Lal Das who was the SDM at the material time. He stated that among the petitioners, Maranibala Das and Amulya Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016 12 Das were employees in his office and Chandan Roy was a voucher paid driver on no work no pay basis. The PW stated that a government employee can apply for loan only after obtaining NOC from the department. No such NOC was issued in favour of the petitioners. Moreover, the salary certificates used by the petitioners for obtaining loan annexed to their loan applications were never issued from the office of the SDM. The PW stated that he examined the salary certificates and found that those were forged documents. The PW categorically stated that petitioners never submitted any loan applications through the department and no salary certificate was issued from the department for the purpose of their getting loan. He identified the forged salary certificate of the petitioners which were marked as Exbt.8/1, 9/1 and 10/1.
[15] PW-6, Bapi Debbarma received the FIR from PW-5 at the police station and registered the case. He had also done part of the investigation of the case and during his investigation he procured the specimen signatures of the accused person and sent the same to the State Forensic Science Laboratory along with the questioned documents for expert opinion.
[16] PW-7 Ramendra Debbarma, completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners since it was Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016 13 established during investigation that they forged the salary certificate and annexed the same to their loan application for obtaining loan from Tripura State Cooperative Bank Ltd.
[17] PW-8 was the cashier of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank Ltd. at the material time. In his presence the IO seized the questioned documents from the Tripura State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and as a witness he signed the seizure list.
[18] PW-9 Amal Ch. Kalita was a hand writing expert posted in State Forensic Science Laboratory who after comparing the specimen signatures of the petitioners with their signatures appearing on the questioned documents submitted his report which was marked as Exbt.15 during trial. During his examination-in-chief he identified his report and in his cross examination it was suggested to him that he prepared report without application of scientific method. The PW denied the suggestion.
[19] In this set of evidence learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the contention of the defence counsel that the petitioners used the forged salary certificate as genuine without knowing the contents thereof. It was held by the learned Sessions Judge that direct evidence of knowledge or belief that the document was forged cannot always be available. But Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016 14 from the given facts and circumstances of the case reasonable inference could be drawn that the petitioners used the salary certificate for obtaining loan from bank knowing or having reason to believe that the document was forged. Learned Sessions Judge, however, found that there was no evidence to establish that the petitioners forged the said salary certificate. Therefore, he acquitted them of the charge of offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and since it was proved that they knowingly used the forged salary certificate as genuine with dishonest and fraudulent intention he upheld their conviction and sentence under Section 471 IPC.
[20] It would appear from the record that petitioner Smt. Maranibala Das by her application dated 03.07.2010 applied for a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the branch manager of Tripura State Cooperative Bank. She was a peon in the office of SDM at Udaipur in South Tripura at that time. Required particulars with regard to her gross salary and the deductions made therefrom were furnished in her application and there is no allegation against her that she made any misrepresentation in her loan application. She duly signed the application. The petitioner also admitted her signature on her loan application. Her application was proceeded in the bank and by sanction order dated 22.07.2010, loan of Rs.1,00,000/- was also sanctioned in her favour and equated monthly instalment was Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016 15 worked out at Rs.2,280/- for recovery of the loan by way of deduction from her salary. A reference to salary certificate issued by the DDO of her office was made in column 9 of the loan sanction order. The said salary certificate does not contain any signature of her. Another document which was annexed to the loan application containing the signature of the petitioner is her undertaking whereby she had undertaken that she would pay the EMI regularly without default and in case of default she would face legal consequence. In these circumstances, the contention of the learned defence counsel that petitioner had no knowledge or reason to believe that a forged salary certificate was annexed to her loan application cannot be discarded. It is clear that the petitioner required loan for which she applied to the bank in proper form. She had also undertaken in the prescribed format that she would repay the loan regularly and in case of any default she would be held responsible and she would face legal consequences. Charge against her is that she forged the salary certificate and knowingly used the forged document as genuine. She has denied the charge. It is clear that the disputed document does not even contain her signature. Therefore, it cannot be used against her. Why did they rely on the unsigned document without verification and how it was annexed to petitioner's loan application is best known to the bank.
Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016 16 [21] She was a government employee in regular scale of pay and she furnished the true particulars of her salary in her loan application. She had also submitted undertaking to repay the loan in equated monthly instalment. There was therefore, no intention on her part to cheat the bank. It was the duty of the branch manager to verify whether proper documents were annexed to the loan application before sanctioning the loan. In the given facts and circumstances of the case no element of cheating or forgery can be attributed to the petitioner. The charge under Section 471 IPC does not survive against her.
[22] For the reasons stated above, the conviction and sentence of petitioner namely Smt. Maranibala Das (Dey) cannot be upheld. Resultantly, her conviction and sentence is set aside. She is set at liberty. [23] Since the other two petitioners have died during the pendency of the case, the proceedings against them cannot continue. [24] In terms of the above, the criminal revision petition stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
JUDGE Saikat Sarma, P.S-II Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016