Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 1997 · The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Jan-2024 13:32:52 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRIMINAL APPEAL No.203 of 1997 (From the judgment dated 9th September, 1997 passed by learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.21 of 1985) Ajit Kumar Singh Babu and others …. Appellants -versus- Republic of India …. Respondent Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Appellants : Mr. Debasis Sarangi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sarthak Nayak, C.B.I. Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 18th December, 2023 B.P. Routray, J. 1. The Appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, on each count, for commission of offences under Sections 120-B & 468/34, I.P.C. by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. in T.R. Case No.21 of 1985. 2. The Appellants, namely, Ajit Kumr Singh Babu {hereinafter referred as Accused No.2(A-2)}, Prasant Kumar Singh Babu {hereinafter referred as Accused No.3(A-3)} and Susant Kumar Singh Babu {hereinafter referred as Accused No.4(A-4)} along with another CRA No.203 of 1997 Page 1 of 8
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Jan-2024 13:32:52 Manmohan Rout faced the trial for charges under Sections 120-B, 409, 468, 465, 471 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and additionally, Manmohan Rout was charged under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 3. The facts in brief are that, Manmohan Rout {hereinafter referred as Accused No.1(A-1)} was serving as Branch Manager in Bank of India of Badasahi Branch during the period from 1978 to 1982. On 6.3.1979, he sanctioned and disbursed loan of Rs.9900/- each in favour of five fictitious persons, namely, Laxmidhar Barik, Kumud Narayan Deo, Krupasindhu Sahu, Sirish Chandra Mohanta and Prasanna Kumar Bhanj Deo. Out of said loan amounts, part amount were repaid and rest remain unpaid. Rs.3565/- was repaid in respect of the loan taken in the name of Laxmidhar Barik, Rs.4565/- was repaid in respect of the loan taken in the name of Kumud Narayn Deo, Rs.4310/- was repaid in respect of the loan taken in the name of Krupasindhu Sahu, Rs.4565/- was repaid in respect of loan taken in the name of Sirish Chandra Mohanta and Rs.4570/- was repaid in respect of the loan taken in the name of Prasanna Kumar Bhanj Deo. Such repayments were made on different dates with different amounts. The allegations against present Appellants are that, they being the private persons have agreed to join with A-1 in misappropriating such amounts of loan by putting signatures on different documents for those fictitious persons Viz. on the loan application forms, withdrawal slips and repayment pay-in-slips etc. Thus they are added in the commission of offences by aid of Section 34, I.P.C. and by way of criminal conspiracy with A-1. CRA No.203 of 1997 Page 2 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Jan-2024 13:32:52 4. The FIR was registered by C.B.I. in R.C. No. 11, dated 27.06.1983 on source information and the investigation commenced. P.W.16 – the I.O. took up investigation on 30.06.1983 and in course of investigation he seized relevant documents, examined different witnesses, collected specimen handwriting and signatures and admitted writings of the accused persons, and sent them for opinion of handwriting expert along with questioned documents. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offences afore-stated. 5. The Appellants denied the charge completely and pleaded false implications. But A-1, who is not an Appellant in the present Appeal, though denied the charges but has admitted to the extent that he has sanctioned and disbursed the loan in favour of those five persons. His plea is that, those five persons are not fictitious. They had applied for the loan, took the loan and repaid part of the loan. 6. Prosecution in order to prove their case examined 17 witnesses, out of whom P.W.1 is the successor in Office of A-1, P.W.2 is the sanctioning authority, P.W.7 is a Deputy General Manager of Bank of India who conducted the enquiry about the loans granted in favour of those fictitious persons, P.W.17 is the handwriting expert and P.W.16 is the Investigating Officer. The prosecution have also adduced several documents marked from Ext.1 to Ext.115 in support of their case. CRA No.203 of 1997 Page 3 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Jan-2024 13:32:52 7. The Appellants did not adduce any evidence. But A-1 examined himself as Defence Witness No.1 and marked three documents Viz. Ext.A to Ext.C in support of his defence. 8. To attract the offence of forgery, the very essential ingredient is the intention to deceit or cheat. In the case at hand, it is important here to state the facts admitted by A-1 because he is the principal offender being the Branch Manager. Said A-1 in his defence evidence as well as in the statements made under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has admitted regarding sanction and disbursement of loan amounts in favour of those five persons, stated to be fictitious. A-1 has admitted that he was working as the Branch Manager from 6.11.1978 to 18.5.1982 in Badasahi Branch of Bank of India and on 6.3.1979 he sanctioned the loan of Rs.9900/- each in favour of Laxmidhar Barik, Kumud Narayan Deo, Krupasindhu Sahu, Sirish Chandra Mohanta and Prasanna Kumar Bhanj Deo. A-1 has admitted his signature on the loan application form under different exhibits. He has admitted his handwritings on the loan application forms as well as the Savings Bank Account opening form of Laxmidhar Barik and he has authenticated the specimen signatures of the loanee and the introducer-Prasanna Kumar Bhanj Deo. He has admitted his signature on the debit form to credit the amount to the account of Laxmidhar Barik under Ext.11 and Ext.12 respectively, his signature in the withdrawal slip to pass withdrawing of loan amount by said Laxmidhar Barik, the pay-in-slips under Ext.15 dated 9.4.1979 allegedly presented by Laxmidhar Barik, the initial deposit form under Ext.20 for opening of an account in the name of Laxmidhar Barik. Similarly, he has admitted all such documents in respect of other CRA No.203 of 1997 Page 4 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Jan-2024 13:32:52 loanees regarding sanction of loan amounts, credit and debit of the amounts to their respective savings accounts, the withdrawal forms for passing of the same, the pay-in-slips deposited by those loanees under different exhibits Viz. Ext.22 to 28, Ext.37 to 43, Ext.51 to 55 and Ext.64 to 69. 9. The only denial by A-1 is that, those loanees were not fictitious persons, but were existing. Of course, the Appellants have denied everything against them. So the first crucial point comes to verify is that, whether those five loanees were fictitious persons or not ? 10. In this regard, the evidence of P.W.3, 4, 9, 10 and 13 are important. P.W.3 is a person namely, Laxmidhar Barik of village Haladipada. He has disowned the English signature ‘Laxmidhar Barik’ under Ext.8, 9, 10 & 13. He has stated that he has neither taken any loan nor has applied for the same at any point of time and he does not know English language. He has also stated that, no person namely, ‘Laxmidhar Barik’ is there except him either in his village or any other nearby village. Similar is the evidence of P.W.4, namely, Sirish Mohanta. P.W.9, namely, Sudhakrushna Pradhan is the person, whose name has been mentioned as the guarantor in the loan application of Prasanna Kumar Bhanj Deo, under Ext.64. He has denied his signature on such documents and has further stated that no such person in his village or in the nearby villages is there carrying the same name. P.W.10-Rama Chandra Das is a permanent resident of village Badasahi and he has denied to have stood as guarantor in respect of the loan of Sirish Chandra Mohanta and according to him there is no person CRA No.203 of 1997 Page 5 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Jan-2024 13:32:52 namely, Sirish Chandra Mohanta either in their village or in any other nearby village. The name Rama Chandra Das appearing in the form under Ext.37 as a guarantor to the loanee, Sirish Chandra Mohanta is not in the handwriting of P.W.10. P.W.13 is a permanent resident of Badasahi and his evidence goes to show that those five persons in whose names loans have been granted are non-existent in the area or nearby area. Thus a careful scrutiny of evidence of these witnesses in reference to Ext.8, 9, 10, 13, 37, 38, 42 & 43 do clearly satisfy that such loanees namely, Laxmidhar Barik, Kumud Narayan Deo, Krupasindhu Sahu, Sirish Chandra Mohanta and Prasanna Kumar Bhanj Deo are the fictitious persons never existed in the locality. 11. Next, it is required to see the act of forgery committed by the Appellants. According to P.W.16 – the I.O., these Appellants were not strangers to A-1, but they had prior acquaintance. Earlier A-1 had sanctioned loan of Rs.5000/- in favour of A-2 – Ajit Kumar Singh Babu. 12. The handwritings of the Appellants on different documents have been proved by P.W.1. P.W.1 has stated that he is acquainted with the signatures of these Appellants. According to P.W.1, these Appellants have deposited different amounts towards repayment of loans in the name of those fictitious persons under Ext.73 to Ext.76. The pay-in- slip under Ext.73 was filled in by A-2 and the pay-in-slips under Ext.74 and Ext.75 were filled in by A-1. P.W.1 has specifically stated that he knows the Appellants earlier on different occasions. The statement of P.W.1 that he was acquainted with the handwritings and signatures of CRA No.203 of 1997 Page 6 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Jan-2024 13:32:52 the Appellants is fortified from the documents relating to different loans availed by them from the Bank. Further the admitted signatures and handwritings were collected by the I.O. (P.W.16) and the same were sent to the Government examiner (P.W.17) along with questioned documents and specimen writings. P.W.17 in his forwarding letter under Ext.111 and reasoning under Ext.114, has opined that the disputed writings and signatures appearing on different exhibits referred to him are in the handwriting and signature of the respective Appellants (accused persons). Thus it is seen that the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated in the evidence of P.W.17 regarding proof of handwritings and signatures of the Appellants. In other words, the opinion of P.W.17 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, it can be accepted that those handwritings and signatures on such documents are of the Appellants and the same is established beyond all reasonable doubts. 13. With regard to criminal conspiracy, it is always difficult to get direct evidence in that respect. The law is settled that the meeting of mind can be inferred from the facts and circumstances established in a given case to attract the offence of criminal conspiracy. There must be meeting of minds resulting an ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of an offence and a conspiracy can be inferred from circumstances giving rise to such conclusion about agreement between two or more persons. (See State of Delhi Administration vs. V.C. Shukla, AIR 1980 SC 1382) CRA No.203 of 1997 Page 7 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Jan-2024 13:32:52 14. In the case at hand, looking at the circumstances of sanction of the loan in favour of those fictitious persons, disbursal of the same in their favour and the manner of part repayment of such loan amounts containing the signatures of different accused persons do justify existence of agreement between A-1 and these Appellants for criminal conspiracy and to cheat by way of forgery. 15. In view of the discussions made above, the findings and conclusions of learned trial judge are seen well founded on the evidences brought on record. No reason is found to interfere with the same and to disturb the findings of the trial court. The conviction and sentence against the Appellants are thus confirmed and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. (B.P. Routray) Judge B.K. Barik/Secretary CRA No.203 of 1997 Page 8 of 8