The judgment establishes that the prosecution's successful proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, supported by witness testimonies and expert reports, led to the confirmation of the accused's conviction for forgery and criminal breach of trust under the IPC.

ORDER

1. The accused in CC No.1218 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity), is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2018 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 465, 420 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC; sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC, with default sentences, which was confirmed vide judgment dated 25.08.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2018 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for brevity).

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - N Girish, Crime No.34 of 2011 of New Extension Police Station, Tilak Park Circle, Tumakuru, was registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed against the accused Ravish for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 465 and 471 of IPC.

3. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused had availed loan from M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited and purchased the lorry bearing registration No.KA-41-2298 under loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement. He had not repaid the loan amount as agreed. It was found that he had forged (i) a receipt for having repaid the loan amount (ii) no objection certificate and (iii) Form No.35 purported to have been issued by M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, by forging the signatures of the authorized signatories, used those documents as genuine documents, produced the same before the road traffic officials to get the hire purchase endorsement found on the RC cleared, sold the vehicle in favour of third party and thereby committed cheating and criminal breach of trust. It is stated that on 18.02.2011, the lorry in question was seized for his default in repaying the loan amount and found that the accused has committed the above said offences. Therefore, the chargesheet came to be filed against the accused as stated above.

4. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused to appear before the Court. The accused appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against him. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13, got marked Exs.P1 to 32 and identified MO1 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. However, Ex.D1 came to be marked during cross examination of the prosecution witness. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused was convicted and sentenced as stated above.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2018. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.

7. Heard Sri Halesha R.G., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -