Dismissed

C C Kumareshan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2021CRL.RP/686/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court in this criminal revision petition rejected the accused's challenge to his conviction and sentence for cheating and forgery under Sections 420 and 468 of the IPC. Finding no patent illegality or perversity in the lower courts' appreciation of evidence, including handwriting and seal expert opinions, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the conviction.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; judgment of conviction and sentence of lower courts upheld for offences under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC.

C C Kumareshan Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.686 OF 2011

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

C.C.KUMARESHAN S/O.CHOKKALINGAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD TOWN POST OFFICE OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATI R/O HOSAMANE, OLD TOWN BHADRAVATHI – 577 301

¶8

... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.MANJUNATHA RAO BHONSLE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY OLD TOWN POLICE BHADRAVATHI – 577 301

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶13

¶14

THIS CRL.R.P IS FILED U/S 397 & 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2009 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.C.J., (JR.DM) AND J.M.F.C, BHADRAVATHI IN C.C.NO.991/02 AND ORDER DATED 08.06.2011 PASSED BY THE P.O., ETC, F.T.C, BHADRAVATHI IN CRL.A NO.74/09 & ETC.,

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This revision petition is preferred by the

¶19

petitioner-accused, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Bhadravathi, in CC No.991/2002 dated 24.06.2009 convicting the petitioner-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 468 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC in default of payment of fine under each Section and accused to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of six months, which in appeal vide judgment dated 08.06.2011 in Crl.A.No.74/2009 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Bhadravathi came to be confirmed.

¶20

The case of prosecution in nut shell is as

¶21

follows:

¶22

¶23

It is stated that the accused was said to be working as E.D. Packer in Post Office at Old Town Post Office, Old Town, Bhadravathi. It is alleged that the accused had availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- from Shivamogga District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited, Shivamogga by furnishing forged stamp paper agreement and withdrew the amount from the Bank on 21.08.1999. Thereafter the said amount was not repaid. A case came to be filed before the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Society, wherein an award came to be passed and an attachment of salary was issued. At this juncture one Smt. Leeladevi working in the Post Office informed the Bank that she had not signed any stamp paper and agreement and as such the said document does not bear her true signature. Based on this the Bank lodged a complaint against the accused for committing forgery of the document by forging the signature of the Drawing Officer and by mis-using the official seal of Post Master and has thereby committed fraud.

¶24

¶25

3. On the basis of the complaint registered by

¶26

the Bank as per Ex.P14 the Police registered an FIR as per Ex.P37 and after conducting spot mahazar and panchanama the police seized the Official Seal of the Post Office. The statements of the witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer and obtained the opinion of the Handwriting Experts and a charge sheet came to be laid by the Police for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC.

¶27

After issuance of summons, accused

¶28

appeared before the Court and was enlarged on bail. Thereafter charge came to be framed against accused. The accused denied all the incriminating charge against him and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the parties went into trial.

¶29

In order to prove the case, prosecution examined in all sixteen witnesses as PWs.1 to 16 and got marked thirty eight documents at Exs.P1 to 38 and two material objects as MO1 & MO2. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313

¶30

¶31

Cr.P.C. which were denied by the accused. However, he has not led any evidence on his behalf.

¶32

On the basis of evidence, both oral and documentary marked before the Court, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences.

¶33

Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the aforesaid offences, an appeal came to be filed in Crl.A.No.74/2009 before the Sessions Court, which came to be dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against accused. It is this order which is put in challenge by the accused in this revision petition.

¶34

Heard Sri K. Manjunatha Rao Bhonsle,

¶35

learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State.

¶36

Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that both the Courts below have committed a

¶37

¶38

serious error in convicting the accused contrary to the evidence and materials placed before the Court. He further contends that both the Courts have not applied its mind while passing the order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 468 of IPC. He further contends that both the courts failed to take into consideration that the seal-MO1 would be in the custody of the head of the Post Office and if an employee wants to borrow the loan it is only the application that would be given for sanction of the loan and all other work to be undertaken by the Bank. Hence, he contends that the question of petitioner forging the signature of PW10 is highly doubtful and the same cannot be attributed to that of the accused as such the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside.

¶39

Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that both the Courts below have grossly erred in accepting the evidence of PW4, whereas the said witness has categorically admitted that before sanctioning the loan the Bank would verify about the job

¶40

¶41

and salary of the petitioner and the officials of the Bank themselves would obtain the signature of the Drawing Officer pursuant to which the loan application would be forwarded to the Office for sanctioning the loan. He further contends that in view of the above admission that the Bank Officials would themselves secure the signature of the Drawing Officer implication of the accused is bad in law.

¶42

Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that PW10 whose signature is alleged to have been forged by the petitioner – accused admittedly had a rift with the petitioner and it is also not in dispute that petitioner is involved in Union activities. Therefore, as it is, there existed enmity between the petitioner and this witness, which aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Courts below. He further contends that the trial court believed the evidence of PW15 – Hand Writing Expert to convict the petitioner – accused, which is not the correct proposition of law as the opinion of Hand Writing Expert is not conclusive proof.

¶43

¶44

Learned counsel for petitioner further

¶45

contends that PW1 and PW2, who are the witnesses for seizure of 11 documents under mahazar Ex.P1, turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. So also, PW6 has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. He further contends that the trial Court and the Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the contradiction, inconsistency and flaw in the evidence and has erred in convicting the accused. On the basis of these submissions, he prays to allow the petition.

¶46

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned order passed by both the Courts and contends that there is no illegality or perversity or legal infraction in the orders passed by both the Courts. She further contends that based on the available material evidence, the learned trial court Judge was satisfied that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the said impugned order passed by both the Courts. She prays for

¶47

¶48

dismissal of this petition and to confirm the judgment and conviction passed by both the Courts.

¶49

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, the following points arise for consideration before this Court -

¶50

“(i) Whether there is any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below?

¶51

(ii) What Order?”

¶52

It is not in dispute that the accused is an employee of Post Office as E.D. Packer and availed loan of Rs.25,000/- from the District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited, Shivamogga. It is only when the said loan amount was not repaid, a case came to be registered before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Drawing Officer working in the post office, who is alleged to have signed the stamp paper and agreement informed that she had not signed the said agreement and stamp paper, which lead to the filing of complaint by the Bank as per Ex.P14. During

¶53

¶54

investigation the Police have seized material objects MO1 and MO2, which are the seal of the Post Office at the instance of the petitioner – accused. The opinion of the Hand Writing Expert is also obtained, who has supported the case of the prosecution.

¶55

The prosecution has examined PW4, who is none other than the complainant, Manager of DCC Bank, who supported the case of the prosecution. Nothing much has been elicited in the cross examination of PW4, rather the availment of the loan by the accused is not denied.

¶56

PW1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9 are alleged to have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have admitted their signature on the documents. PW4, 10, 15 and 16 have supported the case of the prosecution. Nothing much is elicited from the witnesses, namely, PW7, 8 and 13 to disbelieve their evidence. The contents of Ex.P13 and evidence of PW16 goes to show that the Police have seized the MO2 from the house of the accused. The panchas have admitted their signature

¶57

¶58

though they have denied the drawing of the same in their presence. There is nothing worth elicited from the cross examination of PW4, 10, 15 and 16 to disbelieve their evidence.

¶59

Trial Court has rightly noticed the signature of the accused on Ex.P18, which is part and parcel of Ex.P32, which is the loan application. There is no reason for PW10 to make a false statement with regard to her signature on Ex.P32. PW15 – the Court Commissioner, who is an Expert, has opined that the impression on Ex.P32 is the impression of the seal seized from the accused and that the signature on Ex.P32 is not that of PW10. In all the above evidence and material documents produced, it can be safely concluded that the only person to be benefited by production of Ex.P18 and P32 before the Bank, is none other than the accused himself. The accused has remained silent with regard to the seizure of the seal of the post office marked at MO1 and MO2 from his house. The impression of the seal namely Ex.P32 not tallying with the impression of the seal of the post office rather

¶60

¶61

tallying with the impression of seal recovered from the house of the accused would support the case of the prosecution.

¶62

On the basis of these material evidence and documents exhibited and material objects, the trial Court has rightfully convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC.

¶63

The Appellate Court having considered the entire evidence and the documents and on reappreciation and re-evaluation of the entire material evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC against accused.

¶64

Having heard the detailed arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the entire materials on record, I do not find any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Court below.

¶65

¶66

The Scope and powers of the revisional Courts of Judicial Review is narrowed to a limited extent of finding out whether there is any perversity or patent illegality or gross violation in not considering the material evidence and existence of arbitrariness in the impugned order. This Court cannot sit in the arm chair of an Appellate Court to re-evaluate the evidence and materials once again. In the present case on hand, nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to show that there is gross illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Courts below and non appreciation of the evidence placed on record. Hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

(i) Criminal Revision Petition is

¶69

dismissed.;

¶70

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence for the offence under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC

¶71

¶72

against petitioner/accused in CC.No.991/2002 dated 24.06.2009 passed by II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Bhadravathi and confirmed in Crl .Appeal No.74/09 by Fast Track Court, Bhadravathi on 08.06.2011 is upheld..

¶73

(iii) Ordered accordingly.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

C C Kumareshan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C C Kumareshan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Meenakshamma Vs Smt. Yashodamma

Mahalingaiah Vs K Kunduraiah

Sri H B Gangadharaiah Vs State by Kamakshipalya

Sri Yogendrappa a H. Vs Sri. B.P Sugandha

Mr Prabhakar Murthy Vs Mr M S Shivakumar

Govindaraju Vs State of Karnataka