State of Uttarakhand vs Nadir Khan and Another

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—In a first information, the informant, Prem Ram, stated that in order to set up his business, he had applied for a loan of Rs. 50,000/-, but since a proposal was given to sanction only Rs. 25,000/-, he refused to accept the same and the matter was thereby closed. Subsequently, the bank demanded repayment of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and interest thereon from Prem Ram, on account of loan alleged to have been taken by him. This First Information Report led to filing of a charge sheet against the Respondent herein and another accused who was associated with the bank. In the charge sheet, it was alleged that the Respondent had committed forgery, cheating, etc. The said charge sheet was tried alongwith other accused, whereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the person associated with the bank and held the Respondent guilty. On first appeal, the Appellant succeeded and hence this appeal by the prosecution.

P.W. 1 proved sanction of the loan in favour of Prem Ram. From the evidence of P.W. 2, it appears that an account payee cheque was issued by the bank in pursuance of the sanction granted in favour of Prem Ram, but the same was in the name of M/s S.K. Supplier. P.W. 3, Prem Ram, stated that he did not obtain any loan, nor did he submit any bill of M/s S.K. Supplier. P.W. 4 proved that the Respondent in his pseudo name, Sahib Khan, opened an account in the name of M/s S.K. Supplier, in which account, the said cheque was encashed. P.W. 5 proved that during the relevant period, no firm by the name of M/s S.K. Supplier was registered with the Sales Tax Department. P.W. 6 was the subsequent Investigating Officer. He, in fact, proved nothing.

When the loan was sanctioned in favour of Prem Ram, the amount of the loan could be made over to Prem Ram or to someone else, but only on the request of Prem Ram. In the charge sheet, it was not stated that somebody purporting to be Prem Ram made a request to the bank to make over the loan amount to M/s S.K. Supplier. No document containing any such request was also tendered in evidence. In the event loan was sanctioned in favour of Prem Ram, why the cheque therefore was issued in favour of M/s S.K. Supplier, had not been explained either in the charge sheet or in course of depositions by the prosecution witnesses. The Investigating Officer totally failed to enlighten the Court in that aspect of the matter. Further, though in the charge sheet, it was alleged that the loan amount sanctioned in favour of Prem Ram was obtained by the Respondent through the account opened by him in the name of M/s S.K. Supplier, but in course of evidence, no attempt was made to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the cheque in question, which was encashed in the account of M/s S.K. Supplier, was the cheque issued by the bank towards or in respect of the loan sanctioned in favour of Prem Ram.

That being the situation, no case of, either cheating or forgery or any criminal conspiracy on the part of the Respondent, had been attempted to be proved at the trial and, accordingly, the Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in sentencing the Respondent, which having been rectified by the appellate Court, there is no scope of interference by this Court. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.