Satnam Singh v. CBI

Mr.S.K.Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondent-CBI. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Initially three accused namely Satnam Singh, Ronak Chand and Harvinder Singh were prosecuted for the offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and were convicted and sentenced by the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate,CBI, Punjab, Patiala, vide judgment dated 24.12.1996. However, vide judgment dated 23.09.2000, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, the appeals, preferred by Ronak Chand and Harvinder Singh were accepted whereas the appeal, preferred by Satnam Singh accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') was dismissed and his sentence of 1½ years, awarded by the trial Court alongwith fine under Section 467 IPC was ordered to be maintained. The accused Satnam Singh opened a current account No.2396 dated 21.02.1990 in the State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch Rajpura by impersonating himself as Jaswant Singh, Proprietor of M/s Jay Bee Industries, Sham Nagar, Patiala Road, Rajpura, resident of 321/3, Partap Colony, Rajpura. The account was allowed to be opened by O.P.Arora, SIB Segment, State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Rajpura. The main accused Satnam Singh (impersonating as Jaswant Singh) submitted account opening Criminal Revision No.1240 of 2000 2 form containing forged signatures of introducer Prem Chand, holder of current account No.S-76/3 and those of Ashok Kumar holder of current account No.15/18 in State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Rajpura. He also got a cheque for a sum of Rs.11,600/- encashed on 31.05.1990 after leaving a balance of Rs.500/- in the said account. However, he deposited a sum of Rs.200/- in cash on the same day through a pay slip. Thus, the closing balance as on 31.05.1990 was Rs.700/- only. During investigation, it transpires that Harvinder Singh and Ronak Chand had also joined in conspiracy with the accused Satnam Singh in the commission of the aforesaid crime and they got added digits “97” in ledger folio No.19 for current account No.2396 before the credit entry of Rs.200/- and the balance figure of Rs.700/- in order to show that the amount of Rs.97,200/- and Rs.97,700/- were deposited by the accused. During investigation, it was further revealed that accused Satnam Singh presented a cheque bearing No.966062 dated 01.06.1990 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- by signing on it as Jaswant Singh, in full knowledge of the fact that there is only a balance of Rs.700/- in the account. The cheque was cleared and the payment of Rs.75,000/- was received by the accused Satnam Singh (impersonating and signing as Jaswant Singh). It was also revealed that account was found to have been operated by the accused Satnam Singh, Harvinder Singh and Ronak Chand by impersonating as Jaswant Singh, Sandeep Singh and Pawan Kumar respectively. As such, they cheated the bank for a sum of Rs.74,300/-. The account opening form of account No.2396 dated

21.02.1990, specimen signature card and affidavit dated 20.02.1990 were signed by accused Satnam Singh (impersonating as Jaswant Singh), Cheque Nos.966051 dated 28.02.1990, 966052 dated 06.03.1990, 966053 dated Criminal Revision No.1240 of 2000 3

09.03.1990, 966054 dated 12.03.1990, 966055 dated 16.03.1990, 966057 dated 26.03.1990, 966058 dated 24.05.1990, 966059 dated 29.05.1990, 966060 dated 31.05.1990 and 966062 dated 01.06.1990 for Rs.600/-, 3,000/-, 6000/-, 9,000/-, 17,500/-, 11,000/-, 5500/-, 11900/-, 11600/- and 75,000/- respectively. During the investigation, it was further revealed that Harvinder Singh received payments of cheque Nos.966051, 966054, 966055, 966059 and 966060 by signing and impersonating as Pardeep Singh. Body of cheque Nos.966051, 966053, 966054, 966055, 966058, 966059 & 966060 and writing of account Nos.15/18 & 576/3 of account opening form No.2396 was also in the handwriting of Harvinder Singh (since acquitted). During investigation, it further revealed that Ronak Chand received the payment of cheque Nos.966052, 966053, 966057 and 966058 by signing and impersonating him as Pawan Kumar. Body of the cheque No.966052 was also in the handwriting of Ronak Chand. The investigation also revealed that account No.2396 was not signed by the introducer Prem Chand and Ashok Kumar and the account was opened on forged signatures. On completion of investigation, all the three accused were challaned. On finding a prima facie case against all the three accused, they were charged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120- B IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined S.K.Sachdeva, an officer of the State Bank of Patiala, (PW1), Avinash Lal, an official of the State Bank of Patiala (PW2), Avtar Krishan Bhalla, Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Rajpura (PW3), Prem Chand, Criminal Revision No.1240 of 2000 4 a partner of M/s Sri Ganesh Rice Mills, Patiala Road, Rajpura, (PW4), Ashok Kumar, a partner of M/s Rice Traders, Rajpura (PW5), S.K.Ghai, Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Rajpura (PW6), Gian Singh, Head Cashier, State Bank of Patiala, Sector 39 Branch, Chandigarh (PW7), Smt.Sunita Sharma, an officer of State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Rajpura (PW8), O.P.Arora, Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Rajpura (PW9), Khushal Chand, Manager Accounts in State Bank of Patiala at the relevant time (PW10), Brij Mohan Mehta, Clerk of the State Bank of Patiala, Rajpura Branch (PW11), Dinesh Kumar Arora, Advocate (PW12), Sucha Singh, Superintendent, Municipal Committee, Rajpura (PW13), Amarjit Singh, Superintendent, Municipal Committee (PW14), Sucha Singh, Postman (PW15), Manjit Singh, Branch Manager (PW16), Jarnail Singh, Postman (PW17), Smt.Dayawanti Singla (PW18), Balwant Singh, General Manager, Distt. Industries Centre, Ludhiana (PW19), Dr.B.A.Vaid, Asstt. Government Examiner of questioned documents, Simla (PW20), Mohinder Lal Gupta, Manager (PW21), Partap Singh of FCI (PW22) and H.S.Chopra, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Investigating Officer (PW23). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. They also examined Gopal Krishan Sharma, Private Handwriting Expert (DW1), Who proved his report Ex.DW1/A. On appreciation of the entire evidence, the trial Court convicted all the three accused whereas during appeal the two accused namely Harvinder Singh and Ronak Chand were acquitted whereas the appeal qua Criminal Revision No.1240 of 2000 5 present accused-petitioner Satnam Singh was dismissed. It is fully established from the evidence available on the record in the form of testimonies of O.P.Arora, Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Rajpura (PW8) and Brij Mohan Mehta, Clerk of the State Bank of Patiala, Rajpura Branch (PW11) that the accused Satnam Singh was the person, who had impersonating him as Jaswant Singh for opening account No.2396 and then withdraw the amount to the tune of Rs.75,000/- in full knowledge of the balance in the account being Rs.700/- only. The testimonies of PW15 Sucha Singh & PW17 Jarnail Singh, (both postmen) and PW13 Sucha Singh & PW14 Amarjit Singh (both Superintendents, Municipal Committee) clearly establish that there was no person in the name of Jaswant Singh so also there was no firm in the name of Jay Bee Industries. inexistence in Sham Nagar, Patiala Road, Rajpura. It would be pertinent to mention here that address of Jaswant Singh as given in the opening form has been proved to be non-existence. PW4 Prem Chand and PW5 Ashok Kumar, while appearing in the witness box, have categorically stated that they never identified the accused Satnam Singh. Further PW9 O.P.Arora, Manager, State Bank of Patiala, and PW11 Brij Mohan Mehta had duly identified the accused Satnam Singh as the person who withdrew the amount by impersonation. Thus, it would not be inappropriate to hold that the offence, as committed by the accused Satnam Singh, stands fully established on the record. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the Criminal Revision No.1240 of 2000 6 occurrence took place way back in the year 1991. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings in the Courts. He has already undergone more than one year of the substantive sentence. Under these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to one year and three months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, for compliance.

17.03.2010 mamta-II (A.N.Jindal) Judge