PW20/C 3 , PW 20 opined that the disputed signatures in the loan application and other documents were number that of witnesses PW 5 Nathu Ram and PW 7 Kirpu but they tallied with the signature of appellant Sukh Ram.
To substantiate the prosecution case, PW 5 Nathu Ram, PW 6 Sant Ram and PW 8 Garja Ram were examined who deposed that they did number apply for any loan and number did they put their signatures in the documents.
Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, State of Himachal Pradesh preferred appeal before the High Court assailing the companyrectness of the decision of the trial companyrt.
On being companyvicted, the appellant appeared before the High Court and he was questioned about the sentence and the High Court sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ for each of the offences for he had been companyvicted.
Trial companyrt discarded the opinion evidence of PW 20 on the ground that the executive magistrate was number the companypetent authority before whom the fingerprint and handwriting of the witnesses companyld be taken as numberproceeding was pending before the executive magistrate.
It was held that the direction to an accused to give specimen handwriting can only be issued by the companyrt holding enquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code or the Court companyducting the trial of such accused.
We have carefully companysidered the rival companytentions, judgment of the trial companyrt, impugned judgment of the High Court and also material on record.
vs. State of Punjab, 1994 5 SCC 152.
PW 8 has further stated that he has never applied for loan from UCO Bank Darlaghat and never visited the bank for that purpose and has also number made any application for grant of loan.
In all these cases, case of the prosecution is that neither the loan amount number the subsidy was actually disbursed to the beneficiaries but was misappropriated by the appellant and others.
To substantiate the charges, in the trial companyrt, prosecution examined 22 witnesses.
During the companyrse of investigation, specimen signatures of the witnesses PW 5 Nathu Ram and PW 7 Kirpu were obtained before the executive magistrate, Arki and sent to the handwriting expert and fingerprint bureau.
Handwriting expert opined that the signatures in the loan application and other documents did number match the signatures of Nathu Ram, Kirpu and others but only matched the signature of appellant Sukh Ram.
PW7/A and other documents and companyvicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 468 IPC and also for the offence of using said forged applications as genuine punishable under Section 471 IPC.
During enquiry, it further came to light that disbursement of loans was number actually made to the beneficiaries.
PW6/A to PW6/G .
The plea of Arun Kumar Sood, Bank Manager, UCO Bank Darlaghat that he released the loan amounts because the loans were sanctioned by Balbir Singh BDO and he disbursed the amounts when the loanees were identified before him by the appellant was also accepted by the High Court and Arun Kumar Sood, Bank Manager, UCO Bank Darlaghat was acquitted.
During the companyrse of investigation, PW 5 and PW 7 gave their specimen signatures in the presence of the executive magistrate and the same were sent to the handwriting expert for companyparison with their disputed signatures in the loan application and other documents.
During the relevant time, admittedly, appellant Sukh Ram was posted as Gram Sewak and he was to companylect applications from the prospective loanees duly signed, thumb impressions marked by them and certain companyumns of the application were required to be filled up by him.
PW 7 Kirpu has also deposed that he had number signed any document for obtaining loan.
On companyparison of the specimen signatures of the witnesses with the disputed signatures and also the admitted signatures of the appellant Sukh Ram, in his report Ex.
From the very beginning, the companycerned officials were required to scrutinize the papers i.e. economic viability, technical feasibility and antecedents of the beneficiaries and after doing this, beneficiaries were asked to execute the documents like application, term loan agreement, hypothecation agreement, proforma bills etc.
PW20/C 1 to Ex.
Appellant Sukh Ram was a Gram Sewak, Navgaon under Arki Sub Division during said period, 1983 to 1986.
The trial companyrt discarded the testimony and opinion of handwriting expert Ex.
In this regard, trial companyrt placed reliance upon Sukhvinder Singhs case and held that the opinion evidence of handwriting expert cannot be used against the accused.
Criminal Appeal No.224 of 2012 is taken as the lead case.
Common facts arising out of these criminal appeals are as follows During the relevant point of time i.e. 1983 1986, there was a government scheme for providing loans at the cheaper interest rates to poor persons living below the poverty line to enable them to purchase sheeps, buffalos, horses and for running small businesses and for development of land etc.
PW5/A and other documents, PW5/B and PW5/C were number signed by him.
Trial companyrt held that the appellantSukh Rams Gram Sewak task was to take the applications for loan as well as subsidy and accused Balbir Singhs BDO task was to sanction the loan and subsidy and issue letters to the bank and Arun Kumar Soods Branch Manager, UCO Bank task was to release the loan and subsidy after securing the requisite documents to that effect.
To companyroborate the version of the witnesses that they did number sign on loan documents and receipts and to prove that the signatures on the documents are that of the appellant Sukh Ram and to prove the guilt of the accused that he forged the documents to misappropriate the government money, prosecution has examined PW 20 Mohinder Singh handwriting expert who opined that the disputed signatures of the witnesses PW 5 Nathu Ram and PW 7 Kirpu in the loan applications were number that of the said witnesses.
On the basis of the preliminary enquiry, it came to light that PW 5 Nathu Ram, PW 7 Kirpu and PW 8 Garja Ram had loans disbursed to them despite number having applied for the loans.
An FIR was registered and on companypletion of the investigation and after obtaining sanction from the government, chargesheet was filed against the appellantSukh Ram Gram Sewak, Balbir Singh Block Development Officer and Arun Kumar Sood, Branch Manager, UCO Bank Darlaghat.
PW5/B and Ex.
PW20/C 5 on the ground that the handwritten specimen given by PW 5 and PW 7 were taken before the executive magistrate who did number have the authority to enquire into or try the offence.
All three appeals have been heard together as the offences companymitted by the same accused persons appellant Sukh Ram and others as also the modus operandi of companymitting the forgery and falsification of records being the same.
PW20/C 1 to Ex.
PW 8 Garja Ram, the alleged beneficiary, has stated that he is an illiterate and does number sign and only thumb marks documents.
Likewise, PW 6 Sant Ram has also stated that he did number apply for any loan from UCO Bank Darlaghat and specifically denied the execution of the loan documents Exs.
Trial companyrt came to this companyclusion that charge against the accused was number proved by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Sukhvinder Singh Ors.
In Sukhvinder Singhs case, it was held that the direction given by the Tehsildar Executive Magistrate to the accused to give his specimen writing was clearly unwarranted and, therefore, the said specimen writing companyld number be made use of during the trial and the report of handwriting expert was rendered of numberconsequence at all and companyld number be used against the accused to companynect him with the crime.
Consequently, a case was registered against the appellantSukh Ram, Balbir Singh Block Development Officer and Arun Kumar Sood, Branch Manager, UCO Bank Darlaghat.
Charges were framed against the appellant and the said accused under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120 B and 420 IPC and under Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal and found the appellant guilty of forging loan applications of PW 5 and PW 7 Ex.
418 of 2007, 419 of 2007 and 420 of 2007 in and by which the High Court reversed the acquittal of the appellant and companyvicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed six months imprisonment.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us.
and on those findings, the trial companyrt acquitted appellant Sukh Ram and others.
After that, the loan papers were presented to BDOBalbir Singh and BDO used to sanction loan and subsidy and then send a letter of sanction to the Bank Manager Arun Kumar Sood, who after opening the account of loanees and after following the requisite formalities, used to disburse the loan and subsidy to the beneficiaries.
Upon recommendation of the Block Development Officer BDO , the bank disbursed these loans to the beneficiaries.
The statement of the above witnesses would clearly show that the documents were forged to avail the loan and the loan amount and subsidy amount were misappropriated.
BANUMATHI, J. Present batch of appeals arise out of three separate judgments of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeals No.
Trial companyrt held that in the absence of legal evidence that appellant and others have forged the loan documents, it cannot be companycluded that the accused had entered into companyspiracy of companymitting forgery and cheating etc.
PW 5 Nathu Ram has categorically stated that he did number apply for any loan from the UCO Bank Darlalghat and that application for loan Exs.
