LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label 467. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 467. Show all posts
Monday, July 25, 2016

Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 420 IPC and under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. - During the course 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. On comparison 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.PW20/C-1 to Ex.PW20/C-3), PW-20 opined that the disputed signatures in the loan application and other documents were not that of witnesses (PW-5 Nathu Ram and PW-7 Kirpu) but they tallied with the signature of appellant-Sukh Ram. Trial court discarded the opinion evidence of PW-20 on the ground that the executive magistrate was not the competent authority before whom the fingerprint and handwriting of the witnesses could be taken as no proceeding was pending before the executive magistrate.= 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. Upon recommendation of the Block Development Officer (BDO), the bank disbursed these loans to the beneficiaries. Appellant-Sukh Ram was a Gram Sewak, Navgaon under Arki Sub-Division during said period, 1983 to 1986. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant-Sukh Ram, Gram Sewak, while submitting applications on behalf of the villagers for these loans, was involved in misappropriation of loan amounts by forging their signatures and thumb impressions on the applications and acknowledgement receipts. = 311-A Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “Section 311A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting.-If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that effect and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting: Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding.” The said amendment is prospective in nature and not retrospective. Similarly, in Criminal Appeal Nos.2292-2293 of 2014, Gurditu Ram-PW-2, Sohan Lal-PW-3, Badri Ram-PW-4, Mast Ram-PW-5 deposed that their signatures were obtained on some papers by the accused-Sukh Ram on the pretext that loan would be distributed to them as well as subsidy, but they did not get the entire amount, they were promised. While Smt. Savitri Devi- PW-8 deposed that she did not sign on any of the documents as she is illiterate and Smt. Vidya Devi-PW-1 deposed that she did not apply for any loan and did not sign on any of the documents. 21. In Criminal Appeal Nos. 2290-2291 of 2014, Gandhi Ram-PW-1, Mahanto-PW-2, Shankroo Devi-PW-4, Sant Ram-PW-5, Chhote Ram-PW-6 and Paras Ram-PW-10 deposed that they neither applied for any loan nor signed on any document. Upon consideration of evidence adduced by prosecution, in our view, High Court righty reversed the judgment of acquittal. The conviction of appellant in all the criminal appeals is confirmed.- In the present case, the occurrence was of the year 1983-1986 and, therefore, the authority of the Executive Magistrate to take specimen signatures of PW-5 and PW-7 during the course of investigation cannot be disputed. In any event, even dehors opinion evidence of handwriting expert, there is clear oral evidence of PW-5 and PW-7 denying their signatures in the loan application and other documents. Affirming the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 and analysis of evidence, the High Court has rightly reversed the judgment of acquittal and found the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is more than 75 years of age and is suffering from severe ailments; he has prayed for reduction of sentence of imprisonment. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the innocence of the villagers has been misused to siphon the public money, we are not inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed.

›
                                                                  REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA      ...
Saturday, July 26, 2014

Quashing of private complaint under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 IPC. - stop the payment of cheques as those are stolen- but Bank Manger received the cheque without intimation - the complainant received cheque bounce notices - High court dismissed the petition under sec.482 - Apex court held that It is no doubt true that the Courts have to be very careful while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At the same time we should not allow a litigant to file vexatious complaints to otherwise settle their scores by setting the criminal law into motion, which is a pure abuse of process of law and it has to be interdicted at the threshold. A clear reading of the complaint does not make out any offence against the appellant/Branch Manager, much less the offences alleged under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. We are of the view that even assuming that the Branch Manager has violated the instructions in the complaint in letter and spirit. It all amounts to negligence in discharging official work at the maximum it can be said that it is dereliction of duty.In view of our above discussion, we have come to an irresistible conclusion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant for commission of the alleged offence under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. is a pure abuse of process of law and the complaint case deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice.We accordingly allow this appeal setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court by quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the appellant in C.C. No. 2397 of 2012 under Sections 34, 379, 411, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.= RISHIPAL SINGH … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41732

›
  Quashing of private complaint under Sections  34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458  and  477  IPC. - stop the payment of cheques as tho...
Friday, February 7, 2014

Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and sec. 3,4,5 of P.C. Act -Jurisdiction of Special court on the death of public servant against non-public servants- against public servant and non-public servant - after framing charges - public servant died - can the court proceed against the non public servant under P.C. Act - Apex court held that the lower court correctly forward to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for trying the case in accordance with law as it lacks jurisdiction due to the death of public servant = State through CBI New Delhi .. Appellant Versus Jitender Kumar Singh .. Respondent = 2014 ( Feb.part)judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41202

›
Sections  120- B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and sec. 3,4,5 of P.C. Act -Jurisdiction of Special court on the death of public servant against n...