IMPORTANT POINT
Hence Magistrate of First Class is authorised u/s 311-A, Cr PC to take specimen signatures of witnesses.

Headnote:Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 73 r/w section 311-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Handwriting specimen – Section 311-A is prospective – Section 311-A was in force at the relevant time – Hence Magistrate of First Class was authorised to take specimen signatures of PW-5 and PW-7 during the course of investigation – Even otherwise PW-5 and PW-7 denying their signatures on the documents – High Court rightly reversing trial court judgment of acquittal and finding the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. (Para 22)
       1994 SCC (Crl) 1755: (1994) 6 SCC 308 – Relied upon
       (1980) 2 SCC 343: AIR 1980 SC 791 – Referred
       (1994) 5 SCC 152 – Distinguished
       Facts of the case:
       During the relevant point of time i.e. 1983-1986, there was a government scheme for providing loans by Banks at cheaper interest rates to poor persons living below the poverty line to enable them to purchase sheeps, buffalos, horses and for running small businesses and for development of land etc. upon recommendation of the Block Development Officer (BDO). Appellant-Sukh Ram was a Gram Sewak during the relevant period.
       Appellant-Sukh Ram, Gram Sewak, while submitting applications on behalf of the villagers for these loans, was involved in misappropriation of loan amounts by forging their signatures and thumb impressions on the applications and acknowledgement receipts.
       PW-5 Nathu Ram, PW-7 Kirpu and PW-8 Garja Ram had loans disbursed to them despite not having applied for the loans. Further, the disbursement of loans was not actually made to the beneficiaries.
       Consequently, an FIR was registered against the appellant–Sukh Ram, Balbir Singh-Block Development Officer and Arun Kumar Sood, Branch Manager, UCO Bank Darlaghat.
       Trial court acquitted appellant-Sukh Ram and others.
       The High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal and found the appellant guilty of forging loan applications of PW-5 and PW-7 (Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW7/A) and other documents and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 468 IPC and also for the offence of using said forged applications as genuine punishable under Section 471 IPC. The High Court sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-for each of the offences for he had been convicted.
       Finding of the Court:
       High Court has rightly reversed the judgment of acquittal and found the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Case Summary

Supreme Court dismissed appeals against High Court's reversal of trial court's acquittal, upholding conviction under Sections 468 and 471 IPC for forgery and use of forged loan documents. (!) [1000584020006][1000584020020][1000584020023]

Facts

Government scheme (1983-1986) provided low-interest loans to below-poverty-line persons for livestock, businesses, land development, recommended by Block Development Officer (BDO). [1000584020024][1000584020003]
Appellant, Gram Sewak, submitted forged applications with victims' signatures/thumb impressions and misappropriated loan/subsidy amounts. Victims (e.g., PW-5 Nathu Ram, PW-7 Kirpu, PW-8 Garja Ram) denied applying or signing documents; loans disbursed without their knowledge. [1000584020024][1000584020003][1000584020011][1000584020019][1000584020020]
FIR against appellant, BDO (Balbir Singh), Bank Manager (Arun Kumar Sood); charges under IPC Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 420 and Prevention of Corruption Act Section 13(2). [1000584020003]
Specimens of victims' signatures taken voluntarily before Executive Magistrate during investigation, compared by handwriting expert who opined disputed signatures matched appellant's, not victims'. [1000584020003][1000584020012]

Trial Court Ruling

Acquitted all accused, rejecting handwriting expert opinion as specimens taken by unauthorized Executive Magistrate (no pending proceedings). [1000584020004][1000584020013]

High Court Ruling

Acquitted BDO and Bank Manager (no conspiracy evidence; relied on appellant's verification/identification). [1000584020006]
Convicted appellant under Sections 468/471 IPC for forging victims' loan applications (e.g., Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW7/A) and using as genuine; sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment + Rs.10,000 fine each offence. (!) [1000584020005][1000584020006]

Supreme Court Analysis

Victims' consistent denial of signatures/applications corroborated by expert opinion. [1000584020011][1000584020012][1000584020021]
Specimens taken voluntarily during investigation (pre-2006, before CrPC Section 311A insertion); Executive Magistrate's role acceptable; oral denials independently sufficient for guilt. [1000584020005][1000584020015][1000584020016][1000584020021]
No reduction in sentence despite appellant's age/health; concurrent sentences, bail cancelled, surrender ordered. [1000584020022][1000584020023]

Key Legal Principle

Magistrate of First Class empowered under CrPC Section 311A to order specimen signatures/handwriting during investigation/proceedings (prospective from 2005 amendment). (!) (!) (!) [1000584020016][1000584020017][1000584020018]

JUDGMENT :

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Present batch of appeals arise out of three separate judgments of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeals No. 418 of 2007, 419 of 2007 and 420 of 2007 in and by which the High Court reversed the acquittal of the appellant and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed six months imprisonment.

2. Common facts arising out of these criminal appeals are as follows:-

During the relevant point of time i.e. 1983-1986, there was a government scheme for providing loans at the cheaper interest rates to poor persons living below the poverty line to enable them to purchase sheeps, buffalos, horses and for running small businesses and for development of land etc. Upon recommendation of the Block Development Officer (BDO), the bank disbursed these loans to the beneficiaries. Appellant-Sukh Ram was a Gram Sewak, Navgaon under Arki Sub-Division during said period, 1983 to 1986.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant-Sukh Ram, Gram Sewak, while submitting applications on behalf of the villagers for these loans, was involved in misappropriation of loan amounts by forging their signatures and thumb impressions on the applications and acknowledgement receipts. All three appeals have been heard together as the offences committed by the same accused persons appellant-Sukh Ram and others as also the modus operandi of committing the forgery and falsification of records being the same. Criminal Appeal No.224 of 2012 is taken as the lead case.

4. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry, it came to light that PW-5 Nathu Ram, PW-7 Kirpu and PW-8 Garja Ram had loans disbursed to them despite not having applied for the loans. Consequently, a case was registered against the appellant–Sukh Ram, Balbir Singh-Block Development Officer and Arun Kumar Sood, Branch Manager, UCO Bank Darlaghat. During enquiry, it further came to light that disbursement of loans was not actually made to the beneficiaries. An FIR was registered and on completion of the investigation and after obtaining sanction from the government, chargesheet was filed against the appellant–Sukh Ram Gram Sewak, Balbir Singh-Block Development Officer and Arun Kumar Sood, Branch Manager, UCO Bank Darlaghat. Charges were framed against the appellant and the said accused under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 420 IPC and under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the course of investigation, PW-5 and PW-7 gave their specimen signatures in the presence of the executive magistrate and the same were sent to the handwriting expert for comparison with their disputed signatures in the loan application and other documents. Handwriting expert opined that the signatures in the loan application and other documents did not match the signatures of Nathu Ram, Kirpu and others but only matched the signature of appellant-Sukh Ram.

5. To substantiate the charges, in the trial court, prosecution examined 22 witnesses. The trial court discarded the testimony and opinion of handwriting expert (Ex.PW20/C-1 to Ex.PW20/C-5) on the ground that the handwritten specimen given by PW-5 and PW-7 were taken before the executive magistrate who did not have the authority to enquire into or try the offence. Trial court came to this conclusion that charge against the accused was not proved by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, (1994) 5 SCC 152. Trial court held that the appellant–Sukh Ram’s (Gram Sewak) task was to take the applications for loan as well as subsidy and accused Balbir Singh’s (BDO) task was to sanction the loan and subsidy and issue letters to the bank and Arun Kumar Sood’s (Branch Manager, UCO Bank) task was to release the loan and subsidy after securing the requisite documents to that effect. Trial court held that in the absence of legal evidence that appellant and others have forged the loan documents, it cann

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 584

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA V.GOPALA GOWDA, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.SUKH RAM – AppellantVersus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – RespondentCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 224 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL APPEALS NO. 2290-2291 of 2014 & 2292-2293 of 2014 Decided On : 25-07-2016

IMPORTANT POINTHence Magistrate of First Class is authorised u/s 311-A, Cr PC to take specimen signatures of witnesses.