The main legal point established in the judgment is the commission of criminal breach of trust and cheating under the IPC, leading to the conviction of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Accused Kamaljeet Singh, Sardool Singh, Ram Lal, and, accused Devika Sood, all became charged for commission of offences constituted under Section 406, and under Section 420 of the IPC, read with Section 120-B, IPC. The learned trial Court, through a verdict made, upon, Criminal Complaint No. 100-1 of 2003/40-III of 2004, on 1.12.2006, made an order of acquittal, vis-a-vis, co-accused Sardool Singh and Ram Lal, given theirs being the guarantors of the loan amount. However, through the afore verdict, the learned trial Court recorded findings of conviction against co-accused Kamaljeet, for charges drawn under Section 406, and, under Section 420 of the IPC, besides through the afore verdict, the learned trial Court also recorded findings of conviction against co-accused Devika Sood, for charges drawn under Section 420 of the IPC. Consequently, through a separate order made on 1.12.2006, the learned trial Court sentenced co-accused Kamaljeet Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, and, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine amount he stood sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for, commission of an offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he stood sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. Convict Devika Sood, stood sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, and, to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, and, in default of payment of fine amount, she stood sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.

2. The verdict made by the learned trial Court became assailed by the convicts before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court through a common verdict made on 31.03.2010 upon, Cr. Appeal No. 37 of 2006, and, upon, Cr. Appeal No. 1 of 2007, affirmed both the verdict of conviction, and, the consequent therewith sentences (supra) imposed upon the convicts hence by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the accused/convicts rear a grievance, and, for redressing their grievances, they rear, the extant criminal revision petitions before this Court.

3. Brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the present criminal revision petitions are that complainant-State Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, Manali Barnch, filed a complaint under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120 of the IPC, against the petitioners and one Surdool Singh, and, Ram Lal. The perusal of the complaint unfolds that the complainant alleged that accused Kamaljeet Singh, who at the relevant time, was proprietor of Shiva Fun World, Dhungri, Manali, approached the bank for a term loan facility of Rs. 4,19,200/-, for purchasing Softy making Machine and Sardool Singh and Ram Lal stood as guarantors to him. After completing the formalities, term loan was granted in favour of accused Kamaljeet Singh on 24.06.2002 by the Bank. It is further case of the complainant that as per the invoice submitted by accused Kamaljeet Singh, a demand draft No.286512 dated 24.06.2002 for Rs.5,59,350/- favouring U.D. Departmental Stores, Katra Dula, Amritsar, payable at SBI Branch at Amritsar was handed over to accused Kamaljeet Singh against acknowledgement. The bank officials thereafter visited the premises of accused Kamaljeet Singh and found that the machine has not been installed, whereas, it was stipulated in the term loan that machine would be installed within a period of one month from the date of disbursement of the loan. The matter was reported to the police but the police refused to lodge the report against the accused. It is further case of the complainant that one current account was opened in Union Bank of Ind