Back
2008 Supreme(Guj) 340
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. D. SHAH
SHANTILAL MAGANLAL PANDYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
CRIMINAL APPEAL 324 Of 1987
Decided On : OCTOBER 16, 2008
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Section 165,120B, 161, 165, 420 and 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) - Appeals arise out of judgment and order of conviction - Complaint that all accused persons hatched a conspiracy to cheat said bank and they managed to get presented to said bank certain fake motor transport receipts alleged to have been issued by one Bombay General Freight Carriers Private Limited Bombay and having its branch office at along with bills - Complainant accused and presented to said bank bills for total amount during the period from in this manner - Firm availed credit facility from said bank against these bills by presenting fake transport receipts occasions forged receipts were produced with Out-stationed Bills Discounted and Bills Purchased - In all about 25 bills were presented with forged motor transport receipt and out said bills totaling to were drawn upon a fictitious firm Auto Parts Centre accused was sole proprietor by making a false or misleading representation with fraudulent and dishonest inducement cheated bank to the tune - According to complainant accused had also made false declaration about value of goods by drawing bills in favour of fictitious firms. Again Alloy Steel Corporation a fictitious firm floated by accused though never sold and dispatched forging to firm raised invoices in name of said firm amounting to and fraudulently and dishonestly induced said bank to advance amount to said firm against goods of invoices which constitutes an offence of cheating the said bank - It further case of complainant that despite this position accused made false representation to bank that dealings of firm with bank were satisfactory and account is operated satisfactorily - Case of complainant that accused made application to bank for enhancement of amount of various facilities granted to it and accused - Appeals dismissed
( 1 ) THIS batch of three appeals arise out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 2-4-1987 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad in Special Case no. 13 of 1979 whereby the appellant-original accused no. 1 was sentenced to suffer R. I. for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, R. I. for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1 (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short ). He was also sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to suffer R. I. for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code ("ipc" for short ). No separate sentence was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 161, IPC. The substantive sentences against the appellant-original accused no. 1 were also ordered to run concurrently. Similarly, the accused no. 2 was sentenced to suffer R. I. for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 120b read with Section 161, 165,420,471 of the IPC and also read with Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Act. He was also sentenced to suffer R. I. for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default, to suffer R. I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with section 120b of the IPC. He was also sentenced to suffer R. I. for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-in default, to suffer R. I. for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 468 of the IPC. He was also sentenced to suffer R. I. for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer R. I. for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 468 as well as read with Section 120b of the IPC. Likewise, the appellant-original accused no. 3 was sentenced to suffer R. I. for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 120b read with Sections 161,165,420 and 471 as well as read with Section 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Act. He was also sentenced to suffer R. I. for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to suffer R. I. for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 120b of the IPC. He was also sentenced to suffer R. I. for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer R. I. for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Sections 471 read with Section 468 as well as 120b of the IPC. Similarly, the appellant-original accused no. 4 was sentenced to suffer R. I. for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 120b read with Sections 161,165,420 and 471 as well as read with Section 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Act. He was also sentenced to suffer R. I. for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer R. I. for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 120b of the IPC. He was also sentenced to suffer R. I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer R. I. for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Sections 471 read with Section 468 of the IPC. He was also sentenced to suffer R. I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to suffer R. I. for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Sections 471 read with Section 468 of the IPC as well as read with Section 120b of the IPC. However, the appellant-original accused no. 5 came to be acquitted by the learned Special Judge. 1. 1 In Criminal Appeal no. 360 of 1987 the appellant-original accused no. 1-Shantilal Maganlal Pandya challenges his conviction and sentence as stated above. In Criminal Appeal no. 253 of 1987 the appellant-original accused no. 2- Khalid I. Bey and
