IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.784 OF 2010 BETWEEN Sri H. Lanke Gowda S/o Late Hanumegowda, Aged about 69 years, R/at Lakshminilaya, Hemavathi Nagar, 1st Main, 2nd Cross, PNT Colony, Hassan. ... Petitioner (By Sri C.N.Raju, Advocate) AND State of Karnataka By Holenarasipura Town Police, Hassan District. ... Respondent (By Sri K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397(1) r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and sentence order dated 24.07.2006 passed by the C.J(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Holenarasipura in C.C.No.923/2005 and the judgment and order dated 24.12.2009 passed by the P.O FTC-III, Holenarasipura in Crl.A.No.69/2006 against the accused by allowing this criminal revision petition ant etc.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming for Hearing on this day, the court made the following:
ORDER This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Holenarasipura in C.C.No.923/2005 for having been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 472, 467 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with default he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one month and the same was challenged before the Fast Track and Additional Session Judge, Holenarasipura in Crl.A.No.69/2006, vide judgment dated 24.12.2009, the appeal came to be dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution before the trial Court is that PW.1-Kantharaju, who was Secretary of Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (‘the PCA and RD Bank’ for short), Holenarasipura, lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police, Holenarasipura on 23.02.1998 alleging that PW.2-Mayannagowda had borrowed loan of Rs.25,600/- from the PCA and RD Bank. He was due and defaulter in repayment the said loan amount. The said PW.2-Mayannagowda again has approached the Cauvery Grameena Bank, Mudalahippe Branch by submitting a ‘No Due Certificate’ (‘NDC’ for short), issued by the accused-petitioner by forging the signature of PW.1-Kantharaju/Secretary of PCA and RD Bank, for obtaining the loan in Cauvery Grameena bank, which indicate that there was no dues to be paid by PW.2 to PCA and RD Bank. Based on the complaint of PW.1, the Police arrested the petitioner-accused and he has been charge sheeted.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the petitioner- accused, prosecution has examined totally 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and 29 documents are got marked as Exs.P.1 to 29. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the petitioner-accused as per Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. Petitioner- accused has denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him and he has submitted no defence evidence.
5. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the trial Court held that the petitioner-accused has proved guilty and convicted for the offences stated supra and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was no motive or bad intention to petitioner-accused commit such offence of forgery etc., It is not alleged in the case of the prosecution that in order to get any fraudulent or illegal gain with any bad motive petitioner-accused forged the said NDC. Further, he submitted that the petitioner-accused does not have any intention of cheating the said bank. The only allegation against the petitioner-accused is that he has forged the signature of PW.1 and seal of the PCA and RD Bank and the said allegation may attract only the Sections 471 and 472 of IPC and the offences under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC, would not attract against this petitioner-accused. The documentary and oral evidence of the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the fraud and dishonest intention of the petitioner-accused. Hence, the trial Court has committed an illegality by convicting the petitioner-accused under Sections 420, 468, 471, 472 and 467 of IPC. Therefore, he prayed to allow the petition. Alternatively, the counsel for the petitioner-accused has also argued that even if the case of the prosecution is considered as true and if it is taken as proved, the offences punishable under Sections 471 and 472 of IPC, would only attract against the petitioner-accused. The petitioner-accused is aged about 80 years, bedridden and he is unable to move. In similar situation, this Court imposed only a fine by altering the punishment of sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below. The Hon’ble Apex Court also extended the benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to acquit the petitioner-accused. Therefore, he prayed to extend the same benefit to the petitioner-accused.
7. Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. PW.2 approached the petitioner-accused for getting the NDC for the purpose of furnishing the same to Cauvery Grameena Bank for obtaining the loan. The petitioner-accused who was working as a supervisor in PCA and RD Bank has forged the signature of PW.1-Kantharaju/complainant who is a Secretary of the said bank and issued the NDC certificate, in spite of PW.2 defaulted by not repaying the loan amount barrowed from the PCA and RD bank, the petitioner-accused with an intention to collect some money illegally, he himself created a said NDC by forging signature of PW.1 and issued the NDC to PW.2 and the same was proved by the evidence of PW.9 who is the handwriting expert. This witness supported the prosecution case. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. On perusal of the evidence on record goes to show that PW.1-Complainant, Secretary of the PCA and RD Bank whose signature was forged by petitioner-
accused who was working as a Supervisor in the said Bank. Ex.P3-NDC obtained by PW.2-Mayannagowda from the petitioner-accused in order to submit before the Cauvery Grameena Bank for the purpose of getting the loan, even though PW.2 was having the knowledge that he was defaulter in repayment of the loan, obtained NDC from the petitioner-accused. But PWs.3, 4 and 7 were the witnesses who witnessed when PW.2 inform the same before the PW.1 regarding giving false certificate by forging the signature of the PW.1 by petitioner-accused and they also supported the prosecution case. PW.5–Manager of Cauvery Grameena Bank, also stated regarding filing of the application by PW.2 for getting loan along with Ex.P3-NDC issued by PW.1-Bank. In fact, Ex.P3-NDC was forged by petitioner-accused with the knowledge of PW.2, the same was proved by the prosecution by examining PW.9-Shankarappa, Hand Writing Expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru, who is the most important witness to this case and who gave a report as per Ex.P.27 which clearly goes to show that the signature of PW.1 was forged by petitioner-accused. PWs.6-Supervisor of PCA and RD Bank has supported the case of the prosecution and PW.8-Manager of State of Bank of Mysore has deposed that he has also given NDC to PW.2 under Ex.P.3. PWs.10 and 11 who are the Investigating Officers had investigated into the case of the prosecution and filed the charge sheet against the petitioner-accused. All the witnesses were categorically stated about the document Ex.P.3-NDC created by petitioner-accused by forging the signature of PW.1 and seal of the PCA and RD Bank. However, PW.2 was not arraigned as accused who in fact filed this certificate to the Cauvery Grameena Bank for the purpose of obtaining the loan. Therefore, there is no intention of the petitioner-accused to cheat the Cauvery Grameena Bank by producing forged documents except creating the forged signature of the PW.1 and seal of the Bank.
Therefore, the offences under Sections 468 and 420 of IPC would not attract against the petitioner-accused. Both the Courts below have committed illegality by holding that the petitioner-accused was forged the signature of PW.1 for the purpose of issuing NDC to PW.2 and cheated the Cauvery Grameena Bank. In fact, PW.2 has produced the NDC form before the Cauvery Bank for the purpose of getting loan and there is no evidence produced by the prosecution to show that the petitioner obtained any money for forging the signature of PW.1. However, for demanding the money from PW.2 for issuing Ex.P3-NDC by forging the signature of PW.1 and seal of the Bank, there is evidence on record. Thereby, he has committed offences under Sections 467, 471 & 472 of IPC. Therefore, there is no error or illegality committed by both the Courts below holding that the petitioner-accused was guilty for the offences under Sections 467, 471 and 472 of IPC.
9. However, in respect of the sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced the judgment of this Court in the case of M.R.Govindareddy Vs. The State of Karnataka reported in 2017 0 Supreme (Kar) 706, this Court modified the sentence and imposed fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the State of U.P. Vs. Ranjit Singh reported in 1998(1) Crimes 127 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court extended the benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and released the petitioner-accused therein, as due admonition.
10. On considering the age of the petitioner- accused, who is aged about 80 years and bedridden, the alleged offences committed in the year 1998 by petitioner-accused, which is almost 20 years back and since 09 years, the case is pending before this Court and no material to show that there is any bad antecedents against the petitioner-accused and he was also removed from the service by the Banker long back thereby he has sustained mental agony for so long years.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and the same is confirmed by the Appellate Court is hereby upheld. However, the sentence passed by the courts below is hereby modified and instead of imprisonment, if fine amount is increased, which will meet the ends of justice. Thereby, it is order to the petitioner-accused to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 467, 471 and 472 of IPC and by acquitting the petitioner-accused for the offences under Section 420 and 468 of IPC. With these observations, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) The petition is allowed-in-part.
(ii) Petitioner-accused acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC.
(iii) The conviction of the petitioner-accused by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court for the offences punishable under Sections 467,471 and 472 is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence is hereby modified and the petitioner-accused is directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in all within four weeks from date of receipt of this judgment.
(iv) The bail bond stand cancelled. If any fine amount is already deposited by the petitioner-accused shall be adjusted with the fine amount imposed by this Court now.
SD/- JUDGE HA/-