Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 468, 471 in Shri. Shivamurthaiah vs State By Inspector Of Police on 7 December, 2023Matching Fragments
The Crl.A.No.780/2011 is filed by the appellant/accused No.1, Crl.A.No.812/2011 is filed by the appellant/accused No.5 (died during the pendency of the appeal), Crl.A.No.813/2011 is filed by the appellant/accused No.2. Crl.A.No.814/2011 is filed by the appellant/accused No.6. Crl.A.No.815/2011 is filed by the appellant/accused No.3. Crl.A.No.967/2011 is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.7 and 8 (during the pendency of the appeal the first appellant - accused No.7 died) and Crl.A.No.792/2011 is filed the appellant/ accused No.9 under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengalore (CCH-34) in Spl.C.C.No.09/2008 dated 05.07.2011 for having convicted and sentenced the appellants to undergo imprisonment and fine for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) read with Section 468, 471, 477(A) and 420 of IPC against all the accused and under Sections 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as against accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.780/2011.
i. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and other accused were conspired with each other to cheat the Bank and loan sanctioned by the accused No.1 on created and fabricated documents, which caused wrongful loss to the UCO banker, thereby the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 120(B) read with Sections 468, 471, 477 and 420 of IPC against all the accused and under Sections 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.? ii. Whether the appellant No.1 is being a public servant for illegal gratification mis-sued the power by sanctioning the loan to the other accused, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 13 (c) (d) and 13 (2) of P.C. Act.?
86. As regards to the hand-writing opinion the PW.16 given evidence that he has received the documents from the Investigating Officer in respect of questioned documents and admitted documents with regard to specimen hand-writing as per Exs.P.165 and 166. As regards to the sanctioning of the loan by this accused No.1 in favour of accused Nos.2 to 7 are not in dispute and if any documents produced by the borrower for applying loan along with the loan application, the manager cannot go into the genuinity of the documents while granting the loan. It is his duty to refer the documents to panel advocate for getting legal opinion. Accordingly, legal opinion has been given by the PW.5 - Keshavan, thereafter he has granted the loan. Therefore, question of creation of document or production of fake documents or fabricated documents by accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 477 (A) will not attract against accused No.1, as this Court has already held that conspiracy of Section 120 (B) of IPC is not proved by prosecution. Therefore, offences alleged against accused No.1 in respect of fabrication of documents or creation of fake documents or cheating Bank would not attract against accused No.1. The fabrication of documents done by other accused, not by this accused No.1. Hence, he cannot be convicted for offence punishable under Section 477(A) of IPC. Therefore, evidence of PW.16 the expert opinion not useful to the prosecution case to prove guilt of accused No.1. Therefore, accused No.1 cannot be convicted for above said offences.
102. It is seen from the evidence of the PWs.1 to 4, 6 to 10 and 11 to 16 that the prosecution has successful in proving that the accused Nos.2 to 8 have created the false documents including the I.T. returns and invoice bills in the name of various companies in the name of purchasing the agricultural equipments and obtained the loan. Thereby, the accused Nos.2 to 8 have produced the fake and forged documents as guanine before the Bank for the purpose of obtaining the loan and also they have received the loan and thereby they cheated the UCO Bank. Thereby, the accused Nos.2 to 8 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 477 (a) and 420 of IPC.