Judgment :- (Criminal Appeal preferred against the judgment passed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.6156 of 1995, dated 29.12.1998 acquitting all the respondents/accused. ) This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch against the acquittal of the respondents/A.1 to A.3 who were charged with the offences under Sections 120.B r/w. 420 IPC and acquittal of A.2 who was charged for an offence under Section 468 IPC and acquittal of A.3 who was charged for an offence under Section 420 IPC, and acquittal of A.1 and A.3 who were charged for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- (a) A.1 and A.3 are brothers. A.1 is the Proprietor of M/s.Guru Metals, Neerpair, Madurantakam Taluk, Chengalpattu District. A.2 is the Proprietor of M/s.South India Machinery Company at Nandanam, Madras-35. A.1 to A.3 conspired together to cheat the Indian Bank, Triplicane Branch, Chennai to an extent of Rs.6,28,616/=. According to the prosecution A.1 as Proprietor of M/s.Guru Metals, applied for a loan of Rs.6 lakhs for the purchase of machineries to be used for crushing the blue metals. In pursuance of the said conspiracy A.2 has floated a fictitious company in the name of M/s.South India Machineries Ltd., and has given proforma invoices for the cost of the machineries to A.1 whichis alleged to be bogus and fabricated. A.2 supplied the said proforma invoices to A.1 who in turn submitted to the Bank. Based on the application and invoice given by A.2, the Bank sanctioned the first term loan of Rs.4,53,400/=. A.2 submitted a supply bill and A.1 had had submitted the delivery challan claiming that tactually the machineries were supplied. The proforma invoice adduced by A.2's company were false and the first mid term loan of Rs.4,53,400/= was given by Indian Bank, Triplicane Branch by way of Pay Order favouring A.2's Company and the same was deposited in the account of A.2 in the City Union Bank of Triplicane Branch and the said amount was later on withdrawn by A.2 by way of two self cheques and the entire amount was handed over to A.1 by A.2 and accordingly A.2 had received his commission and in the same way the second term loan amount was also received by A.1 and A.3 in connivance with A.2. According to the prosecution, the machineries said to have been supplied by M/s.South India Machineries Company Ltd., who is A.2 were not according to the specification submitted by A.1 and A.2. On the other hand A.1 to A.3 had installed old and locally fabricated machineries in their Unit and thereby A.1 to A.3 have caused wrongful loss to the Bank and has wrongfully gained personally and committed offences mentioned as above. There is a specific allegation against A.2 that there is no existence of a company in the name of M/s. South India Machineries Company Ltd., and the said company as such had no permanent place or address and by way of preparing and furnishing bogus and fraudulent proforma invoices in the name of M/s. South India Machineries Company Ltd., knowing pretty well that the same was false and not genuine to get an unjust enrichment by way of receiving commissions. The Central Bureau Investigation investigated the case, examined the witnesses and laid a charge sheet for the offences mentioned supra, which was taken on file in C.C.No:6156 of 1995. (b) Before the Metropolitan Magistrate, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 23 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.66 were marked. On behalf of the accused Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as against them, they denied the same as false. (c) The learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai who tried the case came to the conclusion that the offences alleged against the accused are not proved and hence acquitted all the three accused. aggrieved over the said acquittal, this Criminal Appeal has been filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation. 3. The fact that A.1 and A.2 obtained loan from the Indian Bank, Triplicane Branch, Chennai is not in dispute. The fact that A.2 gave the proforma invoice, Ex.P.52 which was submitted by A.1 along with a loan application is not in dispute. The point for determination is Whether all the accused committed fraud and cheated the Bank in obtaining the loan and whether there is any loss to the Bank by the offence committed by the accused? 4. The fact that A.2 gave the proforma invoice, Ex.P.52 which was submitted by A.1 along with a loan application is not in dispute. The point for determination is Whether all the accused committed fraud and cheated the Bank in obtaining the loan and whether there is any loss to the Bank by the offence committed by the accused? 4. P.W.19, Branch Manager of the said Bank has deposed that the loan was sanctioned on the scrutiny of other relevant documents relating to collateral security and revenue documents relating to the property belonging to A.1 i.e, M/s.Guru Metals, A.1 whose property was valued by the Bank officials at Rs.10,50,000/=, and the Quarry Lease Agreement from jurisdiction Collector, as per the Inspection report of Krihsnamurthy, P.W.17, who had recommended the grant of loan. Thus it is clear that the proforma invoice is not the sole basis, based on which the loan was granted to A.1 to A.3. After the first mid term loan of Rs.4,53,400/= was sanctioned, in Ex.P.45, Satisfaction Note Sheet, it was mentioned as follows:- "The crusher was purchased on 5.6.1990. Erection was completed on 31.7.1990. Crusher started functioning from August, 1990". Thereafter the second loan was granted for the purpose of purchasing a Compressor on 17.1.1991 as seen from Ex.P.46. As seen from Exs.P.23 and 24, it is clear that the machineries were purchased without any loss of time on 5.6.1990 itself after getting the first loan and the machineries were also duly installed and started functioning. From Ex.P.45, Satisfaction Note, it is clear that (i) loan given by the Bank was indeed utilised for the purpose for which the loan was granted as admitted by P.W.18; (ii) this was done in accordance with the proforma invoice Ex.P.22 and P.23; (iii) P.W.17, Krishnamurthy, Officer of the Indian Bank states that he inspected and found the machinery are installed and functioning; and (iv) P.W.16, V.Natarajan, Officer of the Indian Bank stated that he has visited the Unit after the disbursement of first mid term loan and found the stone crushing unit. P.W.18 is an employee of one M/s.Sayajee Iron and Engineering Ltd., Baroda. He had supplied the machienries through A.2 to A.1. He has also stated that he only supplied the new, proper and standard equipment. 5. Ex.P.52, proforma invoice given by A.2 to A.1 is said to have been false and fictitious. P.W.18 is an employee of one M/s.Sayajee Iron and Engineering Ltd., Baroda. He had supplied the machienries through A.2 to A.1. He has also stated that he only supplied the new, proper and standard equipment. 5. Ex.P.52, proforma invoice given by A.2 to A.1 is said to have been false and fictitious. In para 93 of the judgment, the trial court has stated that the firm by name M/s.South India Machineries of A.2 appears to be fictitious. The above finding and observation of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate cannot be correct, because (i) the address given in the Proforma Invoice is found was verified and found to be correct; (ii) the Telephone Number given in the Proforma Invoice also found to be correct; (iii) the Investigating Officer P.w.23 has deposed as follows: "The address relating to M/s.South India Machineries was found to be correct. The Phone Number of South India Machineries was also found to be correct and the same related to A.2, Srinivasan. Thus it is clear that M/s.South India Machineries was functioning in the said name and style in the premises mentioned in the invoice. The said firm being a Proprietary firm, it could not be termed as a fictitious firm. 6. P.W.23, the Investigating Officer would also admit that during his investigation, the Indian Bank Officials did not say in their statements that they were mislead by TNGST and CST Numbers found in the Invoice of M/s.South India Machineries, Ex.P.52. As already stated, P.W.18, employee of M/s.Sayaji Iron & Engineering Company Ltd., Baroda admits that the accused purchased fresh materials from his company for worth of Rs.4,25,000/= and further he has stated in his evidence that before implanting the crush machineries, the firm has to spend more than Rs.3,00,000/= for construction itself. P.W.20, has stated that he sold spare motor worth of Rs.40,000/= and P.W.22 has stated in his evidence that he sold the fixed compressor mount worth Rs.90,000/= and further he has clearly stated that the compressor belonging to A.1 was newly implanted and worth more than Rs.2,50,000/=. 7. P.W.20, has stated that he sold spare motor worth of Rs.40,000/= and P.W.22 has stated in his evidence that he sold the fixed compressor mount worth Rs.90,000/= and further he has clearly stated that the compressor belonging to A.1 was newly implanted and worth more than Rs.2,50,000/=. 7. Thus from the evidence on record, it is clear that the loan given to A.1 to A.3 was indeed utilised within one month of the disbursal in purchasing the machineries and installing the same in the Unit, that the loan was granted not on the strength of the proforma invoice, but on the basis of security offered by A.1, valued by the bank at Rs.10,50,000/= and other factors as seen from the Satisfaction Note Ex.P.45, that the loan has been indeed repaid and also that P.W.23, Investigation Officer himself has admitted that the Bank had not made any complaint against any of the accused and the Bank is not in any way aggrieved because of the loan transaction and also that there is no wrongful gain by A.1 and A.3 and thus there is no basis for the offence of cheating and also that the invoice was addressed to A.1 Guru Metals, not to the Bank and there is no material that A.2 was even aware that the said invoice was used for the purpose of getting loan from the Bank. The mentioning of TNGST and CST numbers in the invoice is innocuous details and unnecessary and admittedly the Bank was not misguided by the said information in any manner. Curiously, the prosecution, for the best reasons known to them has not obtained any expert opinion regarding the value of the machineries installed in Guru Metals Unit. 8. Having considered all the above aspects, the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai came to the conclusion that the offences alleged against the accused are not proved and hence acquitted. 9. In Shingara Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2004 S.C 124 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "26.....It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court is entitled to reappreciate the entire evidence on record but having done so if it finds that the view taken by the trial court is a possible reasonable view of the evidence on record, it will not substitute its opinion for that of the trial Court. Only in cases where the High Court finds that the findings recorded by the trial Court are unreasonable or perverse or that the Court has committed a serious error of law, or where the trial Court had recorded its findings in ignorance of relevant material on record or by taking into consideration evidence which is not admissible the High Court may be justified in reversing the order of acquittal. We do not find this case to be one where the High Court was justified in reversing the findings recorded by the trial Court. At best, it may be contended that the view taken by the High Court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record. However, we cannot say that the view taken by the trial court was not another reasonable view of the evidence on record. It is well settled that where two views are reasonable possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the one that favours the accused must be accepted. In any event in a case of acquittal if the view of the trial Court is a possible reasonable view of the evidence on record, interference by the High Court may not be justified." 10. The conclusion arrived at by the trial court to acquit the accused is a possible, reasonable one based on the material evidence available on record. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal and the Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.