JUDGMENT : S.B. Shukre, J. 1. This is a State appeal preferred under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order passed on 30.6.1998 in Regular Criminal Case No. 32 of 1998 by J.M.F.C., Court No. 9, Amravati. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under: The complainant Banabai, resident of Gopal Nagar, falling within the limits of police station Walgaon, district Amravati, was informed by accused No. 1 that she was entitled to receive loan under the scheme floated by Mahatma Fuley Vikas Maha Mandal. She was informed by accused No. 1 that loan to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- would be extended to her by State Bank of India, Branch at Walgaon, on her executing certain documents. Therefore, on the say of accused No. 1, complainant went to State Bank of India, Walgaon Branch, signed some documents by affixing her thumb impressions and submitted them to the Branch Manager. Thereupon, the Branch Manager issued a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- which was in the name of Vinay Provisions. On receipt of cheque of Rs. 10,000/- from the bank, the complainant was supposed to repay with some interest only part of loan amount to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- with remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- being made available to her as subsidy for starting her own business and stand on her foot. The cheque was placed inside one envelop and it was handed over to Banabai. Banabai together with accused No. 1 came outside the bank and thereupon the envelop containing cheque was taken by accused No. 1 from Banabai on the pretext that Banabai would be informed of date of her loan application sometime thereafter. The cheque was then handed over to accused No. 2 by accused No. 1. It has been alleged that the cheque amount was misappropriated by both the accused and no grocery articles in lieu of payment of Rs. 10,000/- to accused No. 2 were ever provided to the complainant Banabai. 2. This transaction of loan took place in the year 1991 and about two years later, i.e. on 10.2.1993, one bank official met Banabai and told her that she had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the bank for setting up a grocery shop and that neither the shop had been started by her nor loan had been repaid by her. 10,000/- from the bank for setting up a grocery shop and that neither the shop had been started by her nor loan had been repaid by her. He also called upon her to pay the loan amount, otherwise the bank would take legal action against her. 3. Surprised over the information provided to her by the bank official, Banabai tried to meet accused No. 1 and enquire about the same. But, she could not meet accused No. 1 and, therefore, could not know as to what exactly had happened in the matter of grant of loan to her. Subsequently, being convinced that the complainant had been cheated by both the accused, she first reported the incident to the Collector who directed the concerned police station for taking appropriate action. Later on, the complainant filed her F.I.R. on 16.4.1993 alleging that accused No. 1 had cheated her of an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Investigation was carried out by police station Walgaon. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 4. Initially charge was framed against accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. During the course of recording of evidence of the complainant, it was found that there was sufficient material to proceed against accused No. 2 also and, therefore, he was directed to be joined as accused No. 2. Charge was amended and both the accused were charged with the offences punishable under Sections420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code. Further evidence was recorded and opportunity to both the accused persons to lead their evidence was given. After completion of evidence and hearing of both sides, the learned Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 30.6.1998 found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, acquitted both of them of these offences. Not satisfied with the same, State has filed the present appeal. 5. I have heard Shri Bangadkar, learned A.P.P., for the appellant/State and Shri Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondents. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order and also the case papers. 6. Not satisfied with the same, State has filed the present appeal. 5. I have heard Shri Bangadkar, learned A.P.P., for the appellant/State and Shri Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondents. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order and also the case papers. 6. It is the submission of learned APP that the view taken by the learned Magistrate in this case is perverse as it is not based upon any evidence and that it is so illogical that it cannot be said to have arisen from the evidence available on record. He points out from the observations made in the judgment that the learned Magistrate has assumed that the complainant had knowledge that she was sanctioned loan of Rs. 10,000/- by State Bank of India, Walgaon Branch, although neither P.W. 1 Banabai - the complainant nor P.W. 5 Rajendra Pandharpurkar, the then Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Walgaon Branch at the relevant time, has stated before the Court that the complainant was informed of her loan by the bank officials. He submits that if the complainant had no information about sanction of loan, no adverse inference could have been drawn against her in not making enquiry about the progress and processing of her loan application and date of her loan application. 7. According to learned counsel for respondents there is evidence available on record which shows that the complainant Banabai was already maintaining a savings accounts with the State Bank of India, Walgaon Branch, wherein she was depositing her earnings from time to time and was regularly operating that account which account has been admitted by her to be in existence since the year prior to 1990. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that the inference drawn by the learned Magistrate that the complainant, being well versed with the banking operations, could have been held to be aware of the consequences of filing of loan application filed by her and, as such, it was expected of her to make enquiry about the date of her loan application with the bank cannot be seen as illogical. He submits that failure of the complainant to make any enquiry in the matter and to follow up with the bank officials for loan for a continuous period of two years creates a doubt about the story tried to be put forward by the complainant and, therefore, it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is perverse or absolutely illogical. 8. A closer perusal of evidence of P.W. 1 Banabai shows that she has admitted in her cross-examination that she was maintaining account with State Bank of India, Walgaon Branch, since prior to 1990 wherein she had been depositing on and off her earnings. She has also admitted that she used to go to the bank often for depositing and withdrawing the amounts. These admissions would only show that Banabai was well versed with the banking operations and, therefore, she could be attributed with the knowledge of consequences of making of loan application to the bank. According to her, she has signed certain documents by affixing her thumb impressions at the bank and that they were in relation to obtaining of loan. When a person submits certain documents signed by her by affixing her thumb impression with a view to obtain loan from the bank and when such person is well versed with the banking operations, such person can be said to be knowing that by submitting such documents to the bank, she is putting herself at some risk and, therefore, she would be expected to make enquiry with the bank officials and follow up the loan matter. If such person fails to make enquiry in the matter and fails to give answer as to why no enquiry was made by her for a continuous period of two years, by having regard to the human conduct and common course of events, as contemplated under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, it will have to be presumed that the person is not making a clean account of the events and is trying to suppress some material facts from the Court. It can also be inferred that such a person has filed an incorrect report with a view to only avoid repayment of loan, somehow or the other. It can also be inferred that such a person has filed an incorrect report with a view to only avoid repayment of loan, somehow or the other. It is only for this reason, the learned Magistrate has found that the case of the prosecution against both the accused is of highly doubtful nature and the view so taken by the learned Magistrate in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be so illogical as not to arise at all from the evidence available on record. Therefore, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, I find that there are no sufficient grounds made out by the State to make any interference with the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Appeal stands dismissed.