Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 508 (UTT)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. GURDEEP KAUR

2019-09-20

ALOK SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Alok Singh, J 1. Present appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 28.06.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Khatima in Criminal Case No. 783 of 2002 whereby respondents were acquitted of the charge levelled against them under Section 420, 467, 468 IPC. 2. On 03.08.1993, PW1 Narendra Pal Singh, Branch Manager, Krishi Evam Gram Vikas Bank Limited, Branch Khatima, Nainital lodged an FIR stating therein that respondent no. 1 Smt. Gurdeep Kaur applied loan through Nikhil Chand Rai/ respondent no. 2, who was post as Cane Supervisor, Majhola Cooperative Society, Majhola on 10.03.1977 for Rs. 7500/- on the basis of forged Khatauni, alleged to be prepared by respondent no. 2 in order to cause loss to the bank. On this information, an FIR was registered against respondent no. 1/Smt. Gurdeep Kaur and Nikhil Chand Rai/respondent no. 2 under Section 420, 467, 468 IPC police station Kotwali, Khatima, District Nainital. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated and charge sheet was filed under Section 420, 467, 468 IPC on 08.09.1993. 3. Learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 420, 467, 468 IPC against the respondents to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Learned trial court having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, was pleased to acquit the accused/respondents of the charges levelled against them. 5. Heard Mr. A.K. Shah, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand /appellant, Mr. H. M. Bhatia, Advocate for respondent no. 1 and Mr. S. K. Mandal, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 and perused the record. 6. Admittedly, loan was disbursed in 1977 and respondent no. 1 had already repaid the loan. Controversy started when, respondent no. 1 Gurdeep Kaur approached the Bank for subsidy and then in the year 1987, Departmental inquiry was initiated, however, in the year 1993, the FIR was lodged by PW1. 7. In order to prove its prosecution examined as much as nine witnesses. Out of the aforesaid nine witnesses, three prosecution witnesses namely PW1 Narendra Pal Singh, Branch Manager, PW4 Vipin Chandra Joshi, Chakbandi Lekhpal and PW 8 Bhupal Chandra Pant, Field Officer had produced the copy of Khatauni on the basis of which the loan was taken but in all the Khatauni measurement of the land was different. Therefore, Khatauni is doubtful. Out of the aforesaid nine witnesses, three prosecution witnesses namely PW1 Narendra Pal Singh, Branch Manager, PW4 Vipin Chandra Joshi, Chakbandi Lekhpal and PW 8 Bhupal Chandra Pant, Field Officer had produced the copy of Khatauni on the basis of which the loan was taken but in all the Khatauni measurement of the land was different. Therefore, Khatauni is doubtful. Aforesaid witnesses have categorically stated in the cross examination that they do not know the signature of Nikhil Chandra Rai, therefore, signature of Nikhil Chandra Rai was not proved. 8. Apart from the aforesaid, it is also clear from the evidence on record that the loan was applied by the respondent no. 1 on 10.03.1977 for Rs. 7500/- for the purposes of boring and purchase of pumping set and after inquiry by the bank official the loan was sanctioned and the amount was disbursed in two installments viz. Rs. 1500 on 04.05.1977 and Rs. 6000/- on 08.05.1977. However, the FIR was lodged in the year 1993, after 16 years of the sanction of the loan. PW1 has totally failed to explain the delay in lodging the FIR. Though, delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal in each and every case but in the present case the Bank officials who were in possession of each and every document including application for loan submitted by respondent no. 1 as well as documents appended thereto including Khatauni, therefore, the Bank officials had ample opportunity to inquire and verify of the said documents submitted by the respondent despite that they have not done so for such a long period, therefore, in the present case lodging such delayed FIR creates serious doubt over the entire prosecution story. 9. Apart from the aforesaid facts, the PW1 has stated in his cross examination that there is no amount due against the Gurdeep Kaur, as Gurdeep Kaur has deposited entire amount, after lodging of the FIR with the Bank, therefore, no wrongful loss has been caused to the complainant Bank. 10. All the above create dent on the prosecution story, therefore, do not inspire confidence. I am conscious about the fact that in an appeal or revision against the judgment of acquittal, appellate or revisional court should not lightly interfere with the reasoning and findings recorded by the trial court, even if two views are possible. 10. All the above create dent on the prosecution story, therefore, do not inspire confidence. I am conscious about the fact that in an appeal or revision against the judgment of acquittal, appellate or revisional court should not lightly interfere with the reasoning and findings recorded by the trial court, even if two views are possible. The Superior Court may interfere with the judgment of acquittal, only when the Superior Court comes to a definite conclusion that judgment of acquittal is shocking in the facts and circumstances of the case, or the Superior Court finds that trial court fails to appreciate the evidence in right perspective or if judgment impugned is found to be totally perverse or if the Superior Court comes to a conclusion that trial court denied fair opportunity to adduce evidence on the ground uncalled for. 11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, government appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registry is directed to supply a copy of this judgment to the court below for information along with lower court record.