Raunak Chand vs State of Punjab

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This is a revision petition against the order dated 24.01.2003 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Jalandhar vide which the appeal against the judgement/order dated 05.02.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar convicting the petitioner u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code was dismissed.

Vide judgement dated 05.02.2001, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar convicted the present petitioner u/s 420 of Indian Penal Code to undergo RI for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appeal against the aforesaid judgement was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 24.01.2003.

The facts as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in the present case are that "appellant Raunak Chand alias Kishan Lal son of Hans Raj has been convicted and sentenced for offence u/s 420 IPC. The case was registered on the complaint of the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Mandi Fentongang Branch, Jalandhar. Kishan Lal, in his capacity as owner of Kishna Hub Industries, opened an account bearing No. 10-61014 in the complainant Bank by depositing Rs. 500/- about six month prior to the occurrence. On 25.03.1991, at about 12/12.30, said Kishan Lal came to the Branch and presented a cheque No. B 198/100-757712 dated 25.03.1991 for withdrawal of Rs. 2 lacs. The cheque was presented to ledger keeper Asha Rani, who entered the cheque in the ledger and presented it to Shri S.S. Thukral, Accountant for passing the same. At that time, the account of Kishan Lal was showing a balance of Rs. 2,60,000/- as such, the cashier Shri Brij Mohan Kalia made payment of Rs. 2 lacs by given 26 packets of currency notes of Rs. 50/- each and 7 packets of the currency notes of Rs. 100/- each. After receiving the amount, Kishan Lal hurriedly came out of the branch. This created a suspicion and the account was checked where a forged entry of 20.03.91 was found. Kishan Lal was followed and was apprehended. The currency notes worth Rs. 50,000/- having the bank''s slip were recovered. The other amount had been handed over by Kishan Lal to his accomplice. On the complaint Ex.PA, made by Sahib Ram, Branch Manager, a formal FIR Ex PW5/A was registered against the accused. Accused Harvinder Singh was also arrested in this case and after completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in Court."

Charges were framed against two accused, namely, Harvinder Singh u/s 411 of Indian Penal Code and the present petitioner u/s 420 of Indian Penal Code. Co-accused, namely Asha Rani and Manoj Kumar were discharged.

The main point to be determined was whether Kishan Lal withdrew the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Bank on 25.03.1991 by making forged entry or not.

There is ample evidence on record to show that it was the present petitioner, who withdrew the amount from the Bank as Kishan Lal even though his real identity was Raunak Chand. The prosecution examined PW-2 Brij Mohan Kalia, Head Cashier and PW-1 Sahib Ram, Manager of the Bank and the identity of the present petitioner was established from their testimonies. The petitioner was caught on the spot and he divulged his real identity as Raunak Chand although he signed on the cheque as Kishan Lal. It was proved beyond doubt that it was the petitioner who had first opened the account as Kishan Lal and made a fake entry in the account. Thereafter, he presented the cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- and received the payment of the same. Thus, defrauding the Bank.

In view of the above, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld and the present revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

Taking into account the fact that the petitioner is facing the agony of trial since the year 1991, i.e. for the last more than 19 years and has already under gone substantial period of sentence of more than 11 months 23 days of custody in jail, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of the accused/petitioner is reduced to that as having already undergone.

Dismissed except for the modification of the sentence as above.