JUDGMENT
1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 25.02.1994 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 4/1994, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.05.1993 passed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Bilara against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 2/1985. By the said judgment the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as under:-
| Name of the Petitioner | Offence for which convicted | Sentence awarded |
| Mangla Ram | 419 I.P.C. | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. |
| 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. | For each of the offence, rigorous imprisonment for two years alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. |
| Bhanwar Singh | 419, 420/114, 467/114 & 468/114 I.P.C. | For each of the offence, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months alongwith a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. |
3. The learned trial court did not order that all the sentences shall run concurrently. However, the learned appellate court ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
4. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that on 07.09.1983, Shri Karan Singh, Secretary, Bilara Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank, Bilara filed a complaint in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Bilara against the present petitioners and other persons alleging that on 20.03.1982, petitioner Mangla Ram posed himself as Ram Chander and applied for a loan of Rs. 15,000/- for construction of new well. Ram Chander is the father of petitioner Mangla Ram. The complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC. The police after investigation found that Mangla Ram had drawn Rs. 2700/- on 20.08.1982 and Rs. 3600/- on 18.12.1982 in the name of his father Ram Chander. The part attributed to the petitioner No. 1 Mangla Ram is that he posed himself as Ram Chander and put his thumb impression as that of Ram Chander and petitioner No. 2 Bhanwar Singh put his thumb impression as a witness on the mortgage deed executed by Mangla Ram in the name of Ram Chander.
5. The police after investigation filed challan against three persons including the present petitioners. The learned trial court framed charge against petitioner Mangla Ram for the offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC and against petitioner Bhanwar Singh for the offences under Section 419, 420/114, 467/114, 468/114 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-petitioners, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. At the trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of its case. The accused-petitioners in their statements under Section 313 CrPC denied the allegations levelled against them, but they did not examine any witness in their defence and produced Ex.D.1, statement of Khetaram recorded during the investigation.
7. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 27.05.1993 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners as narrated above.
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. The learned appellate court vide judgment dated 25.02.1994 dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded against the petitioners.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the application for loan was submitted on 20.03.1982 for t
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
