Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 127 (PNJ)

Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-02-04

NIRMAL SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - The case of the prosecution is that on 26.5.1989 SI Avtar Singh alongwith HC Balwant Singh and other police officials were present at Football Chowk, Jalandhar, they received a secret information that one Bhupinder Singh son of Jagtar Singh in connivance with Malkiat Singh Cashier had fraudulently got encashed a sum of Rs. 80,000/- from Punjab and Sind Bank, Lajpat Nagar, Branch Jalandhar and he can be apprehended if a raid is conducted at the house of Malkiat Singh. On receiving this information, the police party raided the house of Malkiat Singh and he was apprehended. A sum of Rs. 35,000/- were recovered from the possession of Malkiat Singh and Rs. 45,000/- were recovered from the possession of accused Bhupinder Singh. It is further the case of the prosecution that this amount was withdrawn from account No. 9206 of Surinder Singh after forging his signatures by Bhupinder Singh co-accused, since acquitted and Bhupinder Singh also got issued other loose cheques from the said bank and withdrew a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 23.5.1989. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented before the illaqua Magistrate who charge-sheeted the accused under Sections 420, 468, 469 and 471 Indian Penal Code. 2. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Anant Deep Singh, Chief Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank as PW-1, G.S. Kohli, Bank Officer as PW-2, HC Balwant Singh as PW-3, Mohan Singh as PW-4, Avtar Singh as PW-5, Man Singh as PW-6, Tarlok Singh as PW-7, Surinder Singh as PW-8 and closed its evidence. 3. After recording the evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted Bhupinder Singh co-accused but convicted the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below, the present revision petition has been preferred. 4. Shri Navdeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court has acquitted Bhupinder Singh who is alleged to have forged the signatures of Surinder Singh and withdrawn a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. He submitted that the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner without any evidence. He further contended that the learned appellate Court also failed to appreciate the evidence on record and that the petitioner is neither the signatory of the cheque nor an attesting witness. 50,000/-. He submitted that the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner without any evidence. He further contended that the learned appellate Court also failed to appreciate the evidence on record and that the petitioner is neither the signatory of the cheque nor an attesting witness. He further submitted that there is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioner shared common intention or conspired with Bhupinder Singh. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that when the main accused has been acquitted then the petitioner cannot be convicted and sentenced. 5. On the other hand Shri H.S. Garewal, DAG, Punjab appearing for the State submitted that the petitioner induced the bank officials to deliver the money to Bhupinder Singh from the account of Surinder Singh. He further submitted that if Malkiat Singh petitioner has not identified Bhupinder Singh as Surinder Singh then the bank officials would not have made the payments. He further submitted that in this way the petitioner has cheated the bank. He further submitted that the petitioner made a statement before ASI Avtar Singh that he has kept concealed the money in his house and his statement was recorded and in pursuance of that statement, he got recovered a sum of Rs. 35,000/-. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. The case of the prosecution is that Bhupinder Singh has impersonated as Surinder Singh from whose account a sum of Rs. 3,000, Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 50,000/- were withdrawn. Bhupinder Singh who has impersonated himself as Surinder Singh has been acquitted on the ground that PW-5 Avtar Singh and PW-7 Tarlok Singh who have accepted the cheque and had made the payment has not identified him. No expert opinion is there on the file to show that signatures of Surinder Singh were forged on cheques Ex.PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C. Even it has not been proved by the prosecution that these signatures are of Bhupinder Singh who is alleged to have impersonated. The learned trial Court has specifically held in paragraph-8 that there is no forgery or cheating. PW2/C. Even it has not been proved by the prosecution that these signatures are of Bhupinder Singh who is alleged to have impersonated. The learned trial Court has specifically held in paragraph-8 that there is no forgery or cheating. Paragraph-8 reads as under :- "As regards accused No. 1 Bhupinder Singh, he was neither recognised by PW-5 Avtar Singh nor by PW-7 Tarlok Singh who had accepted loose cheques and made over the payment of two cheques on two occasions from the account of PW Surinder Singh. Moreover, there is no expert opinion on file to show that the signatures on the cheque Ex. PW 2/B and PW 2/C were forged by accused Surinder Singh. There is the report of expert on file in this regard but it has not been relied upon by the prosecution. This un-relied report does not say that the signatures on Ex. PW2/B and PW2/C are those of accused Bhupinder Singh. Thus there is neither any direct nor any circumstantial evidence on record to show that the accused committed the alleged offence of cheating and forgery punishable under Sections 420, 468, 465 and 471 Indian Penal Code. The accused No. 1 is accordingly acquitted of the above mentioned charges." 8. The petitioner has neither signed any document nor there is any evidence on the record to show that the petitioner was the person who had cheated. The learned trial Court had convicted and sentenced the appellant on surmises and conjectures. Avtar Singh PW-5 has deposed in his statement that on 17.5.1989 one person came to him and told him that his account Number is 9206 and disclosed his name as Surinder Singh. He demanded loose cheques. After getting his signatures on the register he issued loose cheques. After making a debit in the ledger book, a token book came to him. The shape of the sign was the same but there was some difference. He again got the signatures. He asked his fathers name and he disclosed his fathers name as Resham Singh. He stopped the payment and enquired from him why he has not operated the account for such a long time. The said person disclosed to him that they have a transport business in Gauhati. Now they had shifted to Kapurthala but he had not identified the said person and he released the payment at the instance of Malkiat Singh. 9. He stopped the payment and enquired from him why he has not operated the account for such a long time. The said person disclosed to him that they have a transport business in Gauhati. Now they had shifted to Kapurthala but he had not identified the said person and he released the payment at the instance of Malkiat Singh. 9. As it has been noticed above that the prosecution has failed to prove that their were signatures on the ledger book or on the cheques against which the payment has been made, therefore, Bhupinder Singh had been acquitted. When Bhupinder Singh agaisnt whom the allegations were that he had impersonated himself as Surinder Singh and had received the payment was acquitted then the petitioner against whom the only allegation are that he had identified Bhupinder Singh as Surinder Singh, cannot be convicted and sentenced. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, the revision petition is accepted. The order passed by the Judl. Magistrate and the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar affirming the sentence of the petitioner are set aside. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bond and surety bond stands discharged. Appeal allowed.