The court upheld the conviction for forgery and conspiracy under IPC sections, emphasizing that the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established the petitioners' involvement in the crimes.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

1. These criminal revisions are directed against the Judgment dated 27th January, 2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Sections 467, 468, 472, 414, 120B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).

2. The learned trial court vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.04.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in G.R. Case No.31 of 2009 (arising out of Lohardaga P.S. Case No.09 of 2009), had convicted the petitioners for committing the offences under Sections 467, 468, 472, 120B and 414 of IPC and had sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.2, 000/-each and in default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for three months each and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments of Petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 260 of 2016

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned judgments submitted that although there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts, but the findings are perverse and therefore, they call for interference by this Court.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that FIR was registered against altogether eight accused persons, but two accused persons namely, Ganda Ansari and Sunder Ansari, who were alleged to be the purchasers of the stolen motorcycles, were not charge-sheeted on the ground that there was no recovery from them. He further submitted that ultimately, the charge was framed for the offence under sections 467, 468, 472, 414, 120B of the Indian Penal Code against six accused persons including the three petitioners involved in this case. Nine prosecution witnesses were examined. PW-1 to PW-5 are the seizure witnesses. PW-6 to PW-8 are the members of the raiding party. PW-9 is the informant of the case. He also submitted that PW-1 to PW-5 had admitted their signatures on the seizure list, but they have not supported the recovery inasmuch as they have stated that they had singed on plain paper. He submitted that the investigating officer who had investigated the case has not been examined and therefore, the petitioners have been prejudiced on account of non-examination of the concerned investigating officer. The investigating officer who has been examined as PW-8 has stated that his only role was submission of the charge sheet.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that on account of non-examination of the concerned investigating officer, the occurrence and the place of recovery could not be proved. While further arguing, he submitted that there is no independent witness in the entire case with respect to offences under Sections 467, 468 and 472 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the prosecution has not proved that the petitioners had forged any document. He further submitted that no counterfeit, stamp, seal, etc. have been recovered from the possession of the petitioners, rather it is apparent from the discussions made in the trial court's judgment that the alleged recovery of the motorcycles was accompanied with certain original documents in connection with the vehicle involved in the case.

6. The learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence that it was the petitioners who had forged the documents and there is also no evidence that forgery was committed for the purposes of cheating. The petitioners were never found in possession of any forged document or were involved in preparation of any counterfeit seal. He submitted that the District Transport Officer has not been examined in the case which has also prejudiced the case of the petitioners. He further submitted that the so-called recovered motorcycles were never exhibited before the court, nor the seizure has been properly proved.

7.