The court affirmed the distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating, emphasizing that both offenses cannot coexist under the same facts while confirming the accused's conviction for forgery and financial fraud.

JUDGMENT :

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

The present petition impugns the Final Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) in Criminal Revision Petition No.653/2020, whereby the High Court confirmed the Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.29/2018 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’) which had affirmed the conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the petitioner, by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) vide Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2018 in C.C.No.1218/2012.

FACTUAL OVERVIEW:

2. The petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘accused’) had purchased a vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-41-2298 by obtaining financial assistance of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) from M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Company’). A Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Agreement’) was entered into between the accused and the Company whereby the above-mentioned vehicle was hypothecated in favour of the Company and the same was duly notified/marked in the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle. Though the accused had paid one or two instalments, but thereafter, he defaulted and despite several requests, the accused did not make further payments. Accordingly, since as per the terms of the Agreement, the vehicle could be seized by the Company, on 18.02.2011, the concerned Branch Manager of the Company seized the vehicle and took it to the police station. At that time, it was revealed that the petitioner, without repaying the loan of Rs.2,95,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety-Five Thousand) had forged and created (i) receipt no. AD 0873936 for having repaid the loan amount; (ii) No-Objection Certificate, and; (iii) Form No.35 purported to have been issued by the Company, by forging the signatures of the authorized signatories and had also sold the vehicle to one Savithramma. In short, it was alleged that the petitioner, without discharging the entire loan liability due towards the Company, sold off the vehicle by producing forged documents before the Regional Transport Office (hereinafter referred to as ‘RTO’) and getting the hypothecation cleared.

3. On the basis of these allegations, the Company’s Branch Manager lodged complaint leading to lodging of First Information Report bearing Crime No.34/2011 on 18.02.2011 under Sections 406 ¹[‘406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.—Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.’], 420²[‘420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.’] and 468³[‘468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.—Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for