Smt. Maranibala Das (Dey) vs The State Of Tripura Represented ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1173 Tri

                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA
                            Crl.Rev.P.No.80 of 2016

1.Smt. Maranibala Das (Dey) W/o Sri Amar Ch. Dey, Of Fulkumari,
Madhyapara, PS- R.K.Pur, Udaipur, Dist-Gomati Tripura
2.Sri Amulya Das S/o Lt. Sashi Bhusan Das, Of East Gukulpur, PS- RK
Pur, Udaipur, Dist- Gomati Tripura
3.Sri Chandan Roy S/o Lt. Birendra Ch. Roy, Of Puranbari, North
Charilam, PS-Bishalgarh, Dist- Sipahijala.
                                                    -----Petitioner(s)

                                    Versus
The State of Tripura Represented by PP, High Court of Tripura, Agartala
                                                   -----Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s)        :     Mr.R.G.Chakraborty, Adv.
For the Respondent(s)        :     Mr. S.Ghosh,Add. PP.
Date of hearing              :     17.09.2021
Date of judgment             :     26.11.2021
Whether fit for reporting    :     No.


                                  BEFORE

        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

                                 JUDGMENT

[1] This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the

common judgment and order dated 16.08.2016 whereby the leaned

Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur disposed of criminal

Appeal No.7(1) of 2015, Crl. Appl. No 10(1) of 2015 and Crl. Appl.

No.14(2) of 2015 setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and

sentence of the petitioners under Section 468 IPC passed by the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Gomati Judicial District Udaipur in case No.GR 445

of 2010 and affirming their conviction and sentence under Section 471

IPC.

[2] The factual background of the case is as under:

Sri M.L.Das, Sub-divisional Magistrate, Udaipur lodged a

written FIR with the Officer in charge of Radha Kishore Pur Police

Station on 12.08.2010 alleging, inter alia, that petitioner Maranibala Das

(Dey) who was a peon in the office of the informant along with

petitioner Sri Amulya Ch. Das, store guard and Sri Chandan Roy,

voucher paid driver forged various documents for procuring loan from

Tripura State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Shalgara branch. When the said

documents including department's recommendation for sanctioning loan

were forwarded to the informant along with the loan sanction letters

issued in favour of the convict petitioners by the branch manager of said

Tripura State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Shalgara branch, the informant on

scrutiny of the office records came to ascertain that no such

recommendation was made from the department for sanctioning loan to

the petitioners. In his FIR, the informant alleged that there might be a

racket behind such illegal activities and therefore he urged for police

investigation.

Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016

[3] On the basis of the said FIR R.K.Pur P.S. case No.289 of

2010 under Sections 468 and 471 IPC was registered and investigation

of the case was taken up. During investigation, the loan documents were

seized by police and sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory along

with the specimen signatures of the petitioners for comparison. The

material witnesses were also examined and their police statements were

recorded and after completion of the investigation, the IO submitted the

charge sheet against accused petitioner Smt. Maranibala Das(Dey),

Amulya Ch. Das and Chandan Roy for having committed offence

punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. Having received the charge

sheet, the learned CJM had taken cognizance of offence and framed

separate charges against each of the petitioners for offence punishable

under Sections 468 and 471 IPC which are as under:

"Charge against Sri Chandan Roy:

Firstly, that you on 22.07.2010 at any time and place under R.K.Pur P.S. Gomati District, forged salary certificate intending that the salary certificate shall be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.

Secondly, that you on the said date and time at Tripura State Cooperative bank, Salgara Branch, under R.K.Pur P.S, Gomati District, fraudulently used the said salary certificate as genuine which you knew to be a forged document and thereby you have committed an

Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016

offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian penal Code and within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges by this Court."

"Charge against Sri Amulya Ch. Das Firstly, that you on 21.07.2010 at any time and place under R.K.Pur P.S. Gomati District, forged salary certificate intending that the salary certificate shall be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.

Secondly, that you on the said date and time at Tripura State Cooperative bank, Salgara Branch, under R.K.Pur P.S, Gomati District, fraudulently used the said salary certificate as genuine which you knew to be a forged document and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian penal Code and within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges by this Court."

"Charge against Smt.Maranibala Das Firstly, that you on 03.07.2010 at any time forged salary certificate intending that the salary certificate shall be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.

Secondly, that you on the said date and time at Tripura State Co-Operative bank, Salgara Branch, under R.K.Pur P.S, Gomati

Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016

District, fraudulently used the said salary certificate as genuine which you knew to be a forged document and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian penal Code and within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges by this Court."

All the accused petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charges

and desired to stand the trial.

[4] In the course of trial, prosecution examined Sri Pradip

Chakraborty, a Police Officer as PW-1, Sibu Ch. Dey, another Police

Officer as PW-2, Subrata Debbarma, the then SDPO of Udaipur as PW-

3, Ananda Kishore Jamatia, the then Branch Manager of the Tripura

State Cooperative Bank, Shalgarh Branch as PW-4, Manik Lal Das,

SDM, Sadar who is the first informant as PW-5, Bapi Debbarma,

Officer-in-Charge of R.K.Pur Police Station as PW-6, Ramananda

Debbarma, one of the investigating officers as PW-7, Smt. Bhanumati

Dey, Cashier, Tripura State Cooperative Bank, Shalgara Branch as PW-

8 and Sri Amal Chandra Kalita, an Officer of the State Forensic Science

Laboratory as PW-9. Apart from adducing the oral evidence of the

prosecution witnesses, as many as 18 documents were introduced on

behalf of the prosecution which were exhibited and marked as Exbt.1 -

Exbt.18

Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016

[5] On the basis of the incriminating materials appearing

against the accused petitioner they were separately examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. In their reply each accused had made a plain denial

of the prosecution charges and claimed that the charges were foisted on

them. They declined to adduce any evidence on their defence.

[6] On appreciation of evidence, the trial court held each of the

03 accused petitioners guilty of offence punishable under Section 468

and 471 IPC and convicted each of them for such offence. Each of them

were sentenced to RI for 2 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default

stipulation for having committed offence punishable under Section 468

IPC. Same sentence was imposed on them for offence punishable under

Section 471 IPC and it was ordered by the trial court that both the

sentences would run concurrently.

[7] Each of the convict petitioners challenged the said

judgment and order of their conviction and sentence by filing separate

appeals in the court of the Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District at

Udaipur. As discussed, the learned Sessions Judge decided the 03

appeals together by the common judgment dated 16.08.2016 whereby

the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 468 IPC was

set aside while their conviction and sentence under Section 471 IPC was

Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016

upheld. The relevant extract of the impugned judgment of the learned

Sessions Judge is as under:

"10) Ld. Counsel Mr. Pijush Kanti Sarkar appearing for the appellant Chandan Roy admitted that his client was not a regular govt. employee of the establishment of S.D.M., Udaipur, however, he argued that in the loan application form of his client, other two persons namely Priti Ranjan Das and Haradhan Debnath also signed as witnesses but those persons were not arrayed in the criminal proceeding. I donot find much force in that submission, for, the loan application form of the appellant was not forged one, rather his certificate of salary and under taking by D.D.O. was alleged to be forged, in which above said persons were not at all signatories. He also argued that there was no investigation as to who filled up the loan application form and said fake certificate of D.D.O. Here this Court agrees with Mr. Sarkar that there was lacuna in police investigation in this regard, but for that reason, his client cannot claim acquittal, rather for that shortfall in the investigation, other person(s) who was/were collaborator in the crime with the appellants could not be booked. From the document containing standard signatures of appellant Chandan Roy under Ext. 16 series as was taken before Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, it appears that he can sign both in Bengali and in English. Thus, it also cannot be said that without knowing the contents of the forged certificate of D.D.O. in his respect, he signed in the same. The matter of knowledge or belief of accused regarding use of forged documents can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case and it is not possible that on every occasion direct evidence of knowledge of accused in this regard will be available in the record. In this regard a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in A.S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala, (2004) 11 SCC 576, at page 583 wherein the followings were held by Hon'ble Apex Court : "10. In substance, what it means is that a person must have reason to believe if the circumstances are such that a reasonable man would, by probable reasoning, conclude or infer regarding the nature of the thing concerned. Such circumstances need not necessarily be capable of absolute conviction or inference; but it is sufficient if the circumstances are such as creating a cause to believe by chain of probable reasoning leading to the conclusion or inference about the nature of the thing. These two requirements i.e. "knowledge" and "reason to believe" have to be deduced from various circumstances in the case."

Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016

11) As already stated above that the prosecution could not established by cogent evidence that the appellants forged those three certificates of D.D.O., but it is proved that they had produced the same to the Branch Manager of TSCB, Salgarah Branch for obtaining a loan having reason to believe or having knowledge that those certificates were forged. Consequently, the charge under section 468 IPC is not proved in this case, but charge under section 471 IPC is duly proved against the appellants. It is an economic offence done with an intention to take out money from a public establishment like Bank by adopting illegal means and as such Ld. Trial Court was justified in not giving any benefit of Probation of Offenders Act,1958 to the appellants.

ORDER

In the result the appeal is partly allowed and judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the three appellants under section 468 IPC is hereby set aside, but the conviction and sentence passed under section 471 IPC against them by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati, Udaipur is hereby affirmed."

[8] Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment,

the petitioners preferred the present criminal revision petition before this

court. By an order dated 09.09.2016 in IA No.1265 of 2016 arising out

of this criminal revision petition, this court granted bail to each of the

petitioners and suspended their conviction and sentence.

[9] During the pendency of this criminal revision petition, it

was submitted before this court that convict petitioner Amulya Ch.Das

and Chandan Roy died. Report was called for from the concerned

Superintendent of Police. The concerned Superintendent of Police by his

letter dated 16.08.2021 confirmed the death of convict petitioner

Amulya Ch. Das. His death certificate issued by the competent authority

Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016

was annexed to the said letter which revealed that the petitioner died on

25.06.2020. Similarly, the Superintendent of Police, Sepahijala District

confirmed the death of Chandan Roy. According to the death certificate

issued by the competent authority, he died on 07.08.2021.

[10] Heard Mr.R.G.Chakraborty, counsel appearing for the

convict petitioner. Also heard Mr.S.Ghosh, learned Addl. PP appearing

for the State respondent.

[11] It is contended by Mr.Chakraborty, learned counsel that

both the principal accused have expired. The present petitioner cannot

read or write English except signing her name in English. Counsel

further submits that she did not have any intention to cheat any one. She

was told that for getting loan from bank she would have to sign on some

papers. Accordingly she put her signature without knowing anything

about the nature of the documents and without having any knowledge of

the fact that the said document was a forged document. Learned counsel

submits that Section 471 prescribes punishment for fraudulent or

dishonest use of any forged document as genuine knowing or having

reason to believe that such document was a forged document. Counsel

submits that in the present case, petitioner Smt. Maranibala Das had no

idea or she had no reason to believe that the document which was

annexed to her loan application was a forged document. Counsel submits Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016

that she fell victim of a conspiracy and therefore her conviction and

sentence is liable to be set aside.

[12] Mr.S.Ghosh, learned Addl. PP, on the other hand submits

that her specimen signatures were tallied with her signatures appearing

on the loan application and disputed salary certificate in the forensic

science laboratory and it was opined by the forensic examiner that the

specimen signatures and the signature on the questioned documents were

of the same person. Counsel contends that since the Drawing and

Disbursing Officer of the establishment where she worked stated that he

did not issue any such salary certificate recommending sanction of loan,

it stands established that petitioner forged the salary certificate for

obtaining loan from the Tripura State Cooperative Bank and she used the

forged document as genuine. Counsel therefore, urges the court to

uphold the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

[13] In the course of their arguments, learned counsel have

referred to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. PW-1, Pradip

Chakraborty, PW-2, Sibu Ch.Dey and PW-3 Subrata Debbarma were all

police officers. They did not give any significant evidence. PW-4

Ananda Kishore Jamatia was the branch manager of the Tripura State

Cooperative Bank Ltd, Shalgara branch at the material time. He stated

that petitioner Smt. Maranibala Das along with Amulya Das and Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016

Chandan Roy made loan applications to the Bank and along with their

loan application they annexed salary certificate, bank clearance

certificate, promissory note, letter of acceptance etc. After verification of

their documents, a loan of Rs.1 lakh was sanctioned in favour of

Smt.Maranibala Das and loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- were

sanctioned to the other 02 accused. They introduced themselves as staff

of the office of the SDM, Udaipur and their salary certificates were

shown to have been issued by the SDM, Udaipur. Therefore, after

sanctioning loan, the PW informed the matter to SDM for deduction of

EMI from their salary. The SDM asked him to return back the loan

applications along with the annexed documents to him for verification.

The PW stated that thereafter, he was transferred elsewhere.

In his cross-examination, PW-4 categorically asserted that a

retired officer of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank introduced accused

Maranibala Das and Chandan Roy to him and on his insistence accounts

were opened in the branch in their name. It was also stated by the PW

that some retired employee of the bank namely Sudhir Sutradhar and

Gopal Chowdhury brought the petitioners to the bank and urged the PW

for sanctioning their loan.

[14] PW-5 is Manik Lal Das who was the SDM at the material

time. He stated that among the petitioners, Maranibala Das and Amulya Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016

Das were employees in his office and Chandan Roy was a voucher paid

driver on no work no pay basis. The PW stated that a government

employee can apply for loan only after obtaining NOC from the

department. No such NOC was issued in favour of the petitioners.

Moreover, the salary certificates used by the petitioners for obtaining

loan annexed to their loan applications were never issued from the office

of the SDM. The PW stated that he examined the salary certificates and

found that those were forged documents. The PW categorically stated

that petitioners never submitted any loan applications through the

department and no salary certificate was issued from the department for

the purpose of their getting loan. He identified the forged salary

certificate of the petitioners which were marked as Exbt.8/1, 9/1 and

10/1.

[15] PW-6, Bapi Debbarma received the FIR from PW-5 at the

police station and registered the case. He had also done part of the

investigation of the case and during his investigation he procured the

specimen signatures of the accused person and sent the same to the State

Forensic Science Laboratory along with the questioned documents for

expert opinion.

[16] PW-7 Ramendra Debbarma, completed the investigation

and submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners since it was Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016

established during investigation that they forged the salary certificate

and annexed the same to their loan application for obtaining loan from

Tripura State Cooperative Bank Ltd.

[17] PW-8 was the cashier of the Tripura State Cooperative

Bank Ltd. at the material time. In his presence the IO seized the

questioned documents from the Tripura State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and

as a witness he signed the seizure list.

[18] PW-9 Amal Ch. Kalita was a hand writing expert posted in

State Forensic Science Laboratory who after comparing the specimen

signatures of the petitioners with their signatures appearing on the

questioned documents submitted his report which was marked as

Exbt.15 during trial. During his examination-in-chief he identified his

report and in his cross examination it was suggested to him that he

prepared report without application of scientific method. The PW denied

the suggestion.

[19] In this set of evidence learned Sessions Judge disbelieved

the contention of the defence counsel that the petitioners used the forged

salary certificate as genuine without knowing the contents thereof. It was

held by the learned Sessions Judge that direct evidence of knowledge or

belief that the document was forged cannot always be available. But

Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016

from the given facts and circumstances of the case reasonable inference

could be drawn that the petitioners used the salary certificate for

obtaining loan from bank knowing or having reason to believe that the

document was forged. Learned Sessions Judge, however, found that

there was no evidence to establish that the petitioners forged the said

salary certificate. Therefore, he acquitted them of the charge of offence

punishable under Section 468 IPC and since it was proved that they

knowingly used the forged salary certificate as genuine with dishonest

and fraudulent intention he upheld their conviction and sentence under

Section 471 IPC.

[20] It would appear from the record that petitioner Smt.

Maranibala Das by her application dated 03.07.2010 applied for a loan

of Rs.2,00,000/- to the branch manager of Tripura State Cooperative

Bank. She was a peon in the office of SDM at Udaipur in South Tripura

at that time. Required particulars with regard to her gross salary and the

deductions made therefrom were furnished in her application and there is

no allegation against her that she made any misrepresentation in her loan

application. She duly signed the application. The petitioner also admitted

her signature on her loan application. Her application was proceeded in

the bank and by sanction order dated 22.07.2010, loan of Rs.1,00,000/-

was also sanctioned in her favour and equated monthly instalment was

Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016

worked out at Rs.2,280/- for recovery of the loan by way of deduction

from her salary. A reference to salary certificate issued by the DDO of

her office was made in column 9 of the loan sanction order. The said

salary certificate does not contain any signature of her. Another

document which was annexed to the loan application containing the

signature of the petitioner is her undertaking whereby she had

undertaken that she would pay the EMI regularly without default and in

case of default she would face legal consequence. In these

circumstances, the contention of the learned defence counsel that

petitioner had no knowledge or reason to believe that a forged salary

certificate was annexed to her loan application cannot be discarded. It is

clear that the petitioner required loan for which she applied to the bank

in proper form. She had also undertaken in the prescribed format that she

would repay the loan regularly and in case of any default she would be

held responsible and she would face legal consequences. Charge against

her is that she forged the salary certificate and knowingly used the

forged document as genuine. She has denied the charge. It is clear that

the disputed document does not even contain her signature. Therefore, it

cannot be used against her. Why did they rely on the unsigned document

without verification and how it was annexed to petitioner's loan

application is best known to the bank.

Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016

[21] She was a government employee in regular scale of pay and

she furnished the true particulars of her salary in her loan application.

She had also submitted undertaking to repay the loan in equated monthly

instalment. There was therefore, no intention on her part to cheat the

bank. It was the duty of the branch manager to verify whether proper

documents were annexed to the loan application before sanctioning the

loan. In the given facts and circumstances of the case no element of

cheating or forgery can be attributed to the petitioner. The charge under

Section 471 IPC does not survive against her.

[22] For the reasons stated above, the conviction and sentence of

petitioner namely Smt. Maranibala Das (Dey) cannot be upheld.

Resultantly, her conviction and sentence is set aside. She is set at liberty.

[23] Since the other two petitioners have died during the

pendency of the case, the proceedings against them cannot continue.

[24] In terms of the above, the criminal revision petition stands

disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

JUDGE

Saikat Sarma, P.S-II

Crl.Rev.P No.80 of 2016