2011 Supreme(Mad) 1386

High Court of Judicature at Madras
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
Barath Rai (A3)
Versus
Deputy Superintendent of Police C.B.I. Chennai
Criminal Appeal Nos.511 & 550 of 1999
Decided on : 11-03-2011

Headnote:

The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the disputed Lorry Receipts were forged/fabricated and that the contrary finding recorded by the trial court in this regard regarding charge No.4 is liable to be interfered with and reversed. The court also held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 468 IPC, the charge under Section 471 r/w 468 IPC shall be a building without a basement. Hence, the court came to the conclusion that the trial court's finding that the accused were guilty of the offence under Section 471 r/w 468 IPC also deserves to be reversed and that the appellants are entitled to be acquitted in respect of the said charge also. Since it has been held that charge Nos.4 and 5 have not been proved and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the said charges, in the absence of any direct evidence, there shall be no material to prove the alleged conspiracy to find the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 120-B r/w 468 IPC, for which charge No.3 was framed. Hence the finding of the trial court holding them guilty of the said offence under charge No.3 also is defective, infirm and is liable to be set aside and reversed and consequently, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted in respect of the charge No.3 also. The court also held that the prosecution failed to prove that Indian Bank, Pollachi branch was cheated by the appellants 1 and 2 in Crl.A.No.550/1999. No intention to cause wrongful loss to the bank or wrongful gain to the concerned accused has been established. The court also held that there is no direct evidence for the proof of the alleged conspiracy among the appellants and the accused in the split up case to cheat the Indian Bank, for which charge No.1 has been framed. The only circumstantial evidence based on which the said charge is sought to be substantiated in the alleged commission of cheating for which charge No.2 has been framed. The court held that the offence of cheating for which Charge No.2 was framed, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and that appellants 1 and 2 in Crl.A.No.550/1999 are entitled to be acquitted of the said charge also. In view of the same, the necessary conclusion that can be arrived at in respect of Charge No.1 is that Charge No.1 is also not proved and that all the appellants in both the appeals are entitled to be acquitted of the offences of 120-B r/w 420 IPC also. The finding of the court below holding the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC, in respect of which Charge No.1 has been framed, is defective and liable to be reversed and the appellants 1 and 2 in Crl.A.No.550/1999 are entitled to be acquitted of the said charge also.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery related to the discounting of bills with a bank using forged lorry receipts. The appellants, including the Managing Director of a paper mill, were accused of conspiring to cheat the bank by discounting bills for consignments that were not actually sent through an approved transport operator. The prosecution alleged that the appellants forged lorry receipts in the name of an approved transport operator to deceive the bank and obtain payment for the bills.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the lorry receipts were forged or fabricated. The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove that the bank was cheated by the appellants, as the goods were actually sent to the consignees, albeit through a different transport operator. The court further found that there was no direct evidence to prove the alleged conspiracy among the appellants to cheat the bank. Therefore, the court held that the appellants were not guilty of the offenses charged and acquitted them of all charges.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the lorry receipts were forged or fabricated? 2. Whether the prosecution proved that the bank was cheated by the appellants? 3. Whether there was direct evidence to prove the alleged conspiracy among the appellants to cheat the bank?

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of criminal law, including the burden of proof and the requirement for direct evidence in conspiracy cases, to reach its decision. The court held that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving the essential elements of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish the alleged conspiracy among the appellants.

Final Decision: The court allowed both appeals filed by the appellants and set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence imposed by the trial court. The court acquitted the appellants of all the offenses with which they were charged.