Sri M Ranganathan vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7786 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.419/2013

BETWEEN:

SRI M. RANGANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY
R/A NO.365, 2ND CROSS,
SUBBAIANAPALYA, BANASWADI,
BENGALURU-40.                               ... PETITIONER

            (BY SRI M.K.GIRISHA, AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION,
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU-560 001.                         ... RESPONDENT

              (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:31.01.2013 PASSED
BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-X, BENGALURU CITY
DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.656/2010 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER, THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED:28.07.2010 PASSED IN C.C.NO.2908/2001 BY
THE 1ST ACMM, BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER.
                                  2



    THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.04.2022 THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

This revision petition is filed praying this Court to set aside

the judgment and order dated 31.01.2013 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-X dismissing the

Crl.A.No.656/2010 confirming the judgment and order dated

28.07.2010 passed in C.C.No.2908/2001 and consequently,

acquit the petitioner.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution

before the Trial Court is that this petitioner being the Proprietor

of M/s. Val Exports, shared the common intention with the

accused No.2 and raised a loan of Rs.15 lakhs from the Indian

Overseas Bank and loan was sanctioned and offered collateral

security of accused No.2 by creating a false and forged

documents in respect of Site No.314 situated at 4th Stage,

Sarakki Dollar Scheme by impersonating one A.L. Shivappa, who

is the absolute owner of the said property. The accused by using

the said forged documents, knowing fully well that they are

forged one have availed loan. Thus, cheated the complainant-

bank. Hence, P.W.1 had lodged the complaint in terms of Ex.P1

and case was initially registered in Crime No.390/1999 of

Commercial Street Police Station and thereafter, investigation

was transferred to CCB and Police Inspector, CCB after having

conducted detailed investigation has filed the charge sheet. The

petitioner herein was secured and enlarged on bail and accused

No.2 has absconded and hence, split up case was registered

against him. This petitioner did not plead guilty and claimed for

trial. Hence, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got

marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P23 and recorded the

statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and

thereafter, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence.

3. The Trial Court, after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused

for the charges leveled against him. Hence, the appeal was filed

in Crl.A.No.656/2010 and the Appellate Court also, on re-

appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on

record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and

sentence of the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition

is filed before this Court.

4. The revision petitioner is the accused No.1 and

accused No.2 has absconded and hence, split up case was

registered against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that this petitioner was the Proprietor and he had

availed the loan from the Indian Overseas Bank for which the

petitioner subsequently offered collateral security and the same

was accepted. The P.W.1-complainant had lodged the complaint

making an allegation that this petitioner and accused No.2

indulged in offering forged documents as collateral security and

indulged in dubious act of impersonation. Hence, P.W.1 gave

the complaint and the police have registered the case and

thereafter, matter was referred to CCB and after filing of charge

sheet, the prosecution examined only P.Ws.1 to 3 i.e., the

witnesses of the bank officials and Investigating Officer was not

examined and in order to prove the forgery also, no witnesses

were examined. He would further that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to

3 not inspires the confidence of the Court for conviction of the

petitioner herein. The P.W.1 was not having any personal

knowledge of the availment of the loan and execution of the

documents. The counsel would also submit that evidence of the

handwriting expert regarding forgery is not placed before the

Court and no witnesses were examined and only relied upon the

evidence of bank officials and not made out any case for proving

the charges leveled against the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the bank

officials, who have been examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 have

categorically deposed regarding the act of accused No.1. P.W.2

deposed in his evidence with regard to the fact that this

petitioner and accused No.2 have signed the document of

Ex.P20, under which the collateral security was offered and the

same has not been disputed. The entire loan transaction as well

as offering the collateral security has not been disputed. Hence,

there was no need of proving the forgery when the documents

have not been disputed and nothing is elicited in the cross-

examination of witnesses regarding forgery and offering the

documents not belonging to the accused No.2 and they have

indulged in fabricating the documents in respect of site

belonging to one Shivappa and both the Courts have taken note

of the material on record and it does not require any interference

of this Court.

6. In reply to the arguments of the learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, learned

counsel for the petitioner would submit that the witness P.W.2

speaks only with regard to the fact that he had verified the

records and came to know that no site was allotted in favour of

Shivappa and forgery has not been proved. The learned counsel

would submit that the petitioner was aged about 75 years, while

filing the revision petition and it is the case of the year 2001 and

Court has to take note of this aspect and prays this Court to set

aside the order of conviction and sentence.

7. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material on record, the points that would arise for

consideration of this Court are:

(1) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting the petitioner and whether the Appellate Court committed an error in confirming the judgment of the Trial Court and whether it requires interference of this Court in exercising revisional jurisdiction?

(2) What order?

Point No.(1)

8. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material on record, this Court has to analyze

whether this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction. On

perusal of the entire material on record, including the oral

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and documentary evidence, first of all,

the petitioner has not disputed the fact that he had approached

the Indian Overseas Bank for availing loan and he also not

dispute the sanction of loan and disbursement of the amount. It

is the case of P.W.1 that when this petitioner committed default

in repayment of loan amount, verified the records and also the

address of the parties and came to know that accused No.2 is

not residing in the address which is furnished to the bank. It is

also the case of the prosecution that, earlier, loan was availed by

accused No.1 and subsequently, collateral security was replaced

by accused Nos.1 and 2 and accused No.2 stood as guarantor

and offered collateral security. The loan was granted in the year

1997 and the dubious act of this petitioner and accused No.2

came to the light in the year 1999 when the petitioner did not

repay the loan amount. Hence, P.W.1 had lodged the complaint.

P.W.1 was also examined before the Court and he categorically

says that, when he assumed charge as Branch Manager, he

found that loan account of the accused was irregular. Therefore,

he started to issue reminders and register notice to accused and

his son. The notice issued to accused Shivappa was not

returned. When I sent the official to enquire about the said

Shivappa, found that said Shivappa was not there in the address

given to the bank and then got doubts and suspicions regarding

the loan transactions. On verification, came to know about the

act of this petitioner and other accused.

9. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that later they

enquired with BDA and they informed that no such site was

allotted to the person on that day. It is also his evidence that,

then they went to Sub-Registrar Office, Kengeri and obtained

registered certified copy of the lease-cum-sale by the BDA. On

verification of the document, came to know that it was

registered in the name of another person by name Shivappa,

who was an Ex-MLA. The documents were misdated compared

to the original in respect of that particular site and then came to

know that documents are fabricated and lodged the complaint in

terms of Ex.P1. The P.W.1 has also spoken in detail with regard

to the other documents marked as Exs.P1 to P20. This witness

was cross-examined and he admitted in the cross-examination

that he has no personal knowledge about the loan transaction

between the accused and Indian Overseas Bank and about the

transaction. He also admits that documents were not signed

before him and only on perusal of the documents on record, he

came to know that there is a forgery.

10. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of

P.W.2 and he speaks that this petitioner had approached the

bank for packing credit loan for Rs.15 lakhs and the accused

offered sale deed of Site No.314 of Sarakki Layout as a collateral

security said to be standing in the name of said Shivappa and all

the documents are signed in his presence. He also states that

the document Ex.P22 which is already marked was signed by

said Shivappa in his presence. He also further states that

Guarantee for cash credit loan by Shivappa as a guarantor was

already marked as Ex.P23. He also says that during the

investigation, he identified the accused and gave statement

before the CBI Police. He was also subjected to cross-

examination. He admits in the cross-examination that he does

not have personal knowledge about those who have signed the

loan papers pertaining to this case. It is also elicited that it may

be true that in his chief examination, he has deposed to the

effect that he identified the accused during the investigation.

11. The other witness is Officer and on Special Duty in

Income Tax Department and his evidence is that he was working

as Deputy Secretary, BDA from September, 1997 to September,

2000 and they have received a letter from Indian Overseas Bank

and in response to the said letter, on verification of records, it is

seen that site was not at all allotted to any person from BDA and

there was no allotment of said site in the name of Shivappa and

there was no lease-cum-agreement for sale and no other

documents are executed. Hence, he gave the opinion that the

documents furnished to the bank in respect of the said site are

all fabricated documents and the said letter is also marked as

Ex.P13. This witness was not cross-examined.

12. Having considered both oral and documentary

evidence placed on record, it is not in dispute that this petitioner

had availed the loan from the bank and also not disputes the

very execution of the documents. It is the main contention of

the complainant-bank that collateral security was replaced by

offering collateral security of accused No.2 and to that effect,

Ex.P20 is marked for having given letter to the bank.

13. It has to be noted that the main case revolves upon

the document Ex.P20, in terms of which the petitioner has given

an application to the bank for change of collateral security and

the same has not been disputed during the cross-examination of

P.Ws.1 and 2. No doubt, P.W.1 was not present at the time of

the loan transaction, P.W.2 has been examined and he

categorically says that this petitioner and accused No.2 have

executed the documents in his presence. The same has not

been disputed in the cross-examination and also not disputed

the very execution of the documents which are marked by the

prosecution before the Trial Court. No doubt, I have already

pointed out that P.W.1 was not having personal knowledge,

P.W.2 categorically says with regard to execution of the

document by this petitioner and accused No.2. The very

contention that the evidence of these two witnesses not inspires

the confidence of the Court cannot be accepted for the reason

that regarding availment of loan and execution of the document,

nothing is elicited.

14. With regard to the other contention that expert has

not been examined regarding forgery is concerned, first of all,

when the documents are not disputed during the cross-

examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 that no such documents are

executed, there is no need to examine the expert witness. It is

also important to note that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the bank officials. I

have already pointed out that P.W.2 is the material witness

since, during his tenure only the loan was availed and

documents are executed. But, P.W.1 speaks with regard to the

fact that, when he came to know about the fact that loan

account was not in order, he made all efforts and then came to

know about the dubious act of this petitioner and accused No.2.

15. It is also important to note that, it is the case of the

prosecution that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have indulged in

impersonation and documents pertaining to Site No.314

belonging to one Ex. MLA Shivappa was forged and the same

was offered as collateral security. P.W.3 also categorically says

that, on verification of the records, it is seen that, no such

allotment was made in favour of said Shivappa. It is also the

evidence of P.W.1 that, on verification, they obtained the

certified copy from the Sub-Registrar office and it was found that

the site was allotted in favour of Ex-MLA one Shivappa and the

said Shivappa has not offered any collateral security before the

bank and accused Nos.1 and 2 had indulged in forging the

documents and offered the same as collateral security in respect

of the said site by impersonation and no cross-examination was

done in respect of the evidence of P.W.3

16. When such being the case, there was no any need

for even examining the Investigating Officer and the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent and the Investigating Officer himself

recorded the statement of witnesses, collected the documents

and filed the charge sheet. Non-examination of the Investigating

Officer as well as expert witness is not fatal to the case of the

prosecution, since the very execution of the documents in favour

of the bank has not been disputed by the petitioner.

17. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for the respondent-State also brought to the notice of this Court

that P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken with regard to the execution of

document and P.W.3 also categorically says that no such

property was allotted and the said property has been offered as

collateral security. Hence, the Court has to take note of the

gravity of the offence and the material on record and the quality

of evidence matters and not the quantity of evidence, since the

petitioner has not disputed the very execution of documents as

well as the loan transaction. Hence, I do not find any error

committed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.

18. The Trial Court also, while considering the material

on record, taken note of the oral evidence and also the

documentary evidence and in detail discussed the same and

considered the evidence of P.W.1 in para No.8 and also taken

note of the contents of Ex.P1-complaint and also taken note of

the execution of the loan documents in para No.9. The Trial

Court also discussed the cross-examination of P.W.1 in para

No.11 and so also the evidence of P.W.2 in para No.12 and also

taken note of no cross-examination of witness P.W.3 in para

No.13. The Trial Court, in para No.14 taking note of the

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the documentary evidence Exs.P1 to

P23, rightly comes to the conclusion that the material placed by

the prosecution substantiates the charges leveled against the

petitioner herein. The Trial Court also, taken note of non-

examination of Investigating Officer and independent witnesses

in para No.15 and rightly comes to the conclusion that the

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is more cogent and trustworthy of

acceptance.

19. The Appellate Court also, on re-appreciation of both

oral and documentary evidence placed on record, taken note of

the evidence and the documents Ex.P1 to P20 in para No.14 and

in para No.15, discussed with regard to the admissibility of

evidence of P.W.1 and also taken note of the evidence given by

P.W.1 on the basis of the documents. The Appellate Court also,

in para No.17 discussed with regard to evidence of P.W.2,

particularly with the regard to the fact that the petitioner

approaching the bank for availing the loan and taken note of the

evidence of P.W.2, in whose presence, the documents were

executed and also taken note of evidence of P.W.3 in para No.18

and over all considered the grounds urged in the appeal and

discussed the same in para Nos.19, 20 and 21 and comes to the

conclusion that, non-examination of independent witnesses and

Investigating Officer and not taking the handwriting expert's

opinion is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and it does not

take way the whole case of the prosecution and dismissed the

appeal.

20. Having considered the findings of the Trial Court as

well as the Appellate Court, the contention that evidence of the

witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 do not inspire the confidence of the Court

as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be

accepted and there is no force in the said contention since,

nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 to

disbelieve the case of the prosecution.

21. I have already pointed out that though P.W.1 is not

having personal knowledge about the availment of loan and

execution of document, the prosecution however examined

P.W.2, in whose presence the document was executed and loan

was availed. When the document itself is not disputed during

the course of the cross-examination, the very contention that

expert has not been examined cannot be accepted. Even non-

examination of Investigating Officer is also not fatal to the case

of the prosecution and the evidence of Investigating Officer is

only with regard to collecting of the material and however, the

case mainly rests upon the documentary evidence. Apart from

that, the evidence of the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent and

the finding is given by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate

Court mainly relying upon the documentary evidence. Hence,

the contention that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 do not inspire

the confidence of the Court and the very contention that the Trial

Court has only relied upon the evidence of bank officials cannot

be accepted for the reason that it is a transaction between the

bank official and this petitioner. It is not in dispute that P.Ws.1

and 2 are the material witnesses regarding availment of the

loan, execution of documents and non-repayment of the loan

and P.W.1 himself noticed the dubious act of this petitioner as

well as the accused No.2 in offering forged documents as

collateral security, even though the property not belongs to

accused No.2.

22. When such being the factual aspects of the case, I

do not find any merit in the revision petition to exercise

revisional jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction can be

exercised only if the findings of the Trial Court as well as the

Appellate Court are perverse and not considered the cogent

evidence on record and the same is not warranted in the case on

hand. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the revisional

jurisdiction. Accordingly, I answer point No.(1) as 'negative'.

23. Now regarding the sentence is concerned, learned

counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that this

petitioner was aged about 75 years, while filing the revision

petition. On perusal of the records, it is seen that, when the

case was registered in the year 2001, he was aged about 63

years and now, almost 20 years have elapsed. But, the fact is

that, an offence of fraud and forgery has been committed by the

petitioner by offering forged documents as collateral security, in

order to commit fraud on the bank. The loan availed is to the

tune of Rs.15 lakhs and the same is a public money and this

petitioner and other accused had indulged in offering forged

documents as collateral security with an intention to defraud the

bank. When such being the case, I do not find any error

committed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in

imposing substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for a

period of one year and the same is also not harsh and the fine

imposed is not an exorbitant fine. Hence, it does not require any

interference of this Court with regard to the sentence part is also

concerned.

Point No.(2)

24. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST