Bangalore District Court
Annapoorneshwari T vs Lingaraj M S on 29 February, 2024
Digitally signed
KABC030023482014 by MOHAMMED
MOHAMMED YUNUS A
YUNUS A ATHANI
ATHANI Date: 2024.03.05
16:38:21 +0530
Presented on : 08-01-2014
Registered on : 08-01-2014
Decided on : 29-02-2024
Duration : 10 years, 1 months, 21 days
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE COURT, BENGALURU
AT: BENGALURU
Present:- Sri Mohammed Yunus Athani,
B.A.,L.L.B.
XLV Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 29th day of February, 2024
C.C.No.646/2014
Complainant:
The State,
By Police Sub-Inspector,
Jayanagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor)
-V/S-
C.C.No.646/2014
2
Accused:
1. Lingaraj M. S. S/o Siddappa,
Age: 35 years,
R/o: Flat No.305, Rajarajeshwari Enclave
Apartment, 2nd Floor,
Infront of Rajarajeshwari Temple,
27th cross, R. R. Nagar,
Bengaluru-95.
2. S. Hemanth Kumar S/o late Siddaramayya,
Age: 32 years,
R/o: H. No.45, C/o Jayamma House,
15th Main, Near Anjanaya Temple and
P.E.S. College, Mouneshwara Block,
Bengaluru-28.
(Accused No.2 by Sri K. M. Ravikumar, Advocate)
(Case against accused No.1 is split-up)
Date of incident 27/01/2011
Date of report 21/06/2012
Date of arrest of accused --
Date of release of accused 05/09/2018
on bail
Period of accused in J.C. --
Name of the complainant Annapoornamma T. R.
Date of commencement of 09/08/2021
evidence
Date of completion of 06/06/2023
evidence
Offence charged U/Sec.465, 468, 471, 420, 120(B)
R/w 34 of I.P.C.
Opinion of the Judge Accused No.2 not found guilty.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector, Jayanagar Police Station, has filed the final report against the accused No.1 & 2, alleging C.C.No.646/2014 3 that they have committed an offence punishable U/Sec.465, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) R/w 34 of I.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is case of the prosecution that, on 27/01/2011, the accused No. 1 & 2 approached the complainant bank namely Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jayanagar Branch and accused No.1 submitted an application for vehicle loan to purchase Chevrolet Cruze LTZ vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-01/MG-5355, October-2010 model. Along with the application the accused No.1 has submitted the required documents. The accused No.2 agreed to stand surety for repayment of loan amount and submitted documents with regard to his permanent residence proof, KYC documents, copy of Accenture Company ID card, Pay-slip and Form No.16. After verifying the above documents, on 31/01/2011 the complaint bank has forwarded the said documents to their head office for approval. On 05/02/2011, the head office of complainant bank approved loan of Rs.7,50,000/- in favour of accused No.1, to be repaid in 36 monthly installments. Accordingly, on 11/02/2011, the accused No.1 & 2 have executed Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Lien & Set-off, C.C.No.646/2014 4 Demand Promissory Note cum Continuing Security Letter, T.G.M.C.B Form No.7, Hypothecation of Motor Vehicle Agreement, T.G.M.C.B Form No.8 and Agreement Form of Security. On 14/01/2011, the accused No.1 came to the complainant bank and submitted the 'B' Register extract of above vehicle, stating that hypothecation of complainant bank on the said vehicle has been entered in the R.T.O. records. On 11/02/2011, the accused No.1 submitted the insurance policy issued by Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company obtained in the name of complainant bank. After verifying the above documents and being satisfied, the complainant-bank has sanctioned vehicle loan of Rs.7,50,000/- in favour of the accused No.1 by depositing the said amount in his Savings Bank Account No.30301020998. On the same day the accused No.1 has withdrawn Rs.7,30,000/- from his account and remaining amount on different dates. After availing the loan, for about four months the accused No.1 has regularly paid the monthly loan installments to the complainant bank. Thereafter, he has stopped paying the installments. On 18/06/2012, when they obtained the 'B' Register extract of above vehicle from R.T.O. and verified, it revealed that, there is no entry of hypothecation in the name of complainant bank C.C.No.646/2014 5 and instead the hypothecation of M/s Tata Capital Ltd., was existing. Further, they came to know that, the accused No.1 by submitting forged 'B' Register extract containing false entry of hypothecation in the name of complainant bank has availed the loan of Rs. 7,50,000/- and cheated the complainant bank. The accused No.1 & 2 conspiring with each other have created forged vehicle documents with an intention to avail loan and cheat the complainant bank. Thereby, the accused No.1 & 2 have committed an offence punishable U/Sec.420, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) R/w 34 of I.P.C.
3. On the basis of first information statement lodged by the complainant/first informant a case is registered against the accused No.1 & 2, for the offence punishable U/Sec. 419, 420, 465, 471, 120(B) R/w 34 of I.P.C. Accordingly, the investigation officer has conducted the investigation in the case and submitted the final report against the accused No.1 & 2, alleging commission of offence punishable U/Sec. 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) R/w 34 of I.P.C.
4. On receipt of prosecution papers, the cognizance of above offence is taken against the accused No.1 & 2 and summons was issued to them. Accordingly, the accused No.1 C.C.No.646/2014 6 & 2 have appeared in the case though their counsel and obtained bail. Thereafter, charge for the offence punishable U/Sec. 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) R/w 34 of I.P.C., is framed, read over and explained to the accused No.1 & 2 in the vernacular language known to them. The accused No. 1 & 2 has denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the accused No.1 did not turn back to the Court and remained absconding. Even after repeated issuance of summons and warrant against the accused No.1, he could not be secured. Hence, in order to avoid delay in trial of case against the accused No.2, the case against accused No.1 was ordered to be split-up. Accordingly, a separate split-up case is registered against the accused No.1 under C.C.No.6109/2024.
5. In order to substantiate its case and to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined total nine witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked 47 documents as Ex.P.1 to 47. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused No.2 as contemplated U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded and read over to him. The accused No.2 has denied all the incriminating circumstances C.C.No.646/2014 7 appearing in the evidence of P.W.1 to 9 and stated no evidence in his defence.
6. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material available on record.
7. The following points arise for my consideration:
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 27/01/2011 the accused No. 1 & 2 in furtherance of common intention approached the complainant bank namely Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jayanagar Branch, for vehicle loan to purchase Chevrolet Cruze LTZ vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-01/MG-5355 and got sanctioned loan of Rs.7,50,000/- in favour of accused No.1, by submitting forged 'B' Register extract of said vehicle and did not repay the loan amount as per the terms of agreement and cheated the complaint bank and thereby they have committed an offence punishable U/Sec.420 R/w 34 of I.P.C.?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the above date, time and place of offence, the accused No.1 & 2 in C.C.No.646/2014 8 furtherance of common intention have forged the 'B' Register extract pertaining to Chevrolet Cruze LTZ vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-01/MG-5355 and got sanctioned loan of Rs.7,50,000/- in favour of accused No.1 and thereby they have committed an offence punishable U/Sec.465 R/w 34 of I.P.C. ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the above date, time and place of offence, the accused No.1 & 2 in furtherance of common intention to cheat the complainant bank have forged the 'B' Register extract pertaining to Chevrolet Cruze LTZ vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-01/MG-
5355Chevrolet Cruze LTZ vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-01/MG-5355 and got sanctioned loan of Rs.7,50,000/- in favour of accused No.1 and thereby they have committed an offence punishable U/Sec.468 R/w 34 of I.P.C. ?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the above date, time and place of offence, the accused No.1 & 2 with an intention to cheat the complainant bank have forged the 'B' Register extract pertaining to Chevrolet Cruze LTZ vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-01/MG-5355 and knowing that the said document is forged C.C.No.646/2014 9 document have submitted the same to the complainant bank and got sanctioned loan of Rs.7,50,000/- in favour of accused No.1 and thereby they have committed an offence punishable U/Sec.471 R/w 34 of I.P.C. ?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the above date, time and place of offence, the accused No.1 & 2 in furtherance of common intention have conspired with each other to cheat the complainant bank, forged the 'B' Register extract pertaining to Chevrolet Cruze LTZ vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-01/MG-5355 and knowing that the said document is forged document have submitted the same to the complainant bank and got sanctioned loan of Rs.7,50,000/- in favour of accused No.1 and thereby they have committed an offence punishable U/Sec.120(B) R/w 34 of I.P.C. ?
6. What order ?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
POINT No.1: Negative.
POINT No.2: Negative.
POINT No.3: Negative.
POINT No.4: Negative.
POINT No.5: Negative.
C.C.No.646/2014 10 POINT No.6: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. POINT No.1 to 5: As all these points for consideration are inter-connected with each other, in order to avoid repetition of facts and circumstances of the case and for better appreciation of evidence on record, I take all the points together for common discussion.
10. In order to prove its case and to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined total nine witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked 47 documents as Ex.P.1 to 47.
11. The P.W.1, who is the first informant/complainant in the case, has categorically deposed in her evidence that, from 2008 to 2015 she had worked as a Manager at Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jayanagar Branch. During the said period, the C.W.2 was the Deputy General Manager and C.W.3 to 5 were the employees of said bank. In the year 2011, the accused No.1 & 2 approached the complainant bank and submitted an application for vehicle loan to purchase C.C.No.646/2014 11 2010 model Chevrolet Cruz vehicle. Along with the application the accused No.1 has submitted his income tax return documents. The accused No.2 agreed to stand guarantor for repayment of loan amount. After verifying the documents submitted by the accused persons, she forwarded the said documents to their head for approval of loan. Accordingly, the head office has approved loan of Rs. 7.5 lakh in favour of the accused No.2, to be repaid in 36 monthly installments. After obtaining all required documents from the accused persons, the loan amount has been transferred to the savings bank account of the accused. After availing the loan, for 5 months the accused have regularly paid the loan installments. Thereafter, they have stopped paying the loan installments. Evenafter several times request made by the complainant bank to the accused persons personally, through phone call and issuance of notice to repay the outstanding loan amount, they have not repaid the loan amount. Thereafter, on verification of lien entry submitted by the accused persons at R.T.O. office, it revealed that the accused persons have availed loan from other banks as well. Having confirmed that, the accused No.1 & 2 have cheated the complainant-bank, she went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint against C.C.No.646/2014 12 them, as per Ex.P.1. Further she has deposed that, after lodging the complaint the Police visited their bank, conducted spot mahazer and seized 34 documents from the complainant bank. The said mahazer is as marked as Ex.P.2 and the seized documents are marked as Ex.P.21 to 40. But, during her cross-examination the P.W.1 has clearly admitted that, the loan amount sanctioned in the name of accused No.1 has been credited to his saving bank account and the said amount has been utilised by the accused No.1. Further she has admitted that, after availing the loan, it is the accused No.1 who has submitted the document having the hypothecation entry in the name of complainant-bank. She has denied the suggestion that, the accused No.2 has not cheated the complainant-bank.
12. Likewise, the P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 & P.W.5, who were working as the Deputy General Manager, Assistant Managers and Junior Assistant Manager respectively in Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jayanagar Branch, as on the alleged date of offence i.e. 27/01/2011, have deposed inconsonance with the evidence of P.W.1 and thereby supported the case of prosecution.
C.C.No.646/2014 13
13. The P.W.6, who is panch witness to Ex.P.2 spot mahazar has deposed in her evidence that, from 2011 to 2016, she had worked as an Assistant Manager in the complainant-bank. In the month of June-2012, the Jayanagar Police have visited their bank and seized the documents required for the case. Further, she has identified the Ex.P.2 mahazer and seized documents marked as Ex.P.3 & 18.
14. The P.W.7, who is one the investigation officer in the case, has deposed his evidence that, on 21/06/2012, at 12:45 p.m., the C.W.1 representing Tumkur Grain Merchants Co- operative Bank Ltd., came to Jayanagar Police Station and lodged the first information statement/complaint against the accused No.1 and 2, as per Ex.P.1. On the basis of said first information statement he has registered the case against the accused persons, prepared first information report as per Ex.P.19 and submitted to the Court. Further he has deposed that, on the same day he visited the complainant-bank and conducted spot mahazer in the place shown by C.W.1 and prepared Ex.P.2 spot mahazer. On the same day he received 34 documents from complainant-bank through letter correspondence. The letter identified by the witness is marked C.C.No.646/2014 14 as Ex.P.20 and the seized documents are marked as Ex.P.21 to 40. On 26/06/2012, he has issued notice to the R.T.O. and authorised person of Tata Capital Ltd. Company to produced required documents. On 27/06/2012, he has issued notice to Paragon Finance Company to produce required documents. On 22/09/2012, the Paragon Finance Company has submitted the required documents marked as Ex.P.44 to 47. On 18/07/2012, he has recorded the statement of C.w.2 to 5. Thereafter, on account of his transfer he has handed over the case file to C.W.11 for further investigation. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused No.2 by way of cross- examination has denied all the above stated facts as false. It is pertinent to note that, the P.W.7 in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that, he has not verified the 34 documents alleged to have been handed over by P.W.1. Further, he has clearly admitted that, though he has issued Ex.P.41 to 43 notices, he has not received any documents from R.T.O. and Tata Capital Ltd. Company.
15. The P.W.8, who was the Account Manager of Paragon Finance Ltd., as on the alleged date of offence, has deposed in his evidence that, at the requisition of the complainant Police C.C.No.646/2014 15 he has handed over the Ex.P.45 to 47 documents related to accused No.1 and Chevrolet vehicle bearing Reg. No. MG- 5355, on which they have provided loan. During his cross- examination, the P.W.8 has clearly admitted that, the accused No.2 Hemanth Kumar had never visited to their company.
16. The P.W.9, who is the investigation officer who has foisted charge-sheet against the accused persons in the case, has deposed in his evidence that, on 06.03.2013 he has taken over the case file of present case from C.W.10 and verified the records. As entire investigation in the case was already completed, he has just prepared the final report against accused persons and submitted to the Court.
17. The learned Senior Assistant Public prosecutor representing the complainant in the case has argued that, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution have supported the case of prosecution, the prosecution has successfully proved through cogent and corroborative oral and documentary evidence that, the accused No.1 & 2 have committed the alleged offence and they should be punished with maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence.
C.C.No.646/2014 16 On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused No.2 has vehemently argued that, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that, the accused No.2 in furtherance of common intention and conspiring with accused No.1 has committed the alleged offences. Further argued that, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that, the accused No.2 was having knowledge about the alleged forged documents submitted by the accused No.1 to the complainant bank and as such the accused No.2 is innocent of charges leveled against him by the prosecution. Further argued that, the witnesses examined by the prosecution are all interested witnesses and official witnesses. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused No.2 for the alleged offences.
18. It is alleged b y the prosecution that, the accused No.1 & 2 have committed an offence U/Sec.465, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) R/w 34 of I.P.C. It is specific case of the prosecution that, on 27/01/2011, the accused No. 1 & 2 approached the complainant bank and submitted an application for vehicle loan to purchase Chevrolet Cruze LTZ vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-01/MG-5355 and got sanctioned loan of Rs.7,50,000/- in C.C.No.646/2014 17 favour of accused No.1, by submitting forged 'B' Register extract of said vehicle and thereafter did not repay the loan amount as per the terms of agreement and cheated the complaint bank. But, on meticulously going through the entire material placed on record, it reveals that, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that, the alleged 'B' Register extract submitted by the accused No.1 along with the loan application, which is marked as Ex.P.36(a), is a forged document. It is pertinent to note that, in the present case the investigation officer has neither obtained any report from the R.T.O. office to ascertain whether the alleged 'B' Register extract is issued by the said office or it is a forged document, nor he has obtained any expert opinion to ascertain the same. Further, the prosecution has failed to secure and examine the R.T.O./C.W.8, who is said to have given his opinion on Ex.P.36(a) 'B' Register extract through letter dated 13/07/2012. Further, the investigation officer has neither enquired the person who is said to have been Office Superintendent at the office of R.T.O., Bengaluru, by name S. Mukundan, who use to sign and issue 'B' Register extract during the said period, nor cited him as witness in the final report. In such circumstances, there is nothing on record to C.C.No.646/2014 18 show that, the alleged There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that, the Ex.P.36(a) 'B' Register extract is not issued by the concerned department and as such it is a false document.
19. On meticulously going through the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses and their statements recorded before the investigation officer, it clearly reveals that, the complainant-bank after verifying the documents submitted by the accused No.1 and 2 and getting approval from their head office has sanctioned the loan of Rs.7.5 lakhs in favour of the accused No.1. The P.W.1 to P.W.5, have clearly deposed in their evidence that, after verifying the documents submitted by the accused No.1 & 2 and getting approval from their head office, they have sanctioned loan in favour of accused No.1. As such, the question of inducement by the accused No.1 & 2 to get santioned loan from the complainant-bank does not arise at all.
20. Further it is pertinent to note that, though the Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W.8, has deposed in his evidence that, he has secured the required documents related to the accused persons from the C.C.No.646/2014 19 complainant bank and Union Bank, has not produced the said documents to the Court and got marked in his evidence. Further it is pertinent to note that, nothing has been stated by P.W.7 or P.W.9 in their evidence with regard to what are the documents alleged to have been forged by the accused No.1 in order to avail loan from the complainant bank. Even, they have not uttered single word in their evidence that, they have verified the alleged documents received from the complainant bank, Tata Capital Finance Limited Company, Paragon Finance Limited Company and R.T.O office and on verification they found the said documents are forged documents or they have got examined the said documents through hand writing expert and obtained the expert opinion with regard to alleged forgery of documents. This clearly goes to show that, the P.W.7 & 9 without conducting proper investigation in the case and mere on the basis of self serving statements given by the officials of complainant-bank, have foisted charge-sheet against the accused persons.
21. Further, on meticulously going through the entire evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and contents of first information statement and the statements of P.W.2 to 5 recorded before C.C.No.646/2014 20 the investigation officer, it clearly goes to show that, on account of non-payment of outstanding loan amount by the accused No.1, the P.W.1 has approached the complainant police and initiated criminal proceedings against accused No.1 and 2 for recovery of said amount. The complainant-bank instead of filing a civil suit against the accused persons for recovery of loan due amount, has opted to initiate criminal proceedings against them with a sole intention to recover the said amount. The Hon'ble Apex Court in series of cases has held that, the mere inability of the accused to return the loan amount cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is mens-rea which is the crux of offence punishable under Sec.420 of I.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case S. N. Palanitkar and others V/S State of Bihar and another, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2960, has clearly held that, "In order to constitute an offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was made. It is necessary to show that, person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, to say that he committed an act of C.C.No.646/2014 21 cheating. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating".
22. It is not the case of prosecution that, the accused No.1 & 2 were having fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of executing loan documents in favour of the complainant-bank. Further, the P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 & P.W.5, who are the officials of complainant bank/Tumkur Grain Merchants Co- operative Bank Ltd., have unequivocally admitted in their evidence that, after verifying the documents submitted by the accused No.1 and 2 and getting approval from their head office, they have sanctioned the loan of Rs.7.5 lakhs in favour of the accused No.1. Further, they have admitted that, after availing the loan, the accused No.1 has regularly paid the monthly loan installment amount for 5 months and thereafter he has stopped. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that, the accused No.1 & 2 were having fraudulent or dishonest intention right at the beginning of entering into agreement with the complainant bank to avail loan. If the accused No.1 had such an intention, he would have not repaid the loan installments for the period of five months.
C.C.No.646/2014 22
23. It is alleged by the prosecution that, the accused No.1 & 2 have committed an offence punishable U/Sec.465, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) R/w 34 of I.P.C. The relevant provisions reads as under:-
Sec.420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Sec.465. Punishment for forgery - Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Sec.468. Forgery for purpose of cheating - Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a C.C.No.646/2014 23 term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Sec.471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
Sec.120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy - (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
C.C.No.646/2014 24
24. Now, so far as the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C is concerned, "whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, shall be said to have committed the offence of cheating and shall be punished. The word 'cheating' is defined under Section 415 I.P.C., which reads as under:
Sec.415. Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation - A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
25. Looking to the averments and allegations made in the first information statement, how the accused persons are alleged to have committed the offence of cheating is not at all appreciable. The ingredients of the offence of cheating are not at all established in the case. There is absolutely no evidence C.C.No.646/2014 25 on record to show that, the accused No.1 & 2 have deceived the complainant bank, fraudulently or dishonestly, to sanction loan in favour of the accused No.1. Therefore, even on bare reading of the averments and allegations made in the first information statement, no case even remotely for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C., is made out. So far as the offence under Section 465, 468, 471 of I.P.C. is concerned, there must be making of a false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person. Making the false documents is sine qua non. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). A person is said to have made a "false document", if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses. In the present case, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that, the alleged Ex.P.36(a) 'B' Register extract submitted by the accused No.1 to avail loan from the complainant-bank is a forged document and not issued by the concerned department. Further, so far as the offence under Section 120B of I.P.C. is concerned, there C.C.No.646/2014 26 is absolutely no material on record to show that, the accused No.1 & 2 have conspired to cheat the complainant bank by getting sanction loan in favour of accused No.2 on the basis of forged documents. Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case, the oral & documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution and in the light of observations made supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that, none of ingredients which constitute an offence punishable U/Sec.420, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) of I.P.C., is established by the prosecution in the present case. There is absolutely no material on record which establishes the mens- rea of accused No.2, while executing documents in favour of complainant-bank, agreeing to stand guarantor for repayment of loan amount sanctioned in favour of accused No.1. Therefore, in such circumstances and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the opinion that, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused No.2, beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the accused No.2 is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 to 5 in the Negative.
C.C.No.646/2014 27
26. Point No.6: In view of above conclusion, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 is acquitted for the offence punishable U/Sec.420, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) R/w Sec. 34 of I.P.C.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused No.2 and his surety stands canceled.
The office is directed to preserve the original records and documents seized in the case under P.F.No.144/2012 till disposal of the split-up case against accused No.1 i.e., CC No.6109/2024. (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on the computer, transcript revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 th day of February, 2024) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) XLV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution P.W.1: Annapurnamma W/o Rajashekaraiah P.W.2: Yadeyurappa S/o Siddalingaiah C.C.No.646/2014 28 P.W.3: Shaila Nandini W/o Vijay Kumar P.W.4: Venkatesh M., S/o Mudaligowda P.W.5: Ramya W/o Pradeep P.W.6: Madhu S/o Renukaradhya P.W.7: Boraiah S/o Late Boraiah P.W.8: K. C. Rajkumar S/o Late V. K. Chinnadorai P.W.9: Chandrashekar G.R., S/o Late G. Rachaiah List of documents exhibited on behalf of prosecution Ex.P.1: First Information Statement.
Ex.P.2: Spot Mahazer. Ex.P.3: Letter issued by TATA Capital Ltd., Ex.P.4: Copy of Registration certificate Ex.P.5: Copy of Insurance Policy Ex.P.6: Copy of Pan Card Ex.P.7: Copy of Ration Card Ex.P.8: Copy of Telephone Bill Ex.P.9: Copy of Telephone Bill
Ex.P.10: Copy of VAT Registration Certificate Ex.P.11: Copy of CST Commodities List Ex.P.12: Copy of Canceled Cheque Ex.P.13: Copy of 'B' Register Extract Ex.P.14: Receipt issued by TATA Capital Finance Services Ltd., Ex.P.15: Cardex-I (Contract details) issued by TATA Capital Finance Services Ltd., Ex.P.16: Cardex-II (Contract details)issued by TATA Capital Finance Services Ltd., C.C.No.646/2014 29 Ex.P.17: Rejected Receipt issued by issued by TATA Capital Finance Services Ltd., Ex.P.18: Receipt Information issued by issued by TATA Capital Finance Services Ltd., Ex.P.19: First Information Report Ex.P.20: Letter issued by the Manager of Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-operative Bank Ex.P.21: Loan application Ex.P.22: Motor vehicle inspection and valuation report Ex.P.23: On demand promissory note Ex.P.24: Letter of lien and set-off Ex.P.25: Undertaking letter Ex.P.26: Letter of authority for insurance Ex.P.27: Demand promissory note delivery letter-cum-
continuing security letter
Ex.P.28: Hypothecation deed
Ex.P.29: Pledge agreement
Ex.P.30: Agreement form of surety
Ex.P.31: Agreement form of surety
Ex.P.32: Letter issued by Tumkur Grain Merchants
Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Ex.P.33: Vehicle Inspection Report
Ex.P.34: Loan Sanction Letter
Ex.P.35: Letter issued to Bajaj Alliance General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Ex.P.36: Insurance certificate
Ex.P.36(a): 'B' Register extract
Ex.P.37: 'B' Register extract
Ex.P.38: Credit Appraisal Form
C.C.No.646/2014
30
Ex.P.39: Credit Appraisal Form
Ex.P.40: Statement of account
Ex.P.41: Notice U/Sec.91 of Cr.P.C.
Ex.P.42: Notice U/Sec.91 of Cr.P.C.
Ex.P.43: Notice U/Sec.91 of Cr.P.C.
Ex.P.44: Letter issued by Paragon Finance Ltd., Ex.P.45: Loan Proposal Form Ex.P.46: 'B' Register Extract Ex.P.47: VAT Registration Certificate. List of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution
-NIL-
List of witnesses examined and documents marked on behalf of accused
- NIL -
XLV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
C.C.No.646/2014
31
29-02-2024
State by Sr.APP Accused No.2 present.
Accused No.2
For judgment.
(Order pronounced in open Court vide separate judgment) ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 is acquitted for the offence punishable U/Sec.420, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) R/w Sec. 34 of I.P.C.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused No.2 and his surety stands canceled.
The office is directed to preserve the original records and documents seized in the case under P.F.No.144/2012 till disposal of the split-up case against accused No.1 i.e., CC No.6109/2024.
XLV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
C.C.No.646/2014 32