Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Mohammad Nayeem Khan S/o. Shri Mohammad Abdul Waheed Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 574 of 1997
Decided On : 11-10-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 – Offence of Criminal Conspiracy – Cheating – Charged - Accused was posted as Branch Manager of Dena Bank in year 1982-83, and at same time co-accused Arun Waretwar was posted as clerk in Oriental Beema Insurance Company - It is alleged that accused/appellants in connivance with co-accused have prepared forged documents in name of one and had taken loan of Rs. 24,000/- from Dena Bank, Branch Dhamtari for purchase of bore well machine and hatched conspiracy for defrauding Bank - It is alleged that accused Vinod Shah had issued draft (Ex.P-18) who abused their position as public servants prepared false draft and other co-accused impersonated himself as Jain proprietor of Firm Vimal Engineering Works and had withdrawn amount of Rs. 24,000/- from Punjab National Bank - Whether on basis of the report of handwriting expert, offence under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC can be said to have been proved or not – Held, It is true that (PW-13) handwriting expert, deposed that as per sample documents, handwriting and according to him Ex.P-36,37,39 40 and 41 have been written by i.e. appellant but this would be extremely hazardous to condemn appellant merely on strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert - It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution - There is a profusion of presidential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration - On close scrutiny of evidence on record, Court of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt - Finding recorded by Trial Court in convicting appellant mainly on the ground that he was one of the conspirators for crime in question, is erroneous and illegal - Trial Court has not considered evidence on record in its proper perspective and erroneously convicted the appellant - Appeal is allowed.
Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points:
ORDER :
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.02.1997 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge of CBI Jabalpur (MP) in Special Case No. 49/87 whereby the Appellant has been convicted under Section 420, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- for each sections, in default of payment of fine, RI for six months for each sections.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused Vinod Shah was posted as Branch Manager of Dena Bank in the year 1982-83, and at the same time co-accused Arun Waretwar was posted as clerk in the Oriental Beema Insurance Company, Raipur. It is alleged that the accused/appellants in connivance with co-accused Mohammad Nayeem Khan have prepared forged documents in the name of one Ashok Chandrakar and had taken loan of Rs. 24,000/- from Dena Bank, Branch Dhamtari for purchase of bore well machine and hatched the conspiracy for defrauding the Bank. It is alleged that accused Vinod Shah had issued draft (Ex.P-18) who abused their position as public servants prepared false draft and other co-accused Mohammad Nayeem Khan impersonated himself as Vimal Kumar Jain proprietor of Firm Vimal Engineering Works and had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 24,000/- from Punjab National Bank. The incident was reported by bank and on the basis of information, first information report was registered against the appellant on 03.09.1986 as (Ex.P-103) and on the basis of credible information received the then Superintendent of Police CBI, Jabalpur, registered Crime No. RC 39/86 and offence under Section 420, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC was registered also against him.
3. After completion of the investigation and all the formalities for filing charge sheet, the charge sheet was filed against the Appellant Mohammad Nayeem Khan was charged with offence under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. The appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial.
4. To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses namely Puneetram (PW-1) retired patwari, M. Sadanand Sharma (PW-2), R.P. Kanna (PW-3), Abdul Hussain (PW-4), Motilal Yadav (PW-5), M.P. Gupta (PW-6), Kholuram Sonkar (PW-7), Dilip Dosi (PW-8), N.K. Pratap (PW-9), L.N. Tiwari (PW-10), N.K. Sharma (PW- 11), Kuleshwar Prashad Sharma (PW-12), Hand writing expert K.K. Semwal (PW-13) and Jagjot Singh Ragada (PW-14). In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution has examined Punitram (PW-1) wherein he has not stated anything against the appellant, but only made allegations against the appellant No. 1 and 2. Similarly S. Sadanand (PW-2) retired Dy. General Manager of the Bank, has also not stated anything against the appellant. Witness S.C. Gupta (PW-6) has exhibited the bank opening documents (Ex.P-6 to Ex.P-10) and categorically stated that in Ex.P-6 the signature of Vinod Shah is there and Ex.P.-10 has been filled up by Vinod Shah. But this witness has no where stated about the involvement of appellant in the commission of offence. N.K. Pratap (PW-9) has verified the signature of accused Namely Vinod Shah. In the cross-examination, this witness has clearly admitted that he has not sent any letter to verify whether Vimal Engineering has given the bore well machine to Ashok Chandrakar or not and he has also admitted that he has not verified whether the draft has been given to Vimal Engineering. The witness has not stated anything against appellant. M.L. Tiwari (PW-10) has exhibited the record related to registration form. This witness has not stated anything against the appellant. Kuleshwar Prashad Verma (PW-12) who was working as peon in the Insurance company has stated in his examination-in-chief that he has received payment of Rs. 24,000/- (Ex.P-31) and he has given to Arun Waretwar, but he has not stated anything about appellant.
5. The star witness of the prosecution is the handwriting expert J.K. Samwal (PW-13) who w
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of forgery and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt due to irregularities in evidence collection.
Criminal conspiracy, forgery and abetment – Conviction and sentence – Non-exhibiting of original document would lead to only possible inference that questioned document was never proved as per law.
The court emphasized that opinion evidence must be supported by substantial corroborating evidence in criminal trials to uphold a conviction, reaffirming the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyon....
Accusation under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires credible evidence of misconduct, and procedures for collecting evidence must be strictly adhered to, particularly with regards to handwritin....
The opinion of a Handwriting Expert must be corroborated by independent evidence, and the abuse of a public servant's position to obtain a valuable thing for another person constitutes criminal misco....
Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of the slightest doubt, leave the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
