Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

30 Consequently, all the accused persons are hereby held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Section 120­ B IPC read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988.

Forgery & Cheating 31 It is alleged against accused Sajauddin and Jagdeep Singh Gill that they committed forgery in the documents with regard to flat No.G­2, 6/221, Sector 6, Vaishali, Ghaziabad and used the same as genuine and on the basis of same, managed to obtain loan from the bank and thus cheated the bank.

37 Perusal of sale deed Ex.PW2/C shows that accused Sajauddin and Jagdeep Singh Gill mentioned the area therein as 62 sq. meters of the flat in question. But the perusal of sale deed Ex.PW2/B proved by Registration Clerk of the office of Sub­ Registrar shows that area mentioned therein was 32 sq. meters. In the sale deed Ex.PW2/C, there are signatures of these accused persons on the corrections but in the certified copy of sale deed Ex.PW2/B, no such corrections or signatures are found. The site plan annexed with sale deed Ex.PW2/B is also different from the site plan annexed with original sale deed Ex.PW2/C, which clearly goes to prove that accused Sajauddin and Jagdeep Singh Gill committed forgery in the documents submitted for grant of loan.

39 Forgery in the documents by accused Sajauddin and Jagdeep Singh has also been established from the opinion of Expert PW5 Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar. His opinion Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C shows that original sale deed Ex.PW2/C and signatures Marked Q111, Q118, Q121, Q 125, Q127, Q129, Q131, Q133, Q135,Q137, Q139 and Q141 appearing thereon executed between them was sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents along with specimen signatures of accused Jagdeep Singh Gill marked S37 to S41. According to opinion of the Expert, these questioned signatures have been written by the person who has written specimen signatures S37 to S­41. In other words, they have been written by accused Jagdeep Singh Gill. PW5 has further stated that questioned signatures Q­144, Q146 and Q148 on agreement dated 20.07.2004 along with Specimen signatures marked S­68 to marked S­71 of accused Sajauddin were also sent for opinion and as per opinion of the Expert, these questioned documents were not written by the person who has written specimen signatures mark S­68 to S­71, meaning thereby questioned documents were not written on the agreement by accused Sajauddin. So, the opinion of expert also establishes that forgery in the documents was committed by these accused persons.

40 It has also come in evidence that accused persons managed to get the loan in two installments i.e. of Rs. 1.6 lacs and Rs. 4.4 lacs. Statement of account Ex.PW3/D in respect of CA No.784 in the name of M/s MOD Look Beauty Care, a proprietorship concern of accused Sajauddin shows that a sum of Rs.4.4 lacs was disbursed on 22.08.2004 through Pay Order issued in favour of M/s Ideal Home, whereas sum of Rs.1.6 lacs was disbursed on 26.08.2004 through Pay Order issued in favour of Firdos Begum. So, the prosecution has successfully established that accused Sajauddin and Jagdeep Singh Gill committed forgery in the documents and used the same as genuine and on the basis of forged documents, managed to get housing loan of Rs.6 lacs from the bank and thus cheated the bank. 41 The contention of the ld. Counsel for accused Sajauddin that he is liable to be acquitted as he had already made payment to the bank, is of no consequence as he has cheated the government by hatching a criminal conspiracy by committing forgery in the documents. The criminal acts committed by accused cannot be said to be a private or personal affair, rather it has the capability to affect the society as cheating has been committed with a public sector bank. Therefore, the authority relied upon by him in case of Gian Singh (supra) is of no help to him as the same is distinguishable from the facts of the present case.