Karnataka High Court
Shri Vasu S/O Pandurang Naik vs State Of Karnataka on 20 July, 2023
Bench: Anil B Katti
-1-
CRL.RP No. 100154 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100154 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. VASU, S/O PANDURANG NAIK,
AGED 65 YEARS, OCC. JUNIOR HEALTH ASSISTANT (RTD.)
R/O. GALAGERI, HALADIPURA, HONNAVAR TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. P. KANDAGAL, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed
by ANNAPURNA
ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL
DANDAGAL
Date:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
2023.07.21
12:44:43 -0700 THROUGH PSI, MANKI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT)
***
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W
401 OF C.R.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE TRIAL
COURT AND TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2022
PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT HONNAVAR REJECTING THE
APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE U/S 239 OF CR.PC., IN CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 17/2016 AND PASS AN ORDER DISCHARGING THE
-2-
CRL.RP No. 100154 of 2023
PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 465,
468, 471,472 AND 420 IPC IN C.C. NO. 17/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS AT HONNAVAR.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER ON 10.07.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The revision petitioner/accused feeling aggrieved by the
order passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC At. Honnavar, in
C.C.No.17/2016 dated 10.08.2022, rejecting the discharge
application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. preferred this
revision petition.
2. Parties to the revision petition are referred with
their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of
convenience.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of
prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on
03.08.2006 complainant-Dr.Usha P Hasyagar, Primary Health
Centre, Manki has filed complaint against accused alleging that
on 04.03.2003 accused requested for issuance of salary
certificate for the purpose of borrowing loan from Government
CRL.RP No. 100154 of 2023
Employees Co-Operative Society, Karwar (Hereinafter referred
to as "Society") and availed loan Rs.49,000/- The repayment of
loan was to be deducted from salary of accused. Subsequently
accused borrowed loan without obtaining fresh salary certificate
and hence, it has created doubt. On verification of the records,
she found that accused forged the salary certificates and loan
application forms by forging her signature, counterfeited the
Hospital seal, so also forged the signatures of C.Ws.10 and 11
for availing loan. On these allegations made in the complaint,
case was registered in Manki Police Station Crime No.44/2006
for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 472,
and 420 of IPC. The investigating officer after completion of
investigation filed the charge sheet.
4. Accused has filed discharge application under
Section 239 of Cr.P.C before trial Court on the file of Senior
Civil Judge, JMFC, Honnavar. The trial Court after hearing both
sides rejected the application.
5. The revision petitioner/accused challenged the said
order of rejection of discharge application contending that the
accused has already cleared the loan even as on the date of
CRL.RP No. 100154 of 2023
filing of complaint and there was no any intention of cheating
anybody by producing the salary certificate. The accused has
retired from service on 31.05.2007 after attaining
superannuation. The investigating officer without considering
the material evidence and fact that accused has cleared loan
has mechanically proceeded to file the false case. The
ingredients of offences alleged against accused are not made
out from the charge sheet material. Therefore, prayed for
allowing the revision petition and to set aside the order of trial
Court. Consequently, discharge the accused from the charges
levelled against him.
6. In response to notice, learned HCGP appeared for
respondent.
7. Heard the arguments of both sides.
8. On careful perusal of material evidence on record, it
would go to show that accused has availed loan from Society by
producing the first salary certificate issued by complainant.
Thereafter, subsequent loans are availed by accused on
22.03.2004, 09.02.2005, 20.08.2005 and 25.01.2006. Accused
CRL.RP No. 100154 of 2023
has availed the subsequent loans did not obtain any fresh
salary certificate from the complainant. The loan application
forms and salary certificate were concocted. The signature of
complainant and C.Ws.10 and 11 were forged for the purpose
of availing loan. The availing of loan by accused on executing
necessary document in favour of Society is not disputed.
Whether the accused has fabricated documents with an
intention to cheat complainant and availed loan from the
Society is to be tested in the light of charge sheet material
which would be sufficient enough to proceed with the trial
against accused.
9. The charge sheet material would go to show that
accused availed loan by producing the salary certificate issued
by complainant on 04.03.2003. However, the subsequent loans
availed by accused from Society as reflected in the particulars
furnished by Society was without producing any fresh salary
certificate. Accused is alleged to have forged the signature of
complainant, C.Ws. 10 and 11 while availing loan by executing
documents in favour of Society. The only contention of accused
is that he was not having any dishonest intention while using
CRL.RP No. 100154 of 2023
the salary certificate and to commit fraud as alleged in the
charge sheet, since he has already paid entire loan with
interest and no amount was due as on the date of filing
complaint. There are allegations of forging the signature of
complainant by accused at the time of availing loan. The
statement of C.Ws.10 and 11 would reveal that their signature
is forged by accused while availing the subsequent loans. FSL
report on examining the questioned and admitted signature of
accused recorded following opinion:
1. The person who wrote the admitted
signatures marked as Sb1 to Sb23 also wrote
the questioned signatures marked as Q1 to
Q20.
2. The person who wrote the standard
signatures marked as Sa1 to Sa30 & Ra1
Ra6 did not write the questioned signatures
marked as Q21 to Q23 and they are
produced by means of imitation forgery.
3. The person who wrote the standard
signatures marked as Sc1 to Sc6 & Rb1 to
Rb6 did not write the questioned signatures
marked as Q24 to Q32 & they are produced
by means of imitation forgery.
CRL.RP No. 100154 of 2023
4. The person who wrote the standard
signatures marked as Sb1 to Sd9 & Rc1 to
Rc6 did not write the questioned signatures
marked as Q33 to Q41 and they are
produced by means of imitation forgery.
The FSL report would reveal that questioned signatures marked
as Q33 to Q41 are the product of free hand imitation forgery
produced in order to match the pictorial appearance of standard
signatures.
10. Learned counsel for revision petitioner has argued
that Society has issued certificate dated 10.03.2015 stating
that accused is not in due of any amount to the Society as on
the date of filing of complaint on 03.08.2006. There was
another loan of Rs.87,000/- as on 25.01.2006. It is not the
question of repayment of loan by accused. The question is
whether the accused has fabricated the document and forged
the signature of complainant, C.Ws.10 and 11 while availing
the loan. There is sufficient prima facie material evidence as
referred above and matter require trial to ascertain the truth of
allegations made in the complaint.
CRL.RP No. 100154 of 2023
11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on
the judgment in NGA TUN SEIN VS. EMPEROR HIGH COURT
OF RANGOON DATED 26.03.1935 another decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in DR.VIMLA VS. DELHI
ADMINISTRATION reported in AIR 1963 SC 1572, I have
carefully gone through both these decisions and they have no
application to facts of the present case.
12. The discharge application is filed under Section 239
of Cr.P.C is rejected holding that there is sufficient prima facie
material evidence to proceed with trail against accused then the
procedure for trial of warrant cases contemplated in terms of
Chapter XIX from Section 238 to 250 will have to be followed.
13. Learned HCGP has filed memo and produced the
case status report to show that trial has been commenced and
it is at the fag end of trial. Therefore, discharge application has
become infructuous. The case status of report would go to
show that matter is adjourned for further evidence and the fact
that trial is at the fag end is not seriously disputed by learned
counsel for the revision petitioner. Therefore, under these
circumstance and in view of the facts narrated above, the
CRL.RP No. 100154 of 2023
revision petitioner has failed to make out any justifiable
grounds, seeking interference of this Court. Consequently,
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The revision petition filed by the accused is hereby
dismissed.
The order of trial Court on the file of Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC At. Honnavar, in C.C.No.17/2016 dated 10.08.2022 is
confirmed.
The registry is directed to transmit the records with the
copy of this judgment to trial Court.
(Sd/-)
JUDGE
AC
