Ut Chandigarh vs Poonam Raj
2023 Latest Caselaw 1161 P&H

CRA-S-1325-SBA-2006                                                   -1 -

974          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


                                        CRA-S-1325-SBA-2006
                                        Reserved on: 18.01.2023
                                        Date of Pronouncement:19.01.2023


Union Territory of Chandigarh                                    ...Appellant
                                        vs.
Poonam Raj                                                       ...Respondent


Coram :      Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat

Present :    Ms. Simsi Dhir, APP. U.T., Chandigarh.

             Ms. Nitika Gill, Advocate
             for the respondent.

                   ***

N.S.Shekhawat J.

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated

04.11.2004 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh,

whereby the respondent/accused was ordered to be acquitted of the charge

framed against him under Sections 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code

(for short 'IPC'). The trial Court held that the prosecution had miserably failed

to prove all the three offences as recited in the charge and by extending the

benefit of doubt, the respondent was ordered to be acquitted. Challenging the

said findings, the learned State counsel has filed the instant appeal before this

Court.

The prosecution was initiated in the instant case on the basis of the

complaint lodged by P.C. Dogra, Joint Chairman, Golden Forest India Limited

to the police at Police Station, Manimajra, Chandigarh. As per the complainant,

1 of 10

CRA-S-1325-SBA-2006 -2 -

Poonam Raj Thakur, the accused was working as a marketing member with the

company and was allotted the enrollment No.18181. While working as a

marketing member of the complainant company, he had submitted investment

along with the statement to the head office of the company on 10.11.1994. He

also submitted a bank deposit slip of Rs.81,000/- stated to have been deposited

by him in the company's account No.1821 with the Punjab National Bank,

Mandi (H.P.) on 16.11.1994. But while reconciling the accounts with the

Punjab National Bank, Mandi, it transpired that the accused had deposited only

a sum of Rs.1,000/- and subsequently, added 8 (Eight) in figure and words and

thus showed the deposit of Rs.81,000/- by interpolating the counter foil of Bank

slip attached with the statement by duping the company to the tune of

Rs.80,000/-. He got the original receipts issued in favour of the investor to the

tune of Rs.1,000/-. Vide letter dated 13.12.1994, the Senior Manager of Punjab

National Bank, Mandi also conveyed that a sum of Rs.1,000/- was deposited in

cash and pay in slip was available on their record. Consequently, it was a case

of cheating and fraud of Rs.80,000/- with the complainant company by forging

the record, the deposit slip of Rs.1,000/- was converted into Rs.81,000/- and on

the basis of this, the FIR was lodged against the accused/respondent.

After necessary investigation and other necessary formalities, the

challan was presented in the Court. Finding a prima facie case punishable

under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC, charges were ordered to be framed, to which

the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined eight

witnesses.

                                     2 of 10

 CRA-S-1325-SBA-2006                                                  -3 -

The prosecution examined PW-1, P.C. Dogra, who was the

complainant in the present case. He stated that the respondent had submitted a

statement dated 10.11.1994, Ex.PA to the Head Office at Chandigarh. As per

the said statement, he had collected Rs.85,300/-, out of which he deducted

expenses of Rs.4,275/- and had deposited a sum of Rs.81,000/- in the Bank and

a receipt Ex.PB was deposited by him with the company along with the

statement. On the basis of the receipts for Rs.81,000/-, issued in the name of

the investors, a letter was written to the Bank for confirming the amount

claimed to have been deposited in the bank by the respondent. The bank

confirmed that only Rs.1,000/- was deposited by the respondent and not

Rs.81,000/-. In cross-examination, he admitted that the agents of the company

were issued the identity cards and the accused was issued an identity card

showing him as General Manager. He did not know whether the accused had

sent the statement as well as the amount at 2-3 occasions through one Mr.

Rakesh, Zonal Manager in the office of Mr. Malhotra, Mandi. He further

admitted that the statement Ex.PA nowhere indicates that the accused had stated

to have deposited a sum of Rs.81,000/- in their account No.1821, Punjab

National Bank, Mandi. He further stated that the statement itself showed the

details of the investor's amount duly signed by the marketing member. He

further admitted that the details of the deduction which had been stated on that

day in the Court was not mentioned in Ex.PC i.e. the complaint to the police by

him. He further stated that he could not say in whose hand writing No.8 and the

word eighty were written in the pay in slip mentioned above. He further

admitted that pay in slip as well as the counter foil was not signed by anyone.

The prosecution further examined Constable Ishwar Singh as PW-2. He stated

3 of 10

CRA-S-1325-SBA-2006 -4 -

that he along with SI Bans Raj went to Mandi to verify the account No.1821 in

favour of the Golden Forest and the bank officials produced the receipts

Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. He further admitted in cross-examination that

Ex.PW2/A did not indicate as to who had deposited the amount of Rs.1,000/-.

SI Bans Raj was examined as PW-3, who had also conducted part investigation.

Mohinder Singh, Assistant Government Examiner, was examined as PW-5. He

stated that in the red enclosed portion marked Q1/1, the existing figure '8' at 10

thousands place is not the original figure and appeared to be a subsequent

addition. Even the existing word 80 was not in the original writing and appears

to have been a subsequent addition. Still further, Vijay Kumar was examined as

PW-6, who had deposited the money with the complainant Company. He

turned hostile and stated that he had no knowledge whether the accused persons

were also known to him and had deposited the money in the Golden Forest

Company. The prosecution examined M.C. Rana, PW-7 who was posted as

Head Cashier in Punjab National Bank and had proved the record of the Bank.

In his cross-examination, he admitted that on pay in slip, there is a column for

signatures of the person, who deposits the amount in the bank. He further

admitted that the pay in slip Ex.PW2/A did not bear the signatures of depositor

in the column made and he did not know as to who had deposited the amount of

Rs.1,000/- through Ex.PW2/A. He did not know even who had filled in that

pay in slip. He admitted that as per their stamp on the pay in slip, the said

amount was received on 16.11.1994, whereas the date of payment on the slip

was 14.11.1994. He did not recognize the respondent, as many persons used to

come to their bank for transactions. He further admitted that he had not

mentioned anybody's name in his statement as to who had deposited the amount

4 of 10

CRA-S-1325-SBA-2006 -5 -

of Rs.1,000/- in question. The prosecution further examined PW-8 Subhash

Chand. He stated that he had deposited a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cash in the name

of his daughter Puneeta Raj Sharma and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was deposited in

the name of his wife Ms. Bimla Devi. The above said amount was deposited in

the Golden Forest Company with the respondent. He had seen the photocopies

of the certificates as Mark PW8/A and Mark PW8/B. In his cross-examination,

he stated that he had received the receipt of deposit amount in Golden Forest

Company from headquarter at Manimajra, Chandigarh after about a period of

25 /30 days. He did not have the copy of the form at the time of depositing the

amount. The money, which was deposited by him, had been received back and

he had no grouse whatsoever against Poonam Raj-respondent as he had received

the money deposited by him. He stated that the documents Mark PW8/A and

PW8/B did not bear the signatures of Poonam Raj-respondent.

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the

accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Wherein he denied all the

allegations levelled by the prosecution. While pleading his false implication,

he stated that K.L. Malhotra, Director of the complainant company was running

his office at District Mandi, whereas, the accused was running his office at

Chahal Chowk. Since, the respondent was a local person in that area, he had

captured the market and used to collect more amount for the company as

compared to K.L. Malhotra. The amount collected by the respondent used to be

sent to the main office at Manimajra sometimes directly or sometimes through

bank and sometimes through Director K.L.Malhotra. The amount in question

was handed over to Director, K.L. Malhotra by him these were the Director

K.L. Malhotra and his man, who cheated the company by depositing Rs.1000/-

5 of 10

CRA-S-1325-SBA-2006 -6 -

and showing the amount of Rs.81,000/- in the receipt and sent the same to the

head office directly without disclosing the same to him. He did not fill-up any

challan in the bank for depositing the alleged amount and had been falsely

involved by Director K.L. Malhotra.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able

assistance, I have examined the trial Court record carefully.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the

learned lower Court had erred in not considering the prosecution evidence in its

right perspective and the impugned judgment is based on surmises and

conjectures. It was further stated that while making a deposit in the bank in the

account of Golden Forests Co. after collecting money from the public, only

Rs.1,000/- were deposited, whereas counter foil submitted to the Golden Forests

Co., a deposit of Rs.81,000/- has been shown. This was done by adding the

figure of '8' in the counter foil and the same was tampered. Thus, loss was

caused to the company by the premeditated action of the accused. Even the said

fact had been proved by the testimony of M.C. Rana, PW-7 of Punjab National

Bank, Mandi, where the amount was deposited on 16.11.1994. Still further, the

learned counsel further submitted that the account statement Ex.PA submitted

by the respondent-accused to the head office shows that the accused had

deposited a sum of Rs.81,000/-, whereas the receipt Ex.PB was also deposited

alongwith the said statement. Thus, the offence under Section 420 IPC was

made out against the respondent. Learned counsel further submitted that the

offences under Sections 468, 471 IPC were also made out in view of the report

submitted by the handwriting expert and the handwriting report was to be read

6 of 10

CRA-S-1325-SBA-2006 -7 -

in conjunction with the statement made by PW-7 and the respondent was liable

to be acquitted.

The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant have

been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent by submitting that the

learned trial Court had recorded valid grounds while acquitting the respondent.

Learned counsel further submitted that in the instant case, no person was

cheated by the respondent. PW-8 clearly stated that he had no grouse against

the present respondent and he had received the money back deposited by him.

Apart from that, the testimony of PW-6, Vijay Kumar was not admissible in

evidence and consequently, none of the customer was cheated by the present

respondent. Even the company could not adduce any evidence to show that the

respondent had cheated the company as well. Still further, in view of the

definition of false document, as prescribed in Section 464 IPC, the document

can be said to be forged only if it is purported to be signed by a person, who

never signed or sealed it. The receipts were issued under the signatures of the

respondent and he had the authority to issue them, consequently, the charge

under Sections 468, 471 IPC was not made out against the present respondent

and she prayed for upholding the impugned judgment.

I find no force in the submission made by learned State counsel

that the documentary evidence clearly suggested that while making the deposit

in the Bank in the account of Golden Forests Co., after collecting money from

the public, only Rs.1,000/- were deposited by the respondent, while in the

counter foil submitted to the Golden Forests Co., a deposit of Rs.81,000/- had

been shown by adding a figure of '8'. In the instant case, to prove the offence

under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has examined three material witnesses.

                                      7 of 10

 CRA-S-1325-SBA-2006                                                   -8 -

PW-6 Vijay Kumar was examined to show the amount paid by him. He stepped

into the witness-box as PW-6, however after getting his examination-in-chief

recorded, he was never produced before the Court to face the cross-examination

to prove the ingredients of the offence of cheating. Consequently, it is apparent

that the testimony of PW-6 Vijay Kumar could not have been relied upon by the

prosecution. The prosecution further examined PW-7 M.C. Rana, official of the

Punjab National Bank, who stated that he did not know as to who had deposited

the amount of Rs.1,000/- through Ex.PW2/A and even he did not know who had

filled in that pay in slip. Still further, PW-8 Subhash Chand was examined,

however, he did not allege anything against the present respondent. He stated

that he had received back the amount, which was deposited by him. The

prosecution could not lead any evidence to prove the ingredients of the offence

under Section 420 IPC. The prosecution relied upon the documents Ex.PW2/A,

Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C and in none of these documents, the name of the

respondent was reflected nor there was any direct evidence to show that the

alleged deposit of Rs.1000/- in cash in account No.1821 on 16.11.1994 was

made by the present respondent. Even PW-7 admitted that in the pay in slip

Ex.PW2/A, the signatures of the investors were not there in the column, despite

the fact that there was a separate column for signatures of the person, who

deposited in the bank. Learned trial Court has rightly recorded that the

prosecution did not examine the officials from the head office Chandigarh to

prove and establish the criminal liability of the accused/respondent for the

commission of an offence of cheating with the said company by depositing only

Rs.1000/- in the bank and giving the false information to the complainant

company that he had deposited Rs.81,000/- with the bank. Consequently, the

8 of 10

CRA-S-1325-SBA-2006 -9 -

offence under Section 420 IPC was not made out in the instant case and the

findings recorded by the learned trial Court are upheld and affirmed.

I find no force in the argument raised by learned State counsel that

the offence under Sections 468, 471 IPC was made out against the respondent.

In the instant case, learned trial Court has discussed in detail the definition of

false document as enshrined in Section 464 IPC. The document can be said to

be forged only if it is purported to be signed or sealed by a person, who in fact

never signed or sealed it. In the instant case, the receipts were issued under the

signatures of the respondent and he had the authority to issue them, the charge

under Section 468 IPC was not made out against the present respondent.

Learned trial Court has recorded the detailed and well-reasoned findings in this

regard and the same are also liable to be upheld.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of "State of

Maharashtra Vs. Fazal Rehman Abdul, 2014(7) SCC (Crl.) 1" as follows:-

"9. This Court has laid down parameters for interference against the order of acquittal time and again. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject-matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be

9 of 10

CRA-S-1325-SBA-2006 -10 -

perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality."

In view of the above discussion, I find no valid reasons to interfere

with the impugned judgment dated 04.11.2004 passed by the Court of Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh. The appeal lacks merit and the same is

ordered to be dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off, accordingly.

The trial court record be sent back, immediately.

                                                      (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
19.01.2023                                                  JUDGE
Hemlata
                   Whether speaking/reasoned         :      Yes
                   Whether reportable                :      Yes




                                      10 of 10