Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7 Narayanan (P.W.2) was not cross-examined on the same day. He was re-called and cross-examined on 08.02.2006. In the cross-examination, Narayanan (P.W.2), has stated that Suparshva was maintaining accounts with Canara Bank from 1991; they are into import of iron and steel scrap; on receipt of import documents, the bank would inform the customer; on the amount being paid by the customer, the documents will be released; on 16.02.2001, documents were received from Sampath Bank, Colombo; after that, the concerned official of the bank informed the http://www.judis.nic.in petitioner of this in person; on 26.07.2001, the documents were sent back to Sampath Bank, Colombo; for about five months, the bank waited; the bank will not normally send back the documents immediately, but, will give reasonable time for the party to make payment and only thereafter, the documents will be returned; on 17.08.2001, Canara Bank received a communication from Sampath Bank, Colombo, stating that the negotiable part of the bill of lading was not returned and it should be either returned or the amount paid; from 16.02.2001 to 26.07.2001, they were under the belief that the documents were safe with them and they realised that one set of the documents had gone missing only in August 2001, when they received the communication from Sampath Bank, Colombo; Chandrasekar (P.W.3) was the staff in charge of the foreign bills section; normally, the goods should be released only after an endorsement is made by the bank that the amount has been remitted; but, in this case, the goods were released without the endorsement of the bank. Ultimately, it was suggested to him that on account of the negligence of Chandrasekar (P.W.3), the incident had occurred and only in order to safeguard him, a false case has been put against the petitioner, which suggestion, he denied. It was also suggested to him that various letters were obtained from the petitioner by coercion, which also, he denied. Except the suggestion part, the rest of the questions posed in the cross-examination appears, as if the witness was being examined in-chief. http://www.judis.nic.in 8 Chandrasekar (P.W.3), the concerned staff of Canara Bank was examined-in-chief on 07.04.2005. In the chief- examination, he has stated that he was working in Canara Bank as Special Assistant; Suparshva was having account in the bank; they are into import and export business; the petitioner was the Managing Director of Suparshva; import documents like invoice and bill of lading will be received by the bank; in this case, two bills of lading valued at USD 7868.74 from Sampath Bank, Colombo were received; this was informed to the petitioner; the petitioner used to get the details and will make payment for only one bill at a time; this was his practice; on 18.02.2001, the petitioner came to the bank as usual and asked him to show the documents which were received; accordingly, he handed over the documents to the petitioner for perusal and was attending to demand drafts clearing duty; since the petitioner was a known customer, he handed over the documents to him; the petitioner returned the documents saying that he will make payment later; four months later, i.e., on 26.07.2001, the documents were sent to Sampath Bank, Colombo, since no payment was made by the petitioner; thereafter, Canara Bank received a communication from Sampath Bank, Colombo to the effect that one set of documents was found missing and the party had taken delivery of the goods; on coming to know of this, Narayanan (P.W.2) met the petitioner and questioned him about this; the petitioner accepted everything and http://www.judis.nic.in repaid Rs.1,90,000/- and thereafter, he did not make any payment.

10 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original bill of lading, which the petitioner is said to have forged, has not been filed and therefore, the conviction and sentence under Section 468 IPC cannot be maintained. It is true that the original bill of lading was not marked in this case. However, that cannot automatically lead to the acquittal of the petitioner of the charge under Section 468 IPC, because, the prosecution have satisfactorily established through circumstantial evidence that the petitioner had come to the bank on 18.02.2001 and had requested Chandrasekar (P.W.3) to permit him to peruse documents; Chandrasekar (P.W.3), in good faith, handed over the documents to http://www.judis.nic.in the petitioner for perusal; Chandrasekar (P.W.3) was attending to other emergency duties in the bank relating to clearing demand drafts and the petitioner returned the documents to Chandrasekar (P.W.3) saying that he will make payment later. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had not taken delivery of the consignments. For taking delivery of the consignments, Narayanan (P.W.2) has clearly stated that the endorsement by the bank on one set of documents intended for the customer has to be made. In the letter dated 15.09.2001 (Ex.P.1) given by the petitioner to the Senior Manager, Canara Bank, he has stated as follows: