Rajinder Kumar Mittal vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

This is a Criminal Revision which has been directed against the order dated 11.3.1998 passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa who decided to frame charges under sections 420/467/468 and 471 read with Section 120F of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner Shri Rajinder Kumar Mittal and others.

The brief facts of the case are that Shri Gurcharan Singh son of Santu Singh and Kartar Singh son of Mal Singh residents of village Bareh applied for a tractor loan to the bank. They produced copy of the Jamabandi and khasra girdwaries from Patwari Gurbinder Singh. The khasra numbers of land belong to some other persons but the patwari in connivance with Gurcharan Singh and Kartar Singh prepared fake documents and supplied the same to accused Gurcharan Singh and Kartar Singh so as to facilitate them to obtain tractor loan from the bank. The petitioner was manager of the relevant bank at the time of the advancement and sanction of the loan. With the above allegations the petitioner was equally guilty with his coaccused in the advancement of the loan. The challan was presented before the Trial Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, for the reasons stated herein decided to frame the charges against the petitioner and his coaccused vide impugned order dated 11.3.1998 under the sections already indicated above and aggrieved by the said order the present revision which was barred by limitation but vide my order dated 27.10.1998 the limitation was condoned and the counsel for the petitioner Shri H.S. Mann, was directed to address preliminary arguments with regard to the alleged illegality committed by the Magistrate in framing charges against his client. Before I proceed further, I would like to incorporate reasons advanced by the learned Magistrate in deciding that the petitioner should also be chargesheeted under sections 420, 367, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

"I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused and perused the evidence u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the FIR on the record. As per the allegations in the F.I.R. Sh. Rajinder Kumar manager sanctioned the loan without verifying the record of the Patwari and the land mentioned in the jamabandi belongs to the some other person which had been mortgaged with the bank. Similarly as per the statement of Surinder Kumar Manager, State Bank of Patiala Branch stated in his statement that the loan case has been passed by verifying the revenue record and there was no field officer. It is the duty of the manager to check the record personality before sanctioning the loan. The allegations in the F.I.R. are sufficient to frame a charge against the accused Manager Rajinder Kumar under Sections 471 and 120B IPC. He used those forged documents with the conspiracy of Patwari Gurbinder Singh, Gurcharan Singh loaner, Kartar Singh loaner, Rakesh Kumar clerk, Tehsil Budhlada and sanctioned loan of Rs. 115200/. Counsel for Rakesh Kumar Clerk submitted that allegations against Rakesh Kumar were that he made a report without checking the Tehsil record and reported that property is free of all encumbrances. The duty of the clerk was to check the index register and on the index register only the names of the persons who transferred their land to subsequent transferee are to be entered but there was no such entry in the register and he made the report bona fide. At this stage no offence is made out against accused as no record of index register is on the file.

I have considered these arguments of learned counsel for the accused and perused the FIR and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of various witnesses. As per the allegations in the FIR that Rakesh Kumar Clerk, Tehsil Budhlada has given a certificate that the property is free from encumbrances without verifying the Tehsil record, whenever the land has already been mortgaged against a loan from the Bank and he with the conspiracy of Gurcharan Singh and Kartar Singh made a false report to give a wrongful gain to the loaners. The statement of Balbir Singh Sodhi Clerk, Tehsil Mansa under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that the report has been made by Rakesh Kumar Clerk and he will produce the record as and when required. The allegations made in the FIR against the Rakesh Kumar accused are sufficient to frame charge against him under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC as he intentionally and with conspiracy that the loaners gave a false report to give the wrongful gain to the loaners and used these documents knowingly and took the benefit in getting the loan sanctioned in favour of the loaners.

There are no arguments in favour of Gurbinder Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Kartar Singh loaners. Gurbinder Singh Patwari intentionally and knowingly gave a false jamabandi to the loaners and helped them in getting the loan sanctioned in their favour. All these persons used these documents knowingly on the basis of which loan sanction in their favour and sufficient grounds are made against them for framing charges against them under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC. Separate charge sheet be framed against all the accused."

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it was a case of no evidence. Even there was no prima facie evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime much less with the conspiracy. Learned counsel Shri Mann submitted that the entire thrust of the prosecution in this case is that Sarvshri Gurcharan Singh and Kartar Singh were the main persons who procured revenue documents from the revenue partwari. According to prosecution those documents are forged. Petitioner''s role is not there either in the fabrication of the record or in the procurement of the false and forged documents. According to Shri Mann, the petitioner was only a manager and there is no proof under the banking rules that before granting tractor loan the manager will personally verify record of the partwari. Since there was no officer subordinate working to the petitioner in the bank at the relevant time, therefore, the petitioner was not supposed to perform the duty of verification as to whether the proposed mortgagee has furnished the genuine documents or not. The counsel submitted that the petitioner relied upon certificate which was granted by Shri Badri Narain Goyal Advocate who certified that the land of Sarvshri Kartar Singh and Gurcharan Singh is free from all encumbrances and that the bank can advance loan to these persons on the basis of the security proposed to be mortgaged by these mortgagors. Also it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case the entire loan has already been returned to the bank and in these circumstances the question of putting the challan against the petitioner and his coaccused does not arise.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and am of the considered opinion that none of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves acceptance. Repeatedly, it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that while framing the charges, at that stage, the court is to look to the prima facie allegations of the prosecution. The data and material was supposed to be taken into consideration by the law courts, is the allegation, the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and the documents which are being relied upon by the prosecution. The court can always look into the documents if any produced by the accused in order to come to the conclusion whether prima facie the person brought before it is guilty of some offence or not ? If after considering all these factors the trial Court by a speaking order had decided to frame the charge, then in that eventuality, it cannot be said that the trial Court had committed any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference of the revisional court in such order. Shri Surinder Kumar, Manager, State Bank of Patiala had stated in his statement that the loan case was passed by verifying the revenue record. He further stated in his statement that it was the duty of the manager to check the record personally before sanctioning of the (sic) prosecution Shri Rajinder Kumar, as per allegations of the prosecution sanctioned the loan without verifying the record of the revenue partwari and the land mentioned in the jamabandi. In fact the land belonged to some other persons which was mortgaged with the bank by Shri Gurcharan Singh and Kartar Singh. In these circumstances, there was no error on the part of the trial Court, if there was evidence of such a strong motive justifying on the part of the court to frame a charge against the petitioner. The defences which are triable cannot supersede the allegations. Those defences which go to the root of the case of the prosecution, of course, are supposed to be looked into if the petitioner had showed dereliction in his duty or that he has connived or conspired in the disbursement of the loan, he cannot prima facie, escape his liability. A triable contention is made out which can only be decided after taking the requisite evidence. To give clean chit at this stage of the charge to the petitioner would be highly unreasonable on the part of the trial Court. Mere payment of the loan by the mortgagors to the Bank does not absolve either the principal mortgator or their guarantors or the person allegedly involved in the offence nor it lies in the mouth of such persons to take the defences that with the payment of the loan, the challan cannot be put in. Had the loan was not paid, in that eventuality, there could not be any valid argument at all. Even the argument which was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold water. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the present revision is totally devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed and I order accordingly.

Nothing stated above shall amount to an expression of my opinion on the merits of the case.

Revision dismissed.