Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhagat Ram vs Ashwani & Ors on 26 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058154
CRR-1471-2017 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
222 CRR-1471-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.04.2024
Bhagat Ram ...Petitioner
Vs.
Ashwani and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Arshdeep, Advocate for
Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Akbarjit Singh,Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)
CRM 13355 of 2017
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present revision has been filed against the impugned judgment dated
08.02.2016 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, S.B.S.
Nagar and the judgment dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate SBS Nagar, whereby, the respondent No. 1
and 2 were ordered to be acquitted. After the judgment was passed by
the trial Court, the matter was placed before the Board of Directors of
the Bank and it was decided to file a criminal revision before this
Court. After receiving the record of the case, the petition was filed on
08.08.2016, but the Registry of this Court has raised certain
objections and returned the file on 22.08.2016. Again, the petition was
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058154
CRR-1471-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058154 -2-
refilled on 05.09.2016 and certain more objections were raised by the
Registry of this Court and the file was returned. Thereafter, again, the
objections were cleared and the present petition was refilled before
this Court. In this process, delay of 240 days had occurred in filing
the present appeal and the delay may be condoned.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has
vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was bound to explain
the delay of each day and the application may be dismissed.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I am of
the considered opinion that the delay in filing the present petition
deserves to be condoned by this Court. It is matter of common
knowledge that in the official process, the decision is taken at
different levels and, thereafter, a decision is finally taken to file a
case. Apart from that, certain technical objections were raised and
after removal of the objections, learned counsel had filed the present
petition. Thus, there are sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in
filing the present petition before this court.
Main case
1. The present petition has been preferred against the
impugned judgment dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, SBS Nagar and the impugned judgment 08.02.2016
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar, whereby, the
respondents No. 1 and 2 were ordered to be acquitted by both the
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058154
CRR-1471-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058154 -3-
Courts. Challenging the impugned judgments, the complainant-bank
has preferred the revision petition.
2. As per the case set up by the prosecution, a complaint
dated 19.04.2018 was filed for embezzlement by Madan Lal, Ashwani
Kumar and Harjinder Singh. The complaint was submitted by Bhagat
Ram, Branch Manager, Central Cooperative Bank to the SSP, S.B.S.
Nagar. As per the complainant, Ashwani Kumar, Branch Manager,
Madan Lal, Accountant and Harjinder Nath Class IV employee had
embezzled a sum of Rs.7,76,364/- by withdrawing the amount from
the account of various account holders of the bank by forging their
signatures. After holding the inquiry, it was requested that a formal
FIR may be registered against all of them.
3. During the course of investigation, the police recorded
various statements and presented a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
against the accused. The trial Court found sufficient grounds to
proceed against the accused under Sections 120-B, 409, 465, 468, 471
and 420 IPC and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined
PW1 Bhagat Ram, the complainant PW2 Narinder Kumar Sharma,
who brought on record the resolution, PW3 Inspector Daljit Singh,
who conducted inquiry being Incharge E.O. Wing Nawanshahr, PW4
Mohan Lal, who brought on record the transfer orders, PW5 Mangat
Ram Bhogal in whose account money was withdrawn, PW6 Mangat
Singh in whose account money was withdrawn, PW7 Ravinder Singh
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058154
CRR-1471-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058154 -4-
with whom the forgery was committed, PW8 SI Gurdial Singh, the
Investigating Officer, PW9 Inspector Joginder Singh, the witness of
arrest and personal memos of accused Madan Lal, PW10 SI Sukhbir
Singh, who registered the case against accused being Chowki
Incharge, PW11 Hardeep Singh, the witness of arrest and personal
memos of accused Ashwani Kumar, PW12 Inspector Ranjit Singh,
who brought the record pertaining to inquiry and PW13 Hari Kishan,
with whom the forgery was also committed.
5. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the
statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the
accused/petitioner claimed innocence.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
impugned judgments are based on misappreciation of evidence and
law. Both the Courts overlooked the fact that the accused had
embezzled a sum of Rs. 7,76,364/- by withdrawing the amounts from
the accounts of various bank customers by forging their signatures.
An inquiry was conducted and even during the course of inquiry, the
charge stood proved against them. He further contends that the Courts
had clearly ignored the oral as well as documentary evidence against
the respondents and committed an illegality by passing the impugned
judgments of acquittal. Apart from that, the charge against the
respondents was also substantiated by the fact that the accused had
deposited back an amount of Rs. 2 lacs to Rs. 4.4 lacs with the bank
on 25.01.2008 and 05.02.2008, respectively, and their own admission
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058154
CRR-1471-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058154 -5-
showed that they had committed the crime. Learned counsel further
contends that both the Courts have taken hyper technical approach
and the impugned judgments are legally unsustainable.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents submit that the impugned judgments are based on
correct appreciation of facts and law. They further contend that there
was no evidence of forging the signatures of anyone by any of the
accused and the impugned judgments are legally sustainable.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with
their able assistance, I have carefully examined the record of the
present case.
9. The main charge against the accused was that they had
withdrawn the amount from the bank accounts of various customers
vide cheques Ex.PE to Ex.PK by forging their signatures. However,
the prosecution did not get compared the signatures and the writing of
the aforesaid cheques with the standard signatures, with the help of
some finger print and handwriting expert. Rather, no handwriting
expert was examined by the prosecution. Apart from that, PW5
Mangat Ram had stated that he had given the cheque to Ashwani
Kumar, respondent No.1 for encashment but Ashwani Kumar did not
return the cash to him after withdrawing from the bank. Thus, his
evidence shows that he had himself signed the cheques. Even, the
deposit and disbursement of cash is done by the cashier and it was
never done by Ashwani Kumar, who was working as Branch
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058154
CRR-1471-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058154 -6-
Manager. Thus, the allegations were primarily levelled against Madan
Lal, who had expired during the course of trial. Still further, PW13
Hari Kishan stated that he had deposited two installments of Rs.
2600/- and 1300/- each with Madan Lal, Cashier, but Madan Lal
cashier had not deposited the said amount in the loan account. Thus,
the fraud was committed by Madan Lal and not by the respondents
No. 1 and 2. Apart from that, the statement of Ravinder was recorded,
who stated that he had given the installment for depositing his loan
account to Harjinder Nath, but Harjinder Nath had returned him pass
book before entry of deposit of installment, but the installment was
not deposited in the said account. Thus, the main allegations in the
present case were levelled against Madan Lal, cashier, who had to
make appropriate entries in the pass book of the customers regarding
the deposit of the amount, but in reality, he had not deposited the
amount with the bank.
10. Still further, the prosecution could not lead any evidence
to show that Ashwani Kumar and Madan Lal had deposited a sum of
Rs. 6,45,000/- with their bank vide Ex.PA and Ex.PD. The signatures
of both the accused were not proved by the prosecution and no
advantage could be drawn from the same. Even, the prosecution
utterly failed to prove that the amounts were withdrawn by
respondents No. 1 and 2 by encashing the cheques and expert
evidence in this regard was completely missing.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058154
CRR-1471-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058154 -7-
11. Even otherwise, I have carefully perused the findings
recorded by both the Courts and detailed findings, based on correct
appreciation of facts and law, have been recorded by both the Courts.
Even during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner could not point out any illegality, material
irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgments passed by the
Courts and impugned judgments are ordered to be upheld.
12. As a consequence, the revision petition fails and is,
accordingly, ordered to be dismissed.
26.04.2024 ( N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
