The dishonest intention of the petitioner was evident from the preparation of forged documents and the misutilisation of the loan.

J.S.Khehar, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the crime allegedly committed by the petitioner Narinder Singh would not have taken place had the manager of the Punjab and Sind Bank. Kot Mangal Singh Branch, Amritsar conducted physical inspection of the truck bearing registration No.PUU 7337 while sanctioning the loan in favour of the petitioner Narinder Singh. The instant argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is also misconceived. An administrative lapse committed by Chamkaur Singh, Manager of the Punjab and Sind Bank, Kot Mangal Branch, Amritsar, who had appeared before the trial Court as PW7, by not effecting physical inspection of the truck before sanctioning the loan in favour of Narinder Singh cannot exculpate Narinder Singh of his own acts of omission and commission.

2. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the prosecution witnesses acknowledged that when Savings Bank Account No. 7738 was opened in the name of Jarnail Singh in the Punjab and Sind Bank, Golden Temple Branch, Amritsar on 30.1.1981 one of the employees of the bank, namely, Avtar Singh had identified and introduced Jarnail Singh. It is submitted that the aforesaid employees of the bank, namely, Avtar Singh should have been examined as a witness or alternatively should have been arrayed as an accused alongwith Narinder Singh and Gurwinder Singh. The aforesaid argument proceeds on the same logic as has been noticed in respect of the previous contention in the foregoing paragraph. For the same reasons as have been noticed in the preceding paragraph, I find no merit in the instant contention as well.

3. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire prosecution version is accepted the petitioner Narinder Singh at the most, can be, blamed of misutilisation of the loan. In this behalf, it is contended that dishonest intention or the inducement to commit a criminal act is also to be seen. It is vehemently contended that the aforesaid element is missing in the facts and circumstances of the version put forth by the prosecution. It is not possible for me to accept the aforesaid contention. The dishonest intention of the petitioner is evident from the preparation of various documents by forging them. Not only has the petitioner forged the affidavit of Jarnail Singh, he has also fabricated driving licence No. 10061 to obtain the loan from the bank. In addition to the foresaid, he also prepared a false receipt of Rs. 80,000/-, which was allegedly paid by the petitioner Narinder Singh to Jarnail Singh. The facts that savings bank account was opened in the Punjab and Sind bank, Golden Temple Branch, Amritsar in the name of a non-existing Jarnail Singh, also reveals the dishonest intention of the petitioner.

4. No other contention was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. For the reasons recorded above, I find no infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below.