High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
State of Haryana v. Kirori Mal alias K.M.Dugi - CRM-88-MA-2006  RD-P&H 6867 (11 September 2006)
Crl. Misc. No.88-MA of 2006
Date of decision : September 12, 2006.
State of Haryana
Kirori Mal alias K.M.Dugi
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present : Mr. Dinesh Arora, AAG, Haryana for the appellant.
A.N. JINDAL, J.
State of Haryana by way of the instant petition has sought special leave to appeal against the judgment dated 26.7.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak whereby the accused-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') Karori Mal was acquitted of the charges under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC framed against him.
In nut-shell, the allegations against the respondent are that one Jagdev Kumar had opened FDR account with the bank and got issued an FDR for a sum of Rs.20,000/- with maturity date as 22.10.1994. However, he received the pre- mature payment of the said FDR on 7.12.1993 and deposited the same in the saving bank account of the accused. The respondent allegedly by making signatures of Jagdev Kumar took a loan of Rs.12,000/-. Thereafter, while preparing the interest statement, he cleverly with an intention to cheat the bank made wrong submission of the interest and created a bogus entry of Rs.10,000/- on 15.1.1994. The said amount of Rs.10,000/- was shown as payment towards the loan of Rs.12,000/-. It was further alleged that the respondent again forged the document on 29.1.1994 with regard to advancement of loan of Rs.15,000/- on the basis of the FDR dated 22.10.1993 and himself prepared the voucher by forging the signatures of Jagdev Kumar. As such the respondent forged the documents with an intention to cheat the bank.
Crl. Misc. No.88-MA of 2006
Consequently, the respondent was charged for the offence under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC.
On conclusion of the trial, trial Court observed that none of the relevant documents on the basis of which fraud, if any, was committed were brought to surface and proved on the file.
Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, we observe that there is not an iota of evidence from where it could be concluded that the loan was allegedly taken by the respondent by committing fraud and by forging signatures of Jagdev Kumar. It is also not proved on record that the loan forms were filled by the respondent and he forged the signatures of Jagdev Kumar. No evidence has been led in order to establish if the respondent had confessed his guilt before Mahavir Parshad Jain (PW-4).
It is further observed that the trial Court in the impugned judgment, dealt with all the material points very elaborately.
While searching no material to differ with the impugned judgment, we endorse the same.
Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal is hereby declined.
September 12, 2006 (VIRENDER SINGH)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.