V. D. Raveesha vs State By New Extension Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 7204 Kant

                            1




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                        BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.653/2020

BETWEEN:
V.D. RAVEESHA
S/O LATE V.R. DAKSHINA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
H.NO. 9, SONDEKOPPA BYPASS
BHYRAVESWARA NAGARA
NELAMANGALA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123
                                               ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: HALESHA .R.G. ADVOCATE)

AND:
STATE BY NEW EXTENSION POLICE
TUMAKURU, REPT BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
                                           ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)


      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDERS OF CONVICTION PASSED
BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMAKURU IN CRL.A.NO.29/2018 ON 25.08.2020 CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU IN C.C.NO.1218/2012 DATED
26.04.2018 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 468, 465, 420, 471 OF IPC
AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP.
                               2




     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 26.09.2023 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The accused in CC No.1218 of 2012 on the file of the

learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity), is

impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 26.04.2018 convicting him for the offences punishable

under Sections 406, 468, 465, 420 and 471 of Indian Penal

Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 406 of

IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two

years for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC;

sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable

under Section 465 of IPC; sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence

punishable under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced to pay

fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section

417 of IPC, with default sentences, which was confirmed vide

judgment dated 25.08.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.29

of 2018 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as 'the

First Appellate Court' for brevity).

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on the basis of the

first information lodged by the informant - N Girish, Crime

No.34 of 2011 of New Extension Police Station, Tilak Park

Circle, Tumakuru, was registered against accused Nos.1 to 3

for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 read

with Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, the chargesheet

came to be filed against the accused Ravish for the offences

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 465 and 471 of IPC.

3. It is the contention of the prosecution that the

accused had availed loan from M/s Shriram Transport Finance

Company Limited and purchased the lorry bearing registration

No.KA-41-2298 under loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement.

He had not repaid the loan amount as agreed. It was found

that he had forged (i) a receipt for having repaid the loan

amount (ii) no objection certificate and (iii) Form No.35

purported to have been issued by M/s Shriram Transport

Finance Company Limited, by forging the signatures of the

authorized signatories, used those documents as genuine

documents, produced the same before the road traffic officials

to get the hire purchase endorsement found on the RC

cleared, sold the vehicle in favour of third party and thereby

committed cheating and criminal breach of trust. It is stated

that on 18.02.2011, the lorry in question was seized for his

default in repaying the loan amount and found that the

accused has committed the above said offences. Therefore,

the chargesheet came to be filed against the accused as

stated above.

4. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences

and summoned the accused to appear before the Court. The

accused appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty for

the charges leveled against him. The prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 13, got marked Exs.P1 to 32 and identified MO1 in

support of its contention. The accused has denied all the

incriminating materials available on record, but has not

chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence.

However, Ex.D1 came to be marked during cross examination

of the prosecution witness. The Trial Court after taking into

consideration all these materials on record, came to the

conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the

guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly,

the accused was convicted and sentenced as stated above.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has

preferred Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2018. The First Appellate

Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record, dismissed

the appeal by confirming the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is

before this Court.

7. Heard Sri Halesha R.G., learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High

Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

submitted that obtaining of loan, purchasing of lorry on loan-

cum-Hypothecation agreement by the accused from M/s

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, are not in

dispute. But the accused has repaid the loan amount and got

the receipt for having repaid the amount. He also got Form

No.35 and NOC issued by the Company. In fact, M/s Shriram

Transport Finance Company Limited maintains a booklet

containing the loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement and other

connected documents along with the receipt, NOC and Form

No.35. If at all, the accused had not repaid the loan amount,

M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited could have

produced the said booklet pertaining to the accused to

establish its contention. The same is not produced before the

Court.

9. Learned counsel further submitted that after

clearing the loan and getting NOC and Form No.35, the

accused sold the lorry in favour of PW4. This fact is also not

disputed by the accused. But he contends that only after

clearing the loan, he could get those documents which are

marked as Exs.P8 to 10. Even though, the prosecution

contends that these documents are concocted with forged

signatures, the prosecution has not placed any materials to

show that, with which computer or printer, those documents

were concocted and who forged the signatures on the said

documents. When there are no such evidence to prove any of

the offences, the accused cannot be convicted for the offences

in question.

10. Learned counsel submitted that Exs.P11 and 12

are said to be the formats of the receipt and NOC, which M/s

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, issues to its

customers. The customer who is entitled to receive Exs.P11

and 12 is not examined before the Trial Court. When the loan

pertaining to the said customer is cleared and Exs.P11 and 12

were issued, there were no reason for M/s Shriram Transport

Finance Company Limited to retain those documents with it.

Therefore, no importance could be attached to the said

documents and it was not produced from proper custody.

There is nothing on record to connect the accused to any of

the offences alleged and therefore, he is entitled for acquittal.

The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed

an error in convicting the accused without any basis. Hence,

he prays for allowing the revision petition by setting aside the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and

to acquit the accused, in the interest of justice.

11. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader opposing the revision petition submitted that

admittedly, the accused borrowed loan to purchase the lorry

under loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement. He has not repaid

the loan amount, but concocted Exs.P8 to 10. The disputed

documents and signatures were forwarded for verification by

the handwriting expert along with the admitted signatures

and handwritings. The report as per Ex.P28 is received which

supports the contention of the prosecution. PW5 is the

Divisional Manger who specifically stated that he never signed

and issued Exs.P8 to 10. It was only the accused who is the

author of concocted and fabricated documents, which he

produced before the RTO and sold the lorry in favour of PW4.

Thereby, he has committed the offences as alleged. The

prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court and the First

Appellate Court are right in convicting the accused. Hence, he

prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

12. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned

counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my

consideration is:

"Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the

following:

REASONS

13. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that

the accused had borrowed a loan and purchased the lorry in

question on loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement. Without

repaying the loan amount, the accused is said to have

concocted the loan certificate as per Ex.P8, receipt for having

paid the loan amount as per Ex.P9 and Form No.35 as per

Ex.P10, as if the same were issued by PW5 - the authorized

officer of M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited.

Since the accused has concocted these documents, forged the

signatures of the authorized officer and used the said

documents as genuine documents to clear the RC from

hypothecation in favour of M/s Shriram Transport Finance

Company Limited, he has cheated and committed criminal

breach of trust as stated above.

14. To prove this contention, the prosecution

examined PW1 - Gireesha, the informant who was working as

Manger in M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited.

Witness stated that the accused had purchased the old vehicle

bearing registration No.KA-41-2298 by availing loan of

Rs.3,00,000/- during 2010. He agreed to repay the loan

amount with 30 installments and had repaid only 1 or 2

installments and thereafter, he has become a defaulter. On

18.02.2011, the lorry in question was seized and it was seen

that the vehicle was standing in the name of one

Smt.Savitramma. Since the accused had not repaid the loan

installments, the hypothecation in respect of the vehicle was

not cancelled. On verification, it was found that the accused

has concocted the documents and forged the signatures.

Therefore, he lodged the first information as per Ex.P1. The

mahazar drawn for seizing the vehicle is as per Ex.P2. He

identified the vehicle as seen in Exs.P3 to 6.

15. Witness stated that the Investigating Officer

collected the sample writings and signatures of the Divisional

Manager as per Exs.P13 and 14. Similarly, the writings and

signatures of the accused were also collected as per Exs.P15

and 16 and sent for handwriting expert. Witness stated that

Exs.P8 to 10 are the NOC receipt for having paid the amount

and Form No.35 which were concocted and forged by the

accused. Witness stated that Exs.P11 and 12 are the standard

sample receipts and NOC which the Company used to issue to

its customers. During cross examination, nothing has been

elicited from this witness to disbelieve his version. However,

witness categorically denied the suggestion that at the time of

sanctioning the loan, the Company will get signatures on

Form Nos.29, 30 and 35. Witness stated that only after

repayment of the loan amount, Form-35 will be signed and

will be given to the customers. Witness stated that Exs.P11

and 12 are the documents which will be prepared in duplicate

and one copy will be given to the customers and the other

copy will be maintained in M/s Shriram Transport Finance

Company Limited.

16. PW2 - Yogeesh Yadav is the mahazar witness to

Ex.P2, under which the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-41-

2298 was seized. Witness stated that he is an advocate by

profession and working as legal recovery executive.

17. PW3 - M C Nagabhusahana is the legal executive

working in M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited.

Witness stated that on 17.10.2009, the accused had availed

loan for purchase of lorry, but he has not repaid the loan

amount. He had concocted the documents and forged the

signatures. Exs.P8 to 10 are those concocted and forged

documents. Witness stated that the receipt for having paid

the amount and NOC would be issued in the format as per

Exs.P11 and 12. This witness re-iterated the say of PW1 that

Exs.P11 and 12 will be prepared in duplicate and one copy will

be given to the customer and the other will be retained in the

office. Witness categorically denied the suggestion that he is

seeing the accused for the first time before the Court. He also

denied the suggestion that Exs.P8 to 10 are not the concocted

or forged documents.

18. Even though, PWs.1 and 3 were cross examined

at length, nothing has been elicited from them to disbelieve

their version. Therefore, the contention of the learned

counsel for the accused that Exs.P11 and 12 were not

produced from proper custody and the customer concerned

was not summoned and examined by the prosecution, cannot

be accepted.

19. PW5 - Nandagopal is the Divisional Manager in

M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. Witness

stated that he never issued NOC in favour of the accused.

Witness also stated that Ex.P10 does not bear his signature

and it is a forged document. During cross examination,

witness denied the suggestion that Form No.35 as per Ex.P10

was signed by him and forwarded it to the Branch.

20. PW6 - Sudhakar Babu is the Head Constable who

received the documents from Nelamangala RTO office and

produced the same before the Investigating Officer along with

a report. The report is identified as Ex.P8 and the documents

seized from the RTO office is per Ex.P10.

21. PW8 - Venkataramaiah is the cashier in M/s

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. Witness stated

that he was working along with PW3 and that he had never

issued Ex.P9. Ex.P11 was issued from M/s Shriram Transport

Finance Company Limited. He identified his signature found

on Ex.P7. Witness stated that the Investigating Officer

obtained his signatures and the writings on white paper.

Similarly, the writings of the accused and his signatures were

also obtained and the said documents is as per Exs.P8, 14,

15. Witness denied the suggestion that Ex.P9 was issued by

him to the accused. He also denied the suggestion that even

though the accused has repaid the loan amount, the said

amount was misappropriated by the officials and a criminal

case was registered against the accused.

22. PW9 - Dinesh Kumar is the Investigating Officer

who registered FIR on the basis of first information and seized

the lorry bearing registration No.KA-41-2298 under the

mahazar - Ex.P2. He recorded the statement of various

witnesses. It is stated that he collected Exs.P21 to 24. He

also received Exs.P9 and 10 in the presence of CWs.4 and 9.

He drawn the panchanama as per Ex.P7. Under Ex.P7, the

sample writings and signatures of CWs.2, 3 and the accused

were obtained. The same are as per Exs.P13 to 16. Ex.P26 is

also the writings of the accused. Witness stated that he had

seized Ex.P9 under PF No.64 of 2011. Exs.P11 and 19 were

seized under Ex.P7 on the same day. During cross

examination, nothing has been elicited from the witness.

23. PW10 - Abdul Azeez is the Investigating Officer

who took further investigation and deposed about the

investigation undertaken and filing of the chargesheet.

24. PW11 - Syed Asgar Imam is the Assistant

Director, FSL Bengaluru who issued the FSL report as per

Ex.P28. Witness stated that he had received the sample

writings and signatures as and also disputed writings and

signatures with a request to verify the same and to give his

report. He verified the admitted signatures and writings and

compared with the disputed ones and issued his report as per

Ex.P28. He is of the opinion that the person who wrote the

specimen signatures as S1, E1 and E2 did not write the

questioned signatures marked as D1 to 4. The signatures

marked as D1 to 4 are imitation forgery. Similarly, the

person who wrote the specimen signatures as per E5 and E6

also wrote the questioned signatures marked as D5 and D7.

25. The accused borrowing the loan and purchasing of

the lorry in question under loan-cum-Hypothecation

agreement is not in dispute. The accused producing Exs.P8 to

10 before the RTO officials and getting the hypothecation

cancelled in the registration certificate of the lorry is also not

in dispute. It is also not disputed that the accused sold the

lorry in favour of PW4 after clearing the hypothecation

endorsement. The prosecution examined PWs.3 and 5 who

have clearly stated that they never issued Exs.P8 to 10 and it

does not contain their signatures. It is not in serious dispute

that the specimen writings and signatures of PWs.3, 5 and the

accused were obtained by the Investigating Officer and the

same were forwarded to handwriting expert in Science

Forensic Laboratory, Bengaluru, along with the disputed

writing and the signatures found on Exs.P8 to 10. The opinion

of the expert is as per Ex.P28, which makes it clear that the

specimen signatures marked as S1, E1 and E2 did not write

the questioned signatures marked as D1 to D4. It is

specifically stated in the report that the questioned signatures

marked as D1 to 4 are produced by means of imitation

forgery. Therefore, forging the documents and the signatures

as per Exs.P8 to 10 is proved by the prosecution.

26. Now the question arises as to who is responsible

for forging Exs.P8 to 10. The handwriting expert examined as

PW11 in his report as per Ex.P28 specifically stated that the

person who wrote the specimen signatures in E5 and E6 also

wrote the questioned signatures marked as D5 to 7. Apart

from the report of handwriting expert, the evidence of PWs.1,

3, 5 and 11 who consistently deposed in support of the case

of the prosecution. During their cross examination, nothing

has been elicited to disbelieve their version.

27. The defence that is taken by the accused is that,

he had in fact repaid the loan amount and accordingly,

received Exs.P8 to 10 from M/s Shriram Transport Finance

Company Limited. The accused has not given details of the

amount which he had repaid to M/s Shriram Transport

Finance Company Limited. He never stated as to what was

the amount he repaid, how he repaid and when the same was

repaid. If at all, he had repaid the loan amount of more than

Rs.2,00,000/-, the accused should be in a position to say from

where he got the said amount and how he paid it. In the

absence of any such details by the accused, it cannot be said

that he has probablised his defence. There is absolutely

nothing on record to disbelieve the version of any of the

prosecution witnesses. But there are no reasons to believe

the version of the accused.

28. When the statement of the accused was recorded

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence

available on record, he categorically admitted availing of loan

from M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited by

hypothecating the same, non payment of loan installments,

collection of sample signatures and the writings by the

Investigating Officer and sending the same with disputed

writings and signature to forensic lab, seizing of his lorry

bearing registration No.KA-41-2298, which he had sold in

favour of wife of PW4, registration of FIR, seizing of cash paid

receipt and other writings under Ex.P7. He further admits

that Form No.35 contains his signature, but stated that he

signed it while availing the loan.

29. Learned counsel for the accused contended that

the prosecution has not proved as to who forged the writings

and signatures on Exs.P8 to 10. Ex.P28 - the report of the

handwriting expert is an answer to the said contention.

Moreover, admittedly, the accused has produced Exs.P8 to 10

before the RTO office, got the hypothecation endorsement

cleared, sold the lorry in question in favour of PW4. Under

such circumstances, it is none else than the accused who is

the author of disputed documents and signatures. Therefore,

I am of the opinion that the prosecution is successful in

proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

30. I have gone through the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court,

which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Both the

Courts on proper appreciation of the materials on record,

have arrived at a proper perspective and the same do not call

for interference. Hence, I answer the above point in the

Negative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 26.04.2018 passed in CC No.1218 of 2012 on the file of

the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru,

which was confirmed vide judgment dated 25.08.2020 passed

in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2018 on the file of the learned VI

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, is hereby

confirmed.

Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records

along with copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*bgn/-