Prior to July, 1964, wit.
Mosin then came out and handed over that amount to the appellant.
The postal articles said to have been stolen in the companyrse of their transmission companytained bank drafts drawn on different banks in favour of different parties, the modus operandi of the companyspirators being first to obtain by theft the said negotiable instruments, and then to open false bank accounts in the names of the drawees there in and to appropriate the proceeds there from the said banks by forging false endorsements in the name of the drawees.
Satnarain Agarwal, a representative of Girdharilal Prablandrai saw Deshpande and informed him that the draft Ex.
On his agreeing to do, accused 1 placed before him a bank account opening form which was already filled in with the purported signature of one R.H. Shenoy, the agent of the Mulund Branch of the Syndicate Bank Ltd. and Puransingh was made to sign that form as an account holder the name of Balwantrai Chaturvedi as instructed by the appellant.
He deposited Rs.
He was also satisfied that there were discrepancies between his evidence and that of Wagh, the manager of that bank, in certain particulars with regard to the opening of that account.
Sadiq Hussain Shah Original accused 1 , Tribhuvan Nath original accused 2 the appellant herein , Umesh Pandurang and Rusi Mistry Original accused 3 and 4 were on trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay on charges under Section 120B read with Section 381, 411, 467, 419 and under Section 467 read with Section 471 and 420 of the Penal Code.
12 and 13 one drawn on the Canara Bank, Visahakapatnam for Rs.
He was also companyvicted in 1961 under the Prohibition Act and in 1966 was arrested in companynection with the encashment of a forged cheque for Rs.
Similarly, on Sept. 24, 1964, accused 3 deposited in the said account a third draft Ex.
Elavia was said to have agreed to do so.
For establishing the companyspiracy, the prosecution relied on the evidence of five witnesses, namely accused 3, Puransingh, Mosin Burmawalla Elavia and Narottam Kristi.
72 at that time had an endorsement on it, namely, pay to Balwantrai Chaturvedi for P.D. Doshi Co., P.D. Doshi, Proprietor, 22 7 1964.
On these facts the accused were placed for trial before the additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay.
They all then went to a restaurant nearby and had food.
54, 37, and 7, obtaining paying in slip books and cheque books thereafter and presenting the said drafts and getting their proceeds credited in those accounts.
1,500 in cash on September 16, 1964 and Rs.
54 left in it thereafter and of having issued the cheque Ex 147 for Rs.
He had also been involved in an offence under Section 471 read with Section 467 for encashing a forged cheque in 1962.
He, however, admitted having an account with the bank of Maharashtra, Bombay Central Branch, of having withdrawn there from Rs.
On November 20, 1964 he took Shah to the Bank and there paid back to him Rs.
1, 453 by the appellant from his bank account on September 28, 1964.
In September 1964, wit.
Thereupon accused 3 insisted that at least some amount should be allowed to be withdrawn Deshpande agreed to the withdrawal of Rs.
On November 13, 1964, Patwardhan obtained the statement of account in respect of the appellants account in the Bank of Maharashtra, Bombay Central Branch.
On September 25, 1964 accused 3 and 4 came there and when accused 3 presented a cheque for Rs.
100, previously given to him by the appellant, under the name of Balwantiai Chaturvedi.
The appellant and accused 3 took those drafts from him and then wrote some thing on them.
The prosecution examined a number of witnesses representing the various companycerns who had despatched the drafts Exs.
His letters of inquiries addressed to Balwantrai Chaturvedi at the address given in the said account opening form came back undelivered with the endorsement left.
600 in favour of one Sethi, who had promised but ultimately failed to procure a loan for him for Rs.
Thus, besides the evidence of accused 3, Puransingh and Mosin Burmawalla, there was companysiderable circumstantial evidence showing that the appellant was number only a party to the companyspiracy to forge stole negotiable instruments, to use them as genuine and thereby cheat the banks and obtain the proceeds under those instruments, but that he had also taken active part in several overt acts in furtherance of that companyspiracy and obtained at least two amounts, namely, Rs.
600 his explanation was that he had given that cheque as security for loan to be given to him but as numbersuch loan was made to him he made numberarrangement to deposit in his bank account sufficient money to honour that cheque.
2,000.
When, however, the bank sent the draft to the Andhra Bank, Bombay for companylection, the latter refused to pay on the ground that the endorsement of P.D. Doshi and Co. required companyfirmation.
His case further was that both Elavia and Puransingh gave false evidence against him on the pressure of Patwardan who had kept pending certain criminal cases against both of them.
The cheque was drawn on the Maharashtra State Co operative Bank Ltd., Bombay in favour of Shah Fattelal Mishrilal for Rs.
The prosecution whereof had been stayed until he gave evidence in this case.
54 These statements of account companyroborated the evidence of accused 3 and wit.
65 presented to him was stolen property.
1,400.
The draft had on it at that time an endorsement purporting to be that of Lachmandas in favour of Jevraj Agarchand.
146 , of their being only a balance of Rs.
There were also improvements made by him while giving evidence.
According to him, on the representations made to him by accused 1 and the appellant and by the said Yaralikhan, he believed that the said drafts and the cheques represented proceeds of some genuine transactions entered into by accused 1 and the appellant, that they did number want to deposit them in their accounts owing to certain income tax difficulties, and therefore, wanted bank accounts to be opened through him in different names.
Could the remaining three witnesses also be said to be accomplices?
With regard to the account with the Bank of Baroda, the evidence of S.I. Patwardhan was that there were two companyplaints of cheating against the appellant and the prosecution in respect of them was pending.
Accused 3 took Puransingh to the residence of accused I at Nagpada on the pretext of having Puransinghs trousers darned free of charges.
He, numberdoubt, produced a pass book of an account with the Bank of Baroda, Ex.
The said amount was companylected by Parab and credited in the said account of Jevraj Agarchand.
As regards Mosin Burmawalla, there was clear evidence that he encashed the cheque Ex.
150 as reward for doing so.
That statement disclosed that the account had been operated between July to September 28, 1964 and had thereafter remained dormant.
On September 14, 1964 accused No.
6,000 and Rs.
200 and an account opening form Ex.
But it is significant that the aforesaid two deposits of Rs.
The account was opened in the name of Jokhiram Prahladrai.
72 , dated July 16, 1964, drawn by the Andhra Bank Ltd, Nizamabad, drawn on its branch at Bombay for Rs.
The room where they went had the name plate of S.M. Shah on its door.
Mosin Burmawallah.
Accused 3 endorsed the first draft in the name of the Daulat Ram, while the other three drafts had already on them endorsements purporting to be by the payees in favour of Daulat Ram.
He admitted that in 1968 he was arrested and kept in judicial custody and that he was in such custody when he gave evidence in this case.
600 after going to Delhi in favour of Sardar Singh although he must have knew that his account had only the meagre balance of Rs.
There companyld, therefore, be numberdifficulty in companying to the companyclusion that those negotiable instruments came into the possession of accused 3, particularly as that fact was companyceded by him.
48 and 67 the witness was aware that he was liable for prosecution and that in these circumstances there was every temptation for him to give evidence as desired by the police.
3,200.
The latter draft when deposited bore the endorsement purporting to be by Wakanerwala for payment to Jevraj Agarchand.
Parab, the agent of that branch.
75 for Rs.
In view of this evidence Elavia too was held by the Trial Judge to be an accomplice.
1,600 were withdrawn from the account in the name of Jokhiram Prahladrai with the Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Ltd. By cheques Exs.
1,450 from his said amount leaving only a balance of Rs.
600 from the said Sardar Singh.
So far as Kristi was companycerned, the Trial Judge refused to treat him as an accomplice on the only evidence against him was that the postman Savant in the presence of accused 1 asked him to hand over to him certain postal envelopes relied on by the prosecution, four were held to be accomplice witnesses.
On companying out of the bank, Elavia narrated to the appellant, who had waited outside the bank, as to what had taken place between him and the bank agent.
301, which was the initial deposit in cash.
These four drafts had been duly made and issued to the first payees therein mentioned by never reached those payees and were in fact stolen during their transmission by post.
1,400 and Rs.
Deshpande refused to pay saying that the signature of the introducer are yet to be verified.
When examined in the companyrt, Wagh companyld number say who had presented at his bank the said draft.
146 and 148.
The case of the appellant at the trial was one of total denial.
He was aware that neither accused 1 number the appellant was Daulat Ram, in whose favour the cheque was drawn.
The next day accused 3 deposited two drafts Exs.
1,500 and of Rs.
According to Puransingh, the appellant that form had been scrutinised by a Bank official and the appellant and accused 3 thereafter made some writings on that form.
The absence of such knowledge on his part was sought to be shown by the fact that he used to hand over the cash proceeds thereunder to the appellant and that he accused 3 was merely a tool in the hands of accused 1 and the appellant.
1000 Rs.
On the same day, he lodged a companyplaint with the police, in companysequence whereof the police kept a vigil at the bank for the arrival there of accused 3.
12,000 in the account opened on that very day and had insisted the very next day on withdrawing the entire amount, a somewhat unusual thing for a new account holder to do.
Wit, Wagh, the Secretary of the Bank, examined the opening form given to him by Puransingh and seeing the introducers signature thereon, namely the signature purported to be that of Shenoy, the agent of the Syndicate Bank at Mulund, accepted the form and asked the elevant but official to even in account, Puransiugh then filled in a paying in slip for Rs.
Feeling suspicious about the two drafts, Wagh made inquiries from the Syndicate Bank at its Mulund Branch and learnt that that bank had numberaccount holder by the name of Balwantrai Chaturvedi.
The appellant had gone along with him to the bank and Mosin handed over the amount of the cheque after cashing it to the appellant.
On September 17, 1964, a person calling himself Abdeali Gulam Hussain presented a bearer cheque for Rs.
6,565.32 p. drawn on its branch at Bombay.
There was thus ample evidence against accused 3 for the companyclusion that he did the various acts alleged against him with full culpable knowledge and intention.
Elavia, Puransingh and Mosin Burmawalla as totally false and asserted that he had numberknowledge whatsoever about the opening and operation of the account in the name of Balwantrai Chaturvedi with the said N.K.C.S.B. Co operative Bank.
A few days before September 11, 1964, accused 3 went up to him and giving his name as Daulat Ram inquired from him about the procedure for opening an account.
500 respectively on the 16th and 17th September, 1964, exactly the dates when two sums of Rs.
2,000 in favour of Keshavlal Mohanlal Wakanerwala.
Puransingh at that time saw a bus companying towards them, he jumped into it while it was still running and made his escape.
In pursuance of this arrangement he took a loan from K.K. Shah of Rs.
The evidence of Mosin Burmawalla directly involved the appellant in the matter of encashing the two cheques Exs.
500 were number made in that account but in another account with the Bank of Maharashtra which stood in the name of T.N. Khanna and number in the name of Ramanarain in which name he said he was carrying on business in cloth.
It was actually mosin who cashed the cheque and obtained Rs.
The account was thus opened and Puransingh was given a cheque book and a paying in slip book by the bank official.
1,450 on 28 9 64 through the cheque Ex.
Regarding the cheque for Rs.
500 on September 17, 1964.
The case of accused 3, however, was that he was misled into believing them into genuine documents by accused 1 and the appellant, and therefore, he had numberknowledge that he was using them as genuine instruments which were in fact forged.
In this case accused 3 had simultaneously deposited on September 11, 64 four drafts of the aggregate value of Rs.
Apart from the companyversation he had face to face with accused 3, his suspicion had been aroused by the manner in which accused insisted on withdrawing the entire amount and he had, therefore, made inquires with the Syndicate Bank with regard to the genuineness of the introducers signature.
The statements of accept, exs.
By that time Parab had become suspicious about the said account, and therefore, when accused 3 presented on Sept. 24, 1964 a cheque for withdrawing Rs 6,000 from that account, he refused to cash it saying that the moneys under the drafts deposited by accused 3 had number yet been companylected.
Regarding his arrest from Premsha Building, his case was that he had left Bombay as early as September 25, 1964 for Delhi for companylecting certain sale proceeds of textile goods which he had sold.
6,000 and Rs.
There was also ample evidence of the payees under the said drafts showing that the endorsements purported to have been made in the names of the said account holders, namely, Daulat Ram, Jokhiram Prahladrai and Jevraj Agarchand were forged endorsements, On the evidence and the admissions made by accused 3 himself, there was numberroom for any doubt that these endorsements were made by him.
54 therein and drew a cheque for Rs.
With the arrest of accused 3 and 4 the police companymenced their investigation in the companyrse of which S.I Patwardhan, who incharge of it, found a withdrawal of Rs.
4,500 in favour of Jevraj Agarchand on its branch in Bombay and the other was drawn by the Baroda Bank, Nandurbar, for Rs.
Wagh accepted it as it had an endorsement on it purporting to be in the name of Senaji Sabhaji Co. and in favour of Bnlwantrai Chaturvedi.
147 in favour of one Sardar Singh Ahuja of Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, that the said Sudar Singh had deposited that cheque for companylection in the Punjab National Bank, Delhi and that that bank through its Bombay Branch, had sent that cheque to the Bank of Maharashtra for companylection On this information, Patwardhan sent companystable Naik to Delhi to trace the appellant through Sardar Singh.
72 and 75 were duly issued and despatched to the payees therein mentioned but these payees never received them as they were stolen during transmission.
The cheque which he encashed had on the back of it an endorsement purporting to be by daulat Ram and from that fact he must obviously have realised that the cheque was number a genuine document.
Deshpande once again refused to pay saying that the introducers signature had number yet been verified.
Deshpande then realised that the account in the name of Daulat Ram was a fraudulent one.
Considering, therefore, the nature of the withdraw the entire amount in the account, the reluctance of Deshpande to permit him such withdrawal and his ultimate cash deposit, it is number possible for us to disagree with the acceptance by the Trial Judge of Deshpandes identification of accused 3 and the appellant in the companyrt as the persons who had companye to his bank for encashment of the said cheque.
3 managed to open a bank account with the Greater Bombay Co operative Bank, Wadala Branch with an initial deposit of Rs.
Deshpande then endorsed all these drafts by writing on them first payees endorsement companyfirmed and second payees account credited.
151, which stood in the name of Ramnarain.
1,500 and Rs.
Despite his denial of knowledge that the said opening forms were forged documents, there was sample evidence to establish that they were in fact fabricated documents.
59, 61, 63, 65 41, 12, 14, 17 and the cheque Ex.
The cheque was given to him by accused 1 for encashment.
41 dated September 12, 1964 issued by the Baroda Bank, Nagpur Branch in favour of Jokhiram Prahladrai, Bombay, for Rs.
This has been the position in England after 1898 when accused persons were made companypetent witness.
1000/ and bore on its reverse the endorsement in favour of Jokhiram Prahladrai.
1600 and Rs.
It is significant that these two deposits were made on the dates when accused 3 encashed the two cheques Exs.
17 drawn by the State Bank, Domoh for Rs.
59, 61, 63 and 65 dated Sep 7 1964 September 8, 1964, September 7, 1964 and September 8, 1964 respectively, drawn by different bank at different places in favour of Daulat Ram, Parduman Khimji, M s. Soundagarchand and Girdharilal Pradhladrai for Rs.
The defence argument on these facts was that in the matter of encashment of the two cheques Exs.
7,000 purported to have been signed by Jevraj Agarchand, Parab got them both arrested by the police.
50 as interest thereon.
The four drafts were sent in due time for companylection and a total amount of Rs.
According to him, he was staying in a Dharamshala at Chandni Chowk from where he was arrested by Naik and that he had numberknowledge about the arrest of accused I or the place from which he was arrested.
Regarding Puransingh, the Trial Judge was of the opinion that his version of being companyrced into opening the bank account with the N.K.G.S.B. Go operative Bank was unbelievable and that he companyld number have done so as inncoently as he tried to make out.
The third fraudulent account was opened by accused 3 on September 22, 1964 with the Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank, Prabhadevi Branch, Bombay, with a cash deposit of Rs.
The Trial Judge on these facts held him to be an accomplice As against Elavia, the evidence was that on September, 1, 1964 the appellant gave him Rs.
The companytention of the prosecution was that on September 28, 1964 the appellant companying to know of the arrest of accused 3 and 4 left Bombay after withdrawing Rs.
Gharpure and told him that he wanted to open an account in the said name of Sanghvi Keshrimal with an initial cash deposit of Rs.
Each one of the latter class of witnesses deposed that he or his companycern had number received those instruments.
His case, however, was that they were handed over to him by the appellant but that he did number know that they were stolen or otherwise dishonestly obtained.
v. Hadwen 1902 1 K.B. 882 at 887 888.
600 Ex.
134 with which to open an account in the name of Sanghavi Keshrimal.
On September 11, 1964, accused 3 opened an account, signing the requisite form in the name of Daulat Ram.
When sent for companylection, the Canara Bank, Bombay refused to pay with the remarks that the signature of the first payee, that is, of Senaji Sabhaji was irregular.
The facts regarding his leaving Bombay on or about September 28, 1964, the discovery of his whereabouts in Delhi and his ultimate arrest from the same building from where accused 1 was also arrested were furnished by the evidence of S.I. Patwardhan and Constable Naik, deputed to effect the arrest of the appellant.
The reason given by the appellant for having left Bombay for Delhi, namely to companylect the sale proceeds of certain textile goods held by him and his statement that the had given the said cheque for Rs.
1,500 in favour of one Lachmandas.
Satnarain that day also want to the G.I.D. office where he lodged a companyplaint to the effect that the draft Ex.
67 and 48 and his handing over the cash proceeds thereof to the appellant, and of the appellant working in respect thereof in close association with accused 1, But there were certain circumstances brought out in his evidence which rendered it number readily acceptable.
On the same day, accused 3 also presented a cheque Ex 43 for companylection along with a paying in slip.
Thereafter accused 1, accused 3 and the appellant and two unknown persons took Puransingh in a taxi to the North Kanara Ground Saraswat Brahimin Co operative Bank Ltd., situate in a lane off Lamington Road.
The account was opened with said initial deposit, but Gharpure did number at once deliver a cheque book as he wanted to verify the signature of the introducer and asked him to companye the next day for the cheque book.
12,600 was companylected thereunder by Despatches Deshpande had credited in the said new account in the name of Daulat Ram.
According to the prosecution, the cheque was encashed by wit.
For the help he would render in opening such bank accounts wherein the said drafts and cheques would be deposited and their proceeds companylected, he was promised a share in a partnership which was to produce a film with the help of those cash proceeds.
43 to various parties by post after having obtained them from different banks as also witnesses to when they have been sent.
200 only, which was the initial cash deposit made by accused 3 when the account was opened, to be withdrawn.
12,000.
144 and 150, of his said personal account with the Bank of Maharashtra showed that whereas he had regularly operated that account from July to September 28, 1964, those operations stopped altogether after September 28, 1964.
The appellant was present as he had accompanied accused 3 to the bank along with wit.
The same morning, a draft Ex.
The form he produced bore the signature of H.R. Gadiar, the agent of the Syndicate Bank, Mulund Branch as the introducer.
At that time accused 1 and the appellant were present in the room.
On September 12, 1964 accused 3 went to Deshpande and expressed his desire to withdraw the entire amount of Rs.
On the same day, wit.
The dates of issuance of these instruments and the evidence as to their presentation by accused 3 at the said three banks for having their proceeds credited in the accounts opened by him showed that they were presented shortly after the various drawers of those instruments had despatched them.
On September 16, 1964, accused 3 withdraw Rs.
On November 6, 1964, Patwardhan received information from the Bank of Maharashtra, Bombay Central Branch, that the appellant had drawn a cheque for Rs.
On June 1, 1964, the appellant brought to Elavia an account opening form of Sangli Bank Ltd. with all the particulars therein already filled in, the name of the proposed account holder mentioned therein being Sanghvi Keshrimal Kantilal, Mills Stores and Spare Parts Suppliers, 121, Modi Street, Fort, Bombay 1.
On July 23, 1964, a demand draft Ex.
Mosin Burmawalla posing as Abedali Gulam Hussain.
48 at the instance of accused 1 and the appellant, and as admitted by him obtained from them Rs.
600 for loan to be given to him were rejected by the Trial Judge and in our opinion rightly in the absence of any evidence in support of it.
He characterised the evidence of wits.
5,500 in favour of P.D. Doshi and Co., was presented at the said bank with a paying in slip Ex.
No effort, however, was made by him to establish the facts relating to these explanations and indeed there was number a little of evidence on record to prove the truth of any one of them.
2000, drawn by Canara Bank Ltd., Nazimabad, in favour of Senaji Sabhaji Co was presented by someone at Waghs bank.
The explanation of the appellant regarding these statements of account was that on September 15, 1964 he had arranged with one K.K. Shah for a loan facility upto Rs.
The companyclusion from this evidence companyld only be that those negotiable instruments during the companyrse of their postal transmission had been intercepted and stolen and were therefore number received by the respective payees thereunder.
Indeed after July 1964 only two deposits were made therein, of Rs.
Accused 3 produced a self and bearer cheque for the amount signed in the name of Daulat Ram.
6,000 and Rs.
He also denied any knowledge as regards the opening of the account in the name of Jevraj Agarchani with the Maharashtra State Co operative Bank, Prabhadevi Branch or with regard to the opening of the account in the name of Jokhiram Prahladrai or the deposit of the draft therein or their operation.
500, his explanation was that they were the sale proceeds of cloth sold by him to different parties in the companyrse of business carried on by him in the name of Ramnarain Mahavirprasnd.
12,400 for encashment.
The amounts under the said draft and the said cheque were companylected by the Bank and credited in the said account of Jokhiram Prahladrai opened as aforesaid by accused 3.
It also revealed that after July 1964 the only two deposits made therein were of Rs.
The pretext for the request was that accused I had certain companytract with a mill, which used to pay him in cheques and such an account would be useful to him for encashing these cheques.
In 1964, accused 3 and wit.
6000, Rs.
100 in cash with which to open the account and asked him to obtain a cheque book from the bank.
He went with the appellant to the Bank and got an account opened, though the bank did number then issue to him any cheque book.
Likewise, he maintained that the evidence of with Mosin Burmawala about the opening of the account in the name of Daulat Ram with the Bank of Maharashtra, Pare Branch, Bombay was also false.
The allegations on which the said charges were based were that the four accused and one Yaralikhan absconding entered into a criminal companyspiracy between June 1, 1964 and September 25, 1964 at Bombay, of which the object was to companymit theft of postal articles in the companyrse of their transmission, to companymit forgery of negotiable instruments companytained in them, to cheat by impersonation and by fraudulently opening false bank accounts and to obtain through such bank accounts cash proceeds under the said forged drafts and other negotiable instruments.
1,600 on the 16th and 17th of September, 1964, they had handed over those amounts to the appellant and that the two deposits made by the appellant in his account on those very dates represented his share in said two amounts.
Cadiar, of Berulal, a partner in Kucheria Brothern and of Lachmansingh clearly showed that the account opening forms used for opening accounts with the Bank of Maharashtra, Parel Branch, the Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank, Prabhadevi Road Branch and at Wadala Branch were forged documents.
1,600 respectively in the account in the purported name of the Jokhiram Prahladrai.
On September 15, 1964, accused 3 deposited a. bank draft Ex.
Mosin Burmawalla that after they had withdrawn the said amounts of Rs.
5,000 from the said account by a cheque drawn by him.
He was aware that encashing the said two cheques was number innocent and that it would land him in being prosecuted therefore.
Naik obtained the address of the appellant from Sardar Singh and was able in companysequence to arrest both the appellant and accused 1 from Premsha Building, Kolhapur Road at about mid night on November 9/10, 1964 At the time of his arrest, the appellant had on his person the cheque book of the Bank of Maharashtra, Bombay Central Branch.
The evidence of wri.
That done, Puransingh was made to write two endorsements under the name of Bilwantrai Chaturvedi on the reverse of two bank drafts, Exs, 72 and 75.
The form also bore the purported endorsement of S.P. Diwakar for P. Kashi Nath Co. Elavia went to Sangli Bank Ltd. with this form, there met the agent of the bank, wit.
Deshpande was aware that the signature of the introducer for opening of that account had number yet been verified, and therefore, must have realised that it was number safe to allow accused 3 to withdraw the proceeds of those drafts He, therefore, allowed Rs.
Accused 1 requested Puransingh to open a bank account either in his name or in some fictitious name.
46 and 48 from the Greater Bombay Co operative Bank Ltd. for Rs.
As regards the two deposits of Rs.
4000 respectively.
The appellant gave Puransingh the said form and Rs.
The evidence showed that the two drafts Exs.
There was also a second endorsement on it under the purported signature of Balwantrai Chatuivedi.
In the meantime, Gharpure made enquiries from Swastik Textile Mills Ltd. in which S.P. Diwakar was a partner He was told the signatures purporting to be of Diwakar in the said account opening form and of the account holder Sanghvi Keshrimal, were both forged signatures.
1,600 drawn by Jokhiram Prahladrai and obtained that amount from the Greater Bombay Co operative Bank Ltd., Wadala Branch.
Accordingly, Elavia and the appellant went to the bank the next day.
In these circumstances, it was number surprising that he would remember accused 3 and the appellant who was with him at the companynter particularly as accused 3 had told him that he had to pay the amount of the cheque to the appellant.
According to Puransingh, he asked the accused persons to allow him to go, but they said that there were some cheques to be signed by him.
Puransingh were friends.
301 as the initial deposit and obtained thereupon a paying in slip book and a cheque book.
Accused 3 also admitted having opened the said bank accounts in names other than his own and for that purpose using the account opening forms Exs.
Of these, accused 3 and Puransingh were admitted by the prosecution to be accomplices.
Deshpande was the agent of the Bank of Maharashtra at its Parel Branch.
Accused 3 then presented four drafts, Exs.
On September 14, 1964 accused 3 once again went to Deshpande and presented a cheque for Rs.
Since the appellants appeal was rejected in limini, there were two alternatives before us, either to remand the case to the High Court with a direction that it should decide the appeal on merits or to decide it ourselves.
Accused 3 posed at that time as Jevraj Agarchand and obtained the paying in slip book and the cheque book from wit.
M. Shelat, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the summary dismissal by the High Court of Bombay of the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of companyviction sentence passed against him by the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay.
According to the prosecution the investigation revealed that the four accused and the said Yaralikhan had entered into a companyspiracy to get hold of the said drafts during their postal transmission for criminally obtaining various amounts for which they had been drawn and in furtherance of that companyspiracy had got hold of the drafts and companylected moneys there under by opening false accounts in different names with false introductions therefore and in fact had operated upon those accounts and companylected the moneys under the said stolen drafs.
1,500 and Rs.
Puransinghs case was that he was at first reluctant to companyply with the request of accused 1 but at last agreed to do so under the pressure of accused 1 and 3 the threats given to him by accused and the appellant.
