Bangalore District Court
And Owner Of The Stolen Articles. P.W.5 ... vs On 29-10-2013 Attempted To Draw Amount ... on 13 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 30th day of April 2015
Present : Sri.J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.C.C.No. 21685/2013
2.Date of Offence 29-10-2013
3.Complainant State by Upaprpet Police Station
4.Accused Harish (absconded)
2.Krishnojirao S/o late Mahadev
Rao, aged 68 years, C/o Race
Course, Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s.465, 468, 471, 420 of IPC
of
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused is acquitted
8.Date of Order 30-4-2015
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Upparpet Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against this accused
No.2 for the offences punishable U/s. 465, 468, 471 and 420
C.C.No.21685/2013
of IPC. The investigation officer has shown accused No.1 in
absconding column and had reserved his right, to file separate
charge sheet against accused No.1 after his arrest.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that C.W.8
Sandeep Kedia being the proprietor of Life line solution
company, situated at No.215/A, KHB Colony, 5th Block,
Koramangala, Bangalore had current account bearing.
No.044700150950097 in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, City
Branch, BVK Iyengar Road, Bangalore. On 21-9-2013, C.W.8
has issued cheque bearing No.054047, for Rs.25,186.38 and
cheque No.054048 for Rs.12,170/- towards credit card
payment of HSBC Bank, M.G.Road, Branch and handed over
to his worker Mahesh with a direction to put into post box.
Accordingly, the said Mahesh dropped the said cheques in
post box, kept at Koramangala, 5th Block. On 14-10-2013,
C.W.8 on verification of his current account of Tamilnadu
Mercantile Bank, found that the cheques issued in the name
of HSBC bank towards payment of credit card have been
directly encashed and payment was made to some other
persons. Immediately, C.W.8 enquired his said Tamilnadu
Mercantile Bank and found forging of his cheques and drawing
of the amount. Thereafter, he came to know from his said
bank that the cheque beg No.054069 issued for Rs.12,000/-
has been forged as Rs.22,400/- and when the accused No.2
C.C.No.21685/2013
tried to draw the said cheque amount from the bank, he has
been caught hold red handedly.
3. Further it is the case of the prosecution that the
accused No.1 Harish by stealing the above referred two
cheques from the post box, forged the amount mentioned on it
and by obtaining signatures of present accused on the back of
said cheques, has drawn a sum of Rs.12,170/- and
Rs.25,180/- respectively from the account of CW.8 in
Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, through present accused. When
the present accused on 29-10-2013 attempted to draw amount
by presenting cheque No.054069 by forging the amount, has
been caught hold by bank officials and handed over to police
along with complaint and thereby committed aforesaid
offences.
4. The accused No.2 is in judicial custody. On receipt of
chargesheet this court took cognizance of the offences and
furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the accused
No.2. The accused No.2 has sought legal assistance.
Accordingly, standing legal aid counsel has been appointed on
his behalf. After hearing both counsels on charges, this court
framed the charge for the offences punishable under Sections
465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC and questioned the accused
No.2 regarding the charge made against him he denied the
charge and claimed to be tried.
C.C.No.21685/2013
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case got
examined eight witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked
eleven documents at Exs.P1 to P11. Since C.Ws.4, 8 and 10
did not turn up before this court, by rejecting the prayer of
Sr.APP this court dropped the examination of said witnesses.
6. Thereafter, this court examined the accused as
required under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 denied
the incriminating evidence appeared against him and
submitted that he has no defence evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
8. The prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused
has examined eight witnesses. P.W.1 K.Krishnaraju is the
spot mahazar witness. P.W.2 A.R.Gopala Reddy is the police
constable who arrested the accused and produced before the
court. P.W.3 P.Balasubramanya is the complainant and
circumstantial witness. P.W.4 G.Hariharan is working as
Assistant Manager, P.W.6 Manju working as Clerk, P.W.5
Geetharani working as another Clerk and P.W.7 Ilavasan
working as another clerk in Tamilnadu Merchantile Bank who
are the circumstantial witnesses. P.W.8 Ramesh G.P. is the
Investigating Officer. It appears inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities the prosecution has not examined C.Ws.4, 8
and 9.
C.C.No.21685/2013
9. It is the allegation of the prosecution that CW.8
Sandeep Kedia is the proprietor of Life line solution company
situated at No.215/A, KHB colony, 5th block, Koramangala,
Bangalore had opened current account beg.
No.044700150950097 in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, City
Branch, BVK Iyengar road, Bangalore. On 21-9-2013 C.W.8
has handed over cheque No.054047, for Rs.25,186.38 and
cheque No.054048 for Rs.12,170/- in favour of HSBC Bank,
M.G.Road, Branch towards credit card payment to his worker
Mahesh with a direction to drop it into post box. Accordingly,
the said Mahesh dropped the said cheques in post box kept at
5th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore. On 14-10-2013 C.W.8 has
verified his current account in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank
and found that the said two cheques issued in the name of
HSBC bank towards credit card payments directly encashed
and payment was made to some other person. Immediately,
he enquired in his Tamilnadu mercantile Bank and found
forging of his cheques and drawing of amount directly.
Further, he came to know that the cheque beg No.054069
issued for Rs.12,000/- has been forged for Rs.22,400/- and
when the accused No.2 made attempt to draw the amount of
said cheque, he was caught hold by Bank officials and handed
over to the police.
C.C.No.21685/2013
10. Further it is the case of the prosecution that the
accused No.1 Harish by stealing the above referred two
cheques from the post box, forged the amount mentioned on
it, by obtaining signature of present accused on the back of
said cheques, has presented and drawn a sum of Rs.12,170/-
and Rs.25,180/- respectively from Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank
through present accused. When the present accused on 29-
10-2013 attempted to draw amount through cheque
No.054069 by forging name and amount, caught hold by bank
officials and handed over to the police. If we carefully peruse
the entire allegations, it appears there are serious allegations
of forging of amount mentioned in the above-referred cheques
bearing No.054047, 054048 and 054069 by accused No.1.
However, the allegations against present accused is to the
effect that, he as per the instructions of accused No.1, has
obtained two cheques, by affixing his signatures on the back of
it, drawn the amount twice from the said bank. When on 29-
10-2013 the present accused has made attempt to draw the
amount through another cheque No.054069, he was caught
hold and handed over to the police.
Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has reserved his
right to file separate charge sheet against A1 Harish. The
charge against present accused No.2 is to the effect that this
accused affixing his signatures on the back of forged cheques
bearing No.054047, 054048 and 054069 issued by CW 8
C.C.No.21685/2013
Sandeep Kedia of his account No.044700150950097, drawn
the amount from the said account of CW 8 on 29-10-2013
while this accused was attempted to drawn the amount by
presently cheque No.054069 the bank officials caught hold
him and handed over to the police.
Ex.P.5 is the account statement of cash credit account of
M/s Life Solutions Company belonged to CW 8 Sandeep Kedia,
Ex.P.9 is the account opening form and Ex.P.10 is the
undertaking letter. These two documents prima facie
indicating that M/s. Life Line Solution Company belonged to
CW 8 Sandeep Kedia and the account No.044700150950097
is operating by her only unfortunately inspite of giving
sufficient opportunities the prosecution has not examined
CW8.
Now let us consider whether the prosecution is
successful in proving the guilt against present accused for the
offences alleged against him. The testimony of PW 3
P.Balasubramany indicating that on 29-10-2013 one person
visited his bank for with drawl of amount and presented one
cheque in the cash counter. The cashier of his bank grew
suspicious over the said cheque and handed over to the
assistant manager of his bank PW 4 herein. PW 4 has found
that said cheque is forged one. Accordingly, PW 4 has
enquired the person the person who presented the said
cheque. After confirming that said cheque is forged the person
C.C.No.21685/2013
who presented the cheque has been handed over to the police
and he lodged the complaint to the police as per Ex.P.3. The
prosecution said person earlier has presented two forged
cheques and encashed the amount. Though PW 3, the
account statement of life line solution from which account the
cash was drawn on two occasions and also account opening
form of said life line solutions. In the further chief evidence
PW 3 has explained the cheque numbers of two cheques, from
which the present accused drawn the amount.
The testimony of PW 3 is corroborated by PW 4
G.Hariharan the Assistant Manager of said bank. His
testimony indicating that CW 8 Sandeep Kedia is the customer
of his bank who is owner of LifeLine Solutions. On 29-9-2013
and on 3-10-10 he forwarded two cheques brought by A2
issued in the names of Babu Mahendra Sharma and
H.Chandra Shekar Murthy by CW 8 for encashment. At the
term of forwarding the same due to over sight, he has not
noticed any alteration in the said cheques. Thereafter, CW 8
has informed the bank that said two cheques were issued by
him, towards credit card payment and it was sent through
post. CW 8 further informed the bank that the said cheques
have been wrongly accepted and made payment by the bank.
Accordingly, he requested CW 8 to issue similar cheques
towards payment of credit due and send through post only.
After two to three days A2 visited his bank with another
C.C.No.21685/2013
cheque for encashment belonged to CW 8. At that time he
seriously verified and found alteration account immediately
his bank handed over A2 to the police with complaint.
PW 5 Geetharam, PW 6 Manju and PW 7 Ilavarasan are
the clerks working in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, B.V.K.
Iyengar Road branch, Bangalore. Their testimony indicating
that on 30-9-2013 A2 approached PW 7 and handed over one
cheque being its number 54047 for Rs.25,180/- for
encashment PW 7 verified the signature of account holder
cheque. Since it is tallying he forwarded the same to passing
section PW 6 Geetharam working in the said passing section
received the cheque forwarded by PW 7, she verified the date,
amount, cross enquiry with the holder of the cheque and paid
the cash.
The evidence of PW 6 Manju working as clerk in the said
bank, indicating that on 3-10-2013 accused No.2 approached
him and handed over cheque bearing No.54048 for
Rs.12,170/-. He verified the signature of the account holder it
was tallying and as such he forwarded to the passing officer.
The testimony of PW 5 Geetharam the said passing officer
further indicating that on 3-10-2013 she received another
cheque bearing No.54048 for Rs.12,170/- from passing
section. She verified date, amount cross enquiry with the
holder of the cheque and paid the cash.
C.C.No.21685/2013
The testimony of P.W.5 to 7 further indicating that
thereafter, they came to know from their bank that said
cheques were forged one and by misrepresentation A2 has
wrongly encashed it.
The testimony of P.W.8 indicating that on 29-10-2013 he
received the complaint from P.W.3 and registered the case.
P.W.3 along with complainant has produced cheque-bearing
No.054069 and reported to court under P.F.No.138/13.
Thereafter, he came to know from P.W.3 that accused No.1
and 2 by forging above referred cheque as well as two other
cheques bearing No.54948 and 54947 has wrongly encashed
from the bank. Thereafter, he arrested accused No.2 and sent
to judicial custody. During the course of investigation he
recorded the statements of P.W.4 G.Hariharan, P.W.5
Geetharani and P.W.6 Manju. Thereafter, he received bank
statements from PW 3. Further he recorded statement of C.W
4. He also recorded the statement of one Yellamma who
deposited the cheques of LifeLine Solutions. After completion
of investigation has filed chargesheet filed.
xxx
11. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has not arrested
the accused No.1 Harish who is the main accused. As stated
above the investigation officer has reserved his right to file
C.C.No.21685/2013
separate chargesheet against A1 after his arrest and after
further investigation. Now let us consider whether the
prosecution proves the guilt against the present accused No.2
beyond all reasonable doubt. As stated above, at the repetition
of cost, the allegations against present accused No.2 is only to
the effect that he, having knowledge that accused No.1 had
forged the name and amount on the cheques bearing
No.054047, 054048 and 054069 belonged to C.W.8, by affixing
his signatures on the back of said cheques, drawn the amount
of Rs.12,170/- and 25,180/- respectively from the account of
said C.W.8 in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank. When he was
attempted to draw another amount of Rs.22,400/- through
another cheque No.054069, he was caught hold by the bank
officials. It appears, no allegation against present accused
No.2 either about stolen of cheques or about forgery of name
and amount in the said three cheques belonged to C.W.8.
12. Basically the allegation against the present accused
No.2 is depending upon the establishment of stolen of said
three cheques from post box and also forgery of name and
amount in the said cheques by accused No.1. In my opinion,
before considering the guilt against the present accused No.2,
it is just and necessary to verify about prima facie material to
show that the accused No.1 has stolen three cheques, forged
the name and amount mentioned on the said three cheques.
In my opinion, the allegation against accused No.2 is
C.C.No.21685/2013
continuation of criminal act of accused No.1. It appears, the
Investigating Officer during the course of investigation has
seized said three original cheques. Ex.P8 is the original
cheque bearing No.01054069. Unfortunately, the
Investigating Officer has not at all produced other two original
cheques seized by him during the course of investigation for
the reasons best known to him. However, P.W.8 the said
Investigating Officer during the course of trial has submitted
the requisition indicating that the said two original cheques
are misplaced while shifting the records of his Police Station.
Further, in the said requisition, P.W.8 has undertaken to
produce the said original cheques immediately after its trace.
But so far, he has not produced the said two original cheques
before the court.
The testimony of P.W.3 Balasubramanya indicating that
as per the direction of Investigating Officer he handedover the
said original two cheques bearing No.054047 and 054048
through letter at Ex.P4. In Ex.P4 the Investigating Officer
P.W.8 herein has made endorsement for having received the
said two original cheques. As stated above, the Investigating
Officer who has been examined as P.W.8 has not produced the
said cheques. It appears, at the time of further examination of
P.W.1, the Investigating Officer was asked to produce the said
original two cheques for identification purpose. But P.W.8
instead of producing the said original cheques has produced
C.C.No.21685/2013
attested xerox copies of the same. Since, the Investigating
Officer has come up with plea that the original cheques are
misplaced while shifting the records of the station and
undertaken to produce the original cheques in future, this
court permits to mark the attested copies of cheques as
secondary evidence.
It appears the Investigating Officer has not obtained any
report from expert prima facie to establish that accused No.1
has forged the name and amount mentioned on Exs.P6 to P8.
In my opinion, even though the Investigating Officer could not
secure the presence of accused No.1, nothing prevented him to
send the alleged forged cheques to the forensic lab for opinion.
But the Investigating Officer for the reason best known to him
has not obtained any report regarding said cheques and has
charge sheeted the present accused. In my opinion, in order
to know whether the name and amount on Exs.P6 to P8 are
forged, it was necessary on the part of Investigating Officer to
obtain report of expert regarding said cheques.
14. Anyhow, the Investigating Officer has reserved his
right to investigate against accused No.1. In order to know the
allegation against present accused No.2, I have carefully
perused Exs.P6 to P8 the original alleged forged cheques.
Since Ex.P.P6 and P7 are attested copies, it is difficult to come
to exact conclusion about forging or alteration of name and
C.C.No.21685/2013
amount mentioned on it. However, Ex.P8 is the original
cheque and on perusal of it one can come to conclusion about
forgery and alteration. I have carefully perused Ex.P8 and on
verification it is very clear to the bare eyes that the name and
amount in words as well as in figures are forged. Therefore,
even though the Investigating Officer has not obtained report
regarding alteration or forging the name and amount
mentioned on said Ex.P8, it very clear on the bare eyes that
the amount in words as well as in figures are forged.
Moreover, this court is competent to verify the cheques on
bare eyes and can come to the conclusion about forgery.
Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that Ex.P.8
is forged document. Therefore, prima facie the prosecution by
producing Ex.P8 original cheque has established that the
name and amount in words as well as in figures in Ex.P.8 are
forged. To corroborate the said inference P.Ws.4 to 7 before
whom Ex.P8 was presented for verification or for passing the
same, have also stated that on verification of Ex.P8 they found
the forgery of name and amount both in words as well as in
figures. To disbelieve the said testimony of P.W.4 to 7 nothing-
doubtful version is elicited from them.
15. Since, it is the case of the prosecution that the
present accused No.2 having knowledge that Exs.P6 to P8 are
forged cheques, presented the same to the said bank for
encashment by affixing his signature on back of it, drawn the
C.C.No.21685/2013
amount, an inference can be drawn that this accused No.2
having knowledge of forgery of Exs.P.6 to P8, had presented it
and encashed illegally. As stated above, the Investigating
Officer has not produced the originals of Ex.P.6 and P.7 and
as such it is difficult to conclude about forgery of name and
amount both in words as well as in figures relying upon xerox
copies and accordingly the prosecution has failed to establish
that Exs.P6 and P7 are forged documents. However, the
prosecution has produced original cheque at Ex.P8 and in
view of my above discussion, the said Ex.P8 is forged
document. Therefore, now let us consider whether the accused
No.2 having knowledge that Ex.P.8 is the forged cheque,
presented it before Tamilnadu Mercantile bank for
encashment and when he attempted to draw the amount, he
has been caught hold by the bank officials and handed over to
the police along with report
16. As stated above, the prosecution to prove the guilt
against the present accused No.2 has examined eight
witnesses. The testimony of P.W.3 P.Balasubramanyam the
chief manager of Tamilnad Mercantile bank indicating that on
29-10-2003 one person came to his bank for withdrawal of
amount and presented the cheque in the cash counter for
encashment. The cashier grew suspicious over the said
cheque and handed over the same to the Assistant Manager
P.W.4 herein. On verification P.W.4 found that the said cheque
C.C.No.21685/2013
was forged. Thereafter, P.W.4 brought the same to his notice
and he also verified the same and found that the cheque was
forged. Thereafter, P.W.4 called the person who presented the
cheque and enquired regarding the same. Since, the said
cheque was forged one, P.W.4 has handed over the said person
to the police. His testimony further indicating that before the
said incident, the said person has presented two forged
cheques and encashed it. P.W.3 has identified the accused
No.2 as the person who presented two cheques bearing
Nos.54047 for Rs.25,180/- and No.54048 for Rs.12,170/- He
has also identified the accused No.2 as the person who
presented the cheque as per Ex.P.8 for encashment on 29-10-
2013.
18. P.W.4 G.Hariharan corroborates the testimony of
P.W.3. The testimony of P.W.4 indicating that on 29-9-2013
and on 3-10-2013 he forwarded two cheques issued in the
names of one Babumahendra Sharma and H.Chandrashekar
Murthy to the cash section for encashment brought by
accused No.2. Through his naked eye he could not identify the
alteration in the said cheques and by oversight he passed it.
Thereafter, C.W.8 has informed his bank that he had given the
said cheques towards credit card payments and sent thorough
post. Further, C.W.8 has informed that the said two cheques
have been wrongly accepted by his bank and made the
payment. Thereafter, he requested C.W.8 to issue similar
C.C.No.21685/2013
cheques towards repayment of credit cards through post only.
Thereafter, his bank received the said cheques for encashment
and he stopped the payment of said cheque through system.
After two or three days, the accused No.2 approached his bank
with altered cheque for encashment. At that time, he seriously
verified and found alteration in all the places. C.W.8 has
issued the said cheque for Rs.12,200/- and accused No.2 has
altered it for Rs.22,400/-. Immediately, his bank has handed
over the accused No.2 to the Upparpet Police Station with
complaint.
29 pages
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the th day of April 2015
Present : Sri.J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.C.C.No. 21685/2013
C.C.No.21685/2013
2.Date of Offence 29-10-2013
3.Complainant State by Upaprpet Police Station
4.Accused Harish (Split up)
2.Krishnojirao S/o late Mahadev
Rao, aged 68 years, C/o Race
Course, Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s.465, 468, 471, 420 of IPC
of
6.Plea A.2 pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order A.2 is Acquitted
8.Date of Order 30-3-2015
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Upparpet Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused for
the offences punishable U/s. 465, 468, 471, 420 of IPC.
2. ..................The brief facts of the prosecution case are
that on 29-10-2013 within the limits of Upparpet Police
station, at the house of CW 1-Rajkiran situated at No.61, 7th
cross, SR Nagar, accused committed theft of silver articles
kept in Godrej almirah belonging to CW 1, and thereby
committed aforesaid offences.
C.C.No.21685/2013
3. The accused No.2 is in judicial custody. On receipt of
chargesheet this court took cognizance of the offences and
furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the accused
No.2. After hearing on charges, this court framed the charge
for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and
420 of IPC and questioned the accused No.2 regarding the
charge made against him, he denied the charge and claimed to
be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case got
examined eight witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked
eleven documents at Exs.P1 to P11. Since C.Ws.4, 8, 10 and
12 did not turn up before this court, by rejecting the prayer of
Sr.APP, this court dropped the examination of said witnesses.
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused as
required under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., Accused No.2 denied the
incriminating evidence appeared against him and submitted
that he has no defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. xxxxxxxxxx(The prosecution to prove guilt against
accused person has examined six witnesses. P.W.1
Chandrashekar is the police constable who arrested the
accused. P.W.2 Gangasasalaiah is the Investigating Officer
C.C.No.21685/2013
who conducted partial investigation. P.W.3 Niranjankumar is
the another Investigating Officer. P.W.4 Rajkiran V. is the
complainant and owner of the stolen articles. P.W.5 Pavanram
is the receiver of stolen articles. P.W.6 R.Raju is the
circumstantial witness. Inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities the prosecution has not examined C.Ws.2,3 and
5. Thereby by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP., the
examination of said witnesses dropped).
8. It is the allegation of prosecution that CW.8 Sandeep
Kedia is the proprietor of Life line solution company and the
said company situated at No.215/A, KHB Colony, 5th Block,
Koramangala, Bangalore. He is transacting medical divise
through his company. He has opened current account beg.
No.044700150950097 at Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, City
Branch, BVK Iyengar Road, Bangalore. On 21-9-2013 CW 8
handed over cheque No.054047, for Rs.25186.38 and cheque
No.054048 for Rs.12/79-27 issued towards credit card
payment of HSBC Bank, M.G.Road, Branch to his worker
Mahesh with a direction to put into post box. Accordingly, the
said Mahesh dropped the said cheques in post box kept out
Koramangala, 5th Block. On 14-10-2013 the verified his
current account at Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank and found that
the crossed. cheques issued in the name of HSBC bank
towards payment of credit card payment directly encashed and
payment made to same other person. Immediately, he
C.C.No.21685/2013
enquired in his Tamilnadu mercantile Bank and found forging
of his cheques. Thereafter he came to know that the cheque
beg No.054069 for Rs.1,200/- has been forged for Rs.22,400/-
when alleged to drawn the account the said person was caught
hold by Bank official and handed over to police for further
action.
The accused No.1 Harish stealing the above referred
two cheques from the post box and forged the signature and
amount mentioned on said cheques, obtaining signature of
present accused on the back of said cheques has drawn a
sum of Rs.12,170/- and Rs.25,180/- from Tamilnadu
Mercantile Bank through present accused when present
accused on 29-10-2013 attempted to draw amount through
cheque No.054069 by forging signature and amount caught
hold by bank officials and handed over to police. If we
carefully perused the entire allegations, there is serious
allegations of forging of signature of C.W.8 as above referred
cheques bearing No.054047, 054048 and 054069 and amount
mentioned on it by accused No.1. However, the allegations
against present accused is to the effect that he as per the
instructions of accused No.1, obtained two cheques by
accused No.1 affixed his signature on the back of it and drawn
the amount twice. Recently on 29-10-2013 the present
accused has made attempt to draw the amount through
C.C.No.21685/2013
cheque No.054069, he was caught hold and handed over to
the police.
Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has not arrested the
accused No.1 Harish. He reserved his right to investigate
further and to file separate charge sheet after his arrest. Now
let us consider the prosecution proves the guilt against the
present accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As stated
above, at the repetition of cost, the allegations against present
accused is to the effect that he is having knowledge that
accused No.1 forged the amount mentioned on the cheque
bearing No.054047, 054048 and 054069 belonged to C.W.8
and by affixing his signatures on the back of said cheques
drawn amount of Rs.12,70,825180/- through the account of
said C.W.8 in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank and when he
attempted to draw another amount of Rs.22,400/-, he was
caught hold by bank officials. It appears no allegation of stolen
of cheques belonged to C.W.8 forging of signatures of C.W.8
forging of amount mentioned in the said three cheques.
Now let us consider whether the prosecution has
established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It appears
the prosecution to prove the guilt against the present accused
has examined eight witnesses. P.W.1 K.Krishnaraju is the
spot mahazar witness. P.W.2 A.R.Gopala Reddy is the police
constable who arrested the accused with the assistance of
C.C.No.21685/2013
C.W.2. P.W.3 P.Balasubramanya is the complainant. P.W.4
G.Hariharan, P.W.6 Manju and P.W.7 Ilavasan are the
circumstantial witnesses. Inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record.
8. The testimony of P.W.3 P.Balasubramanyam indicating
that on 29-10-2003 one person came to his bank for
withdrawal of amount and presented the cheque in the cash
counter for encashment. The Cashier grew suspicious over
the said cheque and he handed over the same to the Assistant
Manager P.W.2 herein. P.W.4 found that the said cheque was
forged. Thereafter, P.W.4 brought the same to his notice and
he also verified the same and found that the cheque was
forged. Thereafter, P.W.4 called the person who presented the
cheque and enquired regarding the same. Since, the said
cheque was forged one, the said person has handed over to the
police. His testimony further indicating that before the said
incident, the said person has presented two forged cheques
and encashed the amount. P.W.3 has identified the accused
Nos.1 and 2 as the person who presented two cheques bearing
Nos.54047 for Rs.25,802/- and Rs.54,048/- for Rs.12,170/-.
He also identified the accused who presented the cheques for
encashment on 29-10-2013 as per Ex.P8. The testimony of
P.W.3 is corroborated by P.W.4 G.Hariharan.
C.C.No.21685/2013
9. The testimony of P.W.4 indicating that from 2011 to
March 2014 he was working as Assistant Manager in
Tamilnadu Merchantile Bank, B.V.K.Iyengar road, Bangalore.
C.W.8 is the Sandeep Kedia is the owner of Lifeline Solution
Company. The said C.W.8 has credit account in his said
branch. On 29-9-2013 and on 3-10-2013 he forwarded two
cheques issued in the names of one Babumahendra Sharma
and H.Chandrashekar Murthy to the cash section for
encashment. The said cheques were brought by accused No.2.
Through his naked eye he could not identify the alteration in
the said cheques and by over sight he passed the same.
Thereafter, C.W.8 has informed his bank that he had given the
said cheques towards repayment of credit card payments and
sent thorough post only. Further, C.W.8 has informed that
the said two cheques have been wrongly accepted by his bank
and made the payment. Thereafter, he requested C.W.8 to
issue similar cheques towards repayment on credit cards
through post only. Thereafter, his bank received the said
cheques for encashment and he stopped the payment of said
cheques through system. After two or three days, the accused
No.2 approached his bank with altered cheques for
encashment. At that time, he seriously verified and found
alteration in all the places. C.W.8 has issued the said cheque
for Rs.12,200/- and accused No.2 has altered the same for
Rs.22,400/-, immediately his bank has handed over the
accused No.2 to the Upparpet Police Station with complaint.
C.C.No.21685/2013
Morning 12.30 am
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 7th day of March 2015
Present : Sri.J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.C.C.No. 21685/2013
2.Date of Offence 29-10-2013
3.Complainant State by Upaprpet Police Station
4.Accused Harish (absconded)
2.Krishnojirao S/o late Mahadev
Rao, aged 68 years, C/o Race
Course, Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s.465, 468, 471, 420 of IPC
of
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused is Acquitted
8.Date of Order 7-3-2015
REASONS
C.C.No.21685/2013
The Sub Inspector of Police, Upparpet Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against this accused
No.2 for the offences punishable U/s. 465, 468, 471 and 420
of IPC. The investigation officer has shown A1 in absconding
coloumn and reserved his right to file separate charge sheet
after his arrest.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that CW.8
Sandeep Kedia being the proprietor of Life line solution
company situated at No.215/A, KHB Colony, 5th Block,
Koramangala, Bangalore had current account beg.
No.044700150950097 in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, City
Branch, BVK Iyengar Road, Bangalore. On 21-9-2013 CW 8
has issued cheque No.054047, for Rs.25,186.38 and cheque
No.054048 for Rs.12/79-27 towards credit card payment of
HSBC Bank, M.G.Road, Branch and handed over to his worker
Mahesh with a direction to put into post box. Accordingly, the
said Mahesh dropped the said cheques in post box, kept at
Koramangala, 5th Block. On 14-10-2013, CW.8 on verification
of his current account of Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank and
found that the cheques issued in the name of HSBC bank
towards payment of credit card have been directly encashed
and payment was made to some other person. Immediately,
he enquired his said Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank and found
forging of his cheques. Thereafter, he came to know from his
said bank that the cheque beg No.054069 issued for
C.C.No.21685/2013
Rs.12,000/- has been forged as issued for Rs.22,400/- when
accused No.2 tried to draw the said cheque amount.
Further it is the case of the prosecution that the accused
No.1 Harish by stealing the above referred two cheques from
the post box, forged the amount mentioned on it and by
obtaining signatures of present accused on the back of said
cheques, has drawn a sum of Rs.12,170/- and Rs.25,180/-
respectively from the account of CW.8 in Tamilnadu
Mercantile Bank, through present accused. When present
accused on 29-10-2013 attempted to draw amount by
presenting cheque No.054069 by forging the amount has been
caught hold by bank officials and handed over to police and
thereby committed aforesaid offences.
3. The accused No.2 is in judicial custody. On receipt of
chargesheet this court took cognizance of the offences and
furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the accused
No.2. The accused No.2 sought legal assistance. Accordingly,
stading legal aid counsel has been appointed on his behalf.
After hearing both counsels on charges, this court framed the
charge for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468,
471 and 420 of IPC and questioned the accused No.2
regarding the charge made against him, he denied the charge
and claimed to be tried.
C.C.No.21685/2013
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case got examined
eight witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked eleven
documents at Exs.P1 to P11. Since C.Ws.4, 8 and 10 did not
turn up before this court, by rejecting the prayer of Sr.APP,
this court dropped the examination of said witnesses.
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused as required
under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 denied the
incriminating evidence appeared against him and submitted
that he has no defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. The prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused has
examined eight witnesses. P.W.1 K.Krishnaraju is the spot
mahazar witness. P.W.2 A.R.Gopala Reddy is the police
constable who arrested the accused and produced before the
court. P.W.3 P.Balasubramanya is the complainant and
circumstantial witness. P.W.4 G.Hariharan working as
Assistant Manager. P.W.6 Manju working as Clerk. P.W.5
Geetharani working as another Clerk. P.W.7 Ilavasan working
as another Clerk in Tamilnadu Merchantile Bank who are the
circumstantial witnesses and P.W.8 Ramesh G.P. is the
Investigating Officer. It appears inspite of giving sufficient
C.C.No.21685/2013
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined C.Ws.4, 8
and 9.
8. It is the allegation of prosecution that CW.8 Sandeep
Kedia being the proprietor of Life line solution company
situated at No.215/A, KHB Colony, 5th Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore had opened current account beg.
No.044700150950097 at Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, City
Branch, BVK Iyengar Road, Bangalore. On 21-9-2013 CW 8
handed over cheque No.054047, issued for Rs.25186.38 and
cheque No.054048 issued for Rs.12/79-27 in favour of HSBC
Bank, M.G.Road, Branch towards credit card payment to his
worker Mahesh with a direction to drop into post box.
Accordingly, the said Mahesh dropped the said cheques in
post box kept at 5th Block, Koramangala. On 14-10-2013 CW.8
has verified his current account at Tamilnadu Mercantile
Bank and found that the said two cheques issued in the name
of HSBC bank towards payment of credit card payment
directly encashed and payment was made to some other
person. Immediately, he enquired in his Tamilnadu
mercantile Bank and found forging of his cheques. Further,
he came to know that the cheque beg No.054069 for
Rs.12,000/- has been forged for Rs.22,400/- and when the
accused No.2 made attempt to draw the amount of said
cheque he was caught hold by Bank official and handed over
to the police.
C.C.No.21685/2013
Further it is the case of the prosecution that the accused
No.1 Harish by stealing the above referred two cheques from
the post box, forged the amount mentioned on it by obtaining
signature of present accused on the back of said cheques has
drawn a sum of Rs.12,170/- and Rs.25,180/- respectively
from Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank through present accused.
When the present accused on 29-10-2013 attempted to draw
amount through cheque No.054069 by forging signature and
amount caught hold by bank officials and handed over to the
police. If we carefully perused the entire allegations, it
appears there is serious allegations of forging of amount
mentioned in the above referred cheques bearing No.054047,
054048 and 054069 on it by accused No.1. However, the
allegations against present accused is to the effect that he as
per the instructions of accused No.1, has obtained two
cheques and by affixing his signatures on the back of it drawn
the amount twice. When on 29-10-2013 the present accused
has made attempt to draw the amount through another
cheque No.054069, he was caught hold and handed over to
the police.
Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has not arrested the
accused No.1 Harish who is the main person. As stated above
the investigation officer has reserved his right to file separate
chargesheet against A1 after further investigation. Now let us
C.C.No.21685/2013
consider whether the prosecution proves the guilt against the
present accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As stated above,
at the repetition of cost, the allegations against present
accused is only to the effect that he is having knowledge that
accused No.1 forged the name and amount mentioned on the
cheques bearing No.054047, 054048 and 054069 belonged to
C.W.8 and by affixing his signatures on the back of said
cheques drawn amount of Rs.12,170/- and 25,180/- from
the account of said C.W.8 in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank.
When he attempted to draw another amount of Rs.22,400/-,
he was caught hold by bank officials. It appears no allegation
against present accused either about stolen of cheques
belonged to C.W.8 or forgery of name and amount in the said
three cheques.
Basically the allegation against the present accused is
depending upon establishment of stolen of said three cheques
from post box by accused No.1 and also forgery of name and
amount in the said cheques. In my opinion, before considering
the guilt against the present accused, it is just and necessary
to verify about prima facie material to show that the accused
No.1 has stolen three cheques and verify the name and
amount mentioned in the said three cheques. The present
allegation against accused No.2 is continuation of the
criminal act after the criminal act of accused No.1. It appears,
the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation has
seized said three original cheques. Ex.P8 is the original
C.C.No.21685/2013
cheque bearing No.01054069. Unfortunately the Investigating
Officer has nto at all produced other two original cheques for
the reasons best known to him. However, P.W.8 the
Investigating Officer during the course of trial has submitted
the requisition indicating that the said two original cheques
are misplaced while shifting the records of his Police Station.
Further, in the said requisition, the Investigating Officer has
undertaken to produce the said original cheques in future.
But so far, he has not produced the said two original cheques
before this court. P.W.1 Balasubramaniyan has deposed that
he handover the said original two cheques bearing
No.s.054047 and 054048 through letter at Ex.P4.. In Ex.P4
the Investigating Officer has made endorsement for having
received the two original cheques. As stated above, the
Investigating Officer who has been examined as P.W.8 has not
produced the said cheques. It appears at the time of further
examination of P.W.1, the Investigating Officer was asked to
produce the said original two cheques for identification
purpose. It appears P.W.8 instead of producing the said
original cheques has produced attested xerox copies of said
cheques. Since the Investigating Officer has come up with
plea that the original cheques are misplaced while shifting the
records of the station and undertaken to produce the original
cheques in future, this court permit to mark the attested
copies of cheques which is signatory evidence. It appears the
Investigating Officer has not obtained any report from expert
C.C.No.21685/2013
prima facie to establish that accused No.1 forged the name
and amount mentioned on Exs.P6 to P8.
In order to know whether the name and asmount on
Exs.P6 to P8 are forged, it was necessary on the part of
Investigating Officer to obtain report of expert. Unfortunately,
the Investigating Officer has not done so for the reason best
known tohim.
Any how, the Investigating Officer has reserved his right
to investigate against accused No.1. I have carefully perused
Exs.P6 to P8. Since Ecs.P6 and P7 are attested copies it is
difficult to come to exact conclusion about forging or alteration
of name and amount mentioned on the said cheques.
However, Ex.P8 is the original cheque and on perusal one can
come to such conclusion. I have carefully perused Ex.P8 and
on verification it is very clear to the bare eyes that the name
and amount in words as well as in figures are forged.
Therefore, even though the Investigating Officer has not
obtained report regarding alteration or forging of name and
amount mentioned on said Ex.P8, this court is competent to
verify the cheques on bare eyes and can come to the
conclusion about in figures. In view of my above discussion in
Ex.P8 there is clear forgery of name and amount mentioned on
it. Therefore, prima facie the prosecution by producing Ex.P8
original cheque has proved that the name and amount in
words as well as in figures are forged. To corroborate the said
inference P.Ws.4 to 7 before whom
C.C.No.21685/2013
Ex.P8 was presented for verification or for passing the same
have also stated that on verification of Ex.P8 they found the
forgery of name and amount both in words as well as in
figures are forged.
Since it is the case of the prosecution that the present
accused having knowledge that Exs.P6 to P8 are forged,
presented the same by this accused to the said bank for
encashment by putting his signature on back of it and drawn
the amount, an inference can be drawn that accused No.1
forged Exs.P6 to P8. Assuming that since the Investigating
Officer has not produced the originals of exs.P6 and P7 and it
is difficult to come to the conclusion about forgery of name
and amount in words as well as in figures only on bare
perusal, the prosecution has failed to establish that Exs.P6
and P7 are forged documents. Since the prosecution has
produced original cheque at Ex.P8 and in view of my above
discussion, the said Ex.P8 is forged document, now let us
consider whether this accused having knowledge of Ex.P8 is
forged document, presented the same before Tamilnadu
Mercantile bank for encashment and when he attempting to
draw the amount he has been caught hold by the bank
officials and hand over to the police along with report
Now let us consider whether the prosecution has
established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. As stated
C.C.No.21685/2013
above, the prosecution to prove the guilt against the present
accused has examined eight witnesses.
8. The testimony of P.W.3 P.Balasubramanyam indicating that
on 29-10-2003 one person came to is bank for withdrawal of
amount and presented the cheque in the cash counter for
encashment. The Cashier grew suspicious over the said
cheque and he handed over the same to the Assistant Manager
P.W.2 herein. P.W.4 found that the said cheque was forged.
Thereafter, P.W.4 brought the same to his notice and he also
verified the same and found that the cheque was forged.
Thereafter, P.W.4 called the person who presented the cheque
and enquired regarding the same. Since, the said cheque was
forged one, the said person has handed over to the police. His
testimony further indicating that before the said incident, the
said person has presented two forged cheques and encashed
the amount. P.W.3 has identified the accused Nos.1 and 2 as
the person who presented two cheques bearing Nos.54047 for
Rs.25,802/- and Rs.54,048/- for Rs.12,170/-. He also
identified the accused who presented the cheques for
encashment on 29-10-2013 as per Ex.P8. The testimony of
P.W.3 is corroborated by P.W.4 G.Hariharan.
9. The testimony of P.W.4 indicating that from 2011 to March
2014 he was working as Assistant Manager in Tamilnadu
Merchantile Bank, B.V.K.Iyengar road, Bangalore. C.W.8 is
C.C.No.21685/2013
the Sandeep Kedia is the owner of Lifeline Solution Company.
The said C.W.8 has credit account in his said branch. On 29-
9-2013 and on 3-10-2013 he forwarded two cheques issued in
the names of one Babumahendra Sharma and
H.Chandrashekar Murthy to the cash section for encashment.
The said cheques were brought by accused No.2. Through his
naked eye he could not identify the alteration in the said
cheques and by over sight he passed the same. Thereafter,
C.W.8 has informed his bank that he had given the said
cheques towards repayment of credit card payments and sent
thorough post only. Further, C.W.8 has informed that the
said two cheques have been wrongly accepted by his bank and
made the payment. Thereafter, he requested C.W.8 to issue
similar cheques towards repayment on credit cards through
post only. Thereafter, his bank received the said cheques for
encashment and he stopped the payment of said cheques
through system. After two or three days, the accused No.2
approached his bank with altered cheques for encashment. At
that time, he seriously verified and found alteration in all the
places. C.W.8 has issued the said cheque for Rs.12,200/- and
accused No.2 has altered the same for Rs.22,400/-,
immediately his bank has handed over the accused NO.2 to
the Upparpet Police Station with complaint.
ORDER
C.C.No.21685/2013 Acting U/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 is convicted for the offences punishable U/s.468, 471 and 420 of IPC.
Consequently, accused No.2 shall sentence to suffer imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under section 468 of IPC and fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine the accused No.2 shall suffer S.I for one month.
Further accused No.2 shall sentence to suffer imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under section 471 of IPC and fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine the accused No.2 shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
Further accused No.2 shall sentence to suffer imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under section 420 of IPC and fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine the accused No.2 shall suffer S.I for one month.
The accused No.2 already in J.C for one year six months 14 days. Accordingly, he has already suffered the sentence imposed by this court for main offences. However, he has to pay, the fine imposed by this court for the offences under section 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. i.e. in all a sum of Rs.1,500/- in default he shall suffer S.I for 3 months. The accused is in J.C for 14 days towards defaulted sentence for payment of fine. Therefore, if the accused pays the fine amount he shall C.C.No.21685/2013 be set at liberty. Failing which he shall suffer the remaining defaulted period of 2 months 16 days.
Office to issue direction to jail authority regarding sentence to accused No.2.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of May 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1, K.Krishnaraju,
P,W.2, A.R.Gopalareddy,
P.W.3, P.Balasubramanya,
P.W.4, G.Hariharan,
P.W.5, Geetharani,
P.W.6, Manju,
P.W.7, Ilavarasan,
C.C.No.21685/2013
P.W.8, Ramesh G.P.;
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1, Mahazar, Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W .1, Ex.P1(b), Signature of P.W.3, Ex.P1(c), Signature of P.W .8, Ex.P2, Report, Ex.P2(a) Signature of P.W.2, Ex.P3 Complaint, Ex.P3(a) Signature of P.W.3, Ex.P3(b), Signature of P.W.8, Ex.P4 Letter, Ex.P4(a), Signature of P.W.3, Ex.P5 Statement of accounts, Ex.P6 Xerox copy of cheque, Ex.P7 Xerox copy of cheque, Ex.P8, Original cheque Ex.P8(a), Signature of P.W.3, Ex.P8(b), Signature of P.W.8, Ex.P9, Account opening form,;
Ex.P10, Undertaking letter, Ex.P11, FIR,
Ex.P11(a) Signature of P.W.8, LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION : NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS & MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.