IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that involvement in the use of forged documents for cheating can lead to conviction under Section 471 IPC, regardless of acquittal under Section 468 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

K.Surender, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by A2 to A4. A3 died during the pendency of criminal revision. A1 died prior to framing charges. The name of A6 was deleted from the charge sheet since the police did not find any evidence. A5, A7 and A8 were tried and acquitted as co-conspirators. The present revision is argued on behalf of A2 and A4.

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant, which is the Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Limited is that A2/1st petitioner herein was the Managing Director in M/s.Kurnool Petro Products Limited, A1 is the Executive Director, A3 is the Chairman and A4 is the Guarantor. A2 as the Managing Director gave Ex.P1 which is the application for sanctioning of working capital loan for their company. It was agreed that they would furnish 100% collateral security of immovable property. A Board resolution Ex.P2 was passed by the Bank in the month of March, 1996 sanctioning working capital of Rs.76.00 lakhs. The sanction letter Ex.P3 was addressed to the accused. Having accepted the conditions laid down under Ex.P3, A1 and A4 gave collateral security of their agricultural lands in Dinnedevarapadu village, Kurnool. Ex.P20 is the registered sale deed in the name of A1, which was deposited in the Bank. The said document reflects that A1 is the owner of the said property.

3. Ex.P22 is the registered sale deed standing in the name of A4. Both A1 and A4 deposited the said sale deeds as security for the loan obtained on behalf of M/s.Kurnool Petro Products by A2 as Managing Director and other Directors.

4. Having obtained loan, the entire amount was credited to the account. However, accused failed to clear the outstanding and the cheques which were issued by the firm were returned due to insufficient funds. The Bank approached the Registrar of Cooperative Societies with their grievance of the accused not repaying the loan amount, which outstanding including interest was Rs.1,02,76,540/- up to 30th September, 1998. Ex.P25 was issued under Section 71 clause (1) of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 by the deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies directing the accused herein to pay the arrears, failing which, the Bank was at liberty to realize the amount by proceeding against the properties which were mortgaged. The Bank made enquiries and found that Exs.P20 and P22 sale deeds deposited by A1 and A4 respectively were fake and fabricated documents and no such property existed. Enquiries were made with the revenue department. P.W.8/VRO, P.W.9/MRO, P.W.10/Sub-registrar were examined to prove that Exs.P20 and P22 were fake.

5. On the basis of the complaint Ex.P25 dated 10.08.2000, the CCS Police registered case and investigated into by P.Ws.12, 13 and 14/Investigating Officers. Charge sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 468 r/w 34 IPC, 471 r/w 34 IPC and 420 of IPC. Charges were framed against A2 to A8, since A1 died even prior to framing charges.

6. Learned trial Magistrate having examined P.Ws.1 to 14 on behalf of the prosecution and marking Exs.P1 to P43 found that the A2, A3 and A4 who are guilty of the offence under Section 471 and 420 r/w 34 IPC and acquitted under Section 468 r/w 34 IPC. However, A5, A7 and A8 were found not guilty of any of the offences alleged, vide judgment in C.C.No.14 of 2005 dated 04.03.2008 passed by the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

7. The conviction was questioned in appeal before the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge concurred with the finding of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal filed by A2 to A4 vide judgment Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2008 dated 19.08.2008.

8. Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused would submit that both the Courts below committed an error in convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 471 and 420 r/w 34 IPC when it was specifically found that the accused/revision petitioners were not guilty of the offence under Section 468 IPC. Once the p