Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 554 (UTT)

MOHAN LAL GARG v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2006-09-28

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2006
JUDGMENT Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. Since there is a common question of law and fact involved in all the revisions, therefore, all the revisions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this single judgment. 2. Criminal Revision Nos. 40/2006 & 42/2006 have been directed against the order dated 26.11.1991 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Anti Corruption, District Dehradun dismissing the discharge applications of the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg in case No. 1/1987 & case no. 5/ 1986 respectively under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with sections 5(2) & 5(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Criminal Revision No. 41/2006 has been directed against the order dated 26.11.1991 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Anti Corruption, District Dehradun in case No. 6/1986, whereby the Addl. Sessions Judge has dismissed the application for discharge of the revisionists - Mohan Lal Garg and Sohan Lal Garg under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with sections 5(2) & 5(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Brief facts of criminal revision No. 40/2006 {Mohan Lal Garg vs. State} are that on 11.12.1985 an FIR was lodged against the co-accused V.K. Vishnoi. It is the prosecution case that the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg, who was an advocate residing in the district Muzaffarnagar and V.K. Vishnoi, the then Branch Manager, SBI, Roorkee had hatched a criminal conspiracy with Mohan Lal Garg. It was further alleged that they had opened the forged accounts in the bank with the intention to cheat the bank. It was further alleged that the revisionist- Mohan Lal Garg has opened his bank account No. P112/80 on 9.9.1980 in the State Bank of India, Roorkee with the assistance of the co-accused V.K. Vishnoi. The revisionist- Mohan Lal Garg had impersonated himself to be Sohan Lal and opened a forged account no. P151 on 6.5.1981. The revisionist has also impersonated himself to be Pawan Kumar & Jitendra Kumar and opened two A/cs no. 155 & 154 in the name of Pawan Kumar and Jitendra Kumar on 8.6.1981 and 12.06.1981 respectively. After opening the aforesaid forged accounts in the name of non-existent persons, the revisionist obtained two overdrafts in his own account amounting to Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 5000/- on 9.9.1980 and 13.09.1980 respectively. In the same way, the revisionist obtained again two overdrafts of Rs. 2000/- & Rs. After opening the aforesaid forged accounts in the name of non-existent persons, the revisionist obtained two overdrafts in his own account amounting to Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 5000/- on 9.9.1980 and 13.09.1980 respectively. In the same way, the revisionist obtained again two overdrafts of Rs. 2000/- & Rs. 5000/- in the account of Sohan Lal. Thereafter, the revisionist also obtained an overdraft of Rs. 5000/- in the account no. P154 of Jitendra Kumar. The revisionist received two overdrafts of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 4000/- in the account no. P155 of Pawan Kumar. 4. So far as the criminal revision No. 41/2006 (Mohan Lal Garg & Sohan Lal Garg vs. State) is concerned Mohan Lal Garg and his brother Sohan Lal Garg (revisionist no. 1 & 2 respectively) had hatched a criminal conspiracy with the help of V.K. Vishnoi, the then branch manager, SBI, Bengal Engineering Group Centre, Roorkee and pursuant to said conspiracy Mohan Lal Garg opened a current A/c no. P157A in the name of Raj Kumar the non-existent person of 13 Civil Lines, East Roorkee on 15.06.1981. With the intention to cheat the bank, V.K. Vishnoi, branch manager has deliberately allowed to open the account without any introductory reference and without verifying the alleged signatures of Raj Kumar which were in fact forged by Mohan Lal Garg. Mohan Lal Garg and V.K. Vishnoi knew each other since before. On 15.06.1981 Mohan Lal Garg impersonating himself Raj Kumar issued a cheque for Rs. 5000/- in favour of one- Surender Kumar from the aforesaid bogus signature of Raj Kumar ............... initial deposit of Rs. 100. Without having the sufficient credit balance in the account in pursuant of the said conspiracy, the co-accused V.K. Vishnoi allowed the overdraft on the said cheque and the payment was made to Surender Kumar on the same day. In order to take undue advantage from the bank with the dishonest intention of cheating, Mohan Lal Garg got opened another account in the name of non-existent firm M/s Kissan Enterprises on 5.2.1982 wherein his real brother Sohan Lal Garg- revisionist no. 2 and Satish Kumar were shown as partners. They deposited a sum of Rs. 1100/- in that account. The firm was established only on the papers and it was non-existent firm at the spot. The revisionist no. 2 - Sohan Lal was shown as an active partner of the said firm. 2 and Satish Kumar were shown as partners. They deposited a sum of Rs. 1100/- in that account. The firm was established only on the papers and it was non-existent firm at the spot. The revisionist no. 2 - Sohan Lal was shown as an active partner of the said firm. Sohan Lal had also hatched a conspiracy to show and cheat a non-existent firm to deceive the bank so that money can be taken from the bank in the name of the non-existent firm. On 26.02.1982 the revisionist- Mohan Lal Garg presented a cheque no. 505387 for Rs. 1 lac in favour of M/s Kissan Enterprises. The said cheque related to the current account No. 157-A which was opened by the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg in the name of Raj Kumar. The revisionist - Mohan Lal Garg forged the signature of Raj Kumar on the said cheque. He requested the Branch Manager, SBI, Main Market, Muzaffarnagar, to purchase the said cheque in favour of M/s Kissan Enterprises. Since the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg was a lawyer of the bank so the branch manager purchased the draft and the amount was credited to M/s Kissan Enterprises. Thereafter, on 1.3.1982 the revisionist no. 2- Sohan Lal Garg issued cheque No. 388002 dated 1.3.1982 for Rs. 1 lac pertaining to his account M/s Kissan Enterprises in favour of Raj Kumar. Mohan Lal Garg received the payment of Rs. 1 lac pertaining to the aforesaid cheque which was issued in favour of Raj Kumar on 1.3.1982 itself. Thereafter, on 2.2.1982 Mohan Lal Garg deposited the amount of Rs. 1 lakh in cash in the account of Raj Kumar at Roorkee. The pay-in-slip for depositing the amount in this account was filled in by Mohan Lal Garg by forging the signatures in the name of Raj Kumar. Thereafter, he utilized the amount pertaining to the said deposit from this account from time to time on the basis of forged cheques in the name of Raj Kumar. The aforesaid cheque No. 388002 dated 1.3.1982 for Rs. 1 lakh was sent to the SBI, Bengal Engineering Group Centre, Roorkee for collection on 2.3.1982 from the SBI, Main Market Branch, Muzaffarnagar. However, the co-accused V.K. Vishnoi withheld the said cheque at his branch Roorkee for about five months and did not enter in the account of so-called Raj Kumar. The aforesaid cheque No. 388002 dated 1.3.1982 for Rs. 1 lakh was sent to the SBI, Bengal Engineering Group Centre, Roorkee for collection on 2.3.1982 from the SBI, Main Market Branch, Muzaffarnagar. However, the co-accused V.K. Vishnoi withheld the said cheque at his branch Roorkee for about five months and did not enter in the account of so-called Raj Kumar. Meanwhile, the revisionist- Mohan Lal Garg utilized the amount by deceiving the bank by operating the aforesaid fake account of Raj Kumar. The said cheque was debited in the account of Raj Kumar only on 25.08.1982 when sufficient balance was managed by the revisionist. Thus, the bank was put to loss. 5. Whereas the criminal revision No. 42/2006 (Mohan Lal Garg vs. State) is concerned, all the accused persons i.e. V.K. Vishnoi the then branch manager of the bank, Rajbir Singh, Ram Richpal, Mohan Lal Garg, Smt. Vimla Devi and Sunil Kumar entered into a criminal conspiracy with the object to cheat the Bank by fraudulently drawing a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from the bank as advance on the basis of forged documents. On 28.4.1981 an application for a loan of Rs. 1.40 lakh for the purchase of a second hand truck 1980 model was moved by the co-accused Rajbir Singh in the bank. The said application was written in the handwriting of V.K. Vishnoi and it was signed by Rajbir Singh. V.K. Vishnoi the then branch manager certified on the application that the scope of repayment of the loan was good. A receipt dated 24.4.1981 which was prepared by the revisionist- Mohan Lal Garg was submitted alongwith the application showing the payment of Rs. 50,000/- to co-accused Ram Richpal by Rajbir Singh towards the part payment of the cost of the truck No. PPS-6158, TDV 1980 model, allegedly purchased by Rajbir Singh from Ram Rich Pal for Rs. 1,90,000/-. A loan of Rs. 1.40 lakh was sanctioned by V.K. Vishnoi in favour of Rajbir Singh on 7.5.1981 and the documents regarding security of the loan amount were got executed. Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Nain Singh and co-accused Ram Rich Pal were shown as guarantors for the purpose of loan. Co-accused Smt. Vimla W/o Rajbir Singh impersonated herself as Smt. Krishna Devi and affixed her thumb impression in place of the alleged guarantor Smt. Krishna Devi. Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Nain Singh and co-accused Ram Rich Pal were shown as guarantors for the purpose of loan. Co-accused Smt. Vimla W/o Rajbir Singh impersonated herself as Smt. Krishna Devi and affixed her thumb impression in place of the alleged guarantor Smt. Krishna Devi. An affidavit allegedly sworn by the guarantor Smt. Krishna Devi before the Notary Public was submitted in which the guarantor had given the details of the property situated at Khasra No. 2524 Krishnapuri, Muzaffarnagar. Co-accused Smt. Vimla Devi affixed here thumb impressions on the said affidavit as Smt. Krishna Devi. The affidavit was sworn before the Notary Public Sri Mahendra Kumar Gupta of Muzaffarnagar on 5.1.1981 and at that time the deponent was identified as Krishna Devi by the revisionist- Mohan Lal Garg. The other guarantor Ram Rich Pal had also signed on the letter of guarantee. The finger print expert has confirmed that the co-accused Smt. Vimla Devi had affixed her thumb impression on the relevant documents as Smt. Krishna Devi. In this way, the amount of Rs. 1.40 lakh was debited on 7.5.1981 to the loan account of Rajbir Singh through debit voucher passed by accused V.K. Vishnoi on the back of which Rajbir Singh signed in confirmation of the debit. Accordingly a bank draft was issued in favour of Ram Rich Pal. Thereafter, the bank draft of Rs. 1.40 lakh was deposited in the bank account of accused Ram Rich Pal, which was subsequently withdrawn from the bank on 8.5.1981 and 27.5.1981. A receipt dated 7.5.1981 was prepared by the revisionist Mohan lal Garg in which the accused Ram Rich Pal acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 1.40 lakh through bank draft from the accused Rajbir Singh. Ram Rich Pal never owned or purchased the truck No. PBS 6158 and it was neither owned by Satnam Singh from whom it was shown to have been purchased by Ram Rich Pal. PBS-6158 was actually a tractor owned by one Ruldu Singh and Lekh Singh and the same was registered in the office of District Transport Office, Sangroor. On the basis of the aforesaid documents submitted in the ARTO, Muzaffarnagar further registration of the vehicle was shown transferred to the ARTO, Muzaffarnagar and a false certificate of registration transferring the said truck into UTX-4849 was filed. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid documents submitted in the ARTO, Muzaffarnagar further registration of the vehicle was shown transferred to the ARTO, Muzaffarnagar and a false certificate of registration transferring the said truck into UTX-4849 was filed. 6. After lodging the FIRs with regard to the aforesaid criminal conspiracies, the Investigating Officer was appointed to investigate the matters. The I.O. had recorded the statement of the witnesses and he had also taken the opinion of the handwriting expert. The matter was investigated by the I.O. as usual and the I.O. came to the conclusion that the accused persons after opening the fake accounts prepared the various cheques of the respective account holders. The cheques were passed for payment by the co-accused V.K. Vishnoi knowing them to be forged and the payment were withdrawn from the bank by forged means. It was further disclosed during investigation that all the transactions made in the accounts were in the handwriting of the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg. The I.O. also found that the persons in whose names the accounts were opened were forged and no such persons in whose names the account were stood non-existent. Some letters were sent by the bank to the persons in whose name the accounts were opened and the letters came back unserved. In this way, the I.O. had submitted the chargesheet against the accused persons. Feeling aggrieved by the chargesheet submitted by the I.O., the accused persons filed applications before the Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Dehradun that there is absolutely no evidence against them and they were entitled to be discharged. The trial court heard the parties at length and came to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against them to frame the charges in all the cases. Feeling aggrieved by this, the revisionists have filed the present revisions before this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that the trial court had committed manifest error while considering the evidence proposed to be adduced by the prosecutor before him. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that there is absolutely no evidence against the revisionist to frame the charges. It was further contended that the trial court had not discussed the evidence in the proper manner and it has appreciated that there is evidence against the revisionists. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that there is absolutely no evidence against the revisionist to frame the charges. It was further contended that the trial court had not discussed the evidence in the proper manner and it has appreciated that there is evidence against the revisionists. It was further contended that the impugned orders are perverse, illegal and bad in the eyes of law. Learned AGA for the State refuted the contention. 9. Before proceeding with the submissions of the parties, I would like to deal with the legal position in this regard. At the stage of passing the order in terms of section 239 Cr.P.C. (in case of session trial 227 Cr.P.C.) the court has merely to see the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out agaisnt the accused, the learned trial Judge must proceed to frame the charge in terms of section 240 Cr.P.C. (in case of sessions trial 228 Cr.P.C.) only in a case where it is shown that the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the crime. Then, alone the court can discharge the accused. The court is not required to enter into the meticulous consideration of evidence and material placed before it at this stage. The perusal of the above mentioned provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the learned trial Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the learned trial Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding recording the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under section 227 Cr.P.C. or under section 239 Cr.P.C. At that stage the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion, which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to see that there is no suffcient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court has, therefore, to consider the question of framing the charges on general consideration of the material placed before it by the investigating agency. At the initial stage of framing of the charge, the truth, veracity and the effect of the judgment which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Meaning thereby, the standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding an accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing of charge. {See Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Admn. 1996 SCC(Cri) p/1104, Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja AIR 1980 SC 52, State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh AIR 1977 SC 2018, 1977 SCC (Cri) 533}. 10. In light of the above backdrop, I would like to deal with the evidence of the cases in hand. In Criminal Revision No. 40/2006, the prosecution has alleged that a criminal conspiracy was hatched between the revisionist- Mohan Lal Garg and the co-accused. 10. In light of the above backdrop, I would like to deal with the evidence of the cases in hand. In Criminal Revision No. 40/2006, the prosecution has alleged that a criminal conspiracy was hatched between the revisionist- Mohan Lal Garg and the co-accused. The revisionist opened the bank accounts as mentioned above in the names of the allegedly fictitious persons and these accounts were operated by the revisionist himself. It was further alleged that all the transactions made in these accounts were in the handwriting of the revisionist. The I.O. inquired that the accounts opened by the revisionist were forged and the persons, in whose names the accounts were opened, were found non-existent. The letters were sent by the I.O. on their addresses and it was received unserved. The I.O. also recorded the evidence of the witnesses who had proved the handwriting of the revisionist. Apart this, he also obtained the signature of the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg and he sent it to the handwriting expert for comparison. The handwriting expert also corroborated the evidence of the witnesses that the alleged acocunts were operated by forged signatures. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist was an advocate for the State Bank of India and V.K. Vishnoi the co-accused was the branch manager of the said bank. It was further contended that the I.O. has not seized any document from the possession of the revisionist- Mohan Lal Garg and the I.O. has not taken the sample of handwriting of the revisionist and the same was not sent to the handwriting expert for comparison. It was further contended that even if the said handwriting had been obtained by the I.O. to compare the writing of the revisionist that cannot be considered in view of section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subhvinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1995 S.C.Cr.R. p/12. Learned AGA refuted the contention. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act provides as under : “73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subhvinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1995 S.C.Cr.R. p/12. Learned AGA refuted the contention. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act provides as under : “73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. – In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger-impressions.” 11. There are two limbs of that section. First limb of this section provides for comparison of signature, writing purporting to have been written or made by a person with others admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by the same person. This limb does not specifically provide by whom such comparison may be made. The second limb of section 73 of the Evidence Act is that it empowers the court to direct any person in court to give his specimen writing or finger impression for the purpose of enabling the court to compare it with others which were alleged to have been written or made by him. 12. The learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhvinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1995 S.C.Cr.R. p/12. It also relates to second limb of section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. In that case, the specimen handwriting was taken under the direction of Sri S.P. Garg, Tehsildar Executive Magistrate. It was admitted that no inquiry or trial was admittedly pending in the court of Tehsildar-Executive Magistrate. The inquiry and the trial in that case was pending under TADA before the Designated Court only. It was held by the Apex Court in Sukhvinder Singh (supra) :- “22. It was admitted that no inquiry or trial was admittedly pending in the court of Tehsildar-Executive Magistrate. The inquiry and the trial in that case was pending under TADA before the Designated Court only. It was held by the Apex Court in Sukhvinder Singh (supra) :- “22. ..................................The direction given by the Tehsildar Executive Magistrate Sh. S.P. Garg to the appellant Sukhdev Pal to give his specimen writing was clearly unwarranted and not contemplated or envisaged by section 73 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution has not disclosed as to at what stage of investigation or enquiry or trial was Sukhdev Paul appellant produced before the specimen writing of the appellant and why the specimen writings were obtained under directions of PW13 and not of the Designated Court. It is a mystery as to how the specimen writings required to be used at the trial against the appellant were directed to be taken by PW13, who was not enquiring or trying the case. To a specimen question during his cross examination, PW13 admitted at the trial, that when he had issued the direction to the appellant there was no document on his file which could go to show as to under whose orders the appellant had been sent to him for taking his specimen handwritings. The manner in which the specimen writing of Sukhdev Paul was taken is totally objectionable and against the provisions of section 73 of the Evidence Act. The Executive Magistrate PW13 appears to have been too obliging and did not even care to examine the provisions of law before issuing the direction to the appellant. The argument of the learned counsel for the State that since no objection was raised by the appellant when he was called upon to give his specimen writing by PW13 therefore he cannot be permitted to make a grievance now is only an argument of despair and the silence of the appellant, who admittedly on that day, was not even represented by an advocate, cannot certainly clothe PW13 with any jurisdiction to issue the directions as envisaged by section 73 of the Evidence Act. The specimen writing of Sukhdev Paul could not therefore, be made use of during the trial and the report of the handwriting expert, when considered in the light of the foregoing discussion, is rendered of no consequence at all and cannot be used against Sukhdev Paul appellant to connect him with the crime.” 13. The Apex Court in the case of “parliament attack case” State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu 2005 SCC(Cri) p/1715, 2005(11) SCC p/600 has held as follows. “222. ............................. The High Court held that the evidence of PW20, who was independent witness, was in no manner tainted and held that Afzal was involved in the purchase of the car used by the terrorists to enter the Parliament House. This conclusion was reached by the High Court even after excluding the evidence of PW23 Principal Scientific Officer who confirmed that the signatures on the delivery receipt Ext. PW-1/6 tallied with his specimen signatures. In this context, a conclusion was raised before the High Court that in view of section 27 of POTA, specimen signature should not have been obtained without the permission of the court. In reply to this contention urged before the High Court, Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the learned senior counsel for the State clarified that on the relevant date, when the specimen signatures of Afzal were obtained, the investigation was not done under the POTA provisions and dehors the provisions of POTA, hence there was no legal bar against obtained the handwriting samples. The learned counsel relied upon the eleven-Judge Bench decision of this Court in State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808 in support of his contention that Article 20(3) of the Constitution was not infringed by taking the specimen handwriting or signature or thumb impressions of a person in custody. Reference has also been drawn to the decision of this Court in State of U.P. Vs. Boota Singh 1979 SCC Cri 115. We find considerable force in the contention advanced by Mr. Gopal Subramanium. In fact this aspect was not seriously debated before us.” 14. In the case of Criminal Revision No.40/2006, the specimen signature of the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg taken by the CBI during the investigation was not hit by section 162 Cr.P.C. Giving the impression or a specimen handwriting by the accused person it does not amount to furnish an evidence against himself. In the case of Criminal Revision No.40/2006, the specimen signature of the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg taken by the CBI during the investigation was not hit by section 162 Cr.P.C. Giving the impression or a specimen handwriting by the accused person it does not amount to furnish an evidence against himself. It has to be amply proved by the evidence that the said signatures have been taken under compulsion. If the defence successfully proves this factum the corroborative piece of evidence adduced by the handwriting experts may be inadmissible. It would not be just and proper for me to express any opinion with regard to the specimen signatures which has been adduced in evidence by the prosecution. As I have pointed out in the preceding paras that the court has not to meticulously examine the evidence at this stage. Even on the basis of a strong suspicion found in or made material to be a authentative regarding the existence of a factual ingredient constituting the offence alleged and in that event be justified of the framing of the charge against the revisionist in respect of the commission of the offence alleged to have been committed by him. The evidence of other witnesses who had proved the handwriting of the revisionist on the disputed documents was available with the prosecution which lead to take an inference that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the revisionist on this ground alone. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist has no force. 15. It was further contended that it is only alleged that the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg made the draft from the bogus accounts and it was made by the bank manager-the co-accused. This fact itself does not make out any offence. It was further contended that the prosecution had failed to disclose whether there is any wrongful loss or gain either to the bank or to the revisionist. It was further contended that the trial court erred in directing to frame the charge against the revisionist. It is alleged that the revisionist has obtained the money on the overdraft permitted by the bank manager- the co-accused. It was further contended that the trial court erred in directing to frame the charge against the revisionist. It is alleged that the revisionist has obtained the money on the overdraft permitted by the bank manager- the co-accused. If the fake account would not have been opened and the revisionist would not have been entitled to get the overdraft on the said amount and the said money could not have been drawn by the revisionist, the revisionist had definitely obtained the wrongful gain by the bogus accounts. As such, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist has no force. The revisionist had committed the forgery and obtained the money by deceitful intention. It is transpired from the counter affidavit that V.K. Vishnoi and the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg were well known to each other, even before the posting of V.K. Vishnoi at Roorkee. V.K. Vishnoi was the Field Officer of the bank at Muzaffarnagar when the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg was working as an advocate of the said bank. It is in the evidence that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg opened four accounts in fictitious names i.e. No. P-112 in the name of Mohan Lal, P-151 in the name of Sohan Lal, P-154 in the name of Jitendra Kumar Jain and P-155 in the name of Pawan Kumar by giving fake addresses. All the aforesaid accounts were opened by the revisionist Mohan Lal Garg himself by forging the signatures of the respective account holders and by showing their fake addresses of Roorkee. Co-accused V.K. Vishnoi dishonestly and fraudulently allowed the opening of all the aforesaid fake accounts. After opening the said fake accounts, various cheques of huge amounts were prepared by the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg himself in his own handwriting and forging the signatures of the respective account holders. The cheques were passed for payment by co-accused V.K. Vishnoi knowing them to be forged and the payment was ultimately withdrawn from the bank by the revisionist Mohan Lal Garg. It is transpired from the counter affidavit that a number of bank officers have testified the writing of the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg on the relevant documents. They have also stated that the revisionist Mohan Lal Garg had himself forged the signatures of the forged bank account holder. The Government Handwriting Expert, Calcutta has also confirmed the handwriting of the revisionist on the relevant documents. They have also stated that the revisionist Mohan Lal Garg had himself forged the signatures of the forged bank account holder. The Government Handwriting Expert, Calcutta has also confirmed the handwriting of the revisionist on the relevant documents. It is also transpired that the alleged account holders were not residing at the addresses given in the documents. The revisionist Mohan Lal Garg had deliberately given false addresses of the alleged account holders so that the bank might be cheated. It is also evident to mention here that the facility for over drafts under current accounts is given by the bank only to the genuine and needy businessmen and not to the persons who work in the garb of fictitious persons. In view of the foregoing discussion, the criminal revision No. 40/2006 is devoid of merit and there is a prima-facie case against the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg. The trial court had rightly rejected the discharge application of the revisionist in case No. 1/1987. 16. In the case of criminal revision No. 41/2006, during investigation it was revealed that V.K. Vishnoi the then branch manager, SBI, Bengal Engineering Group Centre, Roorkee entered into a criminal conspiracy with Mohan Lal Garg and his real brother Sohan Lal Garg with the intention to cheat the bank. The revisionist no.1 Mohan Lal Garg impersonated himself as Raj Kumar and opened a current account No.P157A in the name of a non-existent person Raj Kumar of 13 civil lines, East Engineering Group Centre, Roorkee on 15.06.1981 with the initial deposit of Rs.100/-. It has also come in the investigation that the revisionist himself made the signature of Raj Kumar and he also made signatures on the other documents. The handwriting the specimen signature was sent to the handwriting expert who had proved that the signatures and writing made in the documents were of the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg. The Handwriting Expert had given his opinion that all the relevant documents pertaining to the writing and signatures of Raj Kumar were of revisionist no.1. During the investigation no Raj Kumar was found in existence at the given address. During the course of investigation it was found that V.K. Vishnoi, branch manager has fraudulently allowed to open the account without verifying the alleged signatures of Raj kumar. It was also revealed that Mohan Lal Garg-revisionist no.1 and V.K. Vishnoi knew each other since before. During the investigation no Raj Kumar was found in existence at the given address. During the course of investigation it was found that V.K. Vishnoi, branch manager has fraudulently allowed to open the account without verifying the alleged signatures of Raj kumar. It was also revealed that Mohan Lal Garg-revisionist no.1 and V.K. Vishnoi knew each other since before. On 15.06.1981 Mohan Lal Garg issued a cheque for Rs.5000/- in favour of one-Surender Kumar from the aforesaid bogus account of Raj Kumar in which he himself made the signature of Raj Kumar. Without having the sufficient credit balance in the account, the co-accused V.K. Vishnoi branch manager of the bank allowed the overdraft on the said cheque and the payment was made to Surender Kumar on the same day. 17. It is also in the evidence during investigation that on 05.02.1982 Mohan Lal Garg got opened another account in the name of non-existent firm M/s Kissan Enterprises wherein his real brother Sohan Lal Garg revisionist no.2 and Satish Kumar were shown as partners. They deposited a sum of Rs. 1100/- in that account. The firm was established only on the papers and it was non-existent firm at the spot. The revisionist no.2-Sohan Lal was shown as an active partner of the said firm. Sohan Lal had also hatched a conspiracy by showing a non-existent firm to deceive the ban so that money can be taken from the bank in the name of the non-existent firm. On 26.02.1982 the revisionist-Mohan Lal Garg presented a cheque no.505387 for Rs.1 lac in favour of M/s Kissan Enterprises. The said cheque related to the current account No.157-A which was opened by the revisionist- Mohan Lal Garg in the name of Raj Kumar. The revisionist- Mohan Lal Garg forged the signature of Raj Kumar on the said cheque. He requested the Branch Manager, SBI, Main Market, Muzaffarnagar, to purchase the said cheque in favour of M/s Kissan Enterprises. Since the revisionist- Mohan Lal Garg was a lawyer of the bank so the branch manager purchased the cheque and the amount was credited to M/s Kissan Enterprises. Thereafter, on 1.3.1982 the revisionist no. 2- Sohan Lal Garg issued cheque No. 388002 dated 1.3.1982 for Rs. 1 lac pertaining to his account M/s Kissan Enterprises in favour of Raj Kumar. Mohan Lal Garg received the payment of Rs. Thereafter, on 1.3.1982 the revisionist no. 2- Sohan Lal Garg issued cheque No. 388002 dated 1.3.1982 for Rs. 1 lac pertaining to his account M/s Kissan Enterprises in favour of Raj Kumar. Mohan Lal Garg received the payment of Rs. 1 lac pertaining to the aforesaid cheque which was issued in favour of Raj Kumar on 1.3.1982 itself. Thereafter, on 2.2.1982 Mohan Lal Garg deposited the amount of Rs. 1 lakh in cash in the account of Raj Kumar at Roorkee. The pay-in-slip for depositing the amount in this account was filled in by Mohan Lal Garg by forging the signatures in the name of Raj Kumar. Thereafter, he utilized the amount pertaining to the said deposit from this account from time to time on the basis of forged cheques in the name of Raj Kumar. The aforesaid cheque No. 505387 of Rs. 1 lakh was sent to the SBI, Bengal Engineering Group Centre, Roorkee for collection on 2.3.1982 from the SBI, Main Market Branch, Muzaffarnagar. However, the co-accused V.K. Vishnoi withheld the said cheque at his branch Roorkee for about five months and did not enter in the account of so-called Raj Kumar. Meanwhile, the revisionist- Mohan Lal Garg utilized the amount by deceiving the bank by operating the aforesaid fake account of Raj Kumar. The said cheque was debited in the account of Raj Kumar only on 25.08.1982 when sufficient balance was managed by the revisionist. Thus, the bank was put to loss. During the investigation, it was revealed that the said firm was non-existent. On 26.02.1982 the revisionist- Mohan Lal Garg has presented a cheque no. 505387 of the account no. 157A amounting to Rs. 1 lakh in favour of M/s Kissan Enterprises. The said amount was credited in the name of M/s Kissan Enterprises, though the entire act was done by Mohan Lal Garg – revisionist no. 1. But the collection was withheld with criminal intention by V.K. Vishnoi so that the revisionist may utilize the said amount during the period of 5 months. The said cheque was cleared by Roorkee branch after a lapse of five months i.e. in the month of August 1982. During that period, the revisionist Mohan Lal Garg made the signatures of Raj Kumar and obtained the undue benefit of money available with the bank. The said cheque was cleared by Roorkee branch after a lapse of five months i.e. in the month of August 1982. During that period, the revisionist Mohan Lal Garg made the signatures of Raj Kumar and obtained the undue benefit of money available with the bank. The handwriting expert has amply proved that the said transactions were done by the revisionist – Mohan Lal Garg. It is also in the evidence that Sohan Lal Garg also assisted in opening the account in the name of non-existent firm M/s Kissan Enterprises. Sohan Lal Garg was also involved in the criminal conspiracy. Learned trial court had held that the case has been proved by the handwriting expert. The trial court observed that there are other independent witnesses who had proved that said handwriting was of the revisionist Mohan Lal Garg. It was further contended that the there is absolutely no evidence that the revisionist had taken any profit from the transactions as indicated above. In the absence of any such evidence, the offences as alleged against the revisionists are not made out. It was further contended that the revisonists had not obtained any wrongful gain and he did not cause any loss to the bank. Learned AGA refuted the contention. It is revealed from the record that the account was opened in the name of non-existent person Raj Kumar and it was operated by the revisionist – Mohan Lal Garg with the forged signatures of Raj Kumar. The cheque of Rs. 1 lakh was purchased by the bank and the entries of the amount was made in the name of fake firm Kissan Enterprises. The money was utilized by the revisionist. The said cheque was sent for collection of Roorkee branch on 02.03.1982. The said cheque was withheld with the connivance of the revisionist and the branch manager V.K. Vishnoi till 25.08.1982 and the money was allowed to be taken out from the said account. The revisionist himself has admitted the transactions of the money in para 6 of his revision. Thus, the money should have been sent within a reasonable time to the main branch of Muzaffarnagar. Though it was not sent and it was withheld only to facilitate the revisionists. Thus, the money was utilized by the revisionists at both the places without having sufficient money in the account for about five months. Thus, they have taken a wrongful gain. Though it was not sent and it was withheld only to facilitate the revisionists. Thus, the money was utilized by the revisionists at both the places without having sufficient money in the account for about five months. Thus, they have taken a wrongful gain. Thus, at present there is sufficient evidence to frame the charge against the revisionists. In view of the foregoing discussion, the criminal revision no. 41/2006 is devoid of merit and there is a prima-facie case against the revisionists. The trial court had rightly rejected the discharge applications of the revisionists in case No. 6/1986. 18. In the case of Criminal Revision No. 42/2006, it is revealed from the record that the revisionist – Mohan Lal Garg was an advocate residing at Muzaffarnagar. He was in the panel of the State Bank of India. Co-accused V.K. Vishnoi was also posted as an Officer in the State Bank of India, Muzaffarnagar prior to his posting at BEG Centre Branch of SBI, Roorkee. Thus, the revisionist Mohan Lal Garg and V.K. Vishnoi were known to each other. It is revealed from the record that an application of the co-accused Rajbir Singh for a loan of Rs. 1.40 lakh for the purchase of second hand truck was written by V.K. Vishnoi, the then branch manager of the bank and the said application was signed by Rajbir Singh. V.K. Vishnoi, the then branch manager, SBI certified on the said application that the scope of repayment of the loan was good. It is also revealed that a receipt dated 24.4.1981, which was prepared by the revisionist Mohan Lal Garg, was submitted alongwith application showing the payment of Rs. 50,000/- to co-accused Ram Rich Pal by Rajbir Singh towards the part payment of the cost of the truck No. PPS-6158, TDV 1980 model, allegedly purchased by Rajbir Singh from Ram Rich Pal for Rs. 1,90,000/-. A loan of Rs. 1.40 lakh was sanctioned by V.K. Vishnoi in favour of Rajbir Singh on 7.5.1981 and the documents regarding security of the loan amount were got executed. It is also in the evidence during investigation that Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Nain Singh and accused Ram Rich Pal were shown as guarantors for taking the loan. It is amply proved from the record that she never appeared and she never stood guarantor for the said loan. It is also in the evidence during investigation that Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Nain Singh and accused Ram Rich Pal were shown as guarantors for taking the loan. It is amply proved from the record that she never appeared and she never stood guarantor for the said loan. It is also revealed during the investigation that the co-accused Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Rajbir Singh impersonated herself as Smt. Krishna Devi and affixed her thumb impression in place of the alleged guarantor Smt. Krishna Devi. Smt. Krishna Devi never approached the revisionist – Mohan Lal Garg to obtain non-incumbrence certificate or she ever sworn the affidavit before the Notary Public. Smt. Krishna Devi and her husband Sri Nain Singh have categorically stated in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. that they have not constructed any house on the plot Khasra No. 2524 Krishnapuri, District Muzaffarnagar. The non-incumbrance certificate in the name of Smt. Krishna Devi was issued by the revisionist – Mohan Lal Garg on 3.1.1981 in which he falsely showed that Smt. Krishna Devi had constructed a house on plot Khasra No. 2524, Krishnapuri, Muzaffarnagar. From the evidence it is revealed that Smt. Krishna Devi never stood as a guarantor in the loan case and she did not put her thumb impressions on any document in connection with the loan of Rajbir Singh. Smt. Krishna Devi and her husband Nain Singh have stated that they never resided at Roorkee. Smt. Krishna Devi has categorically stated that she never stood as a guarantor and she had not submitted her documents in favour of Rajbir Singh for the purpose of taking the loan. Though, it was the duty of the advocate of the bank to give the non-incumbrance certificate. If the revisionist- Mohan Lal Garg was not a party to the said transaction it was not his duty to identify the guarantor. He could have very well submitted the non-incumbrance certificate on the basis of the record but he could not have identified the real guarantor for obtaining the loan. The identification of the guarantor Krishna Devi by revisionist lead to the co-accused to get the loan and to cheat the bank. He had also given a false certificate that the said land had a constructed house. The revisionist has also played a vital part in the conspiracy. The identification of the guarantor Krishna Devi by revisionist lead to the co-accused to get the loan and to cheat the bank. He had also given a false certificate that the said land had a constructed house. The revisionist has also played a vital part in the conspiracy. The bank issued the bank draft on 7.5.1981 in favour of Ram Rich Pal. The said amount was subsequently withdrawn from the bank on 08.05.1981 and 27.05.1981. A receipt dated 7.5.1981 was prepared by the revisionist- Mohan Lal Garg in which Ram Rich Pal acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 1.40 lakh through the bank draft from Rajbir Singh against the balance cost of truck. 19. The investigation also reveals that Ram Rich Pal never owned or purchased the truck No. PBS 6158 and it was neither owned by Satnam Singh from whom it was shown to have been purchased by Ram Rich Pal. It was by the revisionist – Mohan Lal Garg. At this stage, there is sufficient evidence against the revisionist – Mohan Lal Garg. It is amply proved in the evidence that V.K. Vishnoi and the revisionist are connected with each other and they had hatched a conspiracy. As such, it cannot be said that the revisionist – Mohan Lal Garg was a lawyer and he made the identification only on the basis of papers and his culpability cannot be doubted. In view of the foregoing discussion, the criminal revision no. 42/2006 is devoid of merit and there is a prima-facie case against the revisionist. The trial court had rightly rejected the discharge application of the revisionist in case No. 5/1986. 20. No other point was raised before me. 21. I have gone through the entire judgments of the trial court. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the trial court. The trial court was justified in holding that there were sufficient evidence to frame the charges against the revisionists and the trial court has rightly ordered to frame the charge against the revisionists. I am completely in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court. Therefore, no interference is required with the findings in all the cases. Therefore, the revisions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. 22. All the revisions are dismissed accordingly.