Raj Kishor Mondal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2 Jhar

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                     Cr. Revision No. 744 of 2014

         Raj Kishor Mondal, S/o Late Chamru Mandal, Resident of
         Village Rakhaboni (Rashikpur), P.O. & P.S. & Dist. - Dumka.
                                               ...    ...     Petitioner
                              -Versus-
         The State of Jharkhand                ...      ... Opp. Party
                              ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate Ms. Satakshi, Amicus For Opp. Party-State: Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.

---

Through Video Conferencing

C.A.V. on 15.09.2020 Pronounced on 04 .01.2021

1. Heard Mr. Binod Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner alongwith Ms. Satakshi, Amicus.

2. Heard Mr. Tarun Kumar, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 30.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No. 07/2013, whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court was upheld.

4. The criminal appeal was preferred against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 07.03.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in G.R. Case No. 274 of 1997 / T.R. No. 594/2013 (arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No. 97/1997 dated 17.07.1997) whereby and whereunder the petitioner was held guilty and convicted under Sections 467, 468, 471, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for committing the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for committing the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and the sentences were directed run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and are fit to be set- aside, inasmuch as, there is no evidence on record that it was the petitioner who had manipulated the cheques involved in the present case. He has submitted that there are three cheques amounting to Rs. 60,000/-, Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively involved in the case and so far as the allegation with regard to the cheque amounting to Rs. 60,000/- is concerned, it has been alleged against the petitioner that he had interpolated the cheque by inserting 'ty' after six and by inserting one zero after Rs. 6,000/- and the cheque was encashed at the bank. He has further submitted that there is no evidence that the interpolation had taken place at the end of the petitioner. He also has submitted that so far as other two cheques i.e. of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- are concerned, there has been allegation of interpolation in those cheques also, but the counter-foils of the cheques also indicated that the cheques were issued for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- each and accordingly, there could have been no interpolation in the cheques by the petitioner. The learned counsel has submitted that it has been recorded by the learned trial court that it was the banker who was cheated, but it is not clear as to how the banker has been cheated, as the amount did not belong to the bank, rather the amount belonged to the government. The

learned counsel has submitted that there is no element of entrustment and there is no direct evidence against the petitioner. The learned counsel also has submitted that the investigating officer of the case has not been examined which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel has submitted that there has been no wrongful loss to the banker and accordingly, no criminal case of forgery, cheating or criminal breach of trust is made out against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no expert opinion on record to show that the interpolation which was made in the cheque was under the handwriting of the present petitioner and therefore, the finding of the learned courts below that the petitioner had interpolated the cheque is itself perverse and is fit to be set-aside.

6. The learned counsel submitted that there has been unreasonable and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and from perusal of the written report i.e. the FIR, it appears that the same is not a Complaint, rather the same is an explanation on behalf of the informant to save his skin from the entire episode.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, one more important aspect of the matter is that the present petitioner is admittedly a public servant and he could not have been held criminally liable for the acts and omissions, if any, on his part without there being a sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Abdul Wahab Ansari -versus- State of Bihar reported in (2000) 8 SCC 500 (Paras-8 and 9) and has submitted that in absence of sanction for prosecution, the entire conviction and sentence of the petitioner are fit to be set-aside. The learned counsel has

submitted that the point regarding sanction was taken by the petitioner before the learned appellate court below, but that aspect of the matter has not been properly examined and the learned appellate court has failed to consider that the petitioner was acting in discharge of his official duty.

Arguments on behalf of Opposite Party

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and has submitted that as per the FIR, the petitioner was the custodian of the cash-book, etc. and accordingly, the interpolation which was made by the petitioner in the cheque was to be explained by the petitioner himself. He also has submitted that so far as the cheque amounting to Rs. 60,000/- is concerned, even the counter-foil of the cheque clearly indicated that the cheque was issued only for an amount of Rs. 6,000/- and not for Rs. 60,000/- and admittedly the cheque was handed-over to the petitioner for encashment and the bank officials had produced records to show that the amount of Rs. 60,000/- was handed over to the petitioner. He has submitted that the cheque being in the custody of the petitioner which was encashed by the petitioner, it was for the petitioner to explain as to show how there was interpolation in the cheque, but the petitioner did not furnish any explanation in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

9. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel did not dispute the fact that as per the exhibits recorded in the impugned judgments, the counter-foils of the cheque amounting to Rs. 30,000/- also indicated amount of Rs. 30,000/- only and it is also not in dispute that the cheques were being issued by the informant under his signature. The learned counsel further has submitted that there are concurrent finding of facts recorded by the learned courts below and it involves

misappropriation of public money and therefore, no sympathetic view is called for in the present case.

10. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned appellate court has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh Badal vs. State of Punjab reported in (2007) 1 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that the offences relating to Sections 467, 465, 471 and 120- B of Indian Penal Code can by no stretch of imagination, by their very nature, be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. The learned counsel has submitted that the sanction for prosecution will be required only when the petitioner would have acted in discharge of his official duty, but in view of the specific allegations made against the petitioner regarding interpolation in the cheque in order to withdraw much higher amount than for the amount for which the cheque was issued, his act cannot be said to be in discharge of his official duty and this aspect of the matter has been duly considered by the learned appellate court which does not suffer from any perversity. He further has submitted that in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2000) 8 SCC 500, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the sanction would be required once it is found that the public servant was acting in discharge of his official duty and accordingly, the judgment which has been relied upon by the petitioner, does not help the petitioner. The learned counsel has submitted that there is no scope of re-appreciation of evidence in revisional jurisdiction and accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is to be dismissed.

Findings of this Court

11. This Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the written report of the Informant namely, Shashi Prakash Jha, C.D.P.O., Jamtara lodged before the Officer-in-charge, Jamtara

alleging interalia that the Informant issued cheques in the name of the petitioner for miscellaneous expenses and for giving advance from time to time and the expenditure of the withdrawal amount was put up before him by the petitioner who used to maintain the advance register, allotment register, cash book, the amount mentioned in the cheque and the name of the recipient. It was stated that on 12.06.1996, Cheque No.043049 for Rs.6000/- was issued in the name of the petitioner which was to be used for payment of advance as per proposal The entry made in Page No.41 and 56 of the register bears the handwriting of the petitioner and the counter foil of the said cheque and the Cheque Issue Register show that Rs.6000/- is mentioned which has been written by the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner forged Rs.6000/- and made it to appear Rs.60,000/- and thereby withdrew Rs.54,000/- in excess. It was further alleged that on 11.09.1996, Cheque No. 043461 for Rs.3000/- was issued and the petitioner entered the same in Page No.45 of the register, but instead of Rs.3000/-, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was withdrawn by manipulating the amount mentioned in the word and also increased a zero in the figure and the number three in words Hindi was made to appear as thirty and thereby Rs.27,000/- was illegally withdrawn by the petitioner by forging the cheque and he misappropriated the amount. It was further alleged that on 30.01.1997, another Cheque No.151052 for Rs.3000/- was issued in the name of the petitioner which is mentioned at Page No.51 of the allotment register, but the petitioner by overwriting the said cheque made three to appear as thirty and illegally withdrew Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.3000/- and thereby misappropriated Rs.27,000/-. It was alleged that altogether Rs.1,08,000/- was illegally withdrawn by the petitioner by forging the cheques and playing fraud upon the bank and the government and he misappropriated the government money. It

was further alleged that thereafter, the petitioner stopped tallying the aforesaid amount with the entries made in the Cash Register and inspite of repeated direction, avoided to do so. The informant suspected something fishy and then on 12.07.1997, he visited to Santhal Pargana Gramin Bank, Jamtara and requested him to furnish the statements. When the Cheque Issue Register was demanded from the petitioner, then it was found that the said Cheque Issue Register was not up-to-date. The Informant compared the entries made in the Bank Statements, Cash Register, Cheque Issue Register and detected the fraud. On 14.07.1997, the Informant again verified the aforesaid three cheques and found that the petitioner has withdrawn excess amount by playing fraud. When the Informant asked the petitioner about the aforesaid anomalies, then the petitioner confessed his guilt and promised to return Rs.1,08,0000/- within 24 hours. The said assurance was given in presence of Peon Sadanand Mahato and painter Sujit Kumar Das who had visited the office on that day. It was further stated that on 16.07.1997, the Informant reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and sought permission to lodge F.I.R. against the petitioner and thereafter, in compliance of Order No.256 dated 16.07.1997 of D.C., Dumka, an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner.

12. On the basis of the written report of the Informant, the case was registered as Jamtara P.S. Case No. 97/1997 dated 17.07.1997 and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and cognizance of the offence was taken.

13. The petitioner was put on trial and accordingly, charges under Sections 467, 468, 471, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the petitioner which were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

14. This Court finds that in course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses in support of its case. PW-1 is Shashi Prakash Jha who is the Informant of the case. PW-2 is Ranjit Kumar Tiwary, PW-3 is Sadanand Mahato, PW-4 is Sujit Kumar Das who has been declared hostile by the prosecution and PW-5 is Ujjwal Kumar Chatterjee who is a formal witness. Besides, oral evidence, the prosecution exhibited some documents during trial which was as follows :

Exhibit-1 is Cheque Issue Register containing 67 Pages and the facts related to the cheques are mentioned for dated 31.03.1995 to 31.03.1997.

Exhibit-1/1 is the entry made at Page No.30 of the Cheque Issue Register with respect to Cheque No.043049 dated 12.06.1996 for Rs.6000/-.

Exhibit-1/2 is the entry made at Page No.34 of the Cheque Issue Register with respect to Cheque No.043461 dated 11.09.1996. The amount showed Rs.30,000/- and there is overwriting in the balance amount.

Exhibit-1/3 is the entry made at Page No.39 of the Cheque Issue Register with respect to Cheque No.151052 dated 30.01.1997. The amount has been shown to be Rs.30,000/- and there is also manipulation in the amount.

Exhibit-2 is the Counter-foil of Cheque No. 043049 for Rs.6000/- in the name of the petitioner.

Exhibit-2/1 is the Counter-foil of Cheque No. 043461 dated 11.09.1996 which has not been properly filled up. The amount has been shown to be Rs.30,000/- in the name of the petitioner.

Exhibit-2/2 is the Counter-foil of Cheque No. 151052 dated 30.01.1997 for Rs.30,000/-.

Exhibit-3 is Order No.6/97 mentioned in Page No.4 of Order Book.

Exhibit-3/1 is Certificate on the first page of the Order Book.

Exhibit-4 is carbon copy of Order dated 02.05.1997 in the signature of D.C., Dumka permitting the C.D.P.O. to lodge F.I.R. against the petitioner.

Exhibit-5 is the written report of the Informant.

Exhibit-6 is Memo No.20 dated 24.01.1996 issued by Deputy Director, Kalyan, Santhal Pargana Pramandal, Dumka directing the petitioner to handover the accounts related charge.

Exhibit-7 is signature of PW-3 on seizure list dated 06.01.1998.

Exhibit-8 to 8/e are signatures of Informant, C.D.P.O. and the petitioner (Cashier-cum-Store Keeper) over Cheque 043049 dated 12.06.1996, Cheque No.151052 dated 30.01.1997 and Cheque No. 043461 dated 11.09.1996 respectively.

Exhibit-8/f to 8/h are signatures of Pran Ballav Mandal, the then Branch Manager on the three cheques.

Exhibit-8/i to 8/k are signatures of Cashier Pinaki Dutta on the three cheques.

Exhibit-9 is entry made in Page No.310, Serial No.8 dated 12.06.1996 of Scroll Register with respect to the amount deducted from A/C No.CA33 through Cheque No.043049.

Exhibit-9/a is entry made in Scroll Register at Page No.393, Serial No.8 dated 11.09.1996 with respect to Cheque No. 043461 dated 11.09.1996 and A/C No.CA33 in the writing and signature of Pran Ballav Mandal.

Exhibit-9/b is entry made in Scroll Register at Page No.120, Serial No.1 dated 30.01.1997 and A/C No.CA33 in the writing and signature of PW-5.

Exhibit-10 is Page No.351 of Current Account Ledger dated 12.06.1996.

Exhibit-10/a is entry made at Page No.353 dated 11.09.1996 in Current Account Ledger.

Exhibit-10/b is entry made at Page No.355 dated 30.01.1997 in Current Account Ledger.

Exhibit-11 is entry made at Page No.24 dated 12.06.1996 of Serial No.8 in the Receipt Payment Register.

Exhibit-11/a is entry made at Page No.180, Serial No.8 dated 11.09.1996 in the Receipt Payment Register.

Exhibit-11/b is entry made at Page No.12, Serial No.2 dated 30.01.1997 in the Receipt Payment Register.

15. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein he took the defence of false implication.

16. The defence has exhibited a document as Exhibit-A which shows that the then C.D.P.O., Jamtara had written an application to the Branch Manager, Santhal Pargana Gramin Bank, Jamtara stating therein that vide Letter dated 23.07.1997, the wife of the petitioner had applied that she wanted to deposit the amount in A/C No. CA33 on behalf of her husband- petitioner. It was requested by the C.D.P.O. that the aforesaid amount be deposited in A/C No. CA33.

17. This Court finds that the learned trial court discussed and considered the evidence of the prosecution and summarized its findings in Para-12 as under :

"12. On perusal of the material on record, it transpires that the accused Raj Kishore Mandal who was Cashier-cum-Store Keeper in the office of C.D.P.O., Jamtara forged the cheques bearing No.043049, 043461 and cheque No. 151052 by manipulating the amount mentioned in the aforesaid cheques purporting to be valuable security and withdrew the amount of Rs.60,000/-, Rs.30,000/-, Rs.30,000/- respectively, which was in excess of the amount mentioned in the cheques issued. The accused fraudulently and dishonestly used the aforesaid cheques as genuine knowing the same to be the forged document, presented the same before the Bank and withdrew the amount cheating the Banker by inducing him to deliver enhanced cash. The accused worked in the capacity of storekeeper/cashier, a public servant and he committed breach of trust by withdrawing Rs.1,08,000/- in excess by the presentation of the aforesaid three cheques issued by C.D.P.O., Jamtara in the name of the accused. Morever, the wife of the accused deposited the misappropriated amount in the account of C.D.P.O. bearing No.C.A.33.

The defence has not put up its case, there is nothing on record to rebut the prosecution story. The evidence of witnesses stands intact. There is cogent, consistent evidence against the accused."

18. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court, after considering the evidences and materials on record, discussed and recorded its findings and summarized its finding in Para-10 as under :

"10. From the perusal of evidence, adduced on behalf of the prosecution, I found that the accused Raj Kishore Mandal was working in the office of Child Development Project as Cashier- cum-Store Keeper. A cheque was prepared by him for Rs. Six Thousand, but he made it "sixty" and thereby withdrew an excess amount of Rs.54,000/-. Similarly, another cheque for

rupees three thousand was prepared by him, but he made three to "thirty" and thereby withdrew excess amount of Rs.27,000/-. On another occasion, he again made amount of "three" into "thirty" thousand and withdrew a sum of Rs.27,000/- in excess amount and thereby in all, he withdrew an excess amount of Rs.1,08,000/- by making interpolation and committed forgery in the cheques. The prosecution has been able to prove that in place of Rs.6,000/-, a sum of Rs.60,000/- has been withdrawn by Cheque No.043049 dated 12.06.1996, by Cheque No.043461 dated 11.09.1996, a sum of Rs.30,000/- in place of Rs.3,000/- was withdrawn and by Cheque No.151052 dated 30.01.1997, a sum of Rs.30,000/- in place of Rs.3,000/- was withdrawn. Ext.2 i.e. Counterfoil of Cheque No.043049 dated 12.06.1996 shows that it was prepared only for Rs.6,000/-, whereas Rs.60,000/- has been withdrawn. From perusal of cheques dated 1.06.1996, 11.09.1996 and 30.01.1997, goes to show that there was clear interpolation in the said cheques. In cheque dated 12.06.1996, "six" has been made "sixty". In Cheque dated 11.09.1996 and 30.01.1997, "three" has been made "thirty". Thus the accused had clearly made interpolation and committed forgery and withdrew the amount in excess, that what he has been authorized to withdraw. There is ample material against the accused, Raj Kishor Mandal that he fraudulently and dishonestly used the aforesaid cheques as genuine knowing the same to be the forged documents and presented the same before the Bank and withdrew the amount cheating the banker by inducing him to deliver enhanced cash."

19. This Court further finds that while considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing in the criminal appeal, the learned appellate court has further recorded its finding in Para-11 as under:

"11. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused is on being found guilty has deposited the amount through his wife

and if this forgery was not detected, then he would have usurped the amount and therefore, in my view, such person does not deserve any leniency.

Here, in the instant case, the prosecution succeeded to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, defence not put up its case, there is nothing on record to rebut the prosecution case, therefore, the contention raised by learned defence counsel is meritless."

20. This Court, after going through the judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court and also the oral and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, finds that PW-1 (Informant) is the most important witness and he has fully supported the prosecution case, PW-2 has stated that he has no knowledge about the occurrence. PW- 3 is a seizure list witness, PW-4 has been declared hostile by the prosecution and PW-5 was the Branch Manager of Bananchal Gramin Bank and is a formal witness. He has proved the documents and different registers and the signatures on the registers.

21. Upon perusal of the judgments passed by the learned courts below, this Court finds that P.W.-1 (informant) has stated that in the year 1994, he was posted as C.D.P.O., Jamtara and in the year 1996, the petitioner was posted in his office as Cashier- cum-Storekeeper and also working as Head Assistant in his office. He has also deposed that the petitioner had maintained the Advance Register, Allotment Register, Cash Book etc. P.W.- 1 has stated that there was an account in the name of the C.D.P.O., Jamtara. He proved the Cheque Issue Register of that account which was marked as Ext.-1.

22. With respect to Cheque 043049 dated 12.06.1996, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that it was issued in favour of the petitioner and the counter-foil of the cheque also showed

that it was issued for Rs. Six Thousand only to the petitioner, but the same was made "sixty" thousand and the petitioner withdrew an excess amount of Rs.54,000/- and its counterfoil (Exhibit-2) also supports this fact and therefore, forgery by interpolation in this particular cheque is clearly visible and apparent. This Court is of the considered view that the learned courts below have rightly held the appellant guilty in respect of aforesaid Cheque No. 043049 dated 12.06.1996.

23. With regard to cheque bearing No. 043461, he has deposed that on 11.09.1996 a cheque bearing No. 43461 for Rs. 3,000/- was issued in the name of the petitioner. He proved the counter-foil of the said cheque which was marked as Ext.-2/1 and stated that instead of Rs. 3,000/-, the petitioner manipulated the amount of Rs. 30.000/- by increasing zero in the figure and also manipulating in the words. He has also deposed that cheque No. 043461 dated 11.09.1996 was mentioned at page No. 34 of Cheque Issue Register (Ext.-1/2) and the amount was shown to be Rs. 30,000/- and there was over-writing in the balance amount. He has further deposed that the cheque dated 11.09.1996 bearing No. 043461 was of Rs. 3,000/-, but instead of Rs. 3,000/-, the petitioner manipulated the cheque and made it to appear as Rs. 30,000/-. The entry regarding the cheque is made in Ext.-2/1 i.e. the counterfoil of the said cheque, in which the amount has been said to be Rs. 30,000/-, but the said counterfoil has not been properly filled up.

Similarly, the cheque No. 151052 was issued on 30.01.1997 in the name of the petitioner and the said cheque was shown to be value of Rs. 3,000/- in allotment register of page No.-51, but the petitioner by over-writing on the said cheque made 'three' to appear as 'thirty' and illegally withdrew Rs. 30,000/- instead of Rs. 3,000/- and thereby misappropriated Rs. 27,000/-. The counterfoil of the cheque was marked as Ext.-2/2 for

Rs.30,000/-. It has also been recorded in the judgements of the learned courts below that Ext.1/3 is the entry made in page No. 39 of the cheque issue register with respect to cheque No. 151052 dated 30.01.1997 wherein the amount has been shown to be Rs. 30,000/- and there is manipulation in the amount.

24. P.W.-1 had also found the difference of Cheque Issue Register and cash in bank account and he directed the petitioner to tally the cash and report the same vide order No. 6/1997 (Ext.-3), but the petitioner did not pay any heed to it and avoided the compliance of order and thereafter, the matter was reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka for lodging F.I.R. against the petitioner (Ext.-4). A finding has been recorded by the learned trial court that the petitioner had clearly made interpolation and committed forgery in all the three cheques and withdrew the amount in excess than what he was authorized to withdraw and that there was ample material against the petitioner that he had fraudulently and dishonestly used the aforesaid cheques as genuine knowing the same to be forged document and presented the same before the Bank and withdrew the amount cheating the banker by inducing him to deliver enhanced cash. It has also been recorded by the learned trial court that the wife of the petitioner deposited the misappropriated amount in the account of C.D.P.O., Jamtara and that the petitioner had admitted his guilt and promised to return Rs. 1,08,000/- and the said assurance was given in presence of Sadanand Mahato (P.W.-3, Peon) and Sujit Kumar Das (P.W.-4, Painter) who had visited the office on that day. P.W.-3 was the seizure list witness who had proved his signature on the seizure list dated 06.01.1998 which was marked as Ext.-7 and P.W-4 was declared hostile by the court.

25. From perusal of the impugned judgments, it further transpires that it is not in dispute that an amount of Rs. 60,000/- , Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- for the aforesaid three cheques

were withdrawn instead of Rs. 6,000/-, Rs. 3,000/- and 3,000/- respectively all issued in the name of the petitioner and there is sufficient evidence on record that the cheque amount mentioned in the cheques were manipulated not only in words, but also in figure.

26. The argument of the petitioner that the banker could not be said to have been cheated as the money belongs to the government, has no bearing in the matter as the banker was the custodian of the money belonging to the government. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no expert opinion on record to show that the interpolation which was made in the cheque was under the handwriting of the petitioner, is also devoid of merits as admittedly the cheques were issued to the petitioner and in his name which were encashed by the petitioner himself and the petitioner neither gave any explanation to the interpolations in the cheques in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. nor lead any defence evidence to that effect. The learned courts below appreciated the evidences on record as well as the facts and circumstances of the case including the conduct of the petitioner and convicted the petitioner. There is no scope in revisional jurisdiction for reappreciating the evidences on record and come to a different finding. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgements.

27. So far as non-examination of the investigating officer of the case is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that mere non-examination of the investigating officer of the case is not fatal to the case of prosecution as the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show as to how the petitioner has been prejudiced by non-examination of the investigating officer. This Court finds that the prosecution witnesses have been thoroughly cross-examined by the petitioner and the case

is by and large based on documentary evidences and no arguments have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner as to how the petitioner has been prejudiced by non-examination of the investigating officer of the case. The plea regarding non- examination of the investigating officer has been raised before the learned court below but the same has been rejected by a well-reasoned order.

28. This Court finds that the learned courts below upon appreciation of the materials including the counterfoil of the cheques and other materials found the petitioner guilty of the offence of manipulating/interpolating the cheques and withdrawing higher amount from the bank. This Court is of the considered view that merely because in the counter foils of the two cheques also the amount has been shown to be Rs. 30,000/- , the same by itself is not sufficient to create any doubt in the prosecution case calling for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

29. So far as the sanction for prosecution is concerned, this Court finds that the point regarding absence of sanction for prosecution against the petitioner was never taken before the learned trial court and it was taken for the first time before the learned lower appellate court. The learned lower appellate court referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh Badal and Others Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2007)1 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that the offence of cheating under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code or for that matter offences relatable to Sections 467, 465, 471 and 120(B) of IPC can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by any Public Servant, while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty and in such cases, official status only provides an opportunity for commission of offence and accordingly,

sanction for prosecution of the competent authority was not required. This Court finds that the allegations made against the petitioner regarding forging of three cheques and withdrawing the forged amount from the bank cannot said to be an act in discharge of official duty of the petitioner and accordingly in the considered view of this Court, no sanction for prosecution was required to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged offence. In view of the aforesaid judgment rendered in the case of Prakash Singh Badal (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the learned lower appellate court has rightly appreciated the point raised by the petitioner regarding absence of sanction for prosecution and has rejected the same.

30. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision application, which is accordingly dismissed.

31. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

32. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner are hereby cancelled.

33. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to the court concerned.

34. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through "email/FAX".

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul