Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. To prove its case against the appellants-accused the prosecution has examined in all 44 witnesses ? (1) Chief Vigilance Officer Shri Mayuram Dandapani, PW 1, Exh.28, (2) Bank?"s Investigating Officer Shri Pundlik Lotanrao Patil , PW 2, Exh.34, (3) Branch Manager Shri Sam Bashemji Aibara, PW 3, Exh.51, (4)Manager of Advances Department of Bank Shri Barjorji Sorabji Lahewala, PW 4, Exh.56, (5) Kiritkumar Laxmichand Shah PW 5, Exh.142, (6) Babulal Gordhandas Sagar, PW 6, Exh.148, (7) Karimbhai Fanubhai Shaikh, PW 7, Exh.152, (8) Sub- Accountant of the Bank Shri Sharadkumar Lalshanker Oza, PW 8, Exh.570, (9) General Manager of the Bank Shri Ramesh Mukund Pradhan, PW 9, Exh.1167, (10) Nazmuddin Ibrahim Lokandwala, PW 10, Exh.1202, (11) Mulchand Jamanlal Sharma, PW 11, Exh.1208, (12) Sub- Accountant Nausir Baheramsha Mistri, PW 12, Exh.1209, (13) Vibhakar Vasantro Samel, PW 13, Exh.1259, (14) Hanif Abdulrazak Motorwala, PW 14, Exh.1291, (15) Zikar Hamid Darvesh, PW 5, Exh.1329, (16) Shanker Siddheya Gajeli, PW 16, Exh.1331, (17) Sailendraprasad Suryamanisinh, PW 17, Exh.1414, (18) Additional Relieving Officer Shri Jahanbux Ratansha Postwala, PW 18, Exh.1432, (19) Internal Auditor Shri Sudharshankumar Jashvantrai Sharma, PW 19, Exh.1433, (20) Pravinchandra Jaishanker Upadhyay, PW 20, Exh.1459, (21) Mohmad Yusuf Husenmiya Shaikh, PW 21, Exh.1456, (22) Mangesh Dhundira Kothari, PW 22, Exh.1458, (23) Sadanand Majaya Shetti, PW 23, Exh.1462, (24) Chief Cashier Shri Ramanlal Jugaldas Soni, PW 24, Exh.1469, (25) Shri Ashok Mangaldas Gandhi, PW 25, Exh.1470, (26) Anishusain Ismail Saiyed, PW 26, Exh.1472, (27) Farukh Gulamhsain Merchant, PW 27, Exh.1475, (28) Siv Atmaram Mulchandani, PW 28, Exh.1504, (29) Chandrakant Gedba Kamle, PW 29, Exh.1506, (30) Maheshbhai Chhotalal Joshi, PW 30, Exh.1507, (31) Bhupendra Ishwarlal Dave, PW 31, Exh.1514, (32)Ashvinkumar Popatlal Shah, PW 32, Exh.1516, (33) Harish Ramsundar Dasji Mahant, PW 33, Exh.1520, (34) Cashier Cum Godown Keeper Shri Bansilal Maganlal Barot, PW 34, Exh.1540, (35) Advocate Shri Rushikumar Nathalal Bhatt, PW 35, Exh.1541, (36) Onali Shamshubhai Lokhandwala, PW 36, Exh.1543, (37) Kujapan Aipan Kodapulli, PW 37, Exh.1557, (38) Investigating Officer Shri Baldevsing Kapursing Gill, PW 38, Exh.1558. (39) Miss Sabrine Shahid Latif, P.W. 39 Exhibit 1569. (40) Handwriting Expert Shri Madhusdan Lal Kirshorilal Sharma P.W.40 exhibit 1590. (41) Ashokkumar Mangal Tripathi P.W. 41 Exhibit 1601. (42) Ramnath Choksarai P.W. 42 Exhibit 1628. (43) Kundanlal Jagirilal Joshi P.W. 43 Exhibit 1629 and (44) P.I. Shri Balkrushna Kundanlal Sharma, P.W. 44 Exhibit 1639. The prosecution has also produced certain documentary evidence. Before the trial Court none of the appellants-accused has stepped into the witness box. The appellants-original accused nos.2 to 5 have not led any evidence while the appellant-original accused no.1 has examined three defence witneses, namely, (1) Shri Rajesh Babulal Bhavsar, DW 1, Exh.1654, (2) Shri Ajit Shantilal Pandya, DW 2, Exh.1655 and (3) Shri Nyalchand Popatlal Shah, DW 3, Exh.1662. After recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses closing Purshis was filed by the prosecution. The learned Special Judge explained the circumstances appearing against the appellants-accused in the evidence led by the prosecution and the further statement of the appellants-accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code came to be recorded, the sum and substance of which is to the effect that they were falsely involved in the case and their case was of total denial.

21. There is also documentary evidence to show that the said firm was fictitious and bogus. In this connection, it would be relevant to refer to two receipts dated 20-12-1972 and 8-5-1973 produced at Exhibits 1443 and 1054 respectively These two receipts were passed by the firm ?STecheximpa?? in favour of M/s. New Russian Automobiles??. Further Exh.1444 is a copy of invoice dated 10-5-1973 issued by the said fictitious firm to M/s. New Russian Automobiles for an amount of Rs.2,75,950/- for sale of USSR make crank shaft grinder. The aforesaid two receipts at Exhs.1054 and 1443 shows that M/s. Techeximpa received the total amount of Rs.75,000/- as advance payment, but the extract of the account statement of the said fictitious firm (Exh.1461) does not reveal the deposit of the said amount. This fact also stands substantiated by the evidence of Shri Sharma, Internal Auditor of the bank Exh.1433.

26. With regard to the offence of cheating and forgery, it may be noted that the said firm M/s. New Russian Automobiles, Ahmedabad falsely represented to the bank that it had purchased forgings of the value of Rs.44,19,000/- from M/s. Alloy Steel Corporation, and thereby, induced the bank to advance total amount of Rs.30,93,300/- to the said firm even though, in fact, no such purchase had taken place. Admittedly as per the copy of plaint in Civil Suit no.707 of 1977 the said firm owed total amount of Rs.40,70,043-84ps. to the said bank as on 2-3-1977 against loans. As far as the Letter of Credit facility granted by the bank by sanction Exh.96 dated 27-8-1975 is concerned there is nothing due from the said firm as the Lal Darwaja Branch of the said bank has admittedly received an amount of Rs.4,99,200/-under this head., however, the record reveals that the Ghee Kanta Branch of the said bank advanced loan against the very goods of letter of credit evem though it was not permissible for the bank to advance second loan against the security of the same goods. Regarding the facilities enjoyed by the accused from the bank, we have the deposition of Shri Sudharshankumar Jashvantrai Sharma, PW 19 at Exh.1433, the Internal Auditor of the Central Bank of India who carried out audit and inspection of various records of the bank as well as the firm which clearly indicates that the bank advanced loan against the very goods of L.C.Credit though it was not permissible for the bank to advance second loan against the security of the same goods. Exhs.1442 and 1443 the inspection reports prepared by this witness as also the other documents Exhs.953, 987, 990 and 1439 is also suggestive of the fact that the bank had advanced such loan facility. Under the Cash Credit Open Loan facility the said firm obtained different advances by hypothecating their goods lying in their factory. The evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court proves that the accused no.2 had produced exhs.942 to 952 invoices bearing dates 9-4-75 to 20-6-76 issued by M/s Alloy Steel Corporation, Bombay in respect of sale and despatch of forgings for the total value of Rs.44,19,000/-to the said firm. These invoices have been attested to be true copies by the accused no.4. The motor receipts mentioned in these invoices also show that the goods under the said invoices were sold and sent to the said firm and that the motor receipts were issued by Gujarat Transport Service. In this connection, we have the deposition of witness Mr. Hanif Abdulrazak Motorwala, PW 14 at exh.1291 as also the deposition of witness Mr. Zikar Hamid Darvesh, PW 15 at Exh.1329 who were working with the said Gujarat Transport Service who have deposed to the effect that the motor transport receipts mentioned in Exhs.942 to 952 have not been issued by the said transport company and that the said transport company had also never transported the goods of M/s. Alloy Steel Corporation, Bombay to Ahmedabad. It is significant to note here that the accused no.1 ought to have obtained the original invoices or their copies from the said firm at the time of advancing the loan or the said firm was bound to supply to the bank the original invoices. That is not so, but it is only when demand was made by the Inspector of Godowns at the time of inspection of the accounts by Shri Sam Baheramji Aibara, PW 3 at Exh.51 that the copies of invoices Exhs.942 to 952 were produced by accused no.2. It has also come on record that M/s. Alloy Steel Corporation is a fictitious company of the accused no.2. Thus, it is proved that the accused had cheated the Central Bank of India by falsely representing that M/s. Alloy Steel Corporation, a fictitious and bogus firm of accused no.2 was a genuine firm and by representing that the aforesaid firm had sold forgings of the value of Rs.44,19,000/- and had despatched the same to said M/s. New Russian Automobiles, Ahmedabad under 11 Motor Transport Receipts of Gujarat Transport Service, Bombay though no such forgings were ever sold to the said M/s. New Russian Automobiles, and by producing 11 photo-stat copies of the invoices which were attested to be true copies by accused no.4 and by obtaining an amount of Rs.30,93,,300/- as a loan from the said bank for the said firm of M/s.New Russian Automobiles through the accused no.1 against hypothecation to goods (forgings). It is also required to be noted that the accused no.2,3 and other partners of Ms.New Russian Automobiles, Ahmedabad have admitted their liability regarding the amount claimed by the bank and they had invited decree in suit which was filed against them by the Central Bank of India.