Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. The original account opening form dated 30th of December, 1947, exhibit PCW-3/5, specimen signatures dated 30th of December, 1947, exhibit PCW-3/6 ; the original cheque for Rs. 10,000 dated 1st March, 1948, exhibit PCW-3/7; the original cheque dated 15th January, 1948, for Rs. 4,000, exhibit PCW-3/8; original letter dated 2nd January, 1948, exhibit PCW-3/3 and original letter dated 2nd February, 1948, exhibit PCW-3/4, all of R.K. Bhatt, account holder, were sent to the handwriting expert, Shri M.B. Dixit, Nagpur, for comparison along with certain comparative material and exhibit PCW-3/12 and 13, the natural writings of Manak Chand Jain, who is alleged to have opened the account with the defendant. Shri M.B. Dixit stated on oath as PCW-3 that he examined the documents in original as well as with the aid of photographic enlargements and compared them with the comparative material and that he was of the opinion that all the documents were written by one and the same person. The detailed reasons have been given in his deposition as well as in his report, exhibit PCW-3/2. Mr. Dixit is a Government examiner of questioned documents for Central Provinces and Berar, Nagpur, and is an independent witness. His testimony is worthy of great credence and has to be relied on, even though in the cross-examination he admitted that he had made the statement with the help of notes prepared by him from the copy of the deposition made by him in the Magistrate's Court. It is significant to note that the report, exhibit PCW-3/2, is dated 28th September, 1949, and the deposition in this case was made on 13th April, 1968. The witness wanted to refresh his memory with the help of his report and from the copy of the deposition made by him earlier. Under Section 159 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a witness may refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by him at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or soon afterwards. The natural writings of Manak Chand Jain are exhibits PCW-3/12 and 13. No cross-examination was directed by the defendant that exhibit PCW-3/12 and 13 are not the natural writing of Manak Chand Jain. Mr. R. K. Bhatt has appeared as PCW-3 and made a statement on oath that these documents, exhibits PCW-3/3 to PCW-3/8, are not signed by him. There is no rebuttal evidence of the defendant about the identity or the signatures of Manak Chand Jain on the above disputed documents, exhibits PCW-3/3 to PCW-3/8. It is thus established on the record that the current account was opened by Manak Chand Jain masquerading as R. K. Bhatt and it was he who was operating that account with the defendant. I hold that Manak Chand Jain masquerading as Shri R.K. Bhatt opened the current account with the Chandni Chowk branch of the Grindlays Bank Ltd., in the falsely and fraudulently assumed name of Shri R.K. Bhatt (Rabindra Kumar Bhatt). The motive of opening the account is clear from the presentation of the two bills for collection through the defendant. The foundation of the two bills was the two inspection notes, which had been left un-cancelled by certain officials of the plaintiff and were utilised by Manak Chand Jain. Manak Chand Jain had neither had any contract with the Government nor supplied any goods and thus no right, title or interest in the said two inspection notes. He had no right to receive the payment from the Government. The fact that he had received the payment by withdrawal of the various amounts from the account of R.K. Bhatt, account holder, shows the clear intention to cause a wrongful loss to, or to defraud, the Government. The opening of the account was thus with this ulterior motive and I hold accordingly.