Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 1583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.
Ganpat Bapu Salunkhe - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2013, 453 of 2013, 460 of 2013, 470 of 2013, 501 of 2013, 527 of 2013, 529 of 2013
Decided On : 24-09-2019
Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, Adv., Ajit M Savagave, Adv., Rushikesh Kale, Adv., Y.V. Purwant, Adv., Avinash Fatangare, Adv., S.S. Pednekar, Adv., S.R. Agarkar, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented, despite the lacunas in the investigation and prosecution.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w. Section 120-B - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w. Section 120-B - The court discussed the evidence and established the accused's involvement in a housing loan scam, including forgery, conspiracy, and misappropriation of funds. The court found the accused guilty and dismissed their appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The Mumbai District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. had sanctioned housing loans to several individuals, but it was later discovered that the documents submitted for the loans were forged. The accused were found to have conspired to dupe the bank, and the investigating officer arrested some of the accused. The prosecution presented evidence from bank officers, witnesses, and investigating officers to establish the accused's involvement in the scam.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of forgery, conspiracy, and misappropriation of funds in the housing loan scam. The court noted the lacunas in the investigation and prosecution but concluded that the accused's guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issues were the authenticity of the loan documents, the accused's involvement in the scam, and the lacunas in the investigation and prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and documents, to establish the accused's guilt. The court also noted the shortcomings in the investigation and prosecution but concluded that the accused's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals of the accused, except for one accused who was released based on age and time served. The court upheld the conviction of the accused and ordered them to surrender or serve their sentences.
JUDGMENT :
Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.
The appellants herein are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w. Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and under sections 255 to 257 and section 259 and 260 of Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment on counts for the charge of sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.25,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively on each counts, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, six months, fifteen days respectively on each counts by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 249 of 2007 @ 678 of 2007 @ 916 of 2007 @ 102 of 2008 @ 711 of 2008 @ 347 of 2009 vide Judgment and Order dated 3rd April 2013. Hence, these Appeals.
2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of these appeals are as follows:-
3. Mumbai District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. had floated a scheme of housing loan in the year 2002 in order to enable the people from lower middle class to have a house of their own. In the year May, 2003 bank had received application forms from several persons seeking housing loan, more particularly in the scheme of Vikrant builders which was being developed by one Ganpat Salunkhe, original accused No. 4. The borrowers in the present case, more particularly, accused No. 1,3,6,7 and 9 were sanctioned loan upto July, 2003. The loan was to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- to 4,50,000/-as per the procedure contemplated. The initial part payment was made by borrowers and the pay orders and cheques were drawn in the name of the builder i.e. Mahalaxmi Enterprises. At one point of time, it was noticed that the borrowers had discontinued paying installments after paying initial installments. Therefore, notices were issued to the said borrowers. However, there was no response to the notice and therefore, the bank found it necessary to enquire into the said case.
4. In the course of enquiry, it had transpired that the documents which were annexed with the loan proposal were not genuine documents. Most of the application forms were partially filled or filled in without giving any details except name of the borrowers. On verification, the annexures were not found genuine and therefore, the bank officers had visited the site of Vikrant builders. At that stage, it had transpired that the building was incomplete. Not only that, but the said flats which were hypothecated with the bank against promissory notes were sold to third person. The bank was left with no other alternative but to lodge first information report with the police. Since, the borrowers had not responded to the notice and their whereabouts were not known to the officers of the bank, they could not have filed dispute under section 91 of the Maharashra Cooperative Societies Act. The loan was not a secured loan. Therefore, F.I.R. was lodged by Sudhakar Bhosale (P.W.1) on 13/11/2005, on the basis of which Crime No. 63 of 2005 was registered with Vikhroli Police Station.
5. The investigating officer was able to arrest some of the accused. The statement of witnesses were recorded. The investigating officer had also recorded statement of subsequent purchasers who had disclosed that they had booked the flats. They had even paid seed money. They had pursued the matter with the developer Mr. Ganpat Salunkhe. However, they found it futile to approach the police. In the course of investigation, it had transpired that all the accused had conspired with each other to dupe cooperative bank. Perused the papers and the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Prima facie, it is pertinent to note that the investigating team had not arraigned any of the bank officers as accused in the present case, although there is material to indicate that loans were not sanctioned in accordance with law.
6. Although the FIR was filed by Vikroli Police Station, taking into consideration the proportion and grav
