This criminal revision petition challenging an affirmed conviction under Section 420 IPC for cheating a bank and misrepresenting business ownership to secure an loan subsidy was completely dismissed by the High Court, affirming the lower courts' findings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2501 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
Vilas, S/o. Baburao More, Now aged 35 years, Occupation: Business, Resident of Village Saiogaon, Taluk Bhalki, District: Bidar. .. PETTIONER
(By Shri Anil Kumar Navadgi, Advocate)
AND:
The State, Through Hulsoor Police Station, Taluk Basavakalyan, District: Bidar.
.. RESPONDENT
(By Shri Sanjay A. Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to set aside the judgment dated 29.09.2010 of the Fast Track Court, Basavakalyan in Criminal Appeal No.9/2008
2
and further be pleased to set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 15.12.2007 of JMFC, Basavakalyan in C.C.No.447/2005, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and further be pleased to acquit the petitioner of the charge for which he was convicted.
This petition coming on for hearing, this day, the court made the following :-
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.
suffered conviction, which has been affirmed in appeal, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity).
It was the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had sought for financial assistance to run a fertilizer and chemical business under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojna and he had undergone training for the period 13.2.2001 to 22.2.2001 at Bidar, to qualify for receiving the financial assistance under the
3
Scheme. He was selected as a beneficiary under the Scheme and accordingly, he had applied for sanction of loan of �50,000/- with the State Bank of India, Hulsoor Branch on 30.10.2001, proposing to establish a chemical and fertilizer shop at Bhalki. He had submitted the necessary certificates in this regard and entered into an agreement with the Bank to avail the loan. The loan was sanctioned in the name and style of ‘Amul Krushi Seva Kendra’ and also availed 25% subsidy of the loan granted to the petitioner. The loan was not directly released in favour of the petitioner, but to the supplier of goods, on the basis of which, the petitioner was to set up his business. The supplier had realised the amount covered under the loan transaction, but the petitioner had failed to pay any instalments as agreed. It is in that background that the bank had demanded repayment and notices were sent to his residential address as well as business address that he had provided namely, Amul Krishi Seva Kendra, Bhalki. When the notices were returned unserved, with a postal endorsement that the petitioner had left
4
or was not available, the manager of the Bank had visited Amul Krishi Seva Kendra and had found that one Aravind, PW.4 was running that business. On inquiry, it was learnt that he was the sole proprietor and the petitioner had no connection with that business establishment. Therefore, it was then discovered that the petitioner had misused the name of Amul Krishi Seva Kendra as belonging to him and also having obtained a loan on that footing and not having repaid the same, prompted the bank to initiate criminal proceedings. And accordingly, a case had been registered with the jurisdictional Police, who in turn, carried out the investigation and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The petitioner was taken into custody. It is thereafter that the trial was conducted. The trial court had framed the following point for consideration:
“1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 30.10.2001 accused deceived the Manager of State Bank of India Branch, Hulsoor by
5
inducing him fraudulently and dishonestly to advance of the loan of Rs.50,000/- under Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana showing the Krishi Seva Centre situate at Bhalki belonging to CW.4 Arvind, son of Gundappa, r/o Saigaon as of shop of accused and taken loan and thereafter not paid the said loan amount with interest thereby cheated to the Manager of SBI Branch Ulsoor, and committed offence under section 420 of IPC?”
The trial court has held the above point in the affirmative and has convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. That having been carried in appeal, the appellate court has affirmed the same. The petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment passed in the appeal in this revision petition.
did have an arrangement with Amul Krishi Seva Kendra, but he
6
had suffered losses and having fallen out with the sole proprietor of Amul Seva Kendra, who had initially permitted the petitioner to use the shop as his business address, had not permitted him to continue and therefore, the petitioner had to disassociate himself with Aravind. And on the basis of the statement of the said Aravind, who was no longer on good terms with the petitioner, a case has been foisted against the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner has defaulted in payment of the loan, which, at best, could raise privity of contract, which would entail civil proceedings for recovery. There was neither any criminal intention nor crime committed by the petitioner. As the said business Amul Krishi Seva Kendra was the address that he had furnished for his place of business, the same was not offered as security for the due repayment of the loan. Therefore, disassociation with the said Aravind and the petitioner not using the place any more, would not render the transaction as one giving rise to an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. In the alternative,
7
the learned Counsel would seek that there be a substantial reduction in the quantum of punishment that is imposed, as the petitioner was unemployed who looks forward to a better future.
8
Rozgar Yojna. Therefore, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the court below has squarely found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and there is no warrant for any mercy being shown to the petitioner in reducing the sentence as prayed for.
9
leniently in the face of the clear intention of the petitioner from inception.
The petition stands dismissed. The bail bond of the
petitioner shall be enforced as against the petitioner.
Sd/JUDGE
nv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there was sufficient warrant to interfere with the affirmed conviction for cheating the bank and securing an illegal subsidy under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana.
Whether the petitioner's conduct amounted to fraud making the relief under Section 420 IPC appropriate.
Whether the petitioner merits leniency in sentencing given his unemployment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vilas
The State
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
